DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus VP debate

I definitely agree that Pence has the tougher job in these debates. His insincerity and very canned, structured responses - in addition to his side-stepping - really irks me. However, it is not easy to be a flight attendant on a plane and justify to the passengers why the pilot has been doing barrel rolls.

My wife watched and was really annoyed at how Pence man kept talking past time and over Harris ....

My suggestion would be That a timekeeper tracks any talk past their allotment and interruptions they make. At the end of the debate whoever has transgressed the most has mic turned off and the other candidates gets the balance of time uninterrupted without any comeback... watch how they both adhere to time.... though I doubt Trump would be disciplined enough

Dude, you are on fire with the similes in this thread.

Between the barrel roll and the inability to cross the street you actually made me laugh out loud a little bit. Not quite a guffaw but definitely audible. Keep up the storng work.

If I were one of these candidates up on the stage, my one comfort would be that there really aren't many undecided voters left. All you really have to do up there is just get through the hour without a disaster.

Haha, thanks. When it comes to politics, I try to be as absurd as possible.

It certainly was annoying that Pence kept speaking over Harris, but the moderator did give her additional time on occasion to ensure even time.

At the end, both candidates were given nearly equal time...

Trump calls Harris a 'monster'
BY MORGAN CHALFANT - 10/08/20 09:32 AM EDT


President Trump on Thursday twice referred to Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) as a "monster" following her debate performance against Vice President Pence the evening prior.

“This monster that was onstage with Mike Pence, who destroyed her last night, by the way. This monster, she says, ‘no no, there won’t be fracking,’ there won’t be this. Everything she said is a lie,” Trump said during a phone interview on Fox Business.

Trump’s broadside against Harris, an elected member of the U.S. Senate and the first Black and South Asian woman to be the vice presidential nominee of a major political party, came not 12 hours after Pence faced her in a debate marked by sharp disagreements but also civility. At one point, Pence recognized the “historic nature” of Harris’s nomination.

Trump has a history of flinging controversial insults at women that have been criticized as degrading and sexist. He called 2016 Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton a “nasty woman” on the debate stage, a phrase that became a rallying cry for feminists opposed to Trump.

The 2016 campaign was also roiled when a tape was released of Trump boasting about grabbing women by the genitals in a conversation with Billy Bush of “Access Hollywood” in 2005.

Trump has struggled with female voters, and it's unlikely that his remarks about Harris on Thursday will help him among that group. Strategists say that white suburban women are key to Trump's victory in 2020. Trump currently trails Democratic nominee Joe Biden in national and swing state polls, less than four weeks before the November election.

Trump has previously called Harris “very nasty” and asserted that she behaved in a “disrespectful” manner toward Biden during the primaries.

Trump’s comments, made in his first interview since his coronavirus diagnosis, were made during an exchange about Biden’s fitness for office. Trump claimed that Biden “won’t be president for two months” if elected because he is not “mentally capable of being president,” before tearing into Harris.

“He is not mentally capable of being president. You know that, everybody knows that, everybody that knows him. He can’t be president," Trump told Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo.


https://thehill.com/homenews/administrat...QBj0ibwUQSikD2I

IIRC, the moderator gave Harris time at the end to make up the difference.

How does stating that Pence consistently broke the rules have anything about being confused about who you're voting for? We've seen it in both debates now. Trump only breaks the rules in a nastier, louder fashion. Yet Pence is just a kinder version of "I'm going to break all of the rules".

You do realize you can make an observation of the facts at hand without confusion on other things, right?

Pence's breaking of the rules was at least within the bounds of precedent. Debaters during pres debates have ALWAYS gone over their time limits.

The thing with Pence going over the time limit was that, in general, he was talking so slowly and not really saying a whole lot. I can see speaking over the moderator to land shots or refute a point the other person made, but he was going over time just to say fluff. It was kinda weird.

In response to your post I'll only make an observation about the fly.

The fly has better concentration abilities than Pocapornstar. The fly managed to concentrate long enough to stay on the head of Pence for over two minutes during a debate. Pocapornstar couldn't concentrate enough to shut the hell up for two minutes during a debate.


