495
Walz says Vance was ‘gaslighting’ public about Trump’s record in debate
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2024
495 points (98.2% liked)
News
23625 readers
4159 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Not American, how was Pence?
Pence was Trump's last Vice President. His politics are as bad as any other republican, but he did the bare minimum of admitting to losing the last election and didn't take part in any of the election overthrowing funny business.
The VP has basically a ceremonial role to "certify" the election. When Trump lost he told Pence to not certify it. Pence looked at the law and decided that he had to certify it. Trump tried to get the Jan 6 crowd to kill Pence.
Pence rummaged in the law’s panty drawers looking for a loophole, and when he couldn’t find one, he called Dan Quayle to ask if there was any way at all he could violate his duty and support trump. Only after Quayle told him no multiple times did he finally, begrudgingly decide he had to certify it.
Let’s not give Pence more credit than he deserves.
That headline about Quayle saving democracy doesn't make sense. If Pence had no power on Jan 6th then there was never any danger from him.
The issue is how the constitution lays out the choosing of a president. Pence had to certify the results, if he had refused to do so for long enough, then that session of Congress may have ended without choosing a president.
At that point, the Constitution prescribes there is a contingent election in the House, where every state delegation to Congress gets 1 vote. There are more red states than blue states -> Trump wins.
I think you meant to say Pence throughout your reply, and not Vance. Yeah?
Whoops fixed 2 out of 3, did get the last one right.
... pence
Fixed.
You took away his balls? 🤔
Although even then (not debating what you wrote, just adding) he tried every possible legal avenue he could to comply with Orange Burger Lardball's request before capitulating and doing his job.
Pence certified the 2020 election, and his party built guillotines outside the capital in retribution. The kicker is the constitution provides the vice president no authority to reject it - it's a formal process and he was following the law. vance's response made clear he hasn't accepted the results, and likely wouldn't have certified. should it be disqualifying?
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.
These seem to be Schrodinger responsibilities.
The VP is both responsible for certifying the elections and simultaneously have no power to reject them.
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.
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?
This is not from the debate -- previously he specifically said that in Pence's place he would not have certified the 2020 election.