The kitties’ claws were definitely out for JD.
OP and other posting this stuff it is doing one thing; making names for the MSM people doing the interviews.
NO HUMANITY, DIGNITY or GRACE about either one of them.
Cutting off the mic was obscene and undemocratic. They attacked him and tried to prevent him from responding and clarifying. I’m glad he kept talking and despite what the moderator said we could hear him.
They need to go back to the committee on presidential debates and change the rules. Each candidate should have “free time” to use as they deem fit. And the candidates should be debating each other, asking each other questions. Not this staged scripted questioning from moderators and a 2 minute time limit. The moderators can prompt topics, but then let the candidates take it from there. None of this “the question was…” crap.
Personally I found the constant moderators saying “you have 2 minutes” to be ingratiating. They are nobodies. Let the candidates go at it any way they want.
To me it was clear from the start. the moderators were dressed in blue and pink not red, same for the podiums.
Even JD’s tie was washed out. Their questions were cleverly biased ! Whal’s was not checked on his obvious lie about China, etc. Even my Rat cousin commented on that!
A couple of braindead “Karens” pushing abortions. Don’t forget to spay and neuter your liberal far-lefties.
How many times will Charlie Brown try to punt the football Lucy is holding before he finally stops trying?
There’s a tweet just out from @FoxNews headlined “Voters react to Vance ‘non-answer’ when asked if Trump won 2020 election”.
While this was a small part of the bias, of course, this question continues to rub my raw. The answer should be this:
‘How could we possibly know if Trump won or lost? At every step, the Democrat party is employing tactics to defeat election integrity laws put forth by Republicans, and at every election there are questionable — if not outright illegal — actions being conducted by Democrat party supporters that involve ballot harvesting, mail fraud, signature fraud, registration fraud, the failure to remove ineligible voters from the rolls, vote counts that exceed the number of eligible voters, the encouragement and active solicitation of non-citizens to vote, and even more.
Republicans are trying to insure honesty and integrity while also guaranteeing that every eligible voter can vote and trying to assure them that their vote will count. Every single time, Democrats are opposing this. The reason for this is clear: they must be trying to cheat.’
That was NOT a debate, it was a Campaign Event paid for and sponsored with Illegal In Kind Political Contributions Paid for by CBS and it’s employee’s.
AWFULS
These 2 shameless losers (i.e., “moderators”) didn’t “fact check” anyone. They gave their biased opinions and cheated on their rules. What pathetic subhuman losers. One can only hope for the good of humanity that they have no children through which they will perpetuate their obviously seriously damaged DNA.
The news media people are doing evil. This is not “the news media” in abstract, it is the people doing it. They have free will and are using it in this manner.
A real debate would not have any moderators only a time keeper. Let the candidates take the conversation where they want.
Margaret Brennan epitomizes the unhappy nasty scowling leftist. NorDUH is so bad they fired/demoted her
If there is ever another debate with such moderators, the candidates need to be given buttons to cut off the moderators.
Imagine a Mexican Standoff where everybody is muted and silent gums are flapping.
Maybe we could have real-time muting by the world-wide audience. The tech exists to do it. Maybe have real-time voting on who gets muted and for how long.
Childless cat laddies?
There was to be no fact checking, was there not? The moderators violated the agreed upon rules - period. In an attempt to benefit Walz.
***At this point, it is almost comical, where those viewers interested in the form and fairness of the debates get to play a game of “how are they favoring the Democrat side?”
The news can’t help themselves. Their lack of objectivity and neutrality, their apparent bias and total lack of professionalism will almost always guarantee some form of bias that is pro-Democrat.
My personal observation:
In this debate, the pro Walz game that CBS played was most extreme BEFORE the debate started.
How so?
Before the debate began, CBS had no less than 3 different stories on Walz, zero on JD Vance.
1.) One story told about how Walz loved in cats and dogs. How his cat went missing and how he went to extremes to attempt to find it. (Everyone loves puppies)
2.) The next interviewed a peer from the military and told about what a great guy he is. (Obvious immunization attempt since there are some questions about him leaving and his claims)
3.) Finally there was a story by a journalist that told about how he was a great governor. (Build credibility)
And what about JD?
Nothing-
There was some bias in the debate in how they handled the two candidates, but those differences were small IMHO.
There is a reason why JD Vance spent the first minute on the opening question, telling about himself rather than answering the question.
He’s quick, and I am sure he could have talk on that issue far longer than the time allotted.
However, Walz basically had 3 “news” stories about him before the debates began and the viewer if they tuned in before hand received 1 hour of how great this guy is.
Those two women had all the charm of cadavers.