VP Debate: Vance vs Walz

[thegeneral 3,208]

2 minutes ago, BrahmaBulls said:

Like Hillary questioning the results or Al Gore suing because he lost?   Focking hypocrite and coward.

Laughable to compare these scenarios

[purdygood 352]

2 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

Laughable to compare these scenarios

You don't memberberries when Hilary and Al held rallies and told their followers/cultists to fight like hell?

[BrahmaBulls 763]

1 hour ago, thegeneral said:

Laughable to compare these scenarios

Means nothing coming from a dumb a$$ like you

[Hardcore troubadour 15,423]

1 hour ago, Sean Mooney said:

I know who Megyn Kelly is. She is someone who has taken her own level of sh!t for moderation of debates (including Trump and many other conservatives in 2015). She was a moderate voice but has drifted further to the right.

But I am objecting more to your comment that "THe people are pissed...." Megyn Kelly isn't "the people." She is "the establishment"

It’s a good thing we have actual moderates like Mooney to point out who the poseurs are.  

[Fnord 2,264]

A handful of states, including Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Texas, made few or no changes to their voting procedures to promote increased absentee voting.

@jerryskids

I understand where you're coming from on "ballot shotgunning" and the inherent potential for chicanery.

But I cannot help noticing that all of the states you listed other than PA (and in addition to Alaska, which @Horseman mentioned) as not having proper procedures in place to vet the mail-in ballots were all won by Trump, and the results in those states were never contested.

Do I have that right?

 

 

 

 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,100]

1 hour ago, thegeneral said:

Laughable to compare these scenarios

of course it is because if you had to face the truth it would destroy your world view.  So to avoid that, you're forced to play the delusion game where you convince yourself that when your side does it "it's not the same" as when the other side does even when it's the exact same thing.  Retards like you can't think for yourself. 

[OldMaid 2,130]

2 hours ago, Strike said:

The statement of hers I objected to twice is a lie.  If you all want to keep pretending it's not that's fine but you're wrong.  You all keep posting stuff that is just a smoke screen so either you don't understand my point despite it being obvious or you're purposely being misleading.  Either way you're wrong.

Why don’t you tell us what legal actions that you feel that they did not take.

[thegeneral 3,208]

28 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

of course it is because if you had to face the truth it would destroy your world view.  So to avoid that, you're forced to play the delusion game where you convince yourself that when your side does it "it's not the same" as when the other side does even when it's the exact same thing.  Retards like you can't think for yourself. 

It’s laughable because they aren’t remotely similar. 

[IGotWorms 4,058]

Does anyone cry more than Trump and MAGA types? Jesus you guys are a bunch of g0ddamned babies

[Hardcore troubadour 15,423]

1 minute ago, IGotWorms said:

Does anyone cry more than Trump and MAGA types? Jesus you guys are a bunch of g0ddamned babies

Jan 6. Cough cough. 

[Strike 5,538]

18 minutes ago, OldMaid said:

Why don’t you tell us what legal actions that you feel that they did not take.

What????? It's like you didnt even read what I posted.  Go back and re-read them.

[Strike 5,538]

3 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Does anyone cry more than Trump and MAGA types? Jesus you guys are a bunch of g0ddamned babies

Yes.   YOU.

[IGotWorms 4,058]

Just now, Hardcore troubadour said:

Jan 6. Cough cough. 

Exactly, you guys are still crying and claiming it’s all some hit job or instigated by federal agents in the crowd or whatever. Just own up on it already, but like focking children you can’t do that and try to blame everybody else instead. It’s sad

[Hardcore troubadour 15,423]

2 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Exactly, you guys are still crying and claiming it’s all some hit job or instigated by federal agents in the crowd or whatever. Just own up on it already, but like focking children you can’t do that and try to blame everybody else instead. It’s sad

Yeah. We’re the one that keep bringing it up.  They had a guillotine! 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,100]

9 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

It’s laughable because they aren’t remotely similar. 

Sure they aren't buddy, sure they aren't.   

Have some more kool-aid. 

