Harris Vs Trump 2024 US Presidential election - read the warning in the OP posted 18/09/24

Has to be said I think on the whole Vance was a bit better from a debating point of view.

Vance sounded smoother and had less waffley parts. Walz gaffe on the "knowing school shooter" I'm sure our centrists will be hopping on tomorrow. And his Tiananmen square answer was pretty awkward.

There is a soundbite which I do think overrides most of the debate which was the final few moments when Vance decided not to answer the question on whether Trump lost the election or not. He dodged the question completely and Walz called him out on it. That was really bad and for being one of the top issues in the race it could really come back to bite him.

I doubt any of the content tonight will move the dial in either direction. Walz had a rough start, babbled a bit throughout, but finished strong. Vance was as expected, composed but tanked on refusing to admit 45 lost the election, and denying the reality of Jan 6th. It felt like Vance was auditioning for 2028. He edged it on a whole, but I can't see any significant percentage of the electorate choosing a candidate based on either performance. Typical VP debate. We won't hear them speak again until they want to be president, not that I think either of them are suited to the role after tonight.

except what he was trying to argue was categorically false…

Vance was trying to allege lawful Haitian migrants, who again are here legally, are here illegally, because in his opinion the legal process used was “unconstitutional” - this isn’t new from him, ABC fact checked this months ago

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/fact-checking-jd-vances-claims-haitian-migrants-springfield/story?id=113844705

At a campaign stop in North Carolina, Vance repeatedly portrayed the Haitian migrants not only in Springfield but the thousands across the nation as being brought into the U.S. illegally by Vice President Kamala Harris. He said they will be deported under a Trump-Vance administration.

Discussing the pathways under which many Haitian migrants have been brought to the U.S or allowed to stay temporarily -- a humanitarian parole program known as CHNV and Temporary Protected Status -- Vance claimed Harris "used two programs to wave a wand and to say, we're not going to deport those people here."

"Well, if Kamala Harris waves the wand illegally and says, these people are now here legally, I'm still going to call them an illegal alien," Vance said.

TPS is a program that began in 1990 and was extended to Haitian migrants in 2010 under then-President Barack Obama after a devastating earthquake. The protections were extended by Department of Homeland Security under the Trump administration, although he subsequently tried to end protections, prompting court challenges. Biden most recently extended TPS this past June through Feb. 3, 2026.

He can stamp his feet about it but they are legally here.

“A federal judge on Friday allowed the Biden administration to continue a program that it has used to give temporary legal status to hundreds of thousands of citizens of Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/08/us/biden-texas-temporary-status-program-immigration.html

SCOTUS weighed in on this back in 2021, and allowed TPS to stay on the books, while rescinding extensions for anyone who entered the country illegally. There is no evidence the Haitians in Springfield ever entered illegally, and they are still here years later - QED. Biden’s extension through 2026 would have to comply with the 2021 ruling (and if it didn’t comply with the ruling, Republicans would have impeached him 8 months ago for contempt of court, ergo, it is constitutional)

So no he is not “right to” and you’d be wrong to take him at his word. This is the same person who said he’d continue to make up stories to get attention just the other week:

“If I have to create stories so that the American media actually pays attention to the suffering of the American people, then that’s what I’m going to do”

Oh, it's definitely a direction. "Best you don't do that Donald, you'll fuck it up…bigly".

This seems to be the common refrain of trump supporters here too! What are the odds....

Common take is Walz was too polite. It'd come across perhaps as insincere if he went in hard, and then you have that contingent who would say he was too aggressive if he did press hard.

Probably won't move the needle at all, but it's done now and no missteps from Walz, which is the main thing.

Nice bit of selective quoting there, like the other time Vance had to fact check the moderators,

MB: ... The Federal Reserve says parents will spend nearly as much on childcare as they do on housing each month. So I want to get your thoughts on this. President Trump recently said, as much as child care is talked about as being expensive, it's, relatively speaking, not very expensive compared to the kinds of numbers we'll be taking in. Is President Trump committed to the $5,000 per child tax credit that you have described? You have 1 minute.

JDV: Well, what President Trump said, Margaret, I just want to defend my running mate here a little bit, is that we're going to be taking in a lot of money by penalizing companies for shipping jobs overseas and penalizing countries who employ slave laborers and then ship their products back into our country and undercut the wages of American workers. [...] And I think what President Trump is saying is that when we bring in this additional revenue with higher economic growth, we're going to be able to provide paid family leave, childcare options that are viable and workable for a lot of American families.

Very confusing way to state the question, you'd almost think deliberately so

"Nice bit of selective quoting there"

Roll the tape..

I think only in part because they were quoting Trump's response when asked about it previously, and Trump's response was widely seen as confusing.

I didn't see the debate, but my reading of the above is that Vance probably said they'll implement a tax credit, the moderators then quoted Trump's previous response to the same question and asked if Trump also supports the tax credit, and Vance tried to then segue from and expand on what Trump said into saying he also supports the tax credit (ie. We'll be taking in so much more from other countries on trade, that that will offset the money we can give as child tax credits).

America 2024, VP candidate crying wambulance live air because he isn't allowed to spout lies.

Didnt see any of it but that makes Vance sound weak as hell.

I am not disputing that but he is just drawing more attention to his lie and sounding weak.

I don't know if I share your confidence, there, because, firstly, Trump's national lead in those primaries was unassailable and secondly all those candidates could have bolstered their numbers with simple campaigning, but they failed to manage to even get close.