


RE: Oh Lord, It's Hard to be Humble
Message edited:
rendering error -- disregard
RE: Oh Lord, It's Hard to be Humble
You might arrive at that conclusion if you are continuing to listen exclusively to CNN, after I explained to you that not even liberals consider it to be a fair or serious news network in the US. Come on dude. This is exactly the problem with uninformed foreigners screaming to us about our elections. You have to look at the lean of the networks when considering who thinks a candidate won.
Here, I did some of your homework for you. Opinions on debate performance from The Standard, LA Times, USA Today, New York Times and Politico. In an immediate poll I participated in after the debate, it was 62-38 Vance over Walz.
For someone like me, this debate could well make the difference between voting or not for a candidate. For most Americans though, it won't.
RE: Oh Lord, It's Hard to be Humble
Message edited:
1. I referred to viewer polls, not "opinions". And, as I said, all the polls I saw had Vance by a slender margin. In terms of panelist opinions, most I read were split on who won, with a few claiming a tie. I could, without any effort, produce dozens of commentators who say Walz won; but I'm not as inclined to swallow highly partisan reviews as you think I am.
CNN: Walz 49% Vance 51%
CBS: Walz 41% Vance 42% tie 17%
Politico: Walz 50% Vance 50%
2. "Uninformed foreigners"? You "did my homework"? You really want to go down that path? Think carefully before you answer, because you know I'm perfectly willing to accommodate you.
3. Now tell us the name of the poll you participated in, and provide the link.
4. So this debate might decide who you vote for? Great. Then perhaps you'll take into account Vance's dodging and weaving, his refusal to answer the inconvenient questions, including who won the 2020 election, and his embarrassing fake turnaround on his opinion of Trump.
In what was, essentially, an even contest, I think part of the reason Vance did well was because people's expectations of him were so low. So the fact he managed to hold his own leads some to overrate his actual performance.
The important thing is not who won the debate, but who people are more likely to trust and believe. And the post-debate polls on that subject show Walz still streets ahead, for good reason.
RE: Oh Lord, It's Hard to be Humble
All three of the sources you mentioned (CNN, CBS, and Politico) are known to be left of center so I would take that with a major grain of salt. So is the Washington Times but they did some more interesting analysis, albeit not on a statistically significant scale. The Daily Mail, which leans right, also did a poll which indicated that Vance won 50-43. I think the poll I took was at Newsweek, which reports Vance over Walz 61-39 (scroll to bottom) which is almost exactly consistent with the 62-38 that I remembered. Newsweek's lean is almost dead center.
I agree with your last paragraph, except that Walz did not help his believability in this debate with his major flub on being called out for claiming to be present for Tiananmen Square. And it's not his first little white lie about his foreign service credentials.
RE: Oh Lord, It's Hard to be Humble
Message edited:
I don't know for certain whether he was simply confused when he made the initial statement, or thought he would get away with a lie.
Any person in public life who thought they could just pass off such a thing would have to be more than a little naive. Such a deliberate deception would be almost as stupid as claiming he was present helping first responders clear rubble at ground zero after the September 11 attack took place. But no one would be idiotic enough to claim that if it wasn't true, right?
Oh, there's one more to add to the list:
"No one knows more about clearing rubble after terrorist attacks than I do."
RE: Oh Lord, It's Hard to be Humble
Agreed. Did Trump say that? I wouldn't put it past him. Biden also has a history of the sort of exaggerations that Walz exhibits. Kinda concerning that Harris is choosing them as company. I don't think her own party really cares though. Just another case and point of American hubris on display.
RE: Oh Lord, It's Hard to be Humble
I watched the entire debate even though I got comfortably bored and even thought about switching to Netflix. But I struck it out.
Vance came across as a blinged-out hustler with a wicked smile flashing a diamond tooth funded by venture capitalist billionaire Peter Thiel. Vance's benefactor who has a net wealth almost double that of the radical right's boogeyman--George Soros.
