They actually have the same vision for our country, it’s called late stage capitalism and until kamala ends the genocide im not fucking voting for her. And if you are, at least have the decency to feel gross about it. I hate liberal idiots this time of year I swear
I appreciate how thorough you are. I agree there was and is no contest. Walz was lucid and spoke well, eventually answering most questions to some degree, while Vance did not answer any questions.
Trump made things so much worse in the world because of his presidency, and we cannot afford another one. Vance seemed so restrained in answering any questions, like he wanted to say something but wouldn’t, or perhaps couldn’t, especially when asked if Trump lost the last election. It truly was a very telling no-answer.
So concise. I was watching the debate, and Vance is well spoken and polished.
However, he is oily like a desperate used car salesman on a lumpy lot. At that point, when his lies became unbearable, I quit watching. It was enlightening to read your input. Vance is an educated sociopath.
This seems to me to be an assessment that deserves everyone's respect and careful understanding. Thank you, Qasim.
You've provided facts to support voting for the Harris-Walz team and because of the interests and norms that they campaign on putting their support behind.
I find very important your observation early on about the assumption behind the first question; you note, "I found it disturbing that the opening question readily assumed that preemptive strikes are on the table. If the Bush doctrine with Iraq has taught us anything, igniting war leads to mass death and destruction—not peace." Such a foreign policy question needed to address the US position and within the scope of US law and international law and norms, as well as the lesson, as you sincerely note, ''...war leads to mass death and destruction -- not peace." The question could also have been framed to be historically factual in relation to US policy efforts, e.g., those that contributed to the JCPOA, and e.g., US military assistance and related expenditures involved in its relations with Middle East nations.
Finally, it is useful to wonder what were the conscious objectives of J D Vance's remarks? Who did he intend to reach and to reassure, perhaps further embolden politically? In reading comment on the debate, there is this: "JD Vance 4.0 Is Here", by Jonathan V Last, Oct 02 2024, wherein the observation is made, '' 'The latest upgrade to JDos aims for a chaotic-good character alignment. Not sure how well MAGA is going to take to that.' '' J D Vance is positioning himself. He cares less about means as he does about achieving his objectives, which he shares with his colleagues in the American conservative radical right community and among some radical right Republicans [for example, listen to "MAGA According to JD Vance (with Ian Ward guest and Sarah Longwell interviewer, Aug 17, 2024, https://www.thebulwark.com › p › maga-according-to-jd-vance-with-ian ... ].
J D Vance is plotting.
Gov Walz demonstrated the opposite: he voiced the intention he and VP Harris share to participate in the American people's positive and optimistic intention to strengthen constitutional democracy and improve American opportunity under the rule of law.
Not debate specific, but i wonder if Americans might have more sympathy for Palestinians if they realized that a fair number of Palestinians are Christian. 🤔
Thank you for what I have come to expect from you: clear, concise and consistently truthful information. There are some corporate media outlets which want to say that vance won the debate. How can an accomplished liar win anything? This is the flaw of the corporate media. They want to use the “both sides” concept to excuse the behavior and lies that vance and trump continue to double down on. I am not sure that they are afraid of. I do know that I cannot trust these people with being the fourth estate as why should be. Nixon would have gotten away with Watergate if these fools had been around.
Thank you. Vance "won" in the sense that he didn't come off creepy or as a petulant child (except when he whined that he got fact checked). The bar is so low for MAGA politicians that anything short of throwing something is considered a victory. Walz was the adult in the room and it showed.
Some have said that he came off as a creepy used car salesman. I don’t understand why their behavior has been normalized. Thanks for that extra clarification!
Thanks for the summary. I turned it off around minute 10. My TV was in danger of having items thrown at it. I was unable to stomach Vance’s good-guy act and his very effective ability to make the lies he was spewing seem so genuine. It made me sick and it made me furious.
Insightful, but your commentary stated Harris’ administration or her actions, when she is and has been the Vice President, a distinction that needs to be shouted from the rafters. It is Biden’s administration, until Harris is voted in and becomes President (gods willing).
Yes! This drove me crazy in the debate! Vance kept calling it her administration. It's not! She is NOT calling the shots. Nor was she the "border czar". She was tasked with investigating ways to improve the situations in countries people were fleeing.
