I think given Vance’s comment about fact checking that no future Democrat should agree to a debate without the guarantee of fact checking during the debate.
Take away their only real power which seems to be to alter reality without consequences when nobody is paying attention.
Fact checking only works with normal distortions of the truth though. "Crime is up in every city!" can be rebutted with "FBI data suggest otherwise", but the claim that Trump saved ACA when he was President after he claimed to have "the concepts of a [new healthcare] plan" to replace it in his most recent debate is pants on head crazy. Vance might as well have said "The moon was made of delicious cheese thanks to Donald trump, but because of sleepy Joe Biden its not anymore."
To be honest, they still lie, even when showing the statistics from the FBI.
"Wow, well, I can tell you now that Vance totally is creating a ton of jobs right on this stage because it'll take an entire team all night to fact check the fountain of lies coming out of him."
There, Harris campaign, you can have that one for free. 🤗
"Let's take a look at the scores! The girls are at the square root of Pi, while the boys are still at a crudely drawn picture of a duck. Clearly, it's anybody's game!"
+5
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
I think given Vance’s comment about fact checking that no future Democrat should agree to a debate without the guarantee of fact checking during the debate.
Take away their only real power which seems to be to alter reality without consequences when nobody is paying attention.
Fact checking only works with normal distortions of the truth though. "Crime is up in every city!" can be rebutted with "FBI data suggest otherwise", but the claim that Trump saved ACA when he was President after he claimed to have "the concepts of a [new healthcare] plan" to replace it in his most recent debate is pants on head crazy. Vance might as well have said "The moon was made of delicious cheese thanks to Donald trump, but because of sleepy Joe Biden its not anymore."
To be honest, they still lie, even when showing the statistics from the FBI.
Oh I am well aware. I saw the CNN video from a couple days ago where GOP Congressman looked at the graph and said up was down, but the comparison is still apples to apples there. The question is still "Is crime up or down" not "How awesome was it when Trump parted the Mississippi river to rescue a barge full of orphans and their puppies?"
Vance has made a calculation that if he lies without stammering the way his senile boss does that he can get a pass. It appears to have worked judging by nearly everyone's reaction to this debate so I expect a whole lot more of this going into the final month of the campaign. Expect Vance to lie even harder than before, claim Trump saved ACA, saved us all from COVID, the Middle East was peaceful for the first time ever, etc. He's betting hard on post-truth getting him in the White House.
This would have been a very different debate with fact-checking. Vance would not have been able to smoothly lie and would have got flustered and lost his cool as obvious lies like Trump supporting the ACA were demolished.
I think given Vance’s comment about fact checking that no future Democrat should agree to a debate without the guarantee of fact checking during the debate.
Take away their only real power which seems to be to alter reality without consequences when nobody is paying attention.
Fact checking only works with normal distortions of the truth though. "Crime is up in every city!" can be rebutted with "FBI data suggest otherwise", but the claim that Trump saved ACA when he was President after he claimed to have "the concepts of a [new healthcare] plan" to replace it in his most recent debate is pants on head crazy. Vance might as well have said "The moon was made of delicious cheese thanks to Donald trump, but because of sleepy Joe Biden its not anymore."
To be honest, they still lie, even when showing the statistics from the FBI.
Walz should have been a lot more aggressive at making Vance look foolish about all of his lies. He did it once with the 2020 election part right at the end and we needed way more of that about Project 2025 and abortion stuff. I have faith that Walz could have pulled that off while still sounding congenial and midwestern Dad-ish.
He should absolutely never tell him that he agrees with what he just said when he's just lying and contradicting himself. He needed to say "That's nice but I don't believe a word of that hogwash from you. You've said the exact opposite here and here and here ect.. Not to mention your boss Trump says this and Project 2025 says all this!!!"
What we ended up getting was something that might just give the independent or swing voter types that were desperately looking for an excuse to ignore Republican's insanity for both sides reasons an out.
