GDT: Vice Presidential Debate

[SectionC3]

7 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

I don't know where you have been but this is exactly what Trump has been saying. 

Hoax.  He’s been flirting with magic, Lysol, and bleach, misleading his donors and the public about the dangers of COVID, yelling at the leader in the presidential race, encouraging the proud boys, and race-baiting Kamala Harris.  Enjoy the last few months this scumbag is in power, hoaxer.  

[3rdnlng]

33 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

These are the intelligent, highbrow comments that we have come to expect from you.  

 

Wow.  And you thought making a comment like the one that followed this post fo yours was better than keeping your mouth shut.  

 

Well done.  Hoax. 

So, you somehow feel compelled to use my language in order to appear competent? Do you actually think that making vague and empty criticisms is somehow proof of anything? You admitted to coming here to improve your debating skills. While that may have been true, you have failed miserably to do so. It is now apparent why your company has kept you in 3rd Chair status, away from anything that would shine a light on them.

[The Frankish Reich]

23 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

I don't know where you have been but this is exactly what Trump has been saying. 

Albeit not in complete sentences. 

[3rdnlng]

Just now, The Frankish Reich said:

Albeit not in complete sentences. 

Seriously? Are you joking? 

[WEATHER DOT COM]

Just now, 3rdnlng said:

Seriously? Are you joking? 

 

Do you suck up to Trump this much in person too?

[SectionC3]

12 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

So, you somehow feel compelled to use my language in order to appear competent? Do you actually think that making vague and empty criticisms is somehow proof of anything? You admitted to coming here to improve your debating skills. While that may have been true, you have failed miserably to do so. It is now apparent why your company has kept you in 3rd Chair status, away from anything that would shine a light on them.

This is why you’re on the Hoax List. 
 

Also, you seem a bit triggered today.  Here’s hoping that your afternoon is calmer and more enjoyable. 

[3rdnlng]

1 minute ago, wAcKy ZeBrA said:

 

Do you suck up to Trump this much in person too?

No, sucking is not in my repertoire, unlike your VP candidate. 

[3rdnlng]

4 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

This is why you’re on the Hoax List. 
 

Also, you seem a bit triggered today.  Here’s hoping that your afternoon is calmer and more enjoyable. 

List Boy, reverting to his old, sophomoric fallback because he's got nuthin'. 

[The Frankish Reich]

20 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

This is why you’re on the Hoax List. 
 

Also, you seem a bit triggered today.  Here’s hoping that your afternoon is calmer and more enjoyable. 

The polls are freaking people out. 
For good reason ...

[H2o]

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

Can I ask? 

Is Global warming a hoax, too?

Not sure what that has anything to do with me not believing a single thing that comes from CNN, therefore laughing, but I'll answer. Partially I believe in Global Warming, but I don't believe it to where it's "OMG, we're all gonna die because of carbon emissions!!!" type of belief. It's a known fact that CO2 is necessary for plant life in the same way that oxygen is a requirement for our own. It can also be proven by looking at basic weather data since it's inception that the earth moves in cycles. It's also known that the tilt of the earth changes ever so slightly over time which can cause changes as well. Hell, just less than 50 years ago they were out there pushing the "Global Cooling" propaganda. Now this is the narrative they are choosing to use. I am also ABSOLUTELY NOT taking the bait that the fires in the US right now are due to climate change like those clowns Newsome and Pelosi are trying to sell. Those were mainly set by simple careless idiots or blatant arsonists in the various places. I also surely don't believe anything that has come out of "Box of Rocks" AOC's mouth, that farting cows are killing the environment and that the earth is going to end in what, like 10 more years now(?), due to this supposed climate change. I also don't fall for the propaganda they try to sell through a 12 year old with Asperger's whose mother claims she can "see CO2 particles in the air" either. What I do believe is the more trees you cut down and the more colonized areas become then it can be a determining factor in the overall temperature of that area. In the Summer time for example, if you are in a city environment and then drive through a heavily wooded area you can feel a difference in the temperature. That's absolutely true and I've noticed my whole life.  

[Big Blitz]

All we do is lie lie lie......

 

 

Yet Lincoln said no such thing. In fact, the polarization of the Supreme Court is a fairly recent phenomenon, dating back to the living Constitution approach of activist judges amending the Constitution by fiat — “discovering” a right to abortion in the Fourteenth Amendment, for example.

 

Before Roe v. Wade (1973), and really before Joe Biden led the smear campaign against Robert Bork in 1987, Supreme Court nominations often proceeded as a matter of course.

 

Harris was correct that when Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B. Taney died on October 12, 1864, President Lincoln did not nominate his successor, Salmon P. Chase, until after the election. This had nothing to do with letting “the next president” choose the nominee, however.

 

As National Review‘s Dan McLaughlin explained, Lincoln delayed because the Senate was not in session when Taney died. In fact, the Senate session ended on July 4, 1864, and did not convene again until December 5, 1864. “It was once common for the Senate to be out of session for much of the summer and fall,” McLaughlin wrote. The Senate session calendar confirms this.

As McLaughlin noted, Lincoln nominated Chase on the very day that the Senate reconvened, and the Senate confirmed him that day.

 

In fact, historian David Donald claimed that Lincoln dangled a potential Supreme Court nomination before Chase in the hopes that Chase — a former senator, governor, secretary of the Treasury, and presidential candidate — would support Lincoln’s reelection. He did so, and the president won reelection—a reelection that was vital to winning the Civil War.

 

https://pjmedia.com/election/tyler-o-neil/2020/10/08/pants-on-fire-kamala-harris-lied-about-abraham-lincoln-and-the-supreme-court-n1019551

 

 

Kahmuhla then went on to not answer the court packing question.  