The fact that Harris, Walz, their speech-writers, and the rest of their team seeem terminally incapable of doing a basic Google before speaking about 10/7 reflects really, really badly on their intelligence let alone their competence. 1195 is not 1400, 1200, "over 1200", and all the other inaccurate counts they have given. The fact that not all of those 1195 were killed by H*mas is highly freaking relevant (https://www.oct7factcheck.com/oct7factcheck/Friendly-fire-Israelis-killed-by-IDF-on-10-7-53b53822642740209685ec54c8ca2cac), as is the fact that 815 were confirmed to be civilians. This is basic fact-checking, and their inability to do it doesn't help engender confidence.
If they insist on continuing to bring it up and use it as de-facto justification to continuing breaking domestic and international law (as the "law and order candidates"), they need to do better. Which, to be clear, I'm rooting for them to do - I want the chance to organize toward a sustainably strong 3rd-party presence in local, state, and federal elections so that we have a shot at a viable 3rd-party presidential candidate in 4 or 8 years. Only possible if there are future elections, which is not the plan of the candidates who have already hired over 8,000 people with the express purpose of dismantling democracy in favor of a dictatorship.
Walz should have put much more emphasis on corporate greed as the cause of most inflation, especially in food prices and housing costs.
An honest, intelligent person watching the debate would indeed agree that Walz “won” in persuasively presenting the facts and the benefits of the Harris-Walz program. I can only hope that there are enough voters like that for the Harris-Walz ticket to prevail.
The moderators should have been more assertive in making Vance answer the questions that were asked instead of ranting on with debunked tRumpian fantasies. But I was pleasantly surprised that they did cut the microphones when things got out of control… well, once, anyway.
thx Qasim for summarizing the debate; the graphs you included are great. would be a trick tho would love this to get to the ‘uncommitted’ especially with the ‘have to scan a code for fact checking’ - how many did that and were all statements checked?
They actually have the same vision for our country, it’s called late stage capitalism and until kamala ends the genocide im not fucking voting for her. And if you are, at least have the decency to feel gross about it. I hate liberal idiots this time of year I swear
Snake Oil Salesmen who sound rational and honest are DANGEROUS 😳 ☠️. Low information voters will fall for his lies!💩💩💩👹💙💙💙💙💙💙
Thank you Qasim, again!
I appreciate how thorough you are. I agree there was and is no contest. Walz was lucid and spoke well, eventually answering most questions to some degree, while Vance did not answer any questions.
Trump made things so much worse in the world because of his presidency, and we cannot afford another one. Vance seemed so restrained in answering any questions, like he wanted to say something but wouldn’t, or perhaps couldn’t, especially when asked if Trump lost the last election. It truly was a very telling no-answer.
Thank you Joseph and well said.
Splendid summary. I agree. I don't see how in the world Trump wins. Harris Walz will be such a relief and celebrated worldwide.
So concise. I was watching the debate, and Vance is well spoken and polished.
However, he is oily like a desperate used car salesman on a lumpy lot. At that point, when his lies became unbearable, I quit watching. It was enlightening to read your input. Vance is an educated sociopath.
This seems to me to be an assessment that deserves everyone's respect and careful understanding. Thank you, Qasim.
You've provided facts to support voting for the Harris-Walz team and because of the interests and norms that they campaign on putting their support behind.
I find very important your observation early on about the assumption behind the first question; you note, "I found it disturbing that the opening question readily assumed that preemptive strikes are on the table. If the Bush doctrine with Iraq has taught us anything, igniting war leads to mass death and destruction—not peace." Such a foreign policy question needed to address the US position and within the scope of US law and international law and norms, as well as the lesson, as you sincerely note, ''...war leads to mass death and destruction -- not peace." The question could also have been framed to be historically factual in relation to US policy efforts, e.g., those that contributed to the JCPOA, and e.g., US military assistance and related expenditures involved in its relations with Middle East nations.
Finally, it is useful to wonder what were the conscious objectives of J D Vance's remarks? Who did he intend to reach and to reassure, perhaps further embolden politically? In reading comment on the debate, there is this: "JD Vance 4.0 Is Here", by Jonathan V Last, Oct 02 2024, wherein the observation is made, '' 'The latest upgrade to JDos aims for a chaotic-good character alignment. Not sure how well MAGA is going to take to that.' '' J D Vance is positioning himself. He cares less about means as he does about achieving his objectives, which he shares with his colleagues in the American conservative radical right community and among some radical right Republicans [for example, listen to "MAGA According to JD Vance (with Ian Ward guest and Sarah Longwell interviewer, Aug 17, 2024, https://www.thebulwark.com › p › maga-according-to-jd-vance-with-ian ... ].