It is true, I think, that viral moments and clips are what are really going to be getting the most eyeballs from this debate long term, so hopefully Harris' team can spin some of this into gold over the next weeks. The video posted above is a good start!
Is that their actual policy? What federal land is there where people actually want to live? I guess in ski towns you could obliterate national parks and forest but I don't think that's what they mean.
Is this going to be like those modern city things they did in china for a bit a few decades ago where they would just build a ton of apartment buildings and houses somewhere in the middle of nowhere and were shocked people didn’t move in.
“Oh shit there’s a bunch of federal land in between Las Vegas and Reno no one is using, lets build skyscrapers there to help housing prices!”
Except China built them in places people wanted to live, and people did move into them. Western reporters just came by while they were still being built and then shocked Pikachu face that people weren't living in an active construction site
China also built a bunch of them in places people didnt' want to live and they're still ghost cities
Is that their actual policy? What federal land is there where people actually want to live? I guess in ski towns you could obliterate national parks and forest but I don't think that's what they mean.
Is this going to be like those modern city things they did in china for a bit a few decades ago where they would just build a ton of apartment buildings and houses somewhere in the middle of nowhere and were shocked people didn’t move in.
“Oh shit there’s a bunch of federal land in between Las Vegas and Reno no one is using, lets build skyscrapers there to help housing prices!”
Except China built them in places people wanted to live, and people did move into them. Western reporters just came by while they were still being built and then shocked Pikachu face that people weren't living in an active construction site
China also built a bunch of them in places people didnt' want to live and they're still ghost cities
Both claims are true
A lot of the ghost cities that did not get populated were weird. People bought the property in advance so it was all technically owned but the building took so long that by the time the area was ready to have people move into it much of the infrastructure/buildings/apartments had rotted from neglect and poor construction. If they were livable most of them would have been fully inhabited china simply has that many people.
Those polls, frankly are super encouraging. I am... I was going to say impressed, but that's giving too much credit. I'm surprised that the american electorate can actually distinguish polished lying from somewhat nervous truth telling enough that they came out in a tie. I think that the exposing of the pub ticket as being weirdos and liars has actually done a lot of work, and the general public is ready to watch for the lies.
Anyone watching the VP debate is probably into politics. The main thing I’m concerned about is that wavering Republican voters who were thinking of not voting due to Trump’s insanity might think that Vance could moderate or replace him.
Those polls, frankly are super encouraging. I am... I was going to say impressed, but that's giving too much credit. I'm surprised that the american electorate can actually distinguish polished lying from somewhat nervous truth telling enough that they came out in a tie. I think that the exposing of the pub ticket as being weirdos and liars has actually done a lot of work, and the general public is ready to watch for the lies.
I think there are two Vance missteps that stick with the general public after the debate, mostly because the rest of his performance was so smooth and confident otherwise, and that was the "the rules are you weren't going to fact check" nonsense and the non-answer for the Jan. 6 coup. The Walz missteps mostly are in his overall anxious performance that didn't hit its stride until the 2nd portion, and his answer for the China travel thing. Conservatives are jumping on the "friends with school shooters" flub, but that doesn't seem to have much traction, as people knew what he meant.
Anyone watching the VP debate is probably into politics. The main thing I’m concerned about is that wavering Republican voters who were thinking of not voting due to Trump’s insanity might think that Vance could moderate or replace him.
Is that their actual policy? What federal land is there where people actually want to live? I guess in ski towns you could obliterate national parks and forest but I don't think that's what they mean.
Is this going to be like those modern city things they did in china for a bit a few decades ago where they would just build a ton of apartment buildings and houses somewhere in the middle of nowhere and were shocked people didn’t move in.
“Oh shit there’s a bunch of federal land in between Las Vegas and Reno no one is using, lets build skyscrapers there to help housing prices!”
