I do not like the concept of the federal government having anything much to do with child care, which came up in the debate. The two and three year olds will only be told they can decide their sex - as opposed to reality based sex which is merely "assigned at birth" - based on what toys they pick up, etc. This is regressive.
And, in general, do we really want the Feds to program our babies including against parents? Think Chinese Red Guard.
Already, parents get reported to CPS if they do not go along with a kid's fantasy "Gender Identity". And, the poor kids get removed from loving parents. They cannot be given to foster parents who do not agree with "Gender Identity" - a gnostic belief.
I really do not know how to interpret having Oliver Wiseman on the Free Press staff. Is it just to show their Woke creds? Or, what? Am I thinking too "3D chess" here?
Where do you get "woke" from him? His FP bio says "Previously, he was the executive editor of The Spectator World and a regular contributor to UnHerd, City Journal, the Evening Standard, and a range of other publications."
I think that "right" and "left" have become somewhat meaningless. Liz Cheney was in Wisconsin endorsing Que-Mala Haris at an event. (Is she right of center?) This illustrates the realignment. The WSJ wanted Biden and I think they want Harris now. Elitism and Crony Capitalism belong to the Democrat party currently.
Remember the 51 US intelligence officials who signed off saying that the Hunter Laptop was Russian disinformation? Does that scare you? Shouldn't we do something about this voter-wise?
Parents on PITT.substack.com talk about how Left and Right have lost their meaning. Is it Left or Right to have an Education-Pharma-"Medicine" Industrial Complex rip kids from families over the Gender Identity Cult? What about making money performing "nullifications" or chopping healthy breasts off of uncomfortable 18 year old girls? See https://www.transhealthcare.org/usa/ and "U.S. Sex Reassignment Surgery Market Size, Share & Trends Analysis Report By Gender Transition (Male To Female, Female To Male), And Segment Forecasts, 2022 - 2030" https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/us-sex-reassignment-surgery-market
It looks to me like the Democrat Party realigned first and then the Republican realigned in reaction to that. Currently, the Dem party is celebrating having the worst of the Rep party on their side :-0 And, they keep accusing their opponents of whatever they are doing. Most recently, Harris dodged a question by saying that Trump/Vance are "desperate". Uh, huh.
So, maybe Woke is not the best word. Wiseman's articles are consistently Cringe, IMO. So, another time I will analyze more and come up with a better word. We can use "cringe" as a place holder for now.
I think Coleman Hughes is so excellent! So is Douglas Murray. I miss Walter Kirn.
Remember when Democrats liked Free Speech?
I am not "in love" with a party. I used to be an Independent. There's been a great realignment. People need to vote in a non-tribal manner.
Vance was brilliant in this manner-he was quite civil, even charming to his opponent, his attacks were mostly directed towards Kamala and were all fact based without emotion, very logical and effective. I would think any independents not suffering from TDS would have been swayed a little by his performance. He just showed the nation that he indeed is a fresh face and the future of a new Republican Party.
It's insane that over at the NYT, they're saying how much he lied in the debate. Though, why did I expect anything different from them? They lost me on 10/8 although I regret not realizing many years earlier about their agenda!
Perhaps Vice President debates should be more important. The the current vice president is now the current democratic presidential nominee (a term used quite loosely here since she was more or less installed). She did very little to earn the Vice President spot and did even less to earn the Dem presidential nominee spot. Vice Presidents are important and perhaps we need to give them a bit more focus, after all, they’re second in line.
There is an old adage in leadership circles about always hiring people smarter than yourself. For all DJT's faults, both Pence and Vance fit that criteria. BHO certainly didn't. And it looks like KH hasn't either. Regardless of how '24 turns out, JD will be back in '28.
Walz is likely not a good debator because he has been caught in multiple lies. The term “mis-spoken” is to “lying” simila how “misinformation” is to “dissenting views.”
Imagine the republicans had chosen the candidate with the best chance at winning instead of Donald Trump? The Kamala Harris debate would likely have gone the same way as the vice-presidential one. Instead Donald Trump was like Matt Ryan with a 28-3 lead in the Super Bowl that the falcons lost
Well, I'd love to see a President DeSantis or a President Vance up next. However, I think the current Dems & media play such a vile game that only a "bull in the china shop" like Trump can blast through. For instance, take the moderator named Margaret. She fact checked but called it "context". So, Orwellian. The party that once claimed to like free speech is now against it. And, they're against the Constitution of the United States.
