↓
 
Home » On last night’s VP debate

On last night’s VP debate

The New Neo Posted on by

Of course, the debate isn’t going to change the mind of anyone whose mind was already made up, and the vast majority of people fit into that category. But in a few days, polls will indicate whether those all-important “undecideds” will swing in any particular direction.

For now, suffice to say – from what I’ve gleaned from reading many online reactions – that Vance apparently did very well indeed, especially considering that he faced the usual three-against-one format of these ridiculous debates. I would expect as much from a graduate of Yale Law School and a person who’s been handling hostile interviews from the moment Trump chose him as his VP. Walz, on the other hand, isn’t used to matching wits with someone like Vance.

More importantly, though, it seemed Vance wasn’t the least bit “weird” and managed to be rather affable and “likable,” another apparently important characteristic by which voters make decisions. After all, most people weren’t previously all that familiar with him and he wouldn’t want the opposition to be the ones to paint his picture for the public. It also made him a potentially reassuring contrast to Trump’s volatility.

Harris’ pick of Walz is revealing because it shows her current decision-making abilities. Not especially impressive last night. But Trump’s pick of Vance, and Vance’s positioning as a stable and even-tempered guy who also happens to be smart and cool under fire, enhances Trump. And considering Trump’s age and propensity to be target practice for crazies, Vance’s capabilities are especially important.

I also saw quite a few women online mentioning that they think Vance is very handsome. I’ve never felt that to be the case; I’d call him attractive. But hey, I’m not the target audience. And the scoop on Tim Walz is that he looks like an unfunny Don Rickles.

Then there were Vance’s side-eyes:

And here’s an example of Vance’s being “kind” to Walz. It’s a thing of beauty:

Comments

On last night’s VP debate — 26 Comments

  1. Oh my gosh, yes! Don Rickles!! I knew Walz reminded me of someone, but couldn’t pin it down.

    Walz is definitely the weird one.

  2. The other Walz analogue is Elmer Fudd. In any case, Walz himself is consistently weird and has been for a long time.

  4. In the history of Leftism, they always seem to get a underlings a bit duller and not as mart or charismatic. No one in charge wants to see a Coup D’etat and take them out. Of course Harris had help beyond her control, if she was in control she would have tossed him out of the Oval Office,
    I should watch a replay of the debate, mostly to see if the moderators did as I thought and became the opposition.

  5. For the past few cycles it seems like the Democrats presidential candidates have picked their VPs based on the criteria that they’re much less capable, arguably less intelligent, and often less charismatic and likable than themselves.

    Obama picked Joe Biden, a person who was far less well known, had far less charisma than Obama, and wasn’t as well spoken or articulate (he was also a corrupt grifter, but that wasn’t widely known back in 2008)

    Joe Biden picked Kamala Harris, who again is arguably weaker than Biden in a number of areas, although Biden’s decline in mental accuity sort of lessens the gap.

    And Kamala Harris picks a guy who may be one of the least charismatic and telegenic people I’ve ever seen on a debate stage, the batrachian Marxist Tim Walz.

    But to be fair, Hillary picked Tim Kaine, who may break this pattern a bit since I’m unsure if he was worse or better than Hillary Clinto in these key areas.

  6. I was astonished when Walz would drop his head, then stare down, seemingly disconsolate, at his lectern.

    Surely that’s not what his coaches told him.

  7. knucklehead /n?k??l-h?d?/
    noun

    1. A stupid person; a blockhead.
    2. An idiot; a stupid or inept person.
    3. A stupid person; these words are used to express a low opinion of someone’s intelligence.

    Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition

    It’s a rare thing for a politician to describe himself so honestly.

  9. Huxley: Anent Walz looking down and staring at the lectern: a viewer has opined that he was doing a crossword puzzle.

    I didn’t watch the debate: too late for me. I was angered (but not surprised) to read that one of the moderators ( ! ) fact-checked Vance, then cut him off when he started to reply. I am not surprised. Can we lift her journalist union card?

  10. That entire response to the Tiananmen Square question was just bizarre. And then to sum it up by saying he’s just a knucklehead? Dear God, how could *anyone* vote for this person to possibly become the president?