Except China built them in places people wanted to live, and people did move into them. Western reporters just came by while they were still being built and then shocked Pikachu face that people weren't living in an active construction site
China also built a bunch of them in places people didnt' want to live and they're still ghost cities
Both claims are true
A lot of the ghost cities that did not get populated were weird. People bought the property in advance so it was all technically owned but the building took so long that by the time the area was ready to have people move into it much of the infrastructure/buildings/apartments had rotted from neglect and poor construction. If they were livable most of them would have been fully inhabited china simply has that many people.
There are a few in odd places like inner mongolia, etc, as well. (Though Ordos has grown to about 100,000 people it still is at barely 10% capacity. Ironically people that live there really like it, saying there’s really nice modern infrastructure with no crowds.)
Mostly the ones that did well were places that were obvious locations to put cities, like across from Hong Kong or just outside Shanghai, and the ones with difficulties were the random ones they built west of the Heihe-Tengchong that they wanted people to move out to but were not really where people wanted to go.
Is that their actual policy? What federal land is there where people actually want to live? I guess in ski towns you could obliterate national parks and forest but I don't think that's what they mean.
Is this going to be like those modern city things they did in china for a bit a few decades ago where they would just build a ton of apartment buildings and houses somewhere in the middle of nowhere and were shocked people didn’t move in.
“Oh shit there’s a bunch of federal land in between Las Vegas and Reno no one is using, lets build skyscrapers there to help housing prices!”
Except China built them in places people wanted to live, and people did move into them. Western reporters just came by while they were still being built and then shocked Pikachu face that people weren't living in an active construction site
China also built a bunch of them in places people didnt' want to live and they're still ghost cities
Both claims are true
[Citation Needed]
Bloomberg went back to the ones listed in previous reporting in 2021 and all of them had more people than ~Cleveland.
Those polls, frankly are super encouraging. I am... I was going to say impressed, but that's giving too much credit. I'm surprised that the american electorate can actually distinguish polished lying from somewhat nervous truth telling enough that they came out in a tie. I think that the exposing of the pub ticket as being weirdos and liars has actually done a lot of work, and the general public is ready to watch for the lies.
I think there are two Vance missteps that stick with the general public after the debate, mostly because the rest of his performance was so smooth and confident otherwise, and that was the "the rules are you weren't going to fact check" nonsense and the non-answer for the Jan. 6 coup. The Walz missteps mostly are in his overall anxious performance that didn't hit its stride until the 2nd portion, and his answer for the China travel thing. Conservatives are jumping on the "friends with school shooters" flub, but that doesn't seem to have much traction, as people knew what he meant.
What is the actual explanation for the China thing? Did he make an honest mistake, or did he make up a story to make himself look good and got called out? Or is it literally nothing? The way he kind of elided around it did make it seem like he was caught lying or exaggerating and didn't want to fully admit to it, but his whole answer was a little meandery, so it's hard to tell.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Anyone watching the VP debate is probably into politics. The main thing I’m concerned about is that wavering Republican voters who were thinking of not voting due to Trump’s insanity might think that Vance could moderate or replace him.
Surely the leopard won't eat HIS face
Right. Vance obviously despises Trump but thinks he can control him as he gets older and weaker. Time will tell if he is right.
0
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Those polls, frankly are super encouraging. I am... I was going to say impressed, but that's giving too much credit. I'm surprised that the american electorate can actually distinguish polished lying from somewhat nervous truth telling enough that they came out in a tie. I think that the exposing of the pub ticket as being weirdos and liars has actually done a lot of work, and the general public is ready to watch for the lies.
I think there are two Vance missteps that stick with the general public after the debate, mostly because the rest of his performance was so smooth and confident otherwise, and that was the "the rules are you weren't going to fact check" nonsense and the non-answer for the Jan. 6 coup. The Walz missteps mostly are in his overall anxious performance that didn't hit its stride until the 2nd portion, and his answer for the China travel thing. Conservatives are jumping on the "friends with school shooters" flub, but that doesn't seem to have much traction, as people knew what he meant.