Edited October 8, 2020 by Big Blitz

[Kemp]

 

[Figster]

7 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:

All we do is lie lie lie......

 

 

Yet Lincoln said no such thing. In fact, the polarization of the Supreme Court is a fairly recent phenomenon, dating back to the living Constitution approach of activist judges amending the Constitution by fiat — “discovering” a right to abortion in the Fourteenth Amendment, for example.

 

Before Roe v. Wade (1973), and really before Joe Biden led the smear campaign against Robert Bork in 1987, Supreme Court nominations often proceeded as a matter of course.

 

Harris was correct that when Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B. Taney died on October 12, 1864, President Lincoln did not nominate his successor, Salmon P. Chase, until after the election. This had nothing to do with letting “the next president” choose the nominee, however.

 

As National Review‘s Dan McLaughlin explained, Lincoln delayed because the Senate was not in session when Taney died. In fact, the Senate session ended on July 4, 1864, and did not convene again until December 5, 1864. “It was once common for the Senate to be out of session for much of the summer and fall,” McLaughlin wrote. The Senate session calendar confirms this.

As McLaughlin noted, Lincoln nominated Chase on the very day that the Senate reconvened, and the Senate confirmed him that day.

 

In fact, historian David Donald claimed that Lincoln dangled a potential Supreme Court nomination before Chase in the hopes that Chase — a former senator, governor, secretary of the Treasury, and presidential candidate — would support Lincoln’s reelection. He did so, and the president won reelection—a reelection that was vital to winning the Civil War.

 

https://pjmedia.com/election/tyler-o-neil/2020/10/08/pants-on-fire-kamala-harris-lied-about-abraham-lincoln-and-the-supreme-court-n1019551

 

 

Kahmuhla then went on to not answer the court packing question.  

Half truths, Harris does what any good lawyer or politician does and without the history lesson most people will only remember the fact that it happened IMO.

 

I came away from the debate with a win for Mike Pence.

 

Although I'm not hating how Harris handled herself and overall I think she held her own IMO.

 

 

[Doc Brown]

2 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

I don't know where you have been but this is exactly what Trump has been saying. 

I know that and I know Biden’s line of attack.  I was answering a hypothetical.  I just don’t think either one could clearly and concisely on a debate stage for different reasons.  Trump because he talks in fragmented sentences and gets sidetracked easily.  Biden because of his stuttering problems along with his memory loss.  Maybe if they wrote it down I guess.

[Buftex]

4 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

 

Mike Pence Destroyed Kamala Harris, and the Media Settle On a Pathetic Excuse

 

This is how you know she lost.

 

Mike Pence debated Kamala Harris last night, and it was not a pretty sight for the Democrat. As per her usual arrangement, Harris ended up grimacing, cackling, and making faces most of the night because she had no ability to respond substantively to most questions.

 

In the end, Pence was a solid winner, having put in the best debate performance of the entire political season so far, including the primaries. But the media can’t just let Pence be the winner of a debate he obviously won. Instead, they’ve come up with one of the more pathetic excuses to brush aside a rather horrid performance by Harris. Apparently, Pence was not being fair to her because he “mansplained” the whole night.

 

The talking points went out immediately.

 

{snip}

 

But that’s where we are. Pence destroyed Harris so they needed to come up with a reason for why she lost. It doesn’t matter that she talked more. It doesn’t matter that Pence had to debate the moderator as well. They want voters to believe that things were somehow unfairly tilted toward the orange man’s campaign. It’s insane, but it’s the same playbook they use every single time.

 

https://www.redstate.com/bonchie/2020/10/08/mike-pence-destroyed-kamala-harris-and-the-media-settle-on-a-pathetic-excuse/

 

 

Pence may have won in presentation (personally, i think he came off like the schmuck that he is)...but anyone paying attention, knows that most of the substance was utter bull####...his "we trust the American people" line was the takeaway for me. He was a weak and flaccid as he could have been...but he is good at presenting himself as pious. However nice a tidy a package he presented himself as, he is up there defending the worst president ever.  That is not a win.

[The Frankish Reich]

10 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

I know that and I know Biden’s line of attack.  I was answering a hypothetical.  I just don’t think either one could clearly and concisely on a debate stage for different reasons.  Trump because he talks in fragmented sentences and gets sidetracked easily.  Biden because of his stuttering problems along with his memory loss.  Maybe if they wrote it down I guess.

No arguments from me here. 

[SoCal Deek]

9 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

No arguments from me here. 

Shocking 

[shoshin]

12 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Shocking 

It’s almost like those of us in the middle to Libertarian end of the spectrum are getting oxygen from under the 10,000 accusations that we are Deep State MSM liberals now that the one-sided post volume and name-calling has been turned down a little isn’t it?

 

The politics here got so black be white that there was little appreciation that most people are 49 (not 50) shades of grey. 

 

Reasonable discussion could be possible!

Edited October 8, 2020 by shoshin

[shoshin]

24 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

I know that and I know Biden’s line of attack.  I was answering a hypothetical.  I just don’t think either one could clearly and concisely on a debate stage for different reasons.  Trump because he talks in fragmented sentences and gets sidetracked easily.  Biden because of his stuttering problems along with his memory loss.  Maybe if they wrote it down I guess.

We haven’t had a proper debate since I dunno. If they truly debated as in answered questions and engaged the topics, they would be valuable. All they are now is a chance for each person to make a 90 second canned speech related to the question or not. 
 

Last night is about as good as it will get this cycle and that isn’t saying much based on performance. But a talk radio host vs a career litigator made for at least some debate skills. 
 

Trump and Biden can’t do it, Trump because he’s so prickly and Biden just because he goes into other topics, though I always like the town hall. It’s that moment when the candidates must be respectful to at least the voters asking the questions. 
 

[BillsFanNC]

😆