Yeah, well, the Pennsylvania governor was probably re-thinking his blunder of initialing artillery shells during the latest Democrat effort to sway voters using government assets.
NY Post has a detailed discussion of the legal status of migrants in Springfield Ohio which was “fact-checked” by Margaret Brennan, muting Vance as he tried to explain.
I have found one. See if you can find it in the "Walz in China" section.
After you find the error please let us know how the new knowledge you now have about PolitiFact will effect how you rely on them going forward, since that was your requirement.
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that they got one wrong, doesn't the fact that all the other fact checks are accurate persuade you that they do a pretty good job?
Not intending to pile more work on you but I wanted to be fair and read everything, and I found more issues.
if you take in concert the "Fentanyl and opioids" and "Vance: "So there's an application called the CBP One app..."" sections you begin to see how some of what they say is contradictory.
PolitiFact is known to be left-leaning; nothing wrong with that. They aren't to be trusted with fact-checking though, only summary analysis with a slant.
I'd rather not be specific, so you can feel as mislead by PolitiFact as I have over the years, when you spot what they did.
My goal isn't to change your mind about the debate; we all have our perspectives on complex issues.
My goal is to show you that PolitiFact is no longer the source they used to be. Now most of what they put out is spun and inaccurate; not something that many of us take seriously when cited.
I am very curious. Is there an outfit that fact checks that is considered non-partisan by both right and left? That would be a modern miracle.
In this case, it just might be true that one side lies more than the other-- if in fact, we can submit to the idea that there is actually truth, right/wrong, etc, even if we also admit that the finding the unvarnished truth can sometimes be very difficult. Humans are complex and so are our social systems.
How in holy hell did Waltz say illegal crossings are lower now than in the Trump Presidency not get fact check? That omission is a sign of bias.
Look to the NY Post link above that tears apart another fact check from your PolitiFact link. Like most fact checking outfits, PolitiFact is a partisan joke.
Get real. We had an open border for much of the Biden administration. Now that the election is nearing steps have been taken. You and Gov Waltz are dealing in semantics and not making a serious point.
You get real. The idea that we have an "open border" is a lie. Tell that to 20,000 border patrol agents. Every time there is an "encounter" proves that the border is not open. And the Senate had a bipartisan bill to do much more but Trump killed the bill because he wanted to run on the issue. You righties are pathetic.
Vance point on abortion and Republicans was spot on . Many Republicans will criticize this but in the Republican party there is not enough talk about what abortion is , why it is , and how to prevent it . Laws will not stop it , but changing the social acceptance of or better the acknowledgment of the need for limited abortions will help in moving this argument forward for Republicans polices on making abortion something that is rare and just not needed for the future of the US. This will not be a light switch change it has to evolve and Republicans must be ready to lead this to evolve into something that will respect life as best as possible for our society today .
The abortion debate is the simplest of all of these issues debated right now and conversations around the difficulty/ease of child-rearing are a red herring.
The differences between the sides is due to one differing core belief:
Pro-birthers believe the fetus is a "baby" the at conception.
Pro-choicers believe the fetus is a "baby" the at individual viability.
No amount of debate or rhetoric about how awesome we can make society for new parents will change anyone's beliefs about what is in the womb.
That’s not actually the case, though. Many pro-abortion people concede that the living organism inside the womb is indeed a living organism—life—well before their preferred cut off date. So, the disagreement is much less about when the life begins and much more about the value and rights of that life.
This is a defeatist way of saying nothing anyone can do , and that is frankly BS. This issue isn't going to go away and there will always be some that can't be changed the others time will tell . There are points in ever ones life when they realize things / ideas, you may not have experienced it or may never experience it, but most have / will and at these points people can change and do . One of the fundamental problems in our society is not having at least a faith in our self's and thus we have this defeatist idea of life and our neighbors .
Vote for your state rep then so you can kill the clump of cells , or life that you wish. But that is not up for the federal election this next 4 years .
