Walz says Vance was ‘gaslighting’ public about Trump’s record in debate
Walz says Vance was ‘gaslighting’ public about Trump’s record in debate
Democratic vice-presidential candidate calls opponent a ‘slick talker’ in first comments on Tuesday’s televised clash
Democratic vice-presidential candidate calls opponent a ‘slick talker’ in first comments on Tuesday’s televised clash
The day after the only vice-presidential debate this year, Democrat Tim Walz called his Republican challenger, JD Vance, a “slick talker” who was trying to rewrite history and gaslight people about Donald Trump’s record.
During a rally in York, Pennsylvania, Walz made his first public comments on the debate, which polls show was essentially a tie between the two vice-presidential candidates. The Minnesota governor was on a tour through the swing state on Wednesday.
Walz said the two men “had a civil but spirited debate” and that he didn’t underestimate Vance’s debate skills.
But, he added: “You can’t rewrite history and trying to mislead us about Donald Trump’s record. That’s gaslighting. That’s gaslighting, on the economy, reproductive freedom, housing, gun violence.”
🗳️ Register to vote: https://vote.gov/
You're viewing a single thread.
“With that damning non-answer, Senator Vance made it clear he will always make a different choice than Mike Pence made,” Walz said on Wednesday. “And as I said then, and I will say now, that should be absolutely disqualifying if you’re asking to be the vice-president.”
Not American, how was Pence?
Pence was Trump's last Vice President. His politics are as bad as any other republican, but he did the bare minimum of admitting to losing the last election and didn't take part in any of the election overthrowing funny business.
The VP has basically a ceremonial role to "certify" the election. When Trump lost he told Pence to not certify it. Pence looked at the law and decided that he had to certify it. Trump tried to get the Jan 6 crowd to kill Pence.
Pence rummaged in the law’s panty drawers looking for a loophole, and when he couldn’t find one, he called Dan Quayle to ask if there was any way at all he could violate his duty and support trump. Only after Quayle told him no multiple times did he finally, begrudgingly decide he had to certify it.
Let’s not give Pence more credit than he deserves.
That headline about Quayle saving democracy doesn't make sense. If Pence had no power on Jan 6th then there was never any danger from him.
The issue is how the constitution lays out the choosing of a president. Pence had to certify the results, if he had refused to do so for long enough, then that session of Congress may have ended without choosing a president.
At that point, the Constitution prescribes there is a contingent election in the House, where every state delegation to Congress gets 1 vote. There are more red states than blue states -> Trump wins.
I think you meant to say Pence throughout your reply, and not Vance. Yeah?
Whoops fixed 2 out of 3, did get the last one right.
... pence
Fixed.
You took away his balls? 🤔
Although even then (not debating what you wrote, just adding) he tried every possible legal avenue he could to comply with Orange Burger Lardball's request before capitulating and doing his job.
Pence certified the 2020 election, and his party built guillotines outside the capital in retribution. The kicker is the constitution provides the vice president no authority to reject it - it's a formal process and he was following the law. vance's response made clear he hasn't accepted the results, and likely wouldn't have certified. should it be disqualifying?
The potential VP just admitted that he would not faithfully carry out the duties of his position in our government.
If an applicant for a job tells his potential employer that he will not do part of the defined job description it is 100% disqualifying.
These seem to be Schrodinger responsibilities.
The VP is both responsible for certifying the elections and simultaneously have no power to reject them.
Well now, let's be careful with our words. To my knowledge vance hasn't explicitly said he wouldn't certify, he responded with covid accusations and completely avoided the question.. but to your point still, difficult to imagine an applicant doing the same.
When asked a simple yes or no question about whether he would do 1 of the 3 responsibilities of the job (be alive, breaks ties in the Senate, certify the election results), he refused to answer.
Youre saying that with so little to do, someone who refuses to say "yes" to 1/3rd of their job description would still be in the running at your employer?
You hiring?
This is not from the debate -- previously he specifically said that in Pence's place he would not have certified the 2020 election.