politics
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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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
view the rest of the comments
Honestly, that was a solid debate from both candidates. They both did a good job dancing around direct answers. They both could throw and take jabs. The humbleness and relatability of both candidates was a breath of fresh air. I think they both did a good job trying to sway anyone on the fence, and overall, I think this benefits the Republican Party most. Vance is just a much more personable person than Trump. Democrats are really going to need to turn up if they want to win this election. I really think productive right-specific voters are going to show up from both sides and determine it.
Here's to hoping personal autonomy wins out. Govement rules over ones personal body is a slippery slope. Allowing one to choose, that's freedom.
My take away is the same. That was more of a "debate" than we have had in literal years.
I think walz did good. He held his ground and had some very solid jabs. He knows his roll as second man and backup and played it well.
Vance... did suprisingly well, and will definately be a threat in the future, based on his debate skills at least. This is practice for him regardless of how the election turns out. Experience is what he lacks, and the national stage will hone him over the next few years.
All in all, ill say no clear winner for the debate on face value. It was a show for the sake of the show. But ill absolutely be paying attention in the coming years. One scandal can sink vance, and if past gop tendancies are anything, there will be one. Walz is fairly bulletproof in that regard.
That was a good effort from both sides tbh.
Saying Vance is personable kind of confuses me. Its like saying Trump is charismatic. No!? But I can see Vance chilling at a cookout while Trump is hiding in his office like the beginning of the Godfather.
charisma /kə-rĭz′mə/ noun A rare personal quality attributed to leaders who arouse fervent popular devotion and enthusiasm.
Trump absolutely has charisma. Outside of being a lying narcissist, its literally his defining trait.
And vance, in comparison to trump, is much more personable. That was on display. Vance is still a weasely amoral couch fucker, but if i was absolutely forced to be in a room with one or the other, i would pick vance over trump every time.
I appreciate the extra clarification on pronunciation, but charisma also means likeable and having a magnetic personality, not just being a wannabe despotic populist leader. Vance has a chance at the former until he starts talking.
Dude, its called context. The usage implied was very clear.
And my bad, i guess i left out the little "1" at the start that says my definition was the primary usage to support my argument, but whatever... it seemed obvious.
Despite that, even by your narrower definition, trump still has charisma. just not the kind that works on you. People can be likable and have a magnetic personality and whatever else, and you can still despise them. They would still be called charismatic. The people waving his signs, attending his rallys, and wearing his red hats would certainly say he is likable and has a magnetic personality. Are they wrong? No. The sheer number of his followers prove he has charisma. Clap yourself on the back for not falling for that particular style of charisma if you want, but dont deny it exists.
Cool. Fuck the nazis.