***The One and Only Vice Presidential Debate of 2016*** (democratic, bomb, vote)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why do discussions about debate winners always focus on such shallow points? When people are asked who won, they always point to things like "he was rude" or "he sounded such and such way" or "she seemed X." What on earth does that have to do with who should be President or VP?
To be fair, there was remarkably little real discussion in this debate, but this seems to be a common response to debates in general. Why don't people ever say "His reasoning for his argument on that topic was much better than the other guy's"?
That's exactly why folks can only comment on behavior. All that was hashed out was old talking points and old insults that have already been worn out. The only new thing was how the participants interacted, and behaved. Nothing was informative, everything was "Same Old" and Kaine was the entertainment for the evening minus the big red nose and the big floppy clown shoes.
I think Kaine overplayed his hand with repeating that Pence couldn't defend Trump. Everybody knew he would likely have motive going in but he basically came out and said that he was there to try and score cheap political points.
I can agree but at the same time Pence is a running mate, he needs to truly defend the man running for President on the same ticket he is a Vice-President nominee on.
To be fair though, both did pretty much towards their base.
"There are two main takeaways. One is that Kaine came off overly aggressive and seemed too eager to get in his memorized talking points. The other is that Pence happily and calmly defended a version of his running mate that doesn’t exist. In Pence’s telling, Trump would be tough on Putin, would never support prosecuting women for having abortions, uses his family charity solely for charitable purposes, etc. And when called on these discrepancies, Pence simply said that Trump isn’t a polished candidate so sometimes says things he doesn’t mean." ~ Seth Masket, Prof of Political Science, Univ of Denver
I could not believe how sleazy of a tactic that moderator of the VP debate leveled against Pence anytime he was about to land a hard and heavy blow against Hillary. Whether it was Benghazi, Russia, or ESPECIALLY the email negligence, she would be sure to jump in with some BS interruptions at just the right moment and quickly break away to another subject. It was so disgusting and obvious that I hope even the Grubers watching the debate saw what she was doing as yet another of the endless examples of gross MSM bias to protect Hillary.
Meanwhile, Kaine was just a total stooge for Hillary and that was obvious to everyone, even the most guillable Gruber I would think.
"There are two main takeaways. One is that Kaine came off overly aggressive and seemed too eager to get in his memorized talking points. The other is that Pence happily and calmly defended a version of his running mate that doesn’t exist. In Pence’s telling, Trump would be tough on Putin, would never support prosecuting women for having abortions, uses his family charity solely for charitable purposes, etc. And when called on these discrepancies, Pence simply said that Trump isn’t a polished candidate so sometimes says things he doesn’t mean." Seth Masket, Prof of Political Science, Univ of Denver
That maybe true about Trump BUT we can't afford an untested unpolished candidate like Trump. We have troubling times and Trump's track record in troubling times is selling off or bankruptcy. You can't do either to a country, even with crushing debt.
I do see Kaine being aggressive, too aggressive at that however the problem with Pence I heard was not that he spoke of an image of Trump that isn't true, it's just that it was throwing up red meat towards the base rather than expanding it. Kaine even if it was aggressive, he tried to broaden Hillary's base.
the media is not even trying to kind of fake like they aren't in the tank for Hillary at this point. they realize there is nothing GOP can do about it.
Why do discussions about debate winners always focus on such shallow points? When people are asked who won, they always point to things like "he was rude" or "he sounded such and such way" or "she seemed X." What on earth does that have to do with who should be President or VP?
To be fair, there was remarkably little real discussion in this debate, but this seems to be a common response to debates in general. Why don't people ever say "His reasoning for his argument on that topic was much better than the other guy's"?
Debates have always been about who looks more composed and relaxed not about who has more substance unless of course you are a complete clueless idiot like Donald J. Trump.
Now this is a VP debate, no one will remember it by Thursday.
Pence should get some credit for using a word you hear sometimes in debates but rarely anywhere else -- "feckless."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Moderator Bias
