495

Walz says Vance was ‘gaslighting’ public about Trump’s record in debate (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

40 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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/

top 40 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] can@sh.itjust.works 71 points 2 months ago

“With that damning non-answer, Senator Vance made it clear he will always make a different choice than Mike Pence made,” Walz said on Wednesday. “And as I said then, and I will say now, that should be absolutely disqualifying if you’re asking to be the vice-president.”

Not American, how was Pence?

[-] WorkIsSlow@lemmy.world 96 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

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.

[-] someguy3@lemmy.world 54 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

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.

[-] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 18 points 2 months ago

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.

[-] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago

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.

[-] skibidi@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

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.

[-] Drunemeton@lemmy.world 16 points 2 months ago

I think you meant to say Pence throughout your reply, and not Vance. Yeah?

[-] someguy3@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago

Whoops fixed 2 out of 3, did get the last one right.

[-] meco03211@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

... pence

[-] someguy3@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

Fixed.

[-] TheBat@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

You took away his balls? 🤔

[-] skuzz@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 2 months ago

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.

[-] CaptDust@sh.itjust.works 53 points 2 months ago

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?

[-] Drunemeton@lemmy.world 42 points 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 1 points 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.

[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml 36 points 2 months ago

Ugh.

He was just lying. Gaslighting is a specific thing in abusive relationships, can we not broaden the definition to be "anytime anyone lies about stuff"?

[-] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 79 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Ehh, lying is a wide thing with different motivations. Gaslighting is a malicious type of lying that is designed to undermine the victims sense of reality, their sense of self. It's meant to increase dependency on the liar.

Its normally used to describe abusive romantic relationships, but it's not that specific. It can apply to jobs, families, and yes, government.

Vance is 100% gaslighting the American public. He's twisting what happened in a torturous way to make people afraid of trusting themselves and their lying eyes. Hes casting himself and Trump as the only people that "tell the truth" by lying. That's gaslighting.

[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml 11 points 2 months ago

It's really troubling to me, that people's relationships with politicians can be compared to intimate relationships.

You're not wrong I guess.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 16 points 2 months ago

Gaslighting is a term that has been applied to non-intimate relationships all the time.

In fact, you will see such accusations here on Lemmy.

[-] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 9 points 2 months ago

Not sure if true or gaslighting.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

Oh, you're sure it's true.

[+] queermunist@lemmy.ml -6 points 2 months ago

It wasn't always.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago

I don't know what to tell you- language is fluid. Calling someone silly used to mean you were saying they were blessed.

[+] queermunist@lemmy.ml -9 points 2 months ago

Clinical language should not be fluid. It should means something specific so that it can actually be used to help people.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago

We aren't in a clinical setting.

[+] queermunist@lemmy.ml -6 points 2 months ago

So what? It still creates confusion for no reason, gaslighting should mean something and not be muddied by popculture. That's always bad every time clinical terms get trashed and used this way.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

No one here seems confused.

[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml -3 points 2 months ago

It's a common problem in mental health; popculture misunderstandings of afflictions like schizophrenia and bipolar disorder and depression and addiction all lead people into making mistakes with their own mental health. This is just more of the same.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

Is 'gaslighting' even a clinical term? Can you demonstrate this, please?

[+] queermunist@lemmy.ml -6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I do no care enough to do that for you, all I know is it started as a colloquialism that was adopted as a clinical term because of how useful it is and then re-entered popculture again in 2022. We lost a useful term.

I can tell you're just arguing for the sake of arguing by the way. You don't give a shit about any of this. Very Reddity

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

None of my searching shows it to be a clinical term. I think you just made that up.

[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Here's what the Cleveland Clinic says:

Gaslighting is a very specific form of emotional abuse and mental manipulation that disrupts your ability to trust others and yourself. While the term has gained popularity online, in reality TV and other pop culture avenues, it’s also a term that’s often over-used to describe other kinds of bad behavior like lying, guilt-tripping or shaming.

In truth, people use these tactics and more to gaslight their targets over long periods of time in an effort to gain power and control over their victims. But it’s specifically the pattern of repetitive behavior that’s used to deteriorate a victim’s morality, sanity and sense-of-self that fundamentally defines gaslighting abuse.

A "very specific" form of emotional abuse that's "over-used" to describe lying, but in truth, people uses these tactics to "deteriorate a victim’s morality, sanity and sense-of-self"

Applying this to a debate performance is troubling. He's just a lying asshole.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

That doesn't make it a clinical term.

In fact:

It’s become a popular — and overused — term over the last few years (much like “narcissism” and “toxic relationships”), but it’s important to note that it’s not a clinical or mental health diagnosis. You won’t see this term used in the official Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM V), and no one can be diagnosed as “a gaslighter.”

https://www.sondermind.com/resources/articles-and-content/how-to-deal-with-gaslighting/

If it isn't in the DSM V, it is not a clinical term in psychology. It is a term for laypeople.

[-] idiomaddict@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago

I agree with you 100%, just wanted to say that you probably mean tortuous… though torturous is definitely metaphorically possible 😂

this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2024

495 points (98.2% liked)

News

23680 readers

3262 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

rjc@lemmy.world

Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

JonsJava@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

jeffw@lemmy.world

enu@lemmy.world