    I saw something earlier today maybe in an email that said “MACTA — Make Americans Critical Thinkers Again”, or something along those lines. Yes, PLEASE.

  11. was operation warp speed considered a huge success? if so, considered by the democrats, then when ain’t democrats giving credit to the biggest facilitator of such operation, Donald J Trump?

  12. Vance and Walz provide a good example of the adage: “A’s hire A’s. B’s hire C’s and D’s.”

  13. Can we lift her journalist union card?

    She’ll probably win a Pulitzer instead.

  15. I’m visualizing it now. As middle class kids, Kammy and Timmy rode bikes together past all of their neighbors’ well-manicured lawns until the street lights came on. And now, just a few years later, they want to be our leaders. What a country!!

  16. gwynmir said: That entire response to the Tiananmen Square question was just bizarre.

    I’m wondering why anyone would want to lie about being in China during the Tiananmen massacre.

  17. Read a commentary that notes Vance has now gone from “weird’ to “slick” and that many on the left are angry with Walz for normalizing Vance…cuz you can’t have that.

  18. For me, knucklehead was most famously used by the 3 Stooges. Somehow, I don’t think Walz will come close to matching their 50 year career. Cheers –

  19. On the “handsome” part, he’s better looking with his beard than clean-shaven. Many women considered Bill Clinton very attractive; I never did.

  21. I haven’t seen this mentioned, but Walz displayed an alarming ignorance of the Constitution when he raised the “you can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater” argument as a justification for censorship of ‘misinformation’. Vance called him out for that, and had the school monitors been interested in debate might have allowed a conversation of something more or at least as important as anything discussed.

    I had read Walz’s goals were to make Kamala/Walz appear to be mainstream/moderates. He did that, at least in the minds of his supporters. Walz kept suggesting there were areas of agreement.

    Conservative talking heads were suggesting Vance needed to be likeable. He succeeded.

    What should be obvious that the days of small-government conservatism are dead. This is a consequence of the policies implemented by our betters for the last 40 years or so. We can and should continue to cut what can be pared.

    Federal departments, agencies, and commissions issued 3,853 rules in 2016, while Congress passed and the president signed 214 bills into law—a ratio of 18 rules for every law.

    The average has been 27 rules for every law over the past decade.

    There is no question that the Trump administration added far fewer new regulations than its predecessors. By the reckoning of the regulatory researchers at the American Action Forum, whose work is based on cost reports in agencies’ own regulatory impact analyses, on average the Trump administration imposed annual net regulatory costs of $10 billion, compared to $111 billion for the Obama administration and $43 billion for the George W. Bush administration. But wiping existing regulations from the law books is considerably more difficult than declining to take new actions.

  22. I wonder if the “side eye” that Vance did was on purpose or was he just looking at the camera location or at something behind it, like the 2 minute timer?

    Many times, he was looking at Walz during his answers, perhaps to make Walz nervous. But, Vance turned to look at the camera and the viewing audience when he was speaking.

    It seemed that they let Walz go over his two minutes and would cut off/remind Vance that he only had two minutes.

    I watched parts of the debate while reading the online reactions, so I may have missed some parts.

  23. On the immigration bill – it was a bad bill and I wish they would speak as to why it was bad. I noticed that Walz brought it up many times, stating it was a bi-partisan bill that Trump called for voting down. As we know, the name of the bill frequently does not describe the true purpose. I think that bill had more money for overseas aid than dealing with the actual border problems.

    I read that a bunch of FEMA money is actually going to help cities with housing and other services for illegal aliens. I tried locating a FEMA link,but that site is a bit slow at the moment. But, a general web inquiry shows links to the awards announcements. FEMA money for Helene assistance or Maui help? That’s a big NO.

