politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Convince people. The quick polls are already in.
Walz is fine though. I don't remember any mistake honestly. But the numbers are in already. We can say solidly that JD Vance did better.
22 people is hardly a survey for a national election, and is a total nonanswer. I'm asking you what you think Vance did better.
Image, body language. Looking at the camera with the "Marine Stare" to show off with body language his disdain for a particular topic or response from Walz (while Walz's body language was not nearly as effective at showing JD Vance's weird shit).
If you're not aware of what "Republicans see as weird", well... guess what?? JD Vance is, and he's able to rally people with just a glance. It was clearly effective. Though perhaps in a "deeper" political look / visual communication cue rather than actual talking.
JD Vance is the complete package. Walz is well spoken but not quite as emoted and not as good of a reaction to JD Vance.
Don't get me wrong, JD Vance is fucking nuts. But if you're not seeing JD Vance's good performance here, you're at risk at underestimating the scope of the problem here.
EDIT: Like... base things. The things people care about. Like, "Who looked more like a soldier" (especially on the meta-topic of JD Vance service record vs Tim Walz's service record), JD Vance looked more like a soldier. Base things that appeal to the ID and not logic. JD Vance is spot on on these issues.
I don't think it matters because Donald Trump is the actual topic of discussion. But JD Vance's performance is better than you'd think within a Republican mindset.
Its fine because Walz didn't need to win this debate. Walz just needed to punt and he's accomplished that. JD Vance isn't going to turn all of Trump's ills away with one good debate performance either (especially since Walz wasn't crushed or defeated).
Walz needed to introduce his personality to the country. And Walz did that. Good. Take the W for what it is, but don't overplay your hand here. This isn't like the Harris v Trump debate where Harris crushed Trump. This is actually slight win to JD Vance IMO but Walz is good enough to not damage Harris's campaign kinda debate.
Because the point of an election is to determine who has the best body language. You heard it here first folks
You all don’t seem to understand how stupid people vote. Or what’s important to them or most importantly HOW FUCKING MANY OF THEM YHERE ARE.
Trump looks like he's about to fall forward at all times, and his blank, geriatric, demented stare is honestly a spectical at this point, paired with his constant word salad.
I guess that means Kamala wins, folks. Wrap it up, everyone. It's over. Let's go home and move on.
You jest but half a country are below average intelligence. It’s not outlandish to think that many individuals in that half aren’t really following what is being said or understand it. What they can follow is the visuals. How they look, how they stand, how they move; how they “read”. And a non-trivial number of above average people still judge books by their covers.
I think the point the person above was trying to make is that Vance won the area the majority of people can evaluate and the importance of visuals.
Harris's body language was far superior to Trump's. And is part of why she crushed him so completely.
EDIT: Body language is incredibly important to QAnon btw, because QAnon believes that JD Vance is not free to speak his mind. So these nods and looks JD Vance are doing are non-verbal acknowledgements that also plays to the whole "Q" and "Deep State" shit. Yadda-yadda.
I'm not sure if you're recognizing the threat this body language actually is, or the role its playing in this debate. Tim Walz certainly looks completely ignorant to it all (or at least, doesn't want to deal with it). This is JD Vance literally leaning into Q-shit and rallying it.
Wow, and I thought your first post was full of maga copium, but damn, this one takes the cake.
Who the actual fuck gives a single wet shit what QTurds have to say?
At least anybody who is seriously trying to figure out how to get Kamala and Walz across the finish line.
Q-shits and other groups like that are how we got Trump in the first place. We must defeat that ideology not because of a trump, but because QAnon will continue to influence our politics over the rest of our lives, long after the 78-year old orange man is dead.
Sitting around in a circle pretending Walz had a better night than he actually did is counterproductive. Walz did fine but we must be honest with ourselves here. JD Vance did very well.
At a bare minimum, we need to be honest about which parts of this debate we need to meme and spread around. This moment in this topic is a self-own and plays to Q-anon. So NOT meme this, it's counterproductive.
Our opponents think the media is in cahoots with Harris / Walz, that Walz is scripted and Harris has an earpiece telling her the answers. To see the moderators of the debate challenge JD Vance like this is proof of the conspiracy. It's not the shining moment you think it is politically speaking.
January 6th moment later in the debate? Meme that. Spread that one. You need to be strategic about the message if you want any hope of winning. This election is closer than it should be so we need to give it everything we got to reach across the finish line.