J D Vance is plotting.
Gov Walz demonstrated the opposite: he voiced the intention he and VP Harris share to participate in the American people's positive and optimistic intention to strengthen constitutional democracy and improve American opportunity under the rule of law.
Not debate specific, but i wonder if Americans might have more sympathy for Palestinians if they realized that a fair number of Palestinians are Christian. 🤔
Sounds like the only good Indian is a dead Indian!
I recently interviewed Palestinian Christian Pastor Munther Isaac on this question exactly. Sadly he himself said the cruelty ignored Arab Christians.
This is a fantastic write up. Thank you for the work that you do!
Thank you Lee ❤️✊🏽
Thank you for what I have come to expect from you: clear, concise and consistently truthful information. There are some corporate media outlets which want to say that vance won the debate. How can an accomplished liar win anything? This is the flaw of the corporate media. They want to use the “both sides” concept to excuse the behavior and lies that vance and trump continue to double down on. I am not sure that they are afraid of. I do know that I cannot trust these people with being the fourth estate as why should be. Nixon would have gotten away with Watergate if these fools had been around.
Thank you. Vance "won" in the sense that he didn't come off creepy or as a petulant child (except when he whined that he got fact checked). The bar is so low for MAGA politicians that anything short of throwing something is considered a victory. Walz was the adult in the room and it showed.
Some have said that he came off as a creepy used car salesman. I don’t understand why their behavior has been normalized. Thanks for that extra clarification!
Thanks for the summary. I turned it off around minute 10. My TV was in danger of having items thrown at it. I was unable to stomach Vance’s good-guy act and his very effective ability to make the lies he was spewing seem so genuine. It made me sick and it made me furious.
If Vance isn't careful with that slimy approach he might give lawyers a bad name. :)
😂😂😂😂😂
Insightful, but your commentary stated Harris’ administration or her actions, when she is and has been the Vice President, a distinction that needs to be shouted from the rafters. It is Biden’s administration, until Harris is voted in and becomes President (gods willing).
Yes! This drove me crazy in the debate! Vance kept calling it her administration. It's not! She is NOT calling the shots. Nor was she the "border czar". She was tasked with investigating ways to improve the situations in countries people were fleeing.
The fact that Harris, Walz, their speech-writers, and the rest of their team seeem terminally incapable of doing a basic Google before speaking about 10/7 reflects really, really badly on their intelligence let alone their competence. 1195 is not 1400, 1200, "over 1200", and all the other inaccurate counts they have given. The fact that not all of those 1195 were killed by H*mas is highly freaking relevant (https://www.oct7factcheck.com/oct7factcheck/Friendly-fire-Israelis-killed-by-IDF-on-10-7-53b53822642740209685ec54c8ca2cac), as is the fact that 815 were confirmed to be civilians. This is basic fact-checking, and their inability to do it doesn't help engender confidence.
If they insist on continuing to bring it up and use it as de-facto justification to continuing breaking domestic and international law (as the "law and order candidates"), they need to do better. Which, to be clear, I'm rooting for them to do - I want the chance to organize toward a sustainably strong 3rd-party presence in local, state, and federal elections so that we have a shot at a viable 3rd-party presidential candidate in 4 or 8 years. Only possible if there are future elections, which is not the plan of the candidates who have already hired over 8,000 people with the express purpose of dismantling democracy in favor of a dictatorship.
Damn it!! 1400 people killed by Hamas on 10/6??? According to Haaretz, several Israelis were killed by the IDF!
Walz should have put much more emphasis on corporate greed as the cause of most inflation, especially in food prices and housing costs.
An honest, intelligent person watching the debate would indeed agree that Walz “won” in persuasively presenting the facts and the benefits of the Harris-Walz program. I can only hope that there are enough voters like that for the Harris-Walz ticket to prevail.
The moderators should have been more assertive in making Vance answer the questions that were asked instead of ranting on with debunked tRumpian fantasies. But I was pleasantly surprised that they did cut the microphones when things got out of control… well, once, anyway.
He should have!
Yep, well said.
thx Qasim for summarizing the debate; the graphs you included are great. would be a trick tho would love this to get to the ‘uncommitted’ especially with the ‘have to scan a code for fact checking’ - how many did that and were all statements checked?
I love visuals.
Thank you for this excellent summary ! I appreciate your hard work.
Thank you, SB.