J.D. Vance Lashes Out After the Smallest Fact-Check in V.P. Debate
J.D. Vance Lashes Out After the Smallest Fact-Check in V.P. Debate
newrepublic.com
J.D. Vance Lashes Out After the Smallest Fact-Check in V.P. Debate
102 comments
-
-
Fascists are easily startled but they’ll soon be back. And in greater numbers.
-
Lol I'm loving all the star wars references tonight.
-
-
The idea that these putzes whine about being fact-checked. This is where we are at.
And this from the bunch that wear shirts that say things like "fuck your feelings" and "facts don't care about your feelings". Then they melt the very second a fact shows up to negate their feelings about their fictions.
-
“You told me I could tell lies unchecked!”
-
And this melting snowflake may actually be our next vice president.
I like my VPs able to take criticism
-
Given Donny's general health, this melting snowflake may well be your next president
-
-
A candidate being mad at a fact check is a massive red flag
-
It's a massive red flag but one the right won't see. Just look at Fox-Legally-Classified-As-Entertainment's clip on the fact checking, and read the comments. They took this as a sign of bias and think JD Vance won the exchange. The fact that JD Vance spelled out the legal process for them to not be illegal immigrants (iow he was lying) is lost on them.
I hope at least some people realize the gaslighting going on both from trump/vance as well as the media.
-
-
-
No. Republicans loved that Vance pushed back here.
This is not the win yall think it is.
Walz did fine. Not as good as JD Vance but I at least wasn't expecting Walz to do as well as JD Vance. Yall got the election if you keep the topic on Trump. Don't get distracted here, especially when its an L or at best, stalemate on your image.
-
Y'all might be brainwashed... Or perhaps you have a brain worm? That's actually an official, well-documented thing omongst Trump endorsers these days.
-
Unfortunately it's not about who was the most honest or had the best ideas. It's about who was more "convincing" to a "blank slate". When one person has zero problem saying anything to support their point even if its complete bullshit, it's easy to be more convincing. I still think debates should happen but it's sad that the Republicans "win at all costs" mentality elevates quick talkers who will lie to your face and make up disingenuous arguments without a care in the world. Something something about a pig in the mud and wrestling it...
Sorry about all the air quotes but it's hard to talk about this stuff without them.
-
-
Lol sure buddy the guy lying the whole time won now let's get you to bed.
-
To be completely fair, I think Vance lying through his teeth lost less red followers than Walz saying expanding Israel's influence was a necessity lost blue followers.
I'm still never going to vote for another Republican, but that was an absolutely horrible way to start the debate.
-
-
-
-
-
I watched the whole thing. Nobody freaked out. Stupid headline.
Edit: title doesn’t match the real headline.
-
Original headline captured 3 hours ago:
"J.D. Vance Freaks Out Over the Slightest Pushback in V.P. Debate"
https://web.archive.org/web/20241002034127/https://newrepublic.com/post/186602/jd-vance-vp-debate-fact-check-migrantsHow is anyone surprised a weird little freak, was freaking out on the debate stage‽
-
-
Ignorant, lying, coward. Also the way his body shape is leaning: cow-ward
-
trump stance, maybe he's wearing trump lifts?
-
-
Please don't change the title of articles
-
I agree.
If your title differs from the site's, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive.
Post should be removed as it is currently.
Edit: Apparently the site changed the title not the OP. https://lemmings.world/comment/11113006
I'm not sure if there's a way to know without checking.
-
I’m not sure if there’s a way to know without checking.
There's not, but I still had a post removed for it. (Worse, after I'd agreed to change it when notified, but not cheerfully enough or something.)
-
-
-
I think the reports of Vance having "won" are greatly overstated:
42% vs. 41%? That's well within the margin of error, LOL.
-
What are your numbers supposed to mean? From your article:
Prior to the debate, a New York Times/Siena College poll released Sept. 28 found Midwestern voters prefer Walz to Vance: Walz was viewed favorably by 44% of voters and unfavorably by 41%, while Vance was viewed favorably by 42% of voters and unfavorably by 48%.
So 44% like Walz, 42% like Vance. 41% dislike Walz, 48% dislike Vance. Comparing 42 and 41 is comparing two different things
-
42%. That’s how many debate viewers in the CBS poll thought Vance was the winner of the debate, compared to 41% who thought Walz won. Seventeen percent of viewers said the debate ended in a tie.
-
-
-
It's because (like all authoritarian dildos) he has an ego larger than he deserves and can't look inward for anything.
-
-
That’s some serious small dick energy
102 comments
The rules were ALSO that you were not going to lie.....
They lied about that rule.
That's when I turned it off.
When they complain about being fact checked and that not fact checking them was a prerequisite for them to attend the debate, that tells you everything about what they stand for.