436
Yep. Only in his case, he was so obviously bonkers that he only appealed to Republicans who wanted a slightly different flavor of insanity from Trump, so pushing him was something of a foot-bullet.
"Guys, guys... If we just hurt these kids enough, it will force them back into the closet and we'll get to pretend LGBTQ+ kids don't exist!" - These assholes, probably
That's what I try to point out to climate change deniers. Insurance companies live or die based on risk, so they have to be extraordinarily hard-nosed realists about it. They literally can't afford to pretend the climate isn't changing.
Sadly, it's the coastal areas that are the nicest, while the middle of the state is unpleasantly humid much of the year. The last time I was in Florida, I spent considerable time in Orlando, and hated every minute of it.
There's also the issue of seawater pollution in their drinking water. It's going to keep getting worse.
They should not. As the climate continues to change, Florida is going to continue to be the recipient of yearly mega-storms that destroy towns over and over.
I am fully convinced that large chunks of Florida are technically no longer habitable, and trying to live there anymore is a mistake.
He didn't do himself any favors when he refused to admit the 2020 election wasn't stolen and acted like the slippery weasel he is when questioned on abortion.
Morning after thoughts:
- Walz is not actually a bad debater. He's not polished and practiced, but his command of policy and numbers means he still comes across as fairly confident. He knows what he knows, and that can stand in for polish.
- Vance didn't do badly, but I genuinely can't remember any of his answers, and that's kind of weird. I think it's because he answered like he'd been raised by a generative AI instead of human parents. Seriously, can anyone actually remember anything he said, without looking it up?
- Walz had more flubs. But he also got in a lot more hits. It remains to be seen which will stick in the minds of voters more, if either.
- The lack of Trump on the stage made this one a lot more mature. It's amazing what a difference it makes when one of the debaters isn't a demented man-baby.
The way I see it, Walz's clearly superior command of policy details, and the way that fact-checkers are counting nearly everything Vance said as a lie, gives Walz the technical win, while Vance gets the nod for being more polished. In the end, I don't think this debate will matter much to the election.
Those with an interest in history might remember that back during the 1988 election, Lloyd Bentsen absolutely demolished Dan Quayle, George H.W. Bush's pick for VP, in a debate. But it was forgotten in a matter of days - if not hours - and Bush went on to win handily.
I think this debate will likely be forgotten soon, too.
A little more than an hour in...
Vance has been exactly as polished as expected, other than a slightly rough start coming off as robotic. He's managed a few genuinely human-seeming moments, too, especially upon learning that one of Walz's kids witnessed a shooting. But he's been lying nearly constantly.
Walz isn't as polished, but he's been doing much better in that department than I would have expected, while still coming off as very nice and genuine. He's had a couple of flubs, but none of them were debate killers, while he's gotten in far more actual hits than Vance, by far. Like, it's not even close.
There's another thing: Vance is legitimately boring to listen to. I didn't realize this before, but his voice could be used as a sleep aid.
I'm biased. I'll own that. So take from this what you will: I think Walz is winning. It's close, but I think he's coming off as more honest and more real, while Vance is coming off as dishonest and plastic.
Vance: "The white guys shooting up schools with legally purchased guns are the fault of immigrants."
I'm enjoying the fact that CBS brought receipts about Vance's past statements about Donald Trump.
Mics got cut. Nice.
35
New law calls for creation of ‘first-ever’ national plan, council to conquer Parkinson’s disease
(www.mcknightsseniorliving.com)
342
100
view more: next ›
What you're seeing is the end result of literally decades of propaganda. Objectively, Democrats have been better for the economy for about 90 years.