2020 Vice-Presidential Debate

[Gaius Octavius]

[In progress]

So far, this debate is much tamer compared to the Trump v. Biden debate.

Harris opened up the debate with a perfect attack on Trump's administration with respect to the handling of the COVID pandemic.

[Fist and Faith]

Good point about us deserving to know who the Commander in Chief owes money to. (Assuming it's true that he owes $400M. I assume others will say that's a lie?)

[Gaius Octavius]

VP Pence just mentioned the stimulus payments... Oh God.

Now Harris can ask him why did Trump cancel further talks. lol

Pence just interrupted Harris.

Why is Pence having so much trouble answering the damn question about China?

[Fist and Faith]

Did Trump say China would pay for having caused the pandemic?

[Gaius Octavius]

Did Trump say China would pay for having caused the pandemic?

Yes. Multiple times in fact.

[Gaius Octavius]

Pence, just shut up.

[Gaius Octavius]

Mike Pence has a fly on his head. It can smell the bullshit he is spewing.

[Gaius Octavius]

Overall, I think this debate was pretty even. Kamala Harris pulled some pretty hard punches early on with COVID-19.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Did not watch it and did not care. I should have, figuring that within 6 months the Surgeon General is going to declare Biden incapable of discharging his duties and they 26th Harris into office, which was the plan all along.

[Gaius Octavius]

You didn't miss much, Hashi. It was a pretty boring debate. At least it was civil, though.

[Fist and Faith]

Yeah, not much accomplished. Which is no surprise. I didn't watch Trump/Biden, since I was sure it would turn out exactly as it did. But despite a few possible points here and there, I thought it was a wash.

[Avatar]

I didn't either, not that I ever do or would. But after the debacle of the main show, was expecting this one to be more reserved.

Pence should have been desperate to show not everybody in the current admin is a raving lunatic...

--A

[Gaius Octavius]

I didn't either, not that I ever do or would. But after the debacle of the main show, was expecting this one to be more reserved.

Pence should have been desperate to show not everybody in the current admin is a raving lunatic...

--A

Not sure about him being desperate to prove that he isn't a raving lunatic. He still followed in Trump's footsteps and refused to commit to a peaceful transition of power. It was probably the most striking thing he said during the whole debate, to be honest, as I was expecting him to at least downplay Trump's statements.

Of course, Kamala Harris had the upper hand in the first part of the debate when it came to COVID-19. She was pretty efficient and brutal in her attacks on the Trump administration, saying that they were negligent and did not have a real plan.

On climate change, Pence had to lie about all the things the administration is doing "for" the environment, and Harris was pretty quick to point out all the environmental deregulations, pulling out of the Paris Accord, etc. Kind of a weird topic because everyone knows that the GOP are climate change skeptics. It's literally a bottom-of-the-list issue for Republicans, most of whom don't even believe in climate change, much less anthropogenic causes of such.

The one thing that Pence really had Harris nailed on was the issue of packing the Court. She refused to answer the question. It probably isn't something that has a consensus agreement yet among Democrats, and it seems that many prominent Democrats are against packing the Court. However, it is a popular tactic to counter the conservative majority in the SCOTUS among progressives. Not so much among the general electorate, though.

Overall, this was pretty standard fare as far as debates go.

[Avatar]

He still followed in Trump's footsteps and refused to commit to a peaceful transition of power.

If he hadn't how long would he have been VP?

As for climate change, yeah, it's effectively a political issue there much to the rest of the world's surprise...if you're a republican you're basically not allowed to believe in it. (And probably if you're a dem you have to. )

Personally, I think it's pretty obvious, but I also don't think it matters because it's too late now. Nothing we do is going to change it fast enough, and the climate guys are basically saying we can kiss 2 degrees goodbye already.

We'll have to rely on human innovation tech our way through the challenges that will arise.

And if we are seeing a 6th mass extinction, well, earth doesn't care...the 1% or 5% or 25% of life that survives will go on to produce a whole new era within a few million years, and all it will mean is that the one that ended the Holocene came a few dozen million years ahead of schedule.