Advantage fly.

j/c...

I really don't disagree with you about it sometimes happening that candidates speak over their allotted time. However, when it becomes a consistent onslaught of it happening in the same debate, it isn't as typical as you seem to make it sound.

It's been consistent with both Trump and Pence.

j/c

Actually, after watching the debate I gave a slight advantage to Pence if you dismiss him consistently breaking the rules. Debates aren't about facts sadly. They're about talking points. Pence continued to spread many of the same lies about raising everyone's taxes, about not actually losing manufacturing jobs and what "a great response to Covid" even though Kamala did point out an irrefutable fact that per capita we've had twice the deaths than other developed nations.

It helped enforce their supporters beliefs but I highly suspect it didn't influence anyone in the middle.

Kamala left a lot of meat on the bone. The forest management BS that they keep putting out. The federal government owns 58% of the forests in California while the state actually only owns about 3%. So she should have pointed out that if forest management is what they feel the problem is, they've dropped the ball on that one too.

And of course pointing out the Merrick Garland verses Amy Coney Barrett process would have been a great comeback to packing the SCOTUS.

I could point to more such as these but as I said, I felt she left a lot of meat on the bone. Something I wouldn't have expected from a former prosecutor.

That's a great way to put it. Totally agree. Specifically, I was shocked she didn't come back with Merrick Garland when Pence inexplicably talked about packing the courts (as you said).

I was also surprised she didn't jump on him for abruptly switching topics. He was asking for her to zing him on not answering tough questions and filling time with fluff, and she never really did.

Another big point she missed was when Pence started talking about their environmental record. Man, Trump has overturned so many environmental regulations that have a long term negative impact on our environment that just a few of the major ones would have been a nail in his coffin.

I'm not talking about the tree hugger type regulations. I'm speaking of things like allowing coal companies to once again dump coal ash into our waterways.

It could have been a big winner she let slip by.

I often wonder who in the hell preps these people?

She told a lie on honest Abe.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/...braham-lincoln/

CLAIM: Abraham Lincoln declined to fill a Supreme Court seat because it was too close to the election.

VERDICT: FALSE. The Senate was out of session. He filled it — in one day — as soon as it was back.

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) tried to argue in the vice presidential debate Wednesday night against the confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to fill the seat vacated by the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Harris appealed to history, arguing that Vice President Mike Pence and the Republicans are violating a precedent set by President Abraham Lincoln of not confirming a Supreme Court justice before an election.

Harris said:

In 1864 — one of the, I think political heroes certainly of the President, I assume of you also, Mr. Vice President, is Abraham Lincoln. Abraham Lincoln was up for re-election, and it was 27 days before the election. And a seat became open on the United States Supreme Court. Abraham Lincoln’s party was in charge, not only of the White House, but the Senate. But Honest Abe said, “It’s not the right thing to do. The American people deserve to make the decision about who will be the next president of the United States. And then that person can select who will serve for a lifetime on the highest court of our land.” And so Joe and I are very clear: the American people are voting right now, and it should be their decision about who will serve on this most important body for a lifetime.

However, Harris misrepresented what “Honest Abe” did, and why. As Dan McLaughlin of National Review noted, President Abraham Lincoln never said anything like what Harris said he did. He delayed sending a nominee to the Senate because it was out of session. McLaughlin wrote:

Lincoln, of course, said no such thing. He sent no nominee to the Senate in October 1864 because the Senate was out of session until December. He sent a nominee the day after the session began, and Salmon P. Chase was confirmed the same day. And Lincoln wanted to dangle the nomination before Chase and several other potential candidates because he wanted them to campaign for him. Lincoln’s priority was winning the election, which was necessary to win the war — and he filled the vacancy at the first possible instant.

Kamala Harris is simply inventing history.

As the Cato Institute’s resident constitutional scholar, Ilya Shapiro, noted recently (original emphasis): “[V]acancies have arisen 29 times in presidential election years, during the administrations of 22 of the 44 presidents preceding the current one, and those presidents made nominations all 29 times.”