VP debates are always weird because they are not debating for themselves but as proxies for their bosses. Walz's best moments were when he was able to cite exceptional things about Minnesota and what he did, but not much about Kamala haha
Did anyone else wish the tickets were flipped, with these two on top instead of Trump and Harris? All of us watching last night were so pleased with the civil, adult debate that actually focused on policy instead of name-calling and idiotic nonsense and hyperbole. I'd even take a Vance/Walz ticket over Trump or Harris.
Harris's lies are why there is not a Walz, Phillips, or a Shapiro for president on the ballot. Harris participated in the hoax that Joe Biden was president and was rewarded for her duplicity with being anointed the presidential candidate. The flip was a flip of the finger to US voters and democracy by Harris, Biden, et al.
Good question. Because JD Vance is brilliant and would be infinitely better than Trump or Harris as President, and Walz seems malleable. I don’t think he has strong opinions of his own, I think he goes with whoever’s in charge.
Walz is gross, Minnesota is a state that want's to trans any child from any state without parents approval (Law on the books ) , sorry that is just gross and unforgivable for any politician .
It's not plausible to mistake being in Nebraska for being in Hong Kong during the Tiananmen Square uprising, any more than it's plausible to mistake not being in combat for being in combat. Downplaying what amounts to lying by saying one has misspoken or gotten caught up in rhetoric is unacceptable in a teenager, let alone a political leader. Indeed, Walz also apparently "misspoke" in saying he has a child conceived by IVF -- which he is championing politically -- when in fact his daughter was conceived through artificial insemination, a much less invasive and controversial procedure. Perhaps he doesn't understand the difference, though -- given his intimate involvement in the process -- that strains credulity.
A politician who repeatedly becomes truth-challenged under pressure, making false statements, is not suitable for the office of vice president. Harris did herself no favors in choosing Walz as her running mate. Conversely, Vance is a powerful asset to Trump, whom he far excels in intelligence and oratory.
You are so right about Tiananmen Square. I was in labor in the hospital with my first child and was so horrified by what was on the TV. It is etched in my memory. I did eventually turn the TV off!
No comparison implied; just an observation. I'm not sure Trump even knows the difference between what is true and what is not, nor do I think he cares. As a lifelong Democrat who recently disassociated from the party -- and someone who grew up in and loves Minnesota -- I guess I still have (had) hope for better from the Dems.
Vance is interesting, and has a great deal of potential; I'm sorry he is now associated with Trump. These pols are all ambitious. I have some hope -- perhaps naive -- that, at 40, he will yet mature in his views on certain issues and perhaps make a decent president. To me, a consolation of a Trump win would be the opportunity to see that play out four years later. Vance may end up being more like an old-school Dem than "woke" factions that currently rule the party. We'll see, I guess.
Walz has said so many lies during his political time, that he doesn't really care anymore , like he didn't sign that abortion bill , he did and it's public record , but he can't stop him self . This is worse then Trump , who also has some problems with the truth sometimes .
Walz lied in a fashion by insisting Vance mischaracterized the recent Minnesota abortion law, when in fact he did not. Walz had a chance to forthrightly explain the reason for revised language around infants who survive abortion, which removes a requirement in previous law that physicians try to save such infants' lives, requiring instead simply "care" for the infant.
Whatever one thinks of the larger issue of abortion, the language Walz endorsed is morally defensible in the narrow circumstance it addresses. He should have shown the courage and clarity to say that, instead of saying Vance mischaracterized the law. Late-term abortions are rare and most commonly reflect a fetal condition inconsistent with life (to use medical terminology). For the state to compel life-preserving measures for such infants who then also survive a botched abortion is inappropriate and inhumane; that decision belongs with parents and doctors.
During the eight years when the old law required measures to preserve life, 24 cases of infants surviving abortion were recorded in Minnesota. Not surprisingly, all of the infants died and -- thanks to that requirement -- perhaps with more suffering than was necessary. Here's an illuminating article from the National Catholic Reporter:
Oh this is putting down a cat or dog now ? NO it isn't sorry it isn't . Walz signed this law which he wouldn't say he did , and no this doesn't help the life of the maybe dying baby as any abortion does. But you are try to take the humanity of a baby suffering to put it down so it doesn't suffer ? That idea is just inhumane on so many levels and sure signs of a social disorder of death for the betterment of the me . Just disgusting .