[Horseman 2,457]

6 hours ago, Jeff Probst said:

According to the Alaska voting guidelines for 2020 in order to get an absentee ballot you need to provide is showing date of birth and have a registered address.

https://www.elections.alaska.gov/election/2020/General/OEPBooks/2020 AK Region I pamphlet_FINAL-web.pdf

Trump won Alaska so none of this matters anyway.

Next state?

They lifted the verification part, the requirement for a witness signature.  Yes or No.

14 hours ago, Jeff Probst said:

Name a state that had no ballot verification or shut the fock up already.

Alaska.  

But hey, instead of working down alphabetically, you want to move your goal posts to states that Trump lost.  Ok.  Simple question for someone with your mad skillz in the googles:  Does PA have signature match verification?  

[MDC 7,409]

GC: Pffft January 6 was a selfie fest - who cares?

Also GC: Trannies! They’re eating the pets! Reeeeeeeee!!!!  

[Sean Mooney 1,983]

1 hour ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

It’s a good thing we have actual moderates like Mooney to point out who the poseurs are.  

Take your meds and go to bed you useless waste of air.

[OldMaid 2,130]

22 minutes ago, Strike said:

What????? It's like you didnt even read what I posted.  Go back and re-read them.

The only thing you posted was cases being dismissed on standing. That means that litigation was taken, but did not meet the requirements to show harm. Which BTW seems to follow a pattern from Trump’s team. He promised Ducey, the governor of Arizona, documentation/proof of his alleged "fraud" claims for AZ, then failed to produce it. Then he moved on to Rusty Bowers the then House Speaker in AZ offering the same bullshit trying to get him to replace their slate of electors. Bowers told them to send over the proof and then they could have a meeting. Would you like to guess what happened next?

[Mike Honcho 5,269]

54 minutes ago, OldMaid said:

Why don’t you tell us what legal actions that you feel that they did not take.

 

On 1/26/2024 at 11:57 AM, Strike said:

Yeah I know.  But this has nothing to do with my point which is that Honcho is just trying his typical drive by "GOTCHA" post.  He's just another one of those "centrists" we keep hearing about. 

Don't worry OM, Strike would never do a drive-by "GOTCHA" post.

[jerryskids 6,792]

1 hour ago, Fnord said:

A handful of states, including Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Texas, made few or no changes to their voting procedures to promote increased absentee voting.

@jerryskids

I understand where you're coming from on "ballot shotgunning" and the inherent potential for chicanery.

But I cannot help noticing that all of the states you listed other than PA (and in addition to Alaska, which @Horseman mentioned) as not having proper procedures in place to vet the mail-in ballots were all won by Trump, and the results in those states were never contested.

Do I have that right?

 

 

 

 

Do you have a link?

Also, at first read, I don't think this says what you think it says.  

[Fnord 2,264]

2 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Do you have a link?

Also, at first read, I don't think this says what you think it says.  

That's why I asked if I had it right.

[thegeneral 3,208]

44 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Sure they aren't buddy, sure they aren't.   

Have some more kool-aid. 

Florida came down to about 500 votes. One state. Al Gore conceded in early Dec.

Hillary conceded in early November.

Take Trump’s balls off your chin.

[Mike Honcho 5,269]

Just now, thegeneral said:

Florida came down to about 500 votes. One state. Al Gore conceded in early Dec.

Hillary conceded in early November.

Take Trump’s balls off your chin.

Yeah, but remember when they were recounting the votes, passions were so inflamed there was nearly a riot at the Palm Beach court house...by GOP supporters of Bush...so it was kind of like what happened.   

[thegeneral 3,208]

48 minutes ago, Horseman said:

They lifted the verification part, the requirement for a witness signature.  Yes or No.

Alaska.  

But hey, instead of working down alphabetically, you want to move your goal posts to states that Trump lost.  Ok.  Simple question for someone with your mad skillz in the googles:  Does PA have signature match verification?  

Alaska makes you request a ballot via a website or mail. Their ballots aren’t “shotgunned out”.

[thegeneral 3,208]

1 minute ago, Mike Honcho said:

Yeah, but remember when they were recounting the votes, passions were so inflamed there was nearly a riot at the Palm Beach court house...by GOP supporters of Bush...so it was kind of like what happened.   

Yep. The SC shot it all down. Gore then conceded. 

