202
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2024
202 points (99.0% liked)
politics
18894 readers
2991 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This will be entertaining
I dunno, these debates scare me. Harris/Walz is surging right now, and Trump/Vance is tanking: this gives Trump/Vance a chance to inject their brand of FUD by throwing shit against the wall and seeing if anything sticks.
For example, I suspect Vance is going to try and nail Walz with Walz's 1995 DUI. That'll be a hard one for him to talk his way out of, it's ugly and then later his campaign lied about it.
The DUI in 95 led to Walz quitting drinking. Seeing how well Walz has disarmed other accusations before I'm not worried about that particular attack, it would probably blow up in Vance's face.
I do share your general worry about the debates, though. Not least because the hype for them has set the bar so high that I think failure to meet these astronomical expectations will be seen as a huge win by Trump. Harris in particular needs to absolutely annihilate Trump for her not to lose momentum.
And I don't think this is guaranteed at all. This is not her nailing people to their testimonies in the courtroom. The moderators here will NOT keep Trump in check and he will NOT show her any respect. He also will NOT be legally required to speak the truth (and we can't expect live fact-checking). Unlike her work as a prosecutor she does not attack this debate from an intrinsic position of authority. She will need to stare Trump down and put him in his place on the sole merit of her own charisma, personal authority and force of personality. That's not an easy thing to do.
I'm absolutely concerned.
Probably will invite the "both sides" crowd, but if I had to pick between someone who had a DUI charge but more importantly lied about it later...or someone who wrote a prologue and endorsed a fascist manifesto...not really a hard choice there. I mean, in WWII the Allies all had their problems and egomaniacs who could rightly be criticized for some bad decisions. But the other side was Hitler. So...
I don't recall his campaign lying about the DUI, so I think the commentor is setting up a false problem. What I do know is that Walz gave up drinking afterwards and has been sober since. Thats what you lean into. "I fucked up and faced the problem head on."
Looking it up it seems that while there have been a few changes over the years to the story, it's because he started telling the truth about what happened to be up front to the public. I don't think this is the smear that Republicans are hoping for.
But again, it's not quite the level of a fascist. This shouldn't be a hard pick for any American who remembers history. Even the Joker picked the right side when given these kinds of choices.
If you have to dig back to 95 to find dirt on somebody and that dirt was a dumb mistake thousands of people make each year and it led to meaningful change, you got a whole lot of nothing. How the hell are you going to turn that into "this guy shouldnt be VP"?
https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/15/politics/tim-walz-2006-campaign-falsely-described-dwi-kfile/index.html
"According to court and police records connected to the incident, Walz admitted in court that he had been drinking when he was pulled over for driving 96 mph in a 55 mph zone in Nebraska. Walz was then transported by a state trooper to a local hospital for a blood test, showing he had a blood alcohol level of .128
[...] in 2006, his campaign repeatedly told the press that he had not been drinking that night, claiming that his failed field sobriety test was due to a misunderstanding related to hearing loss from his time in the National Guard. The campaign also claimed that Walz was allowed to drive himself to jail that night."
I truly hope not. But they're grasping at straws, they'll try and use anything they can get.