I didn't hear Walz say he didn't sign the law; I heard him say Vance was wrong in his description of the law.
No where is there any provision for "putting down" an infant; assertions that doctors are killing babies -- in Minnesota or any other state -- are untrue and should not be promulgated by anyone who advocates honesty and accuracy. The language Walz endorsed gives physicians and parents -- who are most vested in and knowledgeable about the situation -- latitude to not take heroic measures that will prolong and perhaps exacerbate an infant's suffering in this horrid, unanticipated situation, and to instead provide comfort care until death, which is inevitable. I refer you to the article above for a better understanding of the law at issue, if you so choose.
Your still doing the me idea , that is BS . Suffering is life , and watching it is hard , but I would never say just kill them because I don't like to see it. This is social disorder of death for the betterment of the me , sorry it is .
I do not like the concept of the federal government having anything much to do with child care, which came up in the debate. The two and three year olds will only be told they can decide their sex - as opposed to reality based sex which is merely "assigned at birth" - based on what toys they pick up, etc. This is regressive.
And, in general, do we really want the Feds to program our babies including against parents? Think Chinese Red Guard.
Already, parents get reported to CPS if they do not go along with a kid's fantasy "Gender Identity". And, the poor kids get removed from loving parents. They cannot be given to foster parents who do not agree with "Gender Identity" - a gnostic belief.
And, look at this one: "Michigan Legislature Creates Tip Line for Students to Turn in Parents for “Improperly Stored Guns”" https://wokespy.com/michigan-legislature-creates-tip-line-for-students-to-turn-in-parents-for-improperly-stored-guns/ Nothing could go wrong there! Turn our folks (not folx) in and get love bombed! They didn't give me candy or a smart phone! "Listen" to the children.
I really do not know how to interpret having Oliver Wiseman on the Free Press staff. Is it just to show their Woke creds? Or, what? Am I thinking too "3D chess" here?
Serious barf.
Where do you get "woke" from him? His FP bio says "Previously, he was the executive editor of The Spectator World and a regular contributor to UnHerd, City Journal, the Evening Standard, and a range of other publications."
These are all right-of-center publications.
From his writing?
I have not read Wiseman's bio.
I think that "right" and "left" have become somewhat meaningless. Liz Cheney was in Wisconsin endorsing Que-Mala Haris at an event. (Is she right of center?) This illustrates the realignment. The WSJ wanted Biden and I think they want Harris now. Elitism and Crony Capitalism belong to the Democrat party currently.
Remember the 51 US intelligence officials who signed off saying that the Hunter Laptop was Russian disinformation? Does that scare you? Shouldn't we do something about this voter-wise?
Parents on PITT.substack.com talk about how Left and Right have lost their meaning. Is it Left or Right to have an Education-Pharma-"Medicine" Industrial Complex rip kids from families over the Gender Identity Cult? What about making money performing "nullifications" or chopping healthy breasts off of uncomfortable 18 year old girls? See https://www.transhealthcare.org/usa/ and "U.S. Sex Reassignment Surgery Market Size, Share & Trends Analysis Report By Gender Transition (Male To Female, Female To Male), And Segment Forecasts, 2022 - 2030" https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/us-sex-reassignment-surgery-market
It looks to me like the Democrat Party realigned first and then the Republican realigned in reaction to that. Currently, the Dem party is celebrating having the worst of the Rep party on their side :-0 And, they keep accusing their opponents of whatever they are doing. Most recently, Harris dodged a question by saying that Trump/Vance are "desperate". Uh, huh.
So, maybe Woke is not the best word. Wiseman's articles are consistently Cringe, IMO. So, another time I will analyze more and come up with a better word. We can use "cringe" as a place holder for now.
I think Coleman Hughes is so excellent! So is Douglas Murray. I miss Walter Kirn.
Remember when Democrats liked Free Speech?
I am not "in love" with a party. I used to be an Independent. There's been a great realignment. People need to vote in a non-tribal manner.
