123
submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by jordanlund@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

Final (?) Debate thread before the election in 35 days.

Debate begins at 9 PM Eastern, 6 PM Pacific and runs 90 minutes.

Vice Presidential debates are always tricky since nobody has voted for Vice President in living memory.

Expect Vance to attack Walz on his military service.

Expect Walz to attack Vance on the whole "immigrants eating cats and dogs" thing.

Expect Vance to attack Walz on being an assistant coach, at best.

Expect Walz to roll out "Weird!" at least once.

CBS has announced the burden of fact checking will be on the candidates themselves.

https://apnews.com/article/cbs-debate-vice-president-fact-check-7a3b31c98ab092dd44915df57a359d10

How to watch here:

https://apnews.com/article/cbs-debate-vice-president-fact-check-7a3b31c98ab092dd44915df57a359d10

"How can you watch the VP debate on cable? 

CBS will air debate coverage starting at 8 p.m. ET on CBS broadcast stations and affiliates. Find your local station here.

How can you stream the VP debate without cable? 

The debate can be streamed on the free CBS News app on your connected TV or smartphone, on Paramount+, and all platforms where CBS News 24/7 is available, including CBSNews.com and YouTube. 

Debate coverage on CBS News 24/7 begins at 4 p.m. ET."

Edit Impressive how a debate can go when one participant doesn't have mental health issues! Thanks for coming everybody!

(page 8) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] monkeyslikebananas2@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

You mean like the fucking bill Trump killed!? Ok i am done. I’ve seen enough

[-] kescusay@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

Why does Vance look so airbrushed?

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] drunkpostdisaster@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

Is that what he thinks trump is saying or is that what he knows his running mate his saying?

[-] smokebuddy@lemmy.today 4 points 2 weeks ago

folks folks folks

[-] monkeyslikebananas2@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

This clown just going to pretend he’s a democrat for this answer?

[-] BarrelAgedBoredom@lemm.ee 4 points 2 weeks ago

I think they're both full of shit about the ACA. Vance delivered lies and a nothing burger of a proposal. Walz said the system works. Pre and post trump it never worked. When it was mandatory, I was on the benefits cliff and couldn't afford the awful insurance that covered nothing (that also had an enormous deductible). I missed rent because of my state mandated health insurance. When trump made it voluntary, I had more money in my pocket and I still couldn't afford healthcare.

The ACA is fucked and needs to be replaced with a real socialized health system. Health insurance is corrupt and contrary to healthcare on a fundamental level. It should be abolished and outlawed.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] smokebuddy@lemmy.today 4 points 2 weeks ago

housing is up 60%?!?

[-] return2ozma@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

CNN pundits saying "Vance was obviously the better debater" and "Walz really dropped the ball and let Vance get away with too much"

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] kescusay@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

Walz answer was really good.

[-] monkeyslikebananas2@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] smokebuddy@lemmy.today 4 points 2 weeks ago

ok JD we get it your kids are beautiful

[-] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

I'm sorry, but I've got to go against the grain and say I don't think Walz is doing that well at all when it matters. He got caught in a huge lie and is becoming noticeably flustered. He's coming off as someone lacking experience at a national level and couldn't even clarify how his own law was written.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

Stiff and stumbly out of the gate. Nothing awful though.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 weeks ago

Does anyone know how to watch MSNBC’s coverage of this (i prefer their commentators) without having any subscriptions?

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] unemployedclaquer@sopuli.xyz 3 points 2 weeks ago

I feel like there's a history of these VP debates being pretentiously "more civil" than the main event, because the stakes are lower, etc. So there was that, here, in vance and walz being so nice and agreeing with each other.

But this shit was boring crazy. Vance just lied and was unable to hold Walz to account.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 3 points 2 weeks ago

Economics experts have PhDs don't have common sense?

[-] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

Walz seems really nice. And the VP doesn't usually matter that much. But it sure would be nice if that was Buttigieg or Shapiro up there. Buttigieg loves sparring with Republicans. He is a great attack dog, but thats not really what Walz's role seems to be, and that's OK, but considering the election is a coin flip, I just want every fraction of a percent of support Harris can get.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›
this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2024
123 points (96.9% liked)

politics

19043 readers
4062 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS