Vice-Presidential Debate (Wednesday, 10/7/2020) (3 Viewers)

[superchuck500]

The VP debate between Pence and Democratic vice presidential nominee Sen. Kamala Harris is slated for Wednesday, Oct. 7 at 9 p.m. ET (6 p.m. PT) at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City.

The debate will run for 90 minutes and comprise nine 10-minute segments with no commercial breaks. Susan Page, USA Today's Washington bureau chief, will moderate. Pence and Harris will be seated for the debate and positioned 12 feet apart.

https://www.cnet.com/how-to/vice-presidential-debate-2020-how-to-watch-pence-vs-harris-debate-live/

 

[LA - L.A.]

Thanks guys, this thread reads like a Gameday thread during Falcons hate week... (entertaining, thanks... LOL)

Why was it necessary to let us know that such a low opinion is held about how posters went about participating in the discussion in this thread?

What exactly was hoped to be accomplished by categorically laughing at the entire discussion and all of the posters who participated it in?

We are so forked... LMAO.

How can anyone find the difficult challenges that we are facing so funny that they are laughing uncontrollably?

I get a nervous chuckle or a satirical comment here and there, but to be laugh uncontrollably at our current situation and at the people discussing the situation sincerely? I just don't get how a person would respond that way.

 

[LA - L.A.]

I pointed this out in Febuary, when I caught this interview. It's worth a listen.

Local television or radio news is not the way to get unbiased or non-partisan news. Local television and radio news are more partisan and biased than national television and radio.

 

[wardorican]

Listening to all of Pete's fox interview before the debate, I think I get why Kamala wasn't on the attack as much.

They aren't interested in the tit for tat. They think america wants to know how their lives will be better. They'll gladly trot Pete out there to throw a few barbs.

 

[LA - L.A.]

With both of them missing easy shots I'm wondering if this isn't on purpose. When a boxer is up on points late the goal is to just not give your opponent an opening. Knockout punches are nice but they also make you vulnerable to a counterpunch, and if you've won 8 rounds of a 12 round fight there's no need to risk taking that punch.

Maybe that's it. It's certainly possible they don't want to risk saying something that could be taken wrong by the public, seem insensitive or give the Trump campaign a chance to counter the argument in an effective way.

It's not how I'd play it, but it certainly could be their play. It would explain them both missing these really easy snapbacks.

Winning with rhetorical barbs is Trump's immediate gratification compulsion and no one can outdo him at that. The 2016 election and his nearly 4 years if office show that. What Trump can't do is anything that requires a long time of steady planning, disicpline and patience. All three of those are traits every president needs.

I think the Biden campaign has been running at the metaphorical tortoise's steady, disciplined and patient pace. I think they believe that Trump will continue to burn himself down with his compulsively narcissistic behavior. It's hard to argue with the polling results of their approach. Harris, as part of Biden's team, is going to be a team player and follow the chosen approach.

 

[LA - L.A.]

I don't think she brought up Merrick Garland on purpose. All Pence has to say is that it is within their right to seat a justice. The small % of people that care already know all this.

And of course she avoided packing the court questions. She doesn't want to commit one way or the other in case it bites her later, doesn't want to scare-motivate GOP voters to vote, and it's absolutely on the table. If she committed to saying they will or won't then Republicans can take the "high-road" of seating her and say, "I told you so, the dems are going to pack the court anyway". Or if she says they won't pack the courts they can later say she lied. By not answering you have a lot more options with less damage down the road. Then after the fact in light of the clearly rushed hypocritical confirmation the Dems can be the good guys and gals and look more justified in expanding the court.

If nominees for the Supreme Court shouldn't answer how they would rule on hypothetical cases, then I think it's equally fair that Biden and Harris don't have to answer questions about what they would do in a hypothetical situation.

 

[DaveXA]

If nominees for the Supreme Court shouldn't answer how they would rule on hypothetical cases, then I think it's equally fair that Biden and Harris don't have to answer questions about what they would do in a hypothetical situation.

Apples and oranges imo. Different positions and different roles. The American people should know or have an idea what their elected officials plan to do while in office. A question about expanding the court is a legitimate question and I think deserves an answer.

As for SC nominees. They shouldn't be required to answer questions about a hypothetical case because every case is unique and much goes into each written opinion. That said, a smart committee member can and they do ask in confirmation hearings about their opinions on cases that have already been decided. It's not that hard to get an indication of how they might rule.

 

[brandon]

Listening to all of Pete's fox interview before the debate, I think I get why Kamala wasn't on the attack as much.

They aren't interested in the tit for tat. They think america wants to know how their lives will be better. They'll gladly trot Pete out there to throw a few barbs.

Buttigieg drops bombs in such a completely chill way. It's brutal.

 

[efil4]

Buttigieg drops bombs in such a completely chill way. It's brutal.

Exhibit B. Lol.

 

[brandon]

Exhibit B. Lol.

I figure the gif will get moderated, so just suffice it to say, good lord.

 

[Infoman]

Why was it necessary to let us know that such a low opinion is held about how posters went about participating in the discussion in this thread?

What exactly was hoped to be accomplished by categorically laughing at the entire discussion and all of the posters who participated it in?


How can anyone find the difficult challenges that we are facing so funny that they are laughing uncontrollably?

