It is good debaters that know how to use their time to follow up on previous questions. Kamala did the same thing to an extent when she wasn't making funny faces, giggling etc. Guess you just see things through the lens of one with a propensity to support the Senator with the furthest left wing ideology of any. So much for "middle of the road" for you!
To be fair, Susan Page isn't permitting it - she's just not forceful enough to take control. It serves to make Pence look rude and disrespectful.
Pence responded quite brilliantly on that. The left hasn't accepted the transfer of power from the 2016 election. They exacted an attempted overthrow lasting 3 years beginning before the inauguration. Stay tuned as that attempt comes into the light. Packing the court would change the balance of power forever, redefining the SCOTUS as a branch in conflict with the Senate.
I'm thinking there's no longer a need for debates. It wasn't a 'debate' last night...it was an opportunity for campaigning. For both of them. My biggest criticism of Harris all along has been her inability to answer questions directly. For running on and on about the subject SHE wants to discuss. Last night we saw it again. As for Pence, he showed zero respect to the moderator by choosing which questions he wanted to answer and how long he wanted to keep a topic alive.
Do you think the moderator, if left to her, would have asked the most important question of the night, will Biden pack the court? I really doubt it. Both Trump and Pence have fought a very tough battle for almost four years. They have to assert themselves against a Press that is consistently 95% negative, and moderators that are registered Dems and donate thousands to the opposition. That is the reason for "Tweets" and strongfully asserting themselves in debates. Admittedly Trump got ahead of himself in the last one, but we'll see if he adjusts next time.
Pence won every point of contention. He was also far more mature, professional, respectful and knowledgeable. Harris acted immaturely and juvenile. And her answers were standard underhanded leftist basement fallacies.
Had she not done that, he would have stolen the stage. They had approximately equal time on stage, within three seconds or something. Having one negative opinion about a team does not make me a cheerleader for the other team. I will read the fact check on the debate and get back to you.
They say a picture is worth a thousand words, and this about sums up Harris' performance last night: I figured she'd be whiney like she was in the Dim debates but she went Full Sandbox last night which was pathetic. I also thought VP Race Bannon did a masterful job of getting rebuttals in where the moderator intended to deprive him of that opportunity. Overall, I thought Pence won the debate and my Dodge of the Night goes to Harris on the question of whether or not Dems would stack the SCOTUS. Kudos to Pence for making it crystal clear what Biden, Harris and other Dems keep hiding from the public - they will try to pull an FDR and stack the court if given the opportunity to do so. It's cowardly and deceitful how they refuse to level with the American people on this and we all know why - it will hurt them on Election Day if they're honest with us about it.
It seemed to me like the Democrats wrote the questions that were asked of the 2 candidates. When Pence was roundly condemned for the Trump administration's early response to the Corona virus, I was hoping that Pence would have responded with something like: "Well, hindsight is 20/20." Once again, Trump's response to Charlottesville, "There were good people on both sides." was trotted out. Firstly, we don't know that everyone on the Politically Incorrect side of the riot was a Neo-Nazi, KKK member etc nor do we know that everyone on the Left was worthy of sainthood. I would liked for Harris to have been asked what she would have done about the Portland riots and if there were "Good people on both sides." Again, I was disappointed with the biased nature of the questions in this debate.
Its a stupid question. But watching people hyperventilate, spewing ridiculous political hyperbole that only serves to annoy the **** out of voters, is delightful.
Overall I think the moderator's performance was very subtle as far as bias knows. However, when you take in account she has donated thousands to Biden.......you get a better perspective of what she tried to do.
I just wanted to say that it's standard for participants to go over the time limit. Likewise it is civil for the moderator to allow the participant to finish his or her thought. FWIW, I think that two minutes is too short. They should probably bump it to 2.5 or 3 to make room for a more thoughtful debate.
He brought up the will you denounce white supremacy which Trump has done over and over. Was Wallace not aware? And then he smeared the Proud Boys who just had a public denouncement of white supremacy. It was uncalled for and unnecessary he was trying to score headlines. Did Wallace turn to Biden and ask him to totally condemn BLM and Antifa?
Maybe we're more attuned to these things than a lot of people are but her bias was blatant to me and it was evident right out of the gate. She may have thought she was being slick but you didn't need to be a communications professional like myself to see what she was doing, from the slant of the questions, to the way she structured them to deny Pence and opportunity to rebut. Pence saw that right away, as well, and he was smart not to let her get away with it. Susan Page clearly tried to tee the debate up to Harris' advantage.
The premise of the question is baseless. Did she ask Harris if the Democrats would concede and not launch phony investigations and send out their 60 attorney's to fight it in court?
Agreed too many topics and too short response times. Pick a topic 3 minute initial responses then several rounds of 1 minute rebuttals. Let them go after each other.
https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54434575 https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/10/07/us/fact-check-harris-pence-debate Agree completely, especially when they use most of it to finish their thoughts on the last topic. Less topics, with more time to get into each topic, is what is needed.
A direct answer and a direct question why wasn't Biden or Harris asked to totally condemn BLM and Antifa?
Why answer a question based on a false narrative created by the Dens and the left giving credence to it. And the premise started with the question to Harris the moderator tee'd up for her. Did she ask Harris if she would commit to not sending their 60 lawyers they have hired into every state court trying to get the results over turned if they lost?
It's as if she doesn't take this seriously and comes out all giddy and "look at me this is so much fun" and then spouts her canned answers which answer nothing.
Not did Harris lie throughout the night about her positions, Biden's positions and Trump's positions and accomplishments she lied about Lincoln "......Harris claimed at the VP debate that Abraham Lincoln refused to nominate a candidate for Chief Justice in October 1864 because “Honest Abe said, it’s not the right thing to do” and wanted the people to vote first. Lincoln, of course, said no such thing. He sent no nominee to the Senate in October 1864 because the Senate was out of session until December. He sent a nominee the day after the session began, and Salmon P. Chase was confirmed the same day. And Lincoln wanted to dangle the nomination before Chase and several other potential candidates because he wanted them to campaign for him. Lincoln’s priority was winning the election, which was necessary to win the war — and he filled the vacancy at the first possible instant. Kamala Harris is simply inventing history." https://www.nationalreview.com/corn...ROpHfhnT0QhVz0ODoLCq47fQbNRO6mfwPnecE13dOfmi4