[jerryskids 6,792]

8 minutes ago, Fnord said:

That's why I asked if I had it right.

I read it as saying that Trump won states that didn't do much to change their systems, whereas Biden won states that did more change.   

[thegeneral 3,208]

12 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Do you have a link?

Also, at first read, I don't think this says what you think it says.  

Which states did the “shotgunning” you have described?

[jerryskids 6,792]

1 minute ago, thegeneral said:

Which states did the “shotgunning” you have described?

Any state that did not previously mail out ballots to all registered voters.

[Horseman 2,457]

5 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

Alaska makes you request a ballot via a website or mail. Their ballots aren’t “shotgunned out”.

You aren't following.  Must be your phone's fault.  

[thegeneral 3,208]

3 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Any state that did not previously mail out ballots to all registered voters.

Thats what I’m asking and how this process was done.

So far Alaska has been brought up by dipshit but those ballots were sent to people who requested them. They apparently removed a verification signature. Who knows if that’s true I’ll just accept that. 

[thegeneral 3,208]

8 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

I read it as saying that Trump won states that didn't do much to change their systems, whereas Biden won states that did more change.   

One thing that seems to be a pattern is the more people that vote, the better it is for Democratic candidates.

[F1erce 88]

Walz got destroyed in that debate & it wasn’t even close. It was, however, a MUCH better debate than Kamala vs Trump. I’d rather those two run for president in all honesty. That being said, the “knucklehead” needs to just bow out cause that was embarrassing 

[jerryskids 6,792]

10 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

One thing that seems to be a pattern is the more people that vote, the better it is for Democratic candidates.

That doesn't surprise me.  There are always more have nots than haves, many of whom would be inclined to vote for free stuff.  Thankfully, those same people tend to be lazy and/or uninterested in taking the interest to vote.

I've consistently said here that I don't like "get out the vote" initiatives.  If I need to convince you to vote when you otherwise wouldn't, I'd just as well you sit it out and let informed people decide our future.

[Strike 5,538]

56 minutes ago, OldMaid said:

The only thing you posted was cases being dismissed on standing. That means that litigation was taken, but did not meet the requirements to show harm. Which BTW seems to follow a pattern from Trump’s team. He promised Ducey, the governor of Arizona, documentation/proof of his alleged "fraud" claims for AZ, then failed to produce it. Then he moved on to Rusty Bowers the then House Speaker in AZ offering the same bullshit trying to get him to replace their slate of electors. Bowers told them to send over the proof and then they could have a meeting. Would you like to guess what happened next?

Wrong.  Standing was one example.  And standing doesn't just mean harm.  But there were other reasons not related to the issues being brought up where lawsuits were dismissed.  You keep trying to suggest that all the cases were adjudicated on their merits and that's simply not true. 

[thegeneral 3,208]

7 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

That doesn't surprise me.  There are always more have nots than haves, many of whom would be inclined to vote for free stuff.  Thankfully, those same people tend to be lazy and/or uninterested in taking the interest to vote.

I've consistently said here that I don't like "get out the vote" initiatives.  If I need to convince you to vote when you otherwise wouldn't, I'd just as well you sit it out and let informed people decide our future.

I think this is a gross oversimplifying of the situation. Vote on a Tuesday? People work, many with hard jobs, have kids, etc.

A process that allows people to vote the way we do in Washington is far superior. Get your ballot, get a voter packet, get it mailed back before the deadline, track it.

Seeing lines of people standing in the rain worried about getting it in before the place closes is really stupid.

 

[jerryskids 6,792]

3 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

I think this is a gross oversimplifying of the situation. Vote on a Tuesday? People work, many with hard jobs, have kids, etc.

A process that allows people to vote the way we do in Washington is far superior. Get your ballot, get a voter packet, get it mailed back before the deadline, track it.

Seeing lines of people standing in the rain worried about getting it in before the place closes is really stupid.

 

I'm not sure what this has to do with "get out the vote."  

Also, I said earlier, I do the same thing in AZ, have gotten an absentee ballot for 30+ years.  I don't object to tested, vetted mail-in processes.  

Anyway, enough of this.  Let's get back to discussing future President Vance's stellar debate performance.   

[thegeneral 3,208]

14 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

I'm not sure what this has to do with "get out the vote."  