What is the actual explanation for the China thing? Did he make an honest mistake, or did he make up a story to make himself look good and got called out? Or is it literally nothing? The way he kind of elided around it did make it seem like he was caught lying or exaggerating and didn't want to fully admit to it, but his whole answer was a little meandery, so it's hard to tell.
He said he was there in summer of the protests. He was there in August. Tienneman was in July. It's a bullshit question.
Anyone watching the VP debate is probably into politics. The main thing I’m concerned about is that wavering Republican voters who were thinking of not voting due to Trump’s insanity might think that Vance could moderate or replace him.
Surely the leopard won't eat HIS face
Right. Vance obviously despises Trump but thinks he can control him as he gets older and weaker. Time will tell if he is right.
I think vance and his sugar daddy figure trump has a better than avg chance of not lasting a full term which is probably their best way to get vance into the big chair as I don't think he would survive a GOP primary for president.
+3
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
Those polls, frankly are super encouraging. I am... I was going to say impressed, but that's giving too much credit. I'm surprised that the american electorate can actually distinguish polished lying from somewhat nervous truth telling enough that they came out in a tie. I think that the exposing of the pub ticket as being weirdos and liars has actually done a lot of work, and the general public is ready to watch for the lies.
I think there are two Vance missteps that stick with the general public after the debate, mostly because the rest of his performance was so smooth and confident otherwise, and that was the "the rules are you weren't going to fact check" nonsense and the non-answer for the Jan. 6 coup. The Walz missteps mostly are in his overall anxious performance that didn't hit its stride until the 2nd portion, and his answer for the China travel thing. Conservatives are jumping on the "friends with school shooters" flub, but that doesn't seem to have much traction, as people knew what he meant.
What is the actual explanation for the China thing? Did he make an honest mistake, or did he make up a story to make himself look good and got called out? Or is it literally nothing? The way he kind of elided around it did make it seem like he was caught lying or exaggerating and didn't want to fully admit to it, but his whole answer was a little meandery, so it's hard to tell.
From what I gathered, he was abroad around that summer, but didn't remember/recall specific dates. He never claimed he was around Tienamen Square itself or anything, or even around any of the protests or unrest, only that he was over there in that timeframe.
I cannot personally speak to the exact timeframe of when I went to Boston for vacation in 2004. I know it was after August, because that's when I moved, but beyond that.. even though I have pamphlets from the museum, I can't be sure. Our phone analytics keep much closer track of that than we ever could.
The debate was the first time I ever heard anyone questioning it. I strongly suspect people are reading more into his statements than is actually there.. and frankly, maybe Walz did play it up a bit over time and got things conflated, but that doesn't rise to a molehill compared to the outright lies Vance and Trump spout daily (and never get called on).
That sounds like Walz exaggerated a story to be cooler but isn’t a natural liar so he folded when called on it. This is to his credit: it means that he cannot easily lie, and if he says something with a plain face we can trust him on it.
Compare to Vance who fluently spouted all sorts of blatant lies.
Those polls, frankly are super encouraging. I am... I was going to say impressed, but that's giving too much credit. I'm surprised that the american electorate can actually distinguish polished lying from somewhat nervous truth telling enough that they came out in a tie. I think that the exposing of the pub ticket as being weirdos and liars has actually done a lot of work, and the general public is ready to watch for the lies.
I think there are two Vance missteps that stick with the general public after the debate, mostly because the rest of his performance was so smooth and confident otherwise, and that was the "the rules are you weren't going to fact check" nonsense and the non-answer for the Jan. 6 coup. The Walz missteps mostly are in his overall anxious performance that didn't hit its stride until the 2nd portion, and his answer for the China travel thing. Conservatives are jumping on the "friends with school shooters" flub, but that doesn't seem to have much traction, as people knew what he meant.
