Mike Pence vs Kamala Harris Debate

[ProVobis]

I didn’t learn much last night except that out of 50 federal judges appointed by Trump and McConnell none of them were black.

 

[Horton]

I believe Pence won this debate hands down. Harris lied so many times, I think she was having a hard time keeping track. She was also using some evasive language in some of her answers.

1. The coronavirus issue: Harris could only repeat liberal media talking points. She is in DC, she knew what was being done and when but she follows CNN version of events.
2. The racist issue: Harris repeats the completely refuted Charlottesville comment taken out of context as proof Trump is a “white nationalist”. While I don’t care for Harris, I do know she is an intelligent woman. She knows the whole context of that comment but she believes the American people she claims to care so much about are too stupid to know any better.
3. The Fracking issue: A flat out lie. She co-sponsored the green new deal.
4. The tax issue: Another flat out lie. Joe Biden has said he will remove all the tax cuts Trump put in place day one.

Then there was the flat out 2 year old tantrum answer. If the scientist say the vaccine is good I’ll be first in line. If Trump says it’s good I would never get it. The Democrat Party in a nutshell.

 

[Jeanne_S]

She was ill prepared to face Mike Pence. She was hoping to run roughshod over him with her aggressive tactics.It didn’t bode well for her in any way

 

[Neithan]

Kamala Harris made up a neat little story about “Honest Abe” and the Supreme Court to try and fool the American People into believing that the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett is somehow contrary to political traditions. Pure political revisionism — and mendacious, by implication that the Democrats wouldn’t do the exact same thing, even ignoring the Merrick Garland debacle.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2020/10/08/lincoln-supreme-court-kamala-harris/

 

[BlessedYoungCatholic]

Yea but if rather have him then the Democrats who publicly persecute strong serious Catholics

 

[BlessedYoungCatholic]

Welp as a colored person I feel ya but I’m glad mcconnel and trump backed Cameron attorney general of Kentucky and klacik candidate for Congress I fell the party is changing

 

[RidgeSprinter]

Harris is correct that a seat became available 27 days before the election.

So there is some truth to the story. Yes or Yes?

And that Lincoln didn’t nominate anyone until after he won.

And it is also true that he did not nominate anyone before the election.

But there is no evidence he thought the seat should be filled by the winner of the election.

And there is no evidence he thought the seat should NOT be filled by the winner of the election.

If he had lost the election, there is no evidence he wouldn’t have filled the spot in the lame-duck session.

And there is no evidence he would have filled the spot in the lame-duck session.

So Harris is mistaken about Lincoln’s motivations in this regard.

Speculation. Nobody knows for sure what Lincoln’s motivations were unless someone can provide some document written by Lincoln providing proof of said motiviations.

 

[Nepperhan]

Yea but if rather have him then the Democrats who publicly persecute strong serious Catholics

Persecute? Between Democrats and lions in the arena serious Catholics don’t stand a chance?

Look, most Catholics are Democrats.

“Catholics are divided politically in our survey, just as they were in the 2012 election. While 37% say they favor the GOP, 44% identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party (and 19% say they do not lean either way). In the 2012 election, 50% of Catholics said they voted for Obama, while 48% voted for Romney.”

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/02/23/u-s-religious-groups-and-their-political-leanings/ft_16-02-22_religionpoliticalaffiliation_640px-2/

This is a pluralistic society – we all live together with different folks. Stressing freedom of people from being subject to any one else’s religion is not persecution.

‘Can’t we all get along?’

 

[BlessedYoungCatholic]

I said strong serious Catholics which means those who follow the Church teachings and have close ties to their faith. Harris publicly attacked a judge for being part of the Catholic organization knights of Columbus. Feinstein told model Catholic Amy Coney Barrett that the dogma lives loudly with in her and that’s of concern. It is clearly mentioned in the constitution that religious tests are not permitted. She implied that being a strong catholic can disqualify you from being a judge. We should get along but I think we should also stand up to this sorta nonsense.

 

[Nepperhan]

I said strong serious Catholics which means those who follow the Church teachings and have close ties to their faith.

I’ve seen persecution. It is not happening to 'strong, serious Catholics".

Harris publicly attacked a judge for being part of the Catholic organization knights of Columbus.

Not exactly. Her attack, if it must be considered such, was an examination of the viewpoints held by the organization. There’s a big difference.

Feinstein told model Catholic Amy Coney Barrett that the dogma lives loudly with in her and that’s of concern.

The ‘dogma’ reference is a quote from the judge’s writings. They asked her about what she had written, which is proper in examining a nominee. This mention of dogma in relation to Judge Barrett has morphed into an intenet hoax.

She implied that being a strong catholic can disqualify you from being a judge.

Wouldn’t she have to tell that to about half of the Supreme Court, those nominated by Democrats and by Republicans? No such implication was made. Opponents can infer what they want.

 

[BlessedYoungCatholic]

The ‘dogma’ reference is a quote from the judge’s writings. They asked her about what she had written, which is proper in examining a nominee.

Really? I thought it was about the fact she had written on a catholic perspective…because I don’t think it is anywhere mentioned about dogma in those writings

 

[Nepperhan]

Really? I thought it was about the fact she had written on a catholic perspective…because I don’t think it is anywhere mentioned about dogma in those writings

Check it out:

https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/...xt=law_faculty_scholarship&mod=article_inline

 

[27lw]

And her condescending intro before her story “I’m so glad we went through a little history lesson”.

That’s ironic - she told a lie about Honest She himself.

 

[umamibella]

Move to online debates where the mic can be turned off to the interrupter. Even if Politicians complain.

 

[umamibella]

Trump opposes 'virtual debate' format | 7NEWS

 

[Margaret_Ann]

AlNg:

Margaret_Ann:

I saw that she did know the questions on FB. Someone posted a tweet from VP Pence. He said that they found out that she knew the questions beforehand! WOW!

How did she find out what the questions would be?

Y.A.C.T…

I don’t know what that abbreviation means.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

Both dodged lots of questions, him probably more than her.

It’s the other way around imo. Harris dodged practically every question, Pence only one or two. Watch the video again if you DVRed it. The moderator didn’t even give Pence a chance to rebut the first question! She asked Harris the first question and then the second. I think Pence was waiting for her to give him his time for rebuttal. Since the moderator didn’t do so, he pretty much had to fend for himself.

 

[Cathoholic]

Why didn’t the CNN video report the fact that Harris kept interrupting MANY times with her laughing during Vice President Pence’s talk time?

 

[jeannetherese]

The fact is and the cases show that Roe v. Wade never authorized abortions up to the date of birth. Biden has never stated support for abortions up to the date of birth. To state something to the contrary is ignoring facts and is just plain wrong. Pence should know better.

If you read more than the part you pulled out of context, you’ll see that the article notes that it authorized doctors to authorize the abortions.

 

[jeannetherese]

From ProVobis: “It is my understanding that overturning RW will only leave the matters of abortions to the states.”

Individual states choosing to further limit or to legislate against abortion would be a step that could save the lives of many babies.