Also, I said earlier, I do the same thing in AZ, have gotten an absentee ballot for 30+ years.  I don't object to tested, vetted mail-in processes.  

Anyway, enough of this.  Let's get back to discussing future President Vance's stellar debate performance.   

Once me and the Deep State finish shotgunning ballots to all the illegals and ballot mules it’s a wrap

[OldMaid 2,130]

38 minutes ago, Strike said:

Wrong.  Standing was one example.  And standing doesn't just mean harm.  But there were other reasons not related to the issues being brought up where lawsuits were dismissed.  You keep trying to suggest that all the cases were adjudicated on their merits and that's simply not true. 

In law, standing or locus standi is a condition that a party seeking a legal remedy must show they have, by demonstrating to the court, sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case. A party has standing in the following situations:

The party is directly subject to an adverse effect by the statute or action in question, and the harm suffered will continue unless the court grants relief in the form of damages or a finding that the law either does not apply to the party or that the law is void or can be nullified. In informal terms, a party must have something to lose.[1] The party has standing because they will be directly harmed by the conditions for which they are asking the court for relief.

The party is not directly harmed by the conditions by which they are petitioning the court for relief but asks for it because the harm involved has some reasonable relation to their situation, and the continued existence of the harm may affect others who might not be able to ask a court for relief. In the United States, this is the grounds for asking for a law to be struck down as violating the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, because while the plaintiff might not be directly affected, the law might so adversely affect others that one might never know what was not done or created by those who fear they would become subject to the law. This is known as the "chilling effects" doctrine.

The party is granted automatic standing by act of law.[2] For example, under some environmental laws in the United States, a party may sue someone causing pollution to certain waterways without a federal permit, even if the party suing is not harmed by the pollution being generated. The law allows the plaintiff to receive attorney's fees if they substantially prevail in the action. In some U.S. states, a person who believes a book, film or other work of art is obscene may sue in their own name to have the work banned directly without having to ask a District Attorney to do so.

In the United States, the current doctrine is that a person cannot bring a suit challenging the constitutionality of a law unless they can demonstrate that they are or will "imminently" be harmed by the law. Otherwise, the court will rule that the plaintiff "lacks standing" to bring the suit, and will dismiss the case without considering the merits of the claim of unconstitutionality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)

Seems like the bolded is what pertains to this discussion, no? If they didn’t meet the threshold then that’s the end of the line. Which is what happened here. So what exactly are you complaining about? 

[jerryskids 6,792]

WSJ article about Walz's compulsive lying:

Quote

An Imprecise Biography Catches Up With Tim Walz

Democratic VP nominee vows to ‘be clearer’ after exaggerating his proximity to Tiananmen Square protests

 

By 

John McCormick

 

Oct. 2, 2024 6:00 pm ET

 

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz said Wednesday that “I need to be clearer” after a series of misstatements and exaggerations about his experiences and biography have created a distraction for Democrats weeks before the election.

 

The vice-presidential nominee suffered his worst moment in Tuesday’s debate with Republican VP nominee Ohio Sen. JD Vance when he tried to explain years of repeated false statements about being in Hong Kong during the Tiananmen Square protests in China. Walz also has gotten into trouble for past claims including about his National Guard retirement rank and a 2018 comment about “weapons of war that I carried in war” when he was never deployed in a combat zone.

 

Such exaggerations are known in Minnesota as “fish tales”—embellishments often with a basis in fact—and they generally haven’t hurt Walz within the friendlier confines of state-level politics. But on the national stage they can be damaging. Those involving Walz reveal the growing pains he has experienced since his selection as Vice President Kamala Harris’s running mate.

“The national spotlight was sure to expose Walz’s weakness of exaggerating or being less than honest,” said Blois Olson, a nonpartisan political analyst who publishes a newsletter on Minnesota politics and has known Walz since 2006.

Olson said Walz and his team have prevented media interviews that are likely to yield follow-up questions or challenges. “The rule of thumb for Minnesota media and observers is just because he says it convincingly it doesn’t mean it’s true,” he said. “It’s his Achilles’ heel, and at some point he can’t keep running the same way.”