What is the actual explanation for the China thing? Did he make an honest mistake, or did he make up a story to make himself look good and got called out? Or is it literally nothing? The way he kind of elided around it did make it seem like he was caught lying or exaggerating and didn't want to fully admit to it, but his whole answer was a little meandery, so it's hard to tell.
He said he was there in summer of the protests. He was there in August. Tienneman was in July. It's a bullshit question.
He did say that he was in Hong Kong in May of that year multiple times when contemporaneous reporting puts him in Nebraska. It looks to me like he made up the story to make himself look good. He was in China during the summer right after though. https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/01/politics/tim-walz-china-tiananmen-square/index.html
There's a scene in that terrible Russel Crowe Robin Hood movie where Prince John, who has basically been doing the right thing (from the perspective of the movie) for the past half hour of the movie, liberating the barons, signing the Magna Carta, rallying the people to fight off the Normandy Landers from France, is in the thick of the battle. He hears his aide say, "my lord, they've surrendered!" Prince John asks, "to who?" and the stupidest aide in the world says, "to him!" And points to the triumphant Robin Hood being cheered by the crowds. Which leads to the hasty conclusion of the movie of Robin Hood being declared an outlaw.
Or, maybe a better analogy is King Saul going nuts on David because he's getting all the accolades for winning wars which is what the king is supposed to do.
Anyway this tortured analogy is here to say I really, really hope a bunch of high-profile right wing pundits start talking about how much Vance's clear speaking will save the Trump campaign and that anyone unsure about Trump can be reassured that Vance can carry the day in his stead. Because I can only imagine how much Trump will implode his campaign if he hears that.
Those polls, frankly are super encouraging. I am... I was going to say impressed, but that's giving too much credit. I'm surprised that the american electorate can actually distinguish polished lying from somewhat nervous truth telling enough that they came out in a tie. I think that the exposing of the pub ticket as being weirdos and liars has actually done a lot of work, and the general public is ready to watch for the lies.
I think there are two Vance missteps that stick with the general public after the debate, mostly because the rest of his performance was so smooth and confident otherwise, and that was the "the rules are you weren't going to fact check" nonsense and the non-answer for the Jan. 6 coup. The Walz missteps mostly are in his overall anxious performance that didn't hit its stride until the 2nd portion, and his answer for the China travel thing. Conservatives are jumping on the "friends with school shooters" flub, but that doesn't seem to have much traction, as people knew what he meant.
What is the actual explanation for the China thing? Did he make an honest mistake, or did he make up a story to make himself look good and got called out? Or is it literally nothing? The way he kind of elided around it did make it seem like he was caught lying or exaggerating and didn't want to fully admit to it, but his whole answer was a little meandery, so it's hard to tell.
From what I gathered, he was abroad around that summer, but didn't remember/recall specific dates. He never claimed he was around Tienamen Square itself or anything, or even around any of the protests or unrest, only that he was over there in that timeframe.
I cannot personally speak to the exact timeframe of when I went to Boston for vacation in 2004. I know it was after August, because that's when I moved, but beyond that.. even though I have pamphlets from the museum, I can't be sure. Our phone analytics keep much closer track of that than we ever could.
The debate was the first time I ever heard anyone questioning it. I strongly suspect people are reading more into his statements than is actually there.. and frankly, maybe Walz did play it up a bit over time and got things conflated, but that doesn't rise to a molehill compared to the outright lies Vance and Trump spout daily (and never get called on).
Yup big gotcha question about misremembering some dates and times and not by some huge amount by a couple months on the timing of him being over there and the event happening. Ask me where I was april 35 years ago and I know for sure I couldn't give you a solid answer. Could I get within a few months for a major event maybe but it is such a pointless thing to bring up in a national debate that has nothing to do with anything.
That sounds like Walz exaggerated a story to be cooler but isn’t a natural liar so he folded when called on it. This is to his credit: it means that he cannot easily lie, and if he says something with a plain face we can trust him on it.
