Stiff and stumbly out of the gate. Nothing awful though.
politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
Here we go. Thoughts and prayers.
I feel like there's a history of these VP debates being pretentiously "more civil" than the main event, because the stakes are lower, etc. So there was that, here, in vance and walz being so nice and agreeing with each other.
But this shit was boring crazy. Vance just lied and was unable to hold Walz to account.
I absolutely do not agree with Vance, but he did get Walz on that abortion bill clarification. Walz couldn't clarify because it's a very specific detail, but I don't think the average voter is going to see it that way. You can claim that it was unfair for Vance to do so, but for a political debate it was a solid jab. I really think productive rights voters are gonna lead this election.
Walz seems really nice. And the VP doesn't usually matter that much. But it sure would be nice if that was Buttigieg or Shapiro up there. Buttigieg loves sparring with Republicans. He is a great attack dog, but thats not really what Walz's role seems to be, and that's OK, but considering the election is a coin flip, I just want every fraction of a percent of support Harris can get.
We'll induce more people into child care!
(Aunt Lydia has entered the chat)
Vance probably has marching orders to attack Harris at the cost of making himself look bad. The question is whether he passes on the chance to change his own narrative.
Hella canned closing comments.
Not a great start
Walz doing great going after Trump.