  24. democarts keep saying the rich ain’t paying their shares because unrealized capital gains ain’t taxed until stocks are sold. i am not a tax professional but am i missing something here that capital gain tax itself is unjust, isn’t that double taxation? since that profit of the company has already been taxed once, whatever the value of the stocks is just the sum of it assets (intangible and tangible) minors liability, the taxation is already reflected on the stock price, less tax means bigger profit means higher stock price, more tax means smaller profit means lower stock price, huge part of asset is whatever profit the company has collected after tax over year, why do we need to pay for the appreciation of some stocks based on assets that had already been taxed, how’s that not double taxation? can tax experts or cpa enlighten me?

    so the profit is taxed already why does the equity of stockholders based on what is already taxed needs to be taxed again?

  26. liz on October 2, 2024 at 5:15 pm said:

    I read that a bunch of FEMA money is actually going to help cities with housing and other services for illegal aliens. I tried locating a FEMA link,but that site is a bit slow at the moment. But, a general web inquiry shows links to the awards announcements.
    ____________________________________________________________

    liz’s comment made me wonder about FEMA funding illegal immigrants, so as an experiment I went to the Perplexity AI LLM site and asked the following question:

    “Has FEMA supplied funding to cities to pay for housing and other services for illegal alens?”

    Below, I’ve copied the answer supplied by “Perplexity.” I know that putting so much text into a comment is bad form, but I hope that Neo can tolerate this as an exception that serves more than one purpose.

    Please note that the sources for the “answer” include links to the specific FEMA pages used by “Perplexity.”
    ______________________________________________________________

    FEMA has indeed allocated funding to cities to assist with housing and services for noncitizen migrants, including those who may be classified as illegal aliens. This funding is primarily channeled through the **Shelter and Services Program (SSP)**, which aims to provide humanitarian support to communities facing increased costs due to migrant arrivals.

    ## Overview of Funding

    1. **Total Allocations**: For Fiscal Year 2024, FEMA announced a total of **$300 million** in grants through the SSP specifically designated for assisting cities with the costs associated with noncitizen migrants. This includes a first round of **$275 million** and a second round of **$25 million** later in the year[1][6].

    2. **Eligible Recipients**: The funding is available to various entities, including local governments, Indian tribes, nonprofit organizations, and U.S. states. This broad eligibility is designed to support communities that are providing essential services such as temporary shelter, food, and other necessary assistance for migrants released from custody by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)[1][2].

    3. **Specific City Allocations**: Notably, cities like New York have been significant recipients of these funds. For instance, New York City received over **$104 million** in federal funding to help manage the influx of migrants[4]. The city has reported spending over **$1 billion** on migrant-related expenses and anticipates costs could exceed **$4 billion** in the coming year[5].

    ## Purpose and Controversy

    The SSP is intended to support localities in managing the humanitarian needs of migrants as they await immigration proceedings. However, this approach has sparked debate among lawmakers and stakeholders:
    – Congressman Andy Harris has questioned FEMA’s allocation of funds to cities for housing illegal immigrants, suggesting that such funding diverts resources from disaster relief efforts intended for American citizens[2][3].
    – Critics argue that using FEMA funds for this purpose could undermine its primary mission of disaster response and recovery[3].

    ## Conclusion
    In summary, FEMA’s funding through the Shelter and Services Program is aimed at assisting local governments in managing the challenges posed by an influx of noncitizen migrants. While this initiative provides necessary resources for humanitarian aid, it has also raised significant political concerns regarding the prioritization of federal funds and their intended use.

    Citations:
    [1] https://www.fema.gov/grants/shelter-services-program
    [2] https://harris.house.gov/media/press-releases/congressman-harris-questions-fema-administrator-why-millions-dollars-grants
    [3] https://www.heritage.org/budget-and-spending/commentary/fema-money-disaster-stricken-americans-not-those-here-illegally
    [4] https://ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/politics/2023/06/07/fema-money-to-nyc-asylum-seekers
    [5] https://ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/politics/2023/05/05/new-york-city-given-more-than–30-million-in-fema-funding-for-migrants
    [6] https://www.dhs.gov/news/2024/04/12/department-homeland-security-announces-300-million-direct-funding-communities
    [7] https://www.dhs.gov/news/2024/08/28/department-homeland-security-announces-380-million-additional-funding-communities
    [8] https://www.fema.gov/grants/preparedness/shelter-services-program/fy24-awards

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

↑