Democratic vice-presidential candidate calls opponent a ‘slick talker’ in first comments on Tuesday’s televised clash

The day after the only vice-presidential debate this year, Democrat Tim Walz called his Republican challenger, JD Vance, a “slick talker” who was trying to rewrite history and gaslight people about Donald Trump’s record.

During a rally in York, Pennsylvania, Walz made his first public comments on the debate, which polls show was essentially a tie between the two vice-presidential candidates. The Minnesota governor was on a tour through the swing state on Wednesday.

Walz said the two men “had a civil but spirited debate” and that he didn’t underestimate Vance’s debate skills.

But, he added: “You can’t rewrite history and trying to mislead us about Donald Trump’s record. That’s gaslighting. That’s gaslighting, on the economy, reproductive freedom, housing, gun violence.”


🗳️ Register to vote: https://vote.gov/

  • Drunemeton@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    2 months ago

    The potential VP just admitted that he would not faithfully carry out the duties of his position in our government.

    If an applicant for a job tells his potential employer that he will not do part of the defined job description it is 100% disqualifying.

    • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      These seem to be Schrodinger responsibilities.

      The VP is both responsible for certifying the elections and simultaneously have no power to reject them.

    • CaptDust@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Well now, let’s be careful with our words. To my knowledge vance hasn’t explicitly said he wouldn’t certify, he responded with covid accusations and completely avoided the question… but to your point still, difficult to imagine an applicant doing the same.

      • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        When asked a simple yes or no question about whether he would do 1 of the 3 responsibilities of the job (be alive, breaks ties in the Senate, certify the election results), he refused to answer.

        Youre saying that with so little to do, someone who refuses to say “yes” to 1/3rd of their job description would still be in the running at your employer?

        You hiring?