I get a nervous chuckle or a satirical comment here and there, but to be laugh uncontrollably at our current situation and at the people discussing the situation sincerely? I just don't get how a person would respond that way.

It's not necessary... Nothing will be accomplished. Not everything has to necessary or accomplish an agenda.

All of this is funny... The election, the debates, the candidates, the selective truths, the blatant lies, these partisan echo chamber threads - the people that participate in supporting their "team" near blindly, , etc etc etc... are all one big hilariously sad and never ending joke... I keep waiting for this episode of "Political Punk'd" to be over... If I don't laugh continuously at all of it... I'll lose my humanity.

 

[brandon]

the people that participate in supporting their "team" near blindly, , etc etc etc... are a hilarious sad joke...

Self-moderating.

 

[LA - L.A.]

All of this... the selective truths, the blatant lies, these partisan echo chamber threads - the people that participate in supporting their "team" near blindly, , etc etc etc... are a hilarious sad joke... I keep waiting for this episode of "Political Punk'd" to be over... If I don't laugh continuously at all of it... I'll lose my humanity.

Well if you avoided the "hilarious sad joke" of "these partisan echo chamber threads - the people that participate in supporting their 'team" near blindly" then you wouldn't be at risk of "losing your humanity," would you?

Why don't you do the humane thing for yourself and stop visiting and participating in these threads if you find them such a detriment to keeping your humanity?

I don't know about you, but I avoid things that make hard for me to keep my humanity.

 

[Infoman]

I just drop in here once in a while to make sure you guys don't turn this place into a complete "pat each other on the back" - love-fest... in which the prevailing party message becomes more important the the big picture.

I will continue to pop in from time to time so you guys can tell me I am wrong (it has to be a welcome change for you here)... and hope to cure a few folks of tunnel vision along the way by pointing out ridiculousness where I see it.... no matter how unlikely that is.

*thumbs up

 

[coldseat]

It's not necessary... Nothing will be accomplished. Not everything has to necessary or accomplish (parrot) an agenda.

All of this is funny... The election, the debates, the candidates, the selective truths, the blatant lies, these partisan echo chamber threads - the people that participate in supporting their "team" near blindly, , etc etc etc... are all one big hilariously sad and never ending joke... I keep waiting for this episode of "Political Punk'd" to be over... If I don't laugh continuously at all of it... I'll lose my humanity.

I feel like I understand you cynicism to a degree. I've been there before myself with our politics and country. But I guess what I really struggle with is that you can't realize or acknowledge that we really are at seminal moment in our nations history. We have seen what Trump has done with 4 years in power. What will happen in the next 4 years if he wins will damage America so severely that we wouldn't be able to recover. The reason the polls are where they are is because people are realizing this.

Joe Biden, for all his faults, offers a fundamentally different path. Yes, there are two sides, but they are not the same. You may not agree with or like either, but one of those sides isn't going to destroy our country in service to his ego.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Apples and oranges imo. Different positions and different roles. The American people should know or have an idea what their elected officials plan to do while in office. A question about expanding the court is a legitimate question and I think deserves an answer.

As for SC nominees. They shouldn't be required to answer questions about a hypothetical case because every case is unique and much goes into each written opinion. That said, a smart committee member can and they do ask in confirmation hearings about their opinions on cases that have already been decided. It's not that hard to get an indication of how they might rule.

The apples to oranges comparison is flawed. Hypotheticals about future actions are hypotheticals about future actions no matter what realm those future actions might be in.

The specific circumstances of every policy, bill and law are just as unique as the specific circumstances of any case. You say if the president has plans to expand the court we need to know, but it's Congress that has the power to expand the courts, not the president. The president can't make that happen. They do have the power of signing it or vetoing it, but only if Congress can plan to do it and the president has no power over the process if Congress has enough votes to override the president's veto.

Shouldn't a prudent president wait to hear the case presented in Congress about why and why not to expand the court, before they commit to whether or not they would sign or veto it. Shouldn't they wait to hear the case made for and against everything that comes out of Congress before making blanket, hypothetical statements about whether or not they will sign or veto anything?

Isn't that exactly what you're saying is the prudent and right thing for a Supreme Court nominee to do, wait until they've heard the arguments made for and against?

It's very much apples to apples.

 

[brandon]

I just drop in here once in a while to make sure you guys don't turn this place into a complete "pat each other on the back" - love-fest... in which the prevailing party message becomes more important the the big picture.

I don't understand. Shouldn't your resounding voice of moderation be interested in promoting unity?

 

[CoolBrees]

The IT guy has it all figured out. Just like every office I ever ran. Always the IT guy who claims to know what’s wrong but when asked what to do.....crickets.

Everyone else would be so much happier if they would just live like he does. Panning ideas without having any solutions of your own. It’s the IT guy way.

I tell you the IT guy is the smartest and most capable guy in any organization. If only they would listen to him.

 

[LA - L.A.]

I just drop in here once in a while to make sure you guys don't turn this place into a complete "pat each other on the back" - love-fest... in which the prevailing party message becomes more important the the big picture.

I will continue to pop in from time to time so you guys can tell me I am wrong (it has to be a welcome change for you here)... and hope to cure a few folks of tunnel vision along the way by pointing out ridiculousness where I see it.... no matter how unlikely that is.

*thumbs up

So you're here just to keep us in line? You're here to cure us?