Kamala Harris vs. Mike Pence in the VP Debate. Who won?

Jump to Last Post 1-5 of 5 discussions (65 posts)
  1. Stevennix2001 profile image87
    Stevennix2001posted 9 months ago

    Before anyone makes a forum about this, who do you think won the vice presidential debate?  Did Mike Pence put on a strong performance?  Or did Kamala Harris own this debate?  Please discuss.

    1. crankalicious profile image93
      crankaliciousposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      Well, if a fly be the judge of character, we certainly know which one of them was full of it.

      I didn't watch the whole thing, but what I did see showed two, civilized people discussing their positions with the American people. Pence is very polished and very sincere. I thought Harris did well. From what I watched, seemed like a draw.

      1. Stevennix2001 profile image87
        Stevennix2001posted 9 months agoin reply to this

        Well I watched the entire debate myself, and honestly I think Kamala Harris won this debate.  I hate saying that because I don't like her at all, but I thought she carried herself rather well.  Her body language displayed confidence and Pence didn't really attack her as much as he should've.  I thought Tulsi did a way better job attacking Kamala Harris in the primaries than Pence did tonight, which is not a good sign if you're a Trump supporter.

        Plus, I think the fact that not only was Pence trying to interrupt her during some parts of the debate, but also using his air time to rebuttal statements Harris made on topics previously covered in the debate instead of covering the current topics he was supposed to answer made him come off as weak and evasive instead of just answering the questions.  Plus, I felt the moderator was more lenient with Harris than Pence, which isn't a good sign either. 

        Overall, even though I can't say I agree with everything Kamala said, but I think she won the debate in my opinion.   All I can say is if Trump wants to be reelected, he needs to completely kick Biden's ass in the next two debates, or else he's not getting reelected.

      2. GA Anderson profile image91
        GA Andersonposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        That "fly" was actually a micro-drone. I heard they caught the Democrat operative that flew it onto Pence's white hair, (they were hoping he would swat at it on camera), with the controller in his pocket as he tried to exit from the rear of the debate stage area.

        GA :-)

        1. crankalicious profile image93
          crankaliciousposted 9 months agoin reply to this

          As funny is that is, you know the right-wing will probably come up with some such explanation.

          1. GA Anderson profile image91
            GA Andersonposted 9 months agoin reply to this

            I wouldn't bet money against that thought, ;-)

            GA

    2. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 9 months ago

      I thought Pence scored pretty heavily in his question about stacking the court - while Harris refrained from any kind of direct answer, her words made it quite plain that they have every intention of doing so if they get the chance.

      Plus, of course, her complaint that the voice of the people needs to be heard in the matter of the current nominee...while "forgetting" the voice of the people that four years ago gave that right to Trump.  This, she would set aside as not pertinent as long as her "voice of the people" gets to redo that past decision of the people.

      1. profile image0
        PrettyPantherposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        Was there an agreement that she had to answer Mike Pence's questions while he evaded the questions from the moderator, which he agreed to answer?

      2. crankalicious profile image93
        crankaliciousposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        Interesting article about court packing at the state level:

        https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/vi … cholarship

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

          Sad, isn't it?  I find it extremely reprehensible that our one "leg" of government, one that is set aside as separate from politics and political power, is considered just another pawn in the political games that have be come so virulent today.

          In this instance of packing the SCOTUS, there are no bones made: Democratic leaders, and perhaps the next President of the United States, are declaring that they will, if at all possible, make the last bastion of "justice for the people" just another tool in their power struggle with Republicans.  They are not looking for legal experts in their attempt: they are absolutely looking for "judges" that will render their judgement based on political ideology rather than law.

          And that should never be allowed.  That it is even mentioned, let alone attempted, says a lot about just how low the other two "legs" (executive and legislative) of our democratic system have fallen in their desire for power.  The games Republicans played in the past were absolutely wrong, but this goes far beyond that; it is an outