That thing about when he was in China was a shitshow from top to bottom. I had never even heard of the “controversy” so it was probably some bullshit the moderators threw in to appease the conspiracy lunatics and appear balanced. Then his answer was a bunch of nothing and flailing around. I don’t think he even answered it. The closest he got was “that’s what I said” and didn’t address the accuracy of the statement or an explanation in his answer. And then he stopped with a few seconds left in his allotted time and froze up and stammered for the rest of it.
Tim Walz is, by all appearances, a stand up guy and smart as a tack. But that isn’t really what drives these debates. If they were won and lost on the merits, no Republican would have been elected in my lifetime. But they’re not about substance and by pretty much every measure that answer and interaction was a doozy of a loser.
But that was the only answer that he flubbed like that, so the night wasn’t a total disaster for Walz. It just wasn’t a win.
Itbwould have been cleaner if he said something along the lines of “I was there that summer and witnessed the people. History in the making. It was a few months after the march. I took my class’s blah blah blah.”
A “real politician” would have set the record straight without using a negative word like “I was wrong/incorrect”
His answer was a lot more genuine toe because of that. He over-explained due to nervousness and then said “I misspoke”
Exactly. The whole exchange seems like it caught him on the back foot and wasn’t something he was prepped for so he felt he had to explain the entire situation and got lost in his story and never put a bow on it. When the moderator pressed him after he had finished he followed up with basically “I misspoke, I apologize, shit happens”.
Meanwhile Vance refused to give a solid answer on who won in 2020, but people say he took the debate.
The fact that you got downvotes for this just shows how out of touch so many Lemmy users are. This is like the third time I’ve seen comments like yours take a hit because of the aversion to truth around here.
And your comment shows how out of touch you are. Correcting a claim that was off a few months decades ago isn’t even in the same stratosphere as refusing to acknowledge Trump lost the 2020 election. You’ve been brainwashed to normalize traitors.
Emotions run high around politics right now. Can’t I say I blame people for that. Shits fucked. And there is friendly fire from time to time when people feel like saying or acknowledging anything bad about “your side” is strengthening “the other side”. And hell maybe they’re right I don’t know. It’s all very subjective.
I would say Lemmy is very heavy on emotions. Not a diss on Lemmy. I think it’s a great platform but my god! It’s like being stuck in an elevator with the angriest hormonal teens on the planet. Everyone, jeesus, please just chill and have a convo. My god.
They both seemed to be trying to appeal to undecided “independents” who are actually just lite conservatives. I think Vance performed slightly worse but still benefitted more because he was better able to appeal to that demo and Walz humanized him instead of staying on the attack.
This take is the mirror image of thinking Trump is a good public speaker. Walz did quite poorly; he’s never been good on a political debate stage. He salvaged it with a few timely punches and by being relatable and likable.
Fuck the centrist media that considers that debate a flub - he did excellent.
He certainly seemed awkward in the first couple minutes, but I’m not sure what the big deal would be outside of that.
That thing about when he was in China was a shitshow from top to bottom. I had never even heard of the “controversy” so it was probably some bullshit the moderators threw in to appease the conspiracy lunatics and appear balanced. Then his answer was a bunch of nothing and flailing around. I don’t think he even answered it. The closest he got was “that’s what I said” and didn’t address the accuracy of the statement or an explanation in his answer. And then he stopped with a few seconds left in his allotted time and froze up and stammered for the rest of it.
Tim Walz is, by all appearances, a stand up guy and smart as a tack. But that isn’t really what drives these debates. If they were won and lost on the merits, no Republican would have been elected in my lifetime. But they’re not about substance and by pretty much every measure that answer and interaction was a doozy of a loser.
But that was the only answer that he flubbed like that, so the night wasn’t a total disaster for Walz. It just wasn’t a win.
He did answer it, literally said he misspoke but he was there during the summer (iirc).
Yeah it really threw him off.
Itbwould have been cleaner if he said something along the lines of “I was there that summer and witnessed the people. History in the making. It was a few months after the march. I took my class’s blah blah blah.”
A “real politician” would have set the record straight without using a negative word like “I was wrong/incorrect”
His answer was a lot more genuine toe because of that. He over-explained due to nervousness and then said “I misspoke”
I’d say he came in just under on that.
Exactly. The whole exchange seems like it caught him on the back foot and wasn’t something he was prepped for so he felt he had to explain the entire situation and got lost in his story and never put a bow on it. When the moderator pressed him after he had finished he followed up with basically “I misspoke, I apologize, shit happens”.
Meanwhile Vance refused to give a solid answer on who won in 2020, but people say he took the debate.
Vice Presidental debate:
“Did Donald Trump lose the 2020 election?” “We’re focused on the future…” “That’s a damning non answer.”
Presidential debate:
“They’re eating the dogs!!”
The fact that you got downvotes for this just shows how out of touch so many Lemmy users are. This is like the third time I’ve seen comments like yours take a hit because of the aversion to truth around here.
Coming up as 3 downvotes on my client. I wouldn’t say that’s 'so many Lemmy users ’ or am I missing something?
It’s early. And because I’ve seen this same sentiment across several threads.
https://lemmy.world/comment/12670800
https://lemmy.world/comment/12677683
https://lemmy.world/comment/12671241
This guy in particular was in the negative 60s and higher when I first came through. They’re still negative but less so.
Very not negative for me with 50ish up and 7down.
I wonder what’s happening…
And your comment shows how out of touch you are. Correcting a claim that was off a few months decades ago isn’t even in the same stratosphere as refusing to acknowledge Trump lost the 2020 election. You’ve been brainwashed to normalize traitors.
Emotions run high around politics right now. Can’t I say I blame people for that. Shits fucked. And there is friendly fire from time to time when people feel like saying or acknowledging anything bad about “your side” is strengthening “the other side”. And hell maybe they’re right I don’t know. It’s all very subjective.
I would say Lemmy is very heavy on emotions. Not a diss on Lemmy. I think it’s a great platform but my god! It’s like being stuck in an elevator with the angriest hormonal teens on the planet. Everyone, jeesus, please just chill and have a convo. My god.
The icebreaker question being “How can we fix the middle east” was fucking crazy and they both fumbled with it.
“I don’t know that we can. But the first step is to stop pouring proverbial kerosene on the fire.”
I doubt anyone could give an adequately comprehensive answer to “how do we fix the middle east” in the time allowed.
It’s a problem that’s been going on since before either of them was born.
Hey Walz tell us about this thing from 35 years ago. What were you thinking! Vance, can you tell us about last month?
And didn’t lie constantly.
They both seemed to be trying to appeal to undecided “independents” who are actually just lite conservatives. I think Vance performed slightly worse but still benefitted more because he was better able to appeal to that demo and Walz humanized him instead of staying on the attack.
He was slicker and that will always work on conservatives. If it was text based there would be no doubt Walz won.
On the other hand, the lower the expectations are kept, the better he will look if he slam dunks on Fox, which I think he likely will.
This take is the mirror image of thinking Trump is a good public speaker. Walz did quite poorly; he’s never been good on a political debate stage. He salvaged it with a few timely punches and by being relatable and likable.