Compare to Vance who fluently spouted all sorts of blatant lies.
I honestly don't even think Walz was lying it sounds like a normal story that grew a bit over three decades and he was only off the timing by a couple months. It is the nothingest of burgers compared to mr Trump saved obamacare.
kaid on
+3
Doctor DetroitNot a doctorTree townRegistered Userregular
My anxiety is up way too high right now for me to super deep dive into politics. But a cursory view was draw, with both sides having complaints.
Yeah. Most media says it was a draw, conservative media claims Vance is the best ever and had a stunning victory.
Which I kind of hope rankles Trump. Someone should start some rumors that Republicans are so happy with Vance they are beginning to think Trump should drop out since Vance is the better candidate.
Jealous Deva on
+17
NoneoftheaboveJust a conforming non-conformist.Twilight ZoneRegistered Userregular
Can you really take any of our current issues domestic and global and then summerize a solution in 2min? I have my doubts. And then you get Vance pulling facts and anecdotes out of the ether as any toady to a con man. Yeah, I saw the debate as a tie if you're not fact checking Vance on every half truth or complete fabrication he was oozing. But you've got a true civil servant with Walz who is running on integrity and strength of character. That's a win last night by my measure.
My anxiety is up way too high right now for me to super deep dive into politics. But a cursory view was draw, with both sides having complaints.
Yeah. Most media says it was a draw, conservative media claims Vance is the best ever and had a stunning victory.
Which I kind of hope rankles Trump. Someone should start some rumors that Republicans are so happy with Vance they are beginning to think Trump should drop out since Vance is the better candidate.
My anxiety is up way too high right now for me to super deep dive into politics. But a cursory view was draw, with both sides having complaints.
Yeah. Most media says it was a draw, conservative media claims Vance is the best ever and had a stunning victory.
Which I kind of hope rankles Trump. Someone should start some rumors that Republicans are so happy with Vance they are beginning to think Trump should drop out since Vance is the better candidate.
start running some "Vance for president" ads
And my understanding is all you'd need to do is run them in DC to make sure Trump saw them.
My anxiety is up way too high right now for me to super deep dive into politics. But a cursory view was draw, with both sides having complaints.
Yeah. Most media says it was a draw, conservative media claims Vance is the best ever and had a stunning victory.
Which I kind of hope rankles Trump. Someone should start some rumors that Republicans are so happy with Vance they are beginning to think Trump should drop out since Vance is the better candidate.
My anxiety is up way too high right now for me to super deep dive into politics. But a cursory view was draw, with both sides having complaints.
Yeah. Most media says it was a draw, conservative media claims Vance is the best ever and had a stunning victory.
Which I kind of hope rankles Trump. Someone should start some rumors that Republicans are so happy with Vance they are beginning to think Trump should drop out since Vance is the better candidate.
start running some "Vance for president" ads
the monkey's paw is not a toy
No but conversely Hannity saying Vance is the future of the Republican party is the sort of thing which will drive Trump nuts.
I'm listening to a podcast that's playing a bit more of Vance dodging the Jan 6th questions from both the moderators and Walz. I didn't listen live last night, but this is the first I'm hearing about Vance's whole "the threat of censorship" answer in both responses.
What a fucking tool. I thought originally that he just completely dodged it with "thinking about the future", but it's all rooted in culture war grievance, plain and simple. And then he tied it all in to Covid and people being censored about their views on that.
"It doesn't matter that my running mate (who I'm only supporting so I can help kick off the thousand year reich) may have been a bit hesitant on admitting when to throw in the towel, but cancel culture and masks!!"
+1
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
His entire performance had the undertone of pathetic whinyness, yeah.
His entire performance had the undertone of pathetic whinyness, yeah.
