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/
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”?
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.
I agree with you 100%, just wanted to say that you probably mean tortuous… though torturous is definitely metaphorically possible 😂
It’s really troubling to me, that people’s relationships with politicians can be compared to intimate relationships.
You’re not wrong I guess.
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.
Not sure if true or gaslighting.
Oh, you’re sure it’s true.
It wasn’t always.
I don’t know what to tell you- language is fluid. Calling someone silly used to mean you were saying they were blessed.
Clinical language should not be fluid. It should means something specific so that it can actually be used to help people.
We aren’t in a clinical setting.
“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?
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.
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.
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? 🤔
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.
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?