She has about 20,000 lies and she'll be caught up with Trump.... she needs to increase her pace.

She made up a speech a president never gave, or repeated it because someone told her it was true. Either way, all of you whining about Trump lying must have no integrity if you'd still vote for her. This wasn't even a good lie.

The ole "they did it too" argument.

Isn't that what the libs refer to as a "whataboutism"?

Yes. I think in this case it's entirely deserved.

Hypocrite much? Call out Harris over a lie when Trumpo's told 20,000 ???

Now I went and looked at fact checkers for Harris and Pence and looked already to see what porky pies they told ... so I knew about the Abe fallacy.

Nope. Not at all.

When Harris or Biden gets to 20,000 we can say "they did it too." For now we'll just say that any Trump fan boy trying to accuse another politician of lying is just a hypocrite. Fair?

when her comments during a debate leads to over 200k americans dead, lemme know.

til then, Trump is a scumbag, and it says a lot about the people who defend said scumbag.

when her comments lead to a bunch of terrorist getting arrested for trying to kidnap a sitting governor, lemme know.

til then, trump is a scumbag, and it says a lot about the people who defend said scumbag.

Hypocrite? Not at all. I haven't been complaining. I've known for a very long time that all politicians lie. I look at it from the perspective of if they are lying to me, or for me.

As for that 20000 number you libs keep spouting, you call almost everything Trump says a lie, which is a lie in itself.

Tell me what the number is then....

As for lying to me or for me comment - are you suggesting as long as politicians tell lies that serve your self interest you don't care? The post/comment reads that way but I don't want to assume.

So, have you ever heard Trump? Every damn word is a lie or tied to a lie.

As I said when I voted for Trump in 2016. Trump is not smart enough to lie and get away with it. People will see right through him. Hillary however could look you in the eye and lie to you AND get away with it. She would be telling untruths just as much as Trump but she wouldn't be caught in most of them.

This election I can't make up my mind yet. Both parties bring something to the table that I am passionate about, but both parties bring things I despise. I still don't know if I am voting for Trump, Biden, myself, or not voting for either side. It is 100 percent disgusting and sickening that these are my only options

My take away.... you voted for a bad liar. Not a good look.

Trump made a few major promises to get elected. Lower taxes, build a border wall, get rid of obummercare, rebuild the military. He's done all of those with the exception of obummercare. That would have taken the cowardly Republicans to vote like they did when obummer was in office. They chickened out. He's kept those promises.

and those who voted for Hillary voted for a good liar. Not a good look either.

He’s not built a wall. Maybe a few miles but not nearly what he promised. Mexico didn’t pay for it either... another lie. He certainly lowered taxes too... so much so on corporations our tax revenue can’t possibly keep up with donny’s debt. Ooooo but I got a couple hundred dollars extra in my pocket this year.... I’m going to Europe with it.... oh wait. Donny’s bumbling of COVID has me locked within our borders... maybe he did build that wall he promised after all?

We've been hearing that argument for four years and you just now decided to call foul?

You forgot about his promise of infrastructure to rebuild highways. airports and bridges. His great "new healthcare plan" that was supposed to unveiled a “terrific,” “phenomenal” and “fantastic” new health care plan to replace the Affordable Care Act during his first 100 days in office. In January 2017 he told the Washington Post he would be announcing he was close to completing his health care plan and that he wanted to provide “insurance for everybody.”

These are lies he told to try and sucker moderates into voting for him. Part of the con job.

He tweeted Feb. 17 that while Democrats were delaying Senate confirmation of Tom Price, his pick to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, the “repeal and replacement of ObamaCare is moving fast!”