It's basically all they've got left. Impotent complaining about how people aren't submitting to their petty bullshit, backed up by a ginned up lunatic fringe that stokes and performs violence on their behalf.
I mean, they're no longer trying to convince. Because they're so far from core principles of democracy due to inertia, tribalism and a stacked system, that they don't need to.
So they whine, and bitch and moan, and try to trigger lizard brain. But actual rational discussion? Yeah, that's no longer a thing, partly because most of what they used to argue, has proven to be lies, and/or wrong.
Posts
To be honest, they still lie, even when showing the statistics from the FBI.
There, Harris campaign, you can have that one for free. 🤗
Oh I am well aware. I saw the CNN video from a couple days ago where GOP Congressman looked at the graph and said up was down, but the comparison is still apples to apples there. The question is still "Is crime up or down" not "How awesome was it when Trump parted the Mississippi river to rescue a barge full of orphans and their puppies?"
Vance has made a calculation that if he lies without stammering the way his senile boss does that he can get a pass. It appears to have worked judging by nearly everyone's reaction to this debate so I expect a whole lot more of this going into the final month of the campaign. Expect Vance to lie even harder than before, claim Trump saved ACA, saved us all from COVID, the Middle East was peaceful for the first time ever, etc. He's betting hard on post-truth getting him in the White House.
Consensus reality is a liberal plot
He should absolutely never tell him that he agrees with what he just said when he's just lying and contradicting himself. He needed to say "That's nice but I don't believe a word of that hogwash from you. You've said the exact opposite here and here and here ect.. Not to mention your boss Trump says this and Project 2025 says all this!!!"
What we ended up getting was something that might just give the independent or swing voter types that were desperately looking for an excuse to ignore Republican's insanity for both sides reasons an out.
It is true, I think, that viral moments and clips are what are really going to be getting the most eyeballs from this debate long term, so hopefully Harris' team can spin some of this into gold over the next weeks. The video posted above is a good start!
China also built a bunch of them in places people didnt' want to live and they're still ghost cities
Both claims are true
A lot of the ghost cities that did not get populated were weird. People bought the property in advance so it was all technically owned but the building took so long that by the time the area was ready to have people move into it much of the infrastructure/buildings/apartments had rotted from neglect and poor construction. If they were livable most of them would have been fully inhabited china simply has that many people.
CBS News: 42% Vance won, 41% Walz won, and 17% Tie.
CBS Favorability: Vance’s favorability rose from 40% to 49% (9% increase) while Walz rose from 52% to 60% (8% increase).
CNN: 51% Vance won, 49% Walz won.
CNN Favorability: Walz's favorability rose from 46% to 59% (13% increase) while Vance rose from 30% to 41% (11% increase).
Politico/Focaldata: 50% Vance won, 50% Walz won. Independents gave Walz a 57-42 edge.
So a wash then.
Tracks with the electorate.
Do not engage the Watermelons.
Surely the leopard won't eat HIS face
There are a few in odd places like inner mongolia, etc, as well. (Though Ordos has grown to about 100,000 people it still is at barely 10% capacity. Ironically people that live there really like it, saying there’s really nice modern infrastructure with no crowds.)
Mostly the ones that did well were places that were obvious locations to put cities, like across from Hong Kong or just outside Shanghai, and the ones with difficulties were the random ones they built west of the Heihe-Tengchong that they wanted people to move out to but were not really where people wanted to go.
[Citation Needed]
Bloomberg went back to the ones listed in previous reporting in 2021 and all of them had more people than ~Cleveland.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-09-01/chinese-ghost-cities-2021-binhai-zhengdong-new-districts-fill-up
What is the actual explanation for the China thing? Did he make an honest mistake, or did he make up a story to make himself look good and got called out? Or is it literally nothing? The way he kind of elided around it did make it seem like he was caught lying or exaggerating and didn't want to fully admit to it, but his whole answer was a little meandery, so it's hard to tell.