Vance was brilliant in this manner-he was quite civil, even charming to his opponent, his attacks were mostly directed towards Kamala and were all fact based without emotion, very logical and effective. I would think any independents not suffering from TDS would have been swayed a little by his performance. He just showed the nation that he indeed is a fresh face and the future of a new Republican Party.
It's insane that over at the NYT, they're saying how much he lied in the debate. Though, why did I expect anything different from them? They lost me on 10/8 although I regret not realizing many years earlier about their agenda!
Perhaps Vice President debates should be more important. The the current vice president is now the current democratic presidential nominee (a term used quite loosely here since she was more or less installed). She did very little to earn the Vice President spot and did even less to earn the Dem presidential nominee spot. Vice Presidents are important and perhaps we need to give them a bit more focus, after all, they’re second in line.
There is an old adage in leadership circles about always hiring people smarter than yourself. For all DJT's faults, both Pence and Vance fit that criteria. BHO certainly didn't. And it looks like KH hasn't either. Regardless of how '24 turns out, JD will be back in '28.
Walz is likely not a good debator because he has been caught in multiple lies. The term “mis-spoken” is to “lying” simila how “misinformation” is to “dissenting views.”
Imagine the republicans had chosen the candidate with the best chance at winning instead of Donald Trump? The Kamala Harris debate would likely have gone the same way as the vice-presidential one. Instead Donald Trump was like Matt Ryan with a 28-3 lead in the Super Bowl that the falcons lost
Well, I'd love to see a President DeSantis or a President Vance up next. However, I think the current Dems & media play such a vile game that only a "bull in the china shop" like Trump can blast through. For instance, take the moderator named Margaret. She fact checked but called it "context". So, Orwellian. The party that once claimed to like free speech is now against it. And, they're against the Constitution of the United States.
Yeah, well, the Pennsylvania governor was probably re-thinking his blunder of initialing artillery shells during the latest Democrat effort to sway voters using government assets.
NY Post has a detailed discussion of the legal status of migrants in Springfield Ohio which was “fact-checked” by Margaret Brennan, muting Vance as he tried to explain.
https://nypost.com/2024/10/01/opinion/ridiculous-fact-check-of-a-true-statement-during-cbs-debate/
Vance may have just saved Trump from assassination, because it's now clear that if he ascends to the top of the ticket, the ticket is stronger.
In case anyone cares about the truth:
https://www.politifact.com/article/2024/oct/02/vp-debate-fact-check-walz-vance-2024/
Anyone want to guess who lied more?
Politifact? Seriously?
Point to one of their fact checks that is wrong. Just one.
I have found one. See if you can find it in the "Walz in China" section.
After you find the error please let us know how the new knowledge you now have about PolitiFact will effect how you rely on them going forward, since that was your requirement.
You're going to have to be more specific.
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that they got one wrong, doesn't the fact that all the other fact checks are accurate persuade you that they do a pretty good job?
Not intending to pile more work on you but I wanted to be fair and read everything, and I found more issues.
if you take in concert the "Fentanyl and opioids" and "Vance: "So there's an application called the CBP One app..."" sections you begin to see how some of what they say is contradictory.
PolitiFact is known to be left-leaning; nothing wrong with that. They aren't to be trusted with fact-checking though, only summary analysis with a slant.
I'd rather not be specific, so you can feel as mislead by PolitiFact as I have over the years, when you spot what they did.
My goal isn't to change your mind about the debate; we all have our perspectives on complex issues.
My goal is to show you that PolitiFact is no longer the source they used to be. Now most of what they put out is spun and inaccurate; not something that many of us take seriously when cited.
I am very curious. Is there an outfit that fact checks that is considered non-partisan by both right and left? That would be a modern miracle.
In this case, it just might be true that one side lies more than the other-- if in fact, we can submit to the idea that there is actually truth, right/wrong, etc, even if we also admit that the finding the unvarnished truth can sometimes be very difficult. Humans are complex and so are our social systems.
But you can’t give me a clear example of what you mean? I think you’re so far to the right that you think mainstream news sources are far left.
How in holy hell did Waltz say illegal crossings are lower now than in the Trump Presidency not get fact check? That omission is a sign of bias.