 

On Wednesday, Walz sought to play down any inaccuracies by presenting himself as an everyday guy, despite more than a decade in Congress and being elected statewide twice. “I speak like everybody else speaks,” he said during brief comments to reporters in Pennsylvania. “I need to be clearer, I will tell you that.”

 

A person familiar with Walz’s speaking history said the governor’s gaffes aren’t necessarily nefarious or embellishing in nature and are more a result of his casual speaking style.

 

Walz, 60 years old, isn’t alone among politicians making exaggerations. President Biden has a long history of telling anecdotes that don’t match the historical record. Former President Donald Trump makes claims in nearly every public appearance that don’t align with the facts. And Vance has repeatedly has made unfounded claims of Haitian immigrants eating pets in Springfield, Ohio.

 

While Walz is expected to do some national media interviews in the coming days, he mostly has been shielded from questions from national reporters on the campaign trail. The same is largely true for Harris and Biden, when he was still expected to be the Democratic nominee.

 

On the debate stage, Walz was forced to acknowledge he had made inaccurate statements about his Asian travel as a younger man.

News stories this week, first reported by Minnesota Public Radio and APM Reports, suggested inaccuracies in his claims of being in Hong Kong for a teaching position in 1989 during the Tiananmen Square pro-democracy protests in Beijing.

News stories at the time placed him in his home state of Nebraska and planning to travel to Asia in August 1989, two months after the protests in China. The Nebraska articles were discovered by the conservative Washington Free Beacon.

“I got there that summer and misspoke,” Walz said, when pressed by the moderators. “I was in Hong Kong and China during the democracy protests, went in, and from that I learned a lot.”

On Wednesday, Walz sought to further clarify his history with Asian travel. “I have my dates wrong,” he told reporters in Pennsylvania. “I was in Hong Kong and China in 1989. That move from Hong Kong into China, it was profound for me. That was the summer of democracy.”

 

A campaign spokesperson said: “As the governor has said, he sometimes misspeaks. He speaks like a normal person and speaks passionately about issues he cares deeply about including democracy and stopping gun violence in our schools.”

Last month, there were also revisions to how Walz described the form of fertility treatment he and his wife, Gwen, used to help conceive their two children. The governor had previously claimed his family had used in vitro fertilization, or IVF.

That wasn’t correct. Gwen Walz subsequently said she used intrauterine insemination, or IUI, which wouldn’t be affected by an IVF ban that has been debated because it doesn’t create embryos. The Harris-Walz campaign said at the time that the governor’s past statements used “commonly understood shorthand for fertility treatments.”

 

Since his selection by Harris, Walz’s 1995 driving arrest in Nebraska after he was drinking also has come under greater scrutiny. 

Walz, then 31, was arrested for driving 96 miles an hour in a 55 mph zone and took a plea deal to a reduced charge of reckless driving. When he first ran for Congress in 2006, his campaign repeatedly claimed he didn’t drive drunk and was only speeding.

An archived copy of the police incident report states Walz failed field sobriety tests and a preliminary breath test and was transported to a hospital for a blood test and then to a county jail. During his first bid for governor in 2018, Walz acknowledged the arrest helped prompt him to give up alcohol. He now drinks, among other things, Diet Mountain Dew.

 

Other misstatements about events in Minnesota have also drawn attention.

 

The governor understated the amount of time students missed from school during the Covid-19 pandemic, saying in a 2022 interview that “over 80% of our students missed less than 10 days of in-class learning.”

 

His school closures lasted from mid-March 2020 to the start of summer break, and some students remained in remote learning into 2021. After questions were raised about his comments, the governor’s office said he was referring to the 2021-22 school year.

 

Walz also dropped initial claims he made at a chaotic time that the most of looting and burning during rioting in Minneapolis after police murdered George Floyd in 2020 was from people from outside Minnesota. Media reviews of arrests showed that wasn’t the case.

 

Write to John McCormick at mccormick.john@wsj.com

https://archive.ph/QZurw#selection-6043.0-6075.22

The bolded is duly noted.   

Also, you don't "misspeak" about being in Asia during Tiananmen Square.  That's a flat out lie.

Also also, he has a history of avoiding interviews that might have follow up questions or challenges.  No wonder Kamala picked him.