Right. Vance obviously despises Trump but thinks he can control him as he gets older and weaker. Time will tell if he is right.
He said he was there in summer of the protests. He was there in August. Tienneman was in July. It's a bullshit question.
I think vance and his sugar daddy figure trump has a better than avg chance of not lasting a full term which is probably their best way to get vance into the big chair as I don't think he would survive a GOP primary for president.
From what I gathered, he was abroad around that summer, but didn't remember/recall specific dates. He never claimed he was around Tienamen Square itself or anything, or even around any of the protests or unrest, only that he was over there in that timeframe.
I cannot personally speak to the exact timeframe of when I went to Boston for vacation in 2004. I know it was after August, because that's when I moved, but beyond that.. even though I have pamphlets from the museum, I can't be sure. Our phone analytics keep much closer track of that than we ever could.
The debate was the first time I ever heard anyone questioning it. I strongly suspect people are reading more into his statements than is actually there.. and frankly, maybe Walz did play it up a bit over time and got things conflated, but that doesn't rise to a molehill compared to the outright lies Vance and Trump spout daily (and never get called on).
Compare to Vance who fluently spouted all sorts of blatant lies.
He did say that he was in Hong Kong in May of that year multiple times when contemporaneous reporting puts him in Nebraska. It looks to me like he made up the story to make himself look good. He was in China during the summer right after though.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/01/politics/tim-walz-china-tiananmen-square/index.html
Or, maybe a better analogy is King Saul going nuts on David because he's getting all the accolades for winning wars which is what the king is supposed to do.
Anyway this tortured analogy is here to say I really, really hope a bunch of high-profile right wing pundits start talking about how much Vance's clear speaking will save the Trump campaign and that anyone unsure about Trump can be reassured that Vance can carry the day in his stead. Because I can only imagine how much Trump will implode his campaign if he hears that.
Yup big gotcha question about misremembering some dates and times and not by some huge amount by a couple months on the timing of him being over there and the event happening. Ask me where I was april 35 years ago and I know for sure I couldn't give you a solid answer. Could I get within a few months for a major event maybe but it is such a pointless thing to bring up in a national debate that has nothing to do with anything.
I honestly don't even think Walz was lying it sounds like a normal story that grew a bit over three decades and he was only off the timing by a couple months. It is the nothingest of burgers compared to mr Trump saved obamacare.
That seems encouraging, as it's supposedly the people that will be deciding this thing in 5 weeks.
My anxiety is up way too high right now for me to super deep dive into politics. But a cursory view was draw, with both sides having complaints.
Yeah. Most media says it was a draw, conservative media claims Vance is the best ever and had a stunning victory.
Which I kind of hope rankles Trump. Someone should start some rumors that Republicans are so happy with Vance they are beginning to think Trump should drop out since Vance is the better candidate.
start running some "Vance for president" ads
And my understanding is all you'd need to do is run them in DC to make sure Trump saw them.
the monkey's paw is not a toy
No but conversely Hannity saying Vance is the future of the Republican party is the sort of thing which will drive Trump nuts.
What a fucking tool. I thought originally that he just completely dodged it with "thinking about the future", but it's all rooted in culture war grievance, plain and simple. And then he tied it all in to Covid and people being censored about their views on that.
"It doesn't matter that my running mate (who I'm only supporting so I can help kick off the thousand year reich) may have been a bit hesitant on admitting when to throw in the towel, but cancel culture and masks!!"
It's basically all they've got left. Impotent complaining about how people aren't submitting to their petty bullshit, backed up by a ginned up lunatic fringe that stokes and performs violence on their behalf.
I mean, they're no longer trying to convince. Because they're so far from core principles of democracy due to inertia, tribalism and a stacked system, that they don't need to.
So they whine, and bitch and moan, and try to trigger lizard brain. But actual rational discussion? Yeah, that's no longer a thing, partly because most of what they used to argue, has proven to be lies, and/or wrong.