"Official" Thread Vice-presidential candidate debate thread!

Racer88

Racer88

Big Kahuna Admin
Staff member
Exchange Privileges
Joined
Feb 26, 2022
Messages
13,313
Reaction score
14,963
Points
168
Location
USA! USA!
I figured I'd get this posted up and ready to go for tonight.

Who's planning on watching?

My prediction is that Vance is going to wipe the floor with Walz.
 
I might listen on the radio but I DO have a pimple that needs popping... :unsure:
 
I'm definitely watching. I think this will be better than the Trump-Harris debate.

You KNOW that "Stolen Valor" Walz is NOT looking forward to going up against an articulate Marine who actually did see combat.
 
I’ll turn it on if it’s interesting I’ll watch. I’m not to hip on the rehearsed talk styles, body language and posturing. I’d like to see them take the gloves off and go at it.

As far back as I can remember promises are made that never happen- that’s on both sides/all sides.
 
Racer88 said:
I'm definitely watching. I think this will be better than the Trump-Harris debate.

You KNOW that "Stolen Valor" Walz is NOT looking forward to going up against an articulate Marine who actually did see combat.
Click to expand...
The Trump/Harris debate, I think, was predictable. Harris baited Trump to get a rise out of him while she is given softball questions that wouldn’t be fact checked. This might be more exciting. Vance is a cooler head and Walz is,…well we’ll see how he stacks up against a real veteran. But the media will play favorites so no surprise there.
 
T-minus 10 minutes
 
Let's get ready to ruuuuuuuuuuuummmmmmmble!
 
I only just started watching, but so far it seems way more fair in the moderation than the tag team (moderators AND Kamala vs Trump) that happened in the Trump vs Harris debate.
 
Last edited:
Dave said:
I only just started watching, but so far it seems way more fair in the moderation than the tag team (moderators AND Kamala vs Trump) that happened in the Trump vs Harris debate.
Click to expand...
I would agree on the moderation.

I think Vance is doing very well. Super-articulate. And I'll say that Walz is doing better than I expected. But I'll still say he's out of his league here.
 
There were many things that Walz said that I could have crushed him on in that debate, but there is one perennially-used LIE by the left that drives me BANANAS, and that is the "You can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater." This is not just a little false, it's 100% false. And I can bury ANYONE (with facts) who smugly regurgitates that fallacious canard.

Walz was recorded just a week or two ago saying, "The First Amendment doesn't protect misinformation." Actually it DOES, you tyrannical MORON.

Vance was correct in his declaration that the REAL threat to democracy is the current attack on the 1st Amendment by the left via admitted attempts to censor any speech that questions or contradicts their narrative.
 
Last edited:
FB_IMG_1727872065316.jpg
 
Racer88 said:
There were many things that Walz said that I could have crushed him on in that debate, but there is one perennially-used LIE by the left that drives me BANANAS, and that is the "You can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater." This is not just a little false, it's 100% false. And I can bury ANYONE (with facts) who smugly regurgitates that fallacious canard.

Walz was recorded just a week or two ago saying, "The First Amendment doesn't protect misinformation." Actually it DOES, you tyrannical MORON.

Vance was correct in his declaration that the REAL threat to democracy is the current attack on the 1st Amendment by the left via admitted attempts to censor any speech that questions or contradicts their narrative.
Click to expand...
Here's the thing about yelling fire in a crowded theatre:

1. As you say it really is not illegal like people think it is.
2. If someone falsely yells fire while I'm in the theatre and creates a panic, he may be looking at some physical therapy after his visit to the ER. If I get the chance. I don't care about his rights.
 
Bongo Lewi said:
Here's the thing about yelling fire in a crowded theatre:

1. As you say it really is not illegal like people think it is.
Click to expand...
It drives me fucking nuts when I hear that argument made. And it's usually made in a very SMUG manner. And when they do that, I unleash the full-auto fact machine gun. Admittedly, it doesn't win me any friends. LOL! Being right usually means you're a dick (to them). When it comes to getting facts straight, I'm a big swingin' dick. ;)

It's been repeated so many times that people don't question it at all. I get blank stares when I correct them.
 
Last edited:
Racer88 said:
It's been repeated so many times that people don't question it at all. I get blank stares when I correct them.
Click to expand...
Mostly, it's an axiom. Literally and legally you are correct. But members of a law abiding and polite society would consider yelling fire in a theatre when there isnt one to be repugnant. Hostile... disobedient, inappropriate.

Sadly, humans are not Vulcans.
 
Bongo Lewi said:
Mostly, it's an axiom. Literally and legally you are correct. But members of a law abiding and polite society would consider yelling fire in a theatre when there isnt one to be repugnant. Hostile... disobedient, inappropriate.

Sadly, humans are not Vulcans.
Click to expand...
That's illogical!
 
Bongo Lewi said:
Mostly, it's an axiom. Literally and legally you are correct. But members of a law abiding and polite society would consider yelling fire in a theatre when there isnt one to be repugnant. Hostile... disobedient, inappropriate.

Sadly, humans are not Vulcans.
Click to expand...
Yes... but they're using it to justify state-sponsored or state-directed censorship. Not a some some sort of axiomatic courtesy or "unwritten social convention."

And that's exactly what Walz said and meant... to justify censorship. Vance called him on a recent interview where he claimed "Misinformation is not protected by the 1st Amendment." Yes. Yes, it is.

And because it is socially axiomatic, it is leveraged to control the public, and the public BUYS IT. They've heard it SO much, they assume it's true. The tyrants use it to argue that there are "limitations" on Free Speech or our other Rights, when there are NOT. Such limitations are called "Prior Restraint." And Prior Restraint is and has been ruled unconstitutional. Period. The end.
 
Last edited:

Share this page

Back
Top