“… we will … have great Healthcare soon after Tax Cuts!” But in 2019, Trump again took up the health plan mantle with this March 26 tweet: “The Republican Party will become ‘The Party of Healthcare!’” Two days later, in remarks to reporters before boarding Marine One, Trump said that “we’re working on a plan now,” but again updated the timeline, saying, “There’s no very great rush from the standpoint” because he was waiting on the court decision for Obamacare. This was a reference to Texas v. U.S., the lawsuit brought by a group of Republican governors to overturn the ACA. It is currently pending before the Supreme Court.

Backtracking from his earlier promises to repeal and replace Obamacare within his first 100 days in office, Trump on April 3 tweeted: “I was never planning a vote prior to the 2020 Election on the wonderful HealthCare package that some very talented people are now developing for me & the Republican Party. It will be on full display during the Election as a much better & less expensive alternative to ObamaCare…”

June 16:

In an interview with ABC News, Trump again said a health care plan would be coming shortly.

“We’re going to produce phenomenal health care. And we already have the concept of the plan. And it’ll be much better health care,” Trump told George Stephanopoulos. When Stephanopoulos asked if he was going to tell people what the plan was, Trump responded: “Yeah, we’ll be announcing that in two months, maybe less.”

June 26:

But then, timing again changed as Trump promised a sweeping health plan after the 2020 election. “If we win the House back, keep the Senate and keep the presidency, we’ll have a plan that blows away ObamaCare,” Trump said in a speech to the Faith and Freedom Coalition’s Road to the Majority conference.

Oct. 3:

He reiterated this post-2020 election pledge in a speech to Florida retirees. “If the Republicans take back the House, keep the Senate, keep the presidency — we’re gonna have a fantastic plan,” Trump said.

Oct. 25:

Trump told reporters that Republicans have a “great” health care plan. “You’ll have health care the likes of which you’ve never seen,” he said.

2020: ‘Two Weeks’

Feb. 10:

During a White House business session with governors, Trump commented on the Republican governors’ lawsuit to undo the ACA and whether protections for preexisting conditions would be lost: “If a law is overturned, that’s OK, because the new law’s going to have it in.”

May 6:

During the signing of a proclamation to honor National Nurses Day, Trump again said Obamacare would be replaced “with great healthcare at a lesser price, and preexisting conditions will be included and you won’t have the individual mandate.”

July 19:

Trump told Chris Wallace in a Fox News interview that a health care plan would be unveiled within two weeks: “We’re signing a health care plan within two weeks, a full and complete health care plan that the Supreme Court decision on DACA gave me the right to do.”

July 31:

With no sign of a plan yet, reporters asked Trump about it at a Florida event. Trump responded that a “very inclusive” health care plan was coming and “I’ll be signing it sometime very soon.”

Aug. 3:

Pushing the timeline once again, Trump said during a press briefing that the health care plan would be introduced “hopefully, prior to the end of the month.”

Aug. 7:

Citing his two-week timeline once again, Trump said during a press briefing that he would pursue a major executive order in the next two weeks “requiring health insurance companies to cover all preexisting conditions for all customers.” Trump also said that covering preexisting conditions had “never been done before,” despite the ACA provisions outlining protections for people who have preexisting conditions being among the law’s most popular components. The Trump administration has backed the effort to overturn the ACA — including these protections — now pending before the Supreme Court.

Aug. 10:

In response to a reporter’s question about why he was planning to issue an executive order when the ACA already protects those with preexisting conditions, Trump said: “Just a double safety net, and just to let people know that the Republicans are totally strongly in favor of … taking care of people with preexisting conditions. It’s a second platform. We have: Preexisting conditions will be taken care of 100% by Republicans and the Republican Party.”

Just before publication, we asked the White House for more information regarding when exactly the plan might be unveiled. The press office did not respond to our request for comment.

https://khn.org/news/back-to-the-future-trumps-history-of-promising-a-health-plan-that-never-comes/

And that great wall Mexico was going to pay for?

Border wall: Hundreds of miles funded, 5 new miles built

https://www.expressnews.com/news/us-world/border-mexico/article/Border-wall-progress-15467427.php

Still waiting on checks from Mexico. You've been lied to. Over and over again. Yet you believe them so much you're now helping spread them yourself.

Hahaha