Look to the NY Post link above that tears apart another fact check from your PolitiFact link. Like most fact checking outfits, PolitiFact is a partisan joke.
The NY Post is a partisan tabloid. And if POLITIFACT is so partisan, why do they call out Democrat's falsehoods?
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/10/01/migrant-encounters-at-u-s-mexico-border-have-fallen-sharply-in-2024/
Get real. We had an open border for much of the Biden administration. Now that the election is nearing steps have been taken. You and Gov Waltz are dealing in semantics and not making a serious point.
You get real. The idea that we have an "open border" is a lie. Tell that to 20,000 border patrol agents. Every time there is an "encounter" proves that the border is not open. And the Senate had a bipartisan bill to do much more but Trump killed the bill because he wanted to run on the issue. You righties are pathetic.
Um. How about just about all the "fact checks" on that link you gave.
Oh get serious.
Vance point on abortion and Republicans was spot on . Many Republicans will criticize this but in the Republican party there is not enough talk about what abortion is , why it is , and how to prevent it . Laws will not stop it , but changing the social acceptance of or better the acknowledgment of the need for limited abortions will help in moving this argument forward for Republicans polices on making abortion something that is rare and just not needed for the future of the US. This will not be a light switch change it has to evolve and Republicans must be ready to lead this to evolve into something that will respect life as best as possible for our society today .
The abortion debate is the simplest of all of these issues debated right now and conversations around the difficulty/ease of child-rearing are a red herring.
The differences between the sides is due to one differing core belief:
Pro-birthers believe the fetus is a "baby" the at conception.
Pro-choicers believe the fetus is a "baby" the at individual viability.
No amount of debate or rhetoric about how awesome we can make society for new parents will change anyone's beliefs about what is in the womb.
That’s not actually the case, though. Many pro-abortion people concede that the living organism inside the womb is indeed a living organism—life—well before their preferred cut off date. So, the disagreement is much less about when the life begins and much more about the value and rights of that life.
This is a defeatist way of saying nothing anyone can do , and that is frankly BS. This issue isn't going to go away and there will always be some that can't be changed the others time will tell . There are points in ever ones life when they realize things / ideas, you may not have experienced it or may never experience it, but most have / will and at these points people can change and do . One of the fundamental problems in our society is not having at least a faith in our self's and thus we have this defeatist idea of life and our neighbors .
You may be right in that some folks change their minds but I don’t think it’ll be common.
I don’t believe many that believes a fetus is a clump of cells will vote to criminalize abortion.
I don’t believe many that believes the fetus is a baby will vote to allow abortion.
Vote for your state rep then so you can kill the clump of cells , or life that you wish. But that is not up for the federal election this next 4 years .
VP debates are always weird because they are not debating for themselves but as proxies for their bosses. Walz's best moments were when he was able to cite exceptional things about Minnesota and what he did, but not much about Kamala haha
Did anyone else wish the tickets were flipped, with these two on top instead of Trump and Harris? All of us watching last night were so pleased with the civil, adult debate that actually focused on policy instead of name-calling and idiotic nonsense and hyperbole. I'd even take a Vance/Walz ticket over Trump or Harris.
Harris's lies are why there is not a Walz, Phillips, or a Shapiro for president on the ballot. Harris participated in the hoax that Joe Biden was president and was rewarded for her duplicity with being anointed the presidential candidate. The flip was a flip of the finger to US voters and democracy by Harris, Biden, et al.
Nope. Walz is even more horrifying than Kamala.
I am curious. Can you say more about why you think this?
Good question. Because JD Vance is brilliant and would be infinitely better than Trump or Harris as President, and Walz seems malleable. I don’t think he has strong opinions of his own, I think he goes with whoever’s in charge.
I was thinking the same thing. Each of them is a far better choice than their running mates!
Walz is gross, Minnesota is a state that want's to trans any child from any state without parents approval (Law on the books ) , sorry that is just gross and unforgivable for any politician .
