Posts Made By: Brian McFarland

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Where did he admit he was a liar?  He didn't lie and he never admitted that he lied.

Please do explain.

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

Too soon?

Originally Posted by James Brown

Did anyone else watch the VP debate?  

I thought Vance did pretty good, except where he dodged the Jan 6 question.  Much more of a sharp, empathetic, coherent human being than the press would have you believe.   So, I guess getting to know Vance a bit is a win for the Trump campaign.  

I thought Walz did fine too, although he flubbed the Tiananmen answer, and he did a poor job of advancing the ubiquitous but hopelessly unpersuasive Harris campaign message of Trump being the "incumbent" and Harris being the "candidate of change".

Given that Vance was humanized compared to the expectations set by Harris and the press, and given that he sorta effectively pinned the Biden years on Harris, without much push back from Walz, I would say Vance won, but it was not a wipe out by any means and I am sure it will not matter.

My own opinion makes me wonder why the left seems so upset, as if Walz dropped the ball immensely.   The CNN panel was pretty glum right after the debate, and there are articles like this indicating Walz completely failed in his mission:  

https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/tim-walz-jd-vance-vice-presidential-debate-b1185413.html

"Kamala Harris’s running mate could have pummeled JD Vance for being a mean, small-minded, misogynistic flip-flopper whose sole guiding principle was to suck up to Donald Trump. Instead, he came to praise rather than to bury his opponent."

I suppose if one really truly believes Vance is a mean, small-minded, misogynistic flip-flopper whose sole guiding principle is to suck up to Donald Trump then Walz did fail.  Walz certainly did not expose Vance as a mean, small-minded, misogynistic flip-flopper whose sole guiding principle is to suck up to Donald Trump.   Was this really Walz's mission?  If so, it was an impossible task because there is a lot more to Vance than the simplistic and hateful media portrayals will ever admit.

Originally Posted by James Brown

Hi Brian:

It is fruitless to try to hold politicians to a carefully curated subset of the things they say.  Apply that standard to Ms. Harris, and you get a anti-fracking, green new deal supporting, gun grabber.  Apply that standard to Walz and you have a serial liar who can not be trusted with anything.

Also, I don't think actual people outside of self-imposed left wing media junkies think Vance is a mean, small-minded, misogynistic flip-flopper whose sole guiding principle is to suck up to Donald Trump.  I believe the press can cherry pick quotes to paint anyone as an ogre.  The right does it too.  Are any of these people as evil or inept as portrayed in the opposite press?  Maybe Trump is, but we have a long track record with him.  I do not believe Harris, Walz, or Vance actually match the caricatures.   It's not even close.

Originally Posted by James Brown

We all have biases.  Last night Vance said a lot of very reasonable and empathetic things.  Do you totally discount his reasonable and empathetic words?  Why, other than your own biases?  (I agree that the eating pets comments were totally stupid, Vance did not go there last night.  Trump started on about eating pets in his debate, something he saw on line or on Twitter I think he said.  I think Vance must cringe when he has to support the top of the ticket spouting nonsense like that.)  

I am curious if you think Walz and Harris are as pro-energy production/fracking, pro border-security, and as pro-gun ownership as they are positioning themselves to be?  I do not think they are.  I think they are telling political lies for politically expedient reasons, based upon their past positions, statements, and actions.  This is not disqualifying in my opinion.  Political lies for political expediency is as old as politics.

I'll be out the rest of the day, but this is interesting and I appreciate your comments.  Jim

Originally Posted by James Brown

We all have biases.  Last night Vance said a lot of very reasonable and empathetic things.  Do you totally discount his reasonable and empathetic words?  Why, other than your own biases?  (I agree that the eating pets comments were totally stupid, Vance did not go there last night.  Trump started on about eating pets in his debate, something he saw on line or on Twitter I think he said.  I think Vance must cringe when he has to support the top of the ticket spouting nonsense like that.)  

I am curious if you think Walz and Harris are as pro-energy production/fracking, pro border-security, and as pro-gun ownership as they are positioning themselves to be?  I do not think they are.  I think they are telling political lies for politically expedient reasons, based upon their past positions, statements, and actions.  This is not disqualifying in my opinion.  Political lies for political expediency is as old as politics.

I'll be out the rest of the day, but this is interesting and I appreciate your comments.  Jim

Originally Posted by James Brown

Hi Brian and Russ:

I hope you are still around this week, I am sorry to reply late.  I've actually been thinking about your comments a lot.  I don't think I'm overly fixated on media bias, because even though I might listen to a candidate's actual words, I listen to (or more typically) read the words, selected and reported by a media outlet.   Bias is pervasive.

In other words, I follow the news but I never attend rallies, or watch an entire rally start to finish to pick up the context.  Do you?  I'm guessing you do not.   

It is indisputable that any politician says stupid things.  It is also indisputable that they tell politically expedient lies.   All of them do it, but some more than others.  Finally it is indisputable that our media is polarized and they choose what to report.  Obviously the words and phrases reported from a Trump rally by MSNBC are going to be different than the words and phrases reported by Fox.  Sometimes context is dishonestly hidden.  Like with Trump's "bloodbath" comment.

I did watch the entire VP debate, and think Vance presented himself reasonably well.  Not well enough to win Trump my vote in this election but well enough for me to think he is probably a decent guy at least in part, and not a small minded, misogynistic, mean spirited little man.  I know that he was on his best behavior of course, and it is possible that it was all an act and that Vance is evil to the core of his soul.  Based upon his resume, and what I saw in the debate, I still think this is unlikely.  J

Originally Posted by James Lacey

What a crock. You flood the field with bullshit and then claim victory because no one is stupid enough to engage with a right-wing whacko who is impervious to rational arguments and alternate opinions. You are the proverbial crazy guy approaching down the sidewalk who makes everyone else cross the street to avoid them.

Originally Posted by James Brown

Hope you don't mind, but this one is pretty cool.   This hobby will keep you up all night, at the eyepiece, the camera, or the computer... one way or the other.   I love talking politics, but you know, there is a lot more out there to talk about!  

Originally Posted by James Lacey

It's only a matter of time before Rich claims that people have to eat their cats and dogs and that they are eating their pets because FEMA is not helping.