Hillbilly Elegy Vance lied continuously to ensure his place at the head of the trough and knows he'll get away with it because MAGA supporters just don't care.
Walz has yet to learn how to go for the jugular so he came across as a Boy-Scout-knucklehead who made some stupid decisions in his youth with easily proved exaggerations. He can find his truth by using Donald Trump as his example. A man who couldn't care less that he has lied about many, many things including the lie that he helped in the recovery effort at ground zero with hundreds of his men that he paid for, even though his office only had 12 employees and half of them were women.
The Trump organization is a very small-scale family business. All the rest is smoke and mirrors. Trump built his house-of-cards empire on a huge inheritance from his father, bluffing, bullying and the hard work of women.
Now Trump has his wife, Melania out there saying she fundamentally supports abortion. Who is Donald trying to fool? And Marjorie Taylor Greene says climate change is God's punishment on humanity for abortion. So how is that contradiction reconciled? Is Trump's wife on the side of evil in this battle between good and evil? And when it comes down to it, which of the two women do you think Trump will say is "not my type".
RE: Oh Lord, It's Hard to be Humble
Some good observations above, and also a lot of spin that bears little relevance to US policy-making. Just saying "Vance lied continuously" is inadequate. Lay it out for us in detail, please.
Trump has never been "pro-life". No surprise there. Actually he has been more consistent and honest (Trump? Honest?) in this one area than most folks on the anti-abortion platform. He ran on sending the decision back to the states, and he has stuck with that, to the annoyance of many in his own camp with short memories. Laura Bush was more liberal minded than her husband too.
If we're gonna talk about money, then we gotta talk about fundraising totals. Harris is out-raising Trump by enormous margins. If Vance is corrupt, than Harris that much moreso. She still has yet to receive a single popular vote in this election cycle, and largely refuses to answer questions. Vance was right to make the debate all about her.
RE: Oh Lord, It's Hard to be Humble
...Why?...
RE: Oh Lord, It's Hard to be Humble
Indeed why?
perhaps our wise and outspoken primate (who is DEFINITELY NOT a trump-supporter) has merely adopted one of his stratagems. if you hear a question you don't like, simply ignore it.
Or, as in the latest scandal du jour, simply say "Who wants to listen to questions anyway. Let's spend the next 40 minutes listening to my Spotify playlist and you can watch me swaying about like an imbecile."
Yes, it's me, your favourite CNN-leaning foreigner, come back to spread his spurious views, pearls before swine.
So, we've mentioned the Pennsylvania debacle and Trump's woeful mental state is finally starting to be reflected on some of the front pages. then we had his bizarre answers arguing against the Bloomberg guy who is about 1,000 times smarter than Trump will ever be,
Mr Micklethwaite - Will you break up Google?
Trump - spends about 5 minutes rabbiting on about how the mean old DOJ are trying to get one of the Virginias to actually follow electoral law...
Mr Micklethwaite, with the patience of a saint - Mr President i was asking about Google...
PS The best part about Mr Micklethwaite was hearing the varied attempts of TV hosts to wrap their tongues around his name!
In the meantime, despite our domesticated Simian's claims to the contrary, Kamala is conducting interviews left, right and centre and tomorrow will even venture into the lion's den at Fox News, while her not-worthy opponent is refusing to debate her, declining to take part in the traditional 60 Minutes interview, abruptly pulling out of another interview... almost like someone is trying to hide his ineptitude from public view.
Oh, almost forgot. Trump left many of his loyal fans stranded in the desert at Coachella, apparently because he didn't pay the bus company hired to transport them back to the parking lot. Nice one, Donny!
I have an important question I'd like answered, but I may present it in a new thread. I have no idea what this one's supposed to be about any more.


Shoes On the Danube Bank
Write a Bob: The 1944 -1945 massacre of 20,000 innocents
Write a Bob: The 1944 -1945 massacre of 20,000 innocents
Pays:
8 points. and 94 member cents