(Oops, wrong thread. )

--A

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Truthfully, neither Trump nor Pence have to commit to a peaceful transfer of power becaue the peaceful transfer of power is going to happen whether they agree with the process or not. If they "refuse to leave the office" then their Secret Service details will physically carry them to the door of the White House where they would be remanded to Federal Marshal custody and removed from the premises.

Neither Biden nor Harris are ever going to commit to an answer about packign the court. If they say "no, we will not" then they will lose some Progressive/Socialist votes who want to raise the number to something like 13 so they will have a majority who can rubber-stamp legislation. If they say "yes, we will pack the court" then they lose moderate voters because "packing the court" has very little support outside the fringe.

The other problem with packing the Court is that if a Democrat-controlled Congress increases the number of Justices then a subsequent Republican-controlled Congress can either raise the number again or put it back down. If they lower the number, which Justices leave? Probably "last in first out" order.

Finally, "packing the Court" ignores the unused power the Court has: they may refuse to seat a Justice--they would refuse anyone sent their way in the course of court-packing.

[Avatar]

Truthfully, neither Trump nor Pence have to commit to a peaceful transfer of power becaue the peaceful transfer of power is going to happen whether they agree with the process or not. If they "refuse to leave the office" then their Secret Service details will physically carry them to the door of the White House where they would be remanded to Federal Marshal custody and removed from the premises.

As trespassers, which would be pretty damn hilarious.

But yeah, agreed, it's not really up to them. Now, it it were some country like Mali or whatever, sure, it could precipitate some kind of crisis, but even his own party wouldn't condone something like that.

--A

[Skyweir]

Well it is what one should be able to expect ... but I think Trump and his Trumpers have arguably different ideas.

Trump has striven to set the scene for an uncertain electoral outcome by voter fraud .. and has noted on a number of occasions that the election could end up before the courts.

And inexplicably he chooses to stir up and agitate his base .. and we see them acting out his protestations.

[Gaius Octavius]

but even his own party wouldn't condone something like that.

--A

Wouldn't be so sure of that.

[wayfriend]

"Peaceful transfer of power" does not mean yelling "I'm still the President" and locking yourself in the oval office.

"Peaceful transfer of power" means not using the power of your office, and the powers of the offices of your political allies, to cast doubt on the results of the election, or to control the results of the election, or to overturn the results of the election.

No, Trumps party not only condones this, they have been plotting with Trump to do this -- openly. It's been in the news, and I have been posting links.

"Peaceful transfer of power" means that there are no riots in the streets and armed militias taking action because their supreme leader says the election results are corrupted (whether or not they actually are).

No, Trump and his allies have been saying the election WILL be corrupted for months and months now. And they have been telling their gun-toting supporters to "stand by". It's been in the news, and I have been posting links.

A number of groups monitoring far rightwing paramilitary activity have warned in recent weeks that militia groups and individuals online are increasingly focusing their attentions on the presidential election. The chatter has been fueled by Trump's provocative remarks casting doubt on the integrity of the voting process and calling on his supporters to turn up at polling places on election day. [link]

In the final minutes of last week's televised presidential debate, a few days before he tested positive for Covid-19, Donald Trump was asked by the moderator, Chris Wallace, whether he would call on his supporters to stay calm and desist from civil unrest in the immediate aftermath of next month's election.

Trump pointedly declined the invitation. Instead, he replied: "I'm urging my supporters to go into the polls and watch very carefully, because that's what has to happen. I'm urging them to do it."

For those who monitor the activities of far-right militia groups and white-supremacist paramilitaries, Trump's remarks were as welcome as jet fuel being used to quell a wildfire. Indeed, since they were made the FBI launched a series of arrests of militia members and others plotting to kidnap the Michigan governor, Gretchen Whitmer, and attack law enforcement, adding to a sense of a nation spiraling out of control as November's election approaches. [link]

[Gaius Octavius]

Militia terrorism is a uniquely Trumpian phenomenon. Just look at what happened with Gov. Gretchen Whitmer in Michigan.