It's not plausible to mistake being in Nebraska for being in Hong Kong during the Tiananmen Square uprising, any more than it's plausible to mistake not being in combat for being in combat. Downplaying what amounts to lying by saying one has misspoken or gotten caught up in rhetoric is unacceptable in a teenager, let alone a political leader. Indeed, Walz also apparently "misspoke" in saying he has a child conceived by IVF -- which he is championing politically -- when in fact his daughter was conceived through artificial insemination, a much less invasive and controversial procedure. Perhaps he doesn't understand the difference, though -- given his intimate involvement in the process -- that strains credulity.
A politician who repeatedly becomes truth-challenged under pressure, making false statements, is not suitable for the office of vice president. Harris did herself no favors in choosing Walz as her running mate. Conversely, Vance is a powerful asset to Trump, whom he far excels in intelligence and oratory.
You are so right about Tiananmen Square. I was in labor in the hospital with my first child and was so horrified by what was on the TV. It is etched in my memory. I did eventually turn the TV off!
Honestly, calling Walz truth challenged compared to Trump/Vance is --- hard to fathom.
No comparison implied; just an observation. I'm not sure Trump even knows the difference between what is true and what is not, nor do I think he cares. As a lifelong Democrat who recently disassociated from the party -- and someone who grew up in and loves Minnesota -- I guess I still have (had) hope for better from the Dems.
Vance is interesting, and has a great deal of potential; I'm sorry he is now associated with Trump. These pols are all ambitious. I have some hope -- perhaps naive -- that, at 40, he will yet mature in his views on certain issues and perhaps make a decent president. To me, a consolation of a Trump win would be the opportunity to see that play out four years later. Vance may end up being more like an old-school Dem than "woke" factions that currently rule the party. We'll see, I guess.
I had really similar thoughts last night.
Vance's talking points aren't my cup of tea but he is a solid candidate for people that agree with him.
I wonder if he is being groomed for a 2028 run.
Walz has said so many lies during his political time, that he doesn't really care anymore , like he didn't sign that abortion bill , he did and it's public record , but he can't stop him self . This is worse then Trump , who also has some problems with the truth sometimes .
Walz lied in a fashion by insisting Vance mischaracterized the recent Minnesota abortion law, when in fact he did not. Walz had a chance to forthrightly explain the reason for revised language around infants who survive abortion, which removes a requirement in previous law that physicians try to save such infants' lives, requiring instead simply "care" for the infant.
Whatever one thinks of the larger issue of abortion, the language Walz endorsed is morally defensible in the narrow circumstance it addresses. He should have shown the courage and clarity to say that, instead of saying Vance mischaracterized the law. Late-term abortions are rare and most commonly reflect a fetal condition inconsistent with life (to use medical terminology). For the state to compel life-preserving measures for such infants who then also survive a botched abortion is inappropriate and inhumane; that decision belongs with parents and doctors.
During the eight years when the old law required measures to preserve life, 24 cases of infants surviving abortion were recorded in Minnesota. Not surprisingly, all of the infants died and -- thanks to that requirement -- perhaps with more suffering than was necessary. Here's an illuminating article from the National Catholic Reporter:
https://www.ncregister.com/news/tim-walz-born-alive-abortion
Oh this is putting down a cat or dog now ? NO it isn't sorry it isn't . Walz signed this law which he wouldn't say he did , and no this doesn't help the life of the maybe dying baby as any abortion does. But you are try to take the humanity of a baby suffering to put it down so it doesn't suffer ? That idea is just inhumane on so many levels and sure signs of a social disorder of death for the betterment of the me . Just disgusting .
I didn't hear Walz say he didn't sign the law; I heard him say Vance was wrong in his description of the law.
No where is there any provision for "putting down" an infant; assertions that doctors are killing babies -- in Minnesota or any other state -- are untrue and should not be promulgated by anyone who advocates honesty and accuracy. The language Walz endorsed gives physicians and parents -- who are most vested in and knowledgeable about the situation -- latitude to not take heroic measures that will prolong and perhaps exacerbate an infant's suffering in this horrid, unanticipated situation, and to instead provide comfort care until death, which is inevitable. I refer you to the article above for a better understanding of the law at issue, if you so choose.
Your still doing the me idea , that is BS . Suffering is life , and watching it is hard , but I would never say just kill them because I don't like to see it. This is social disorder of death for the betterment of the me , sorry it is .
Did Walz actually say he learned a "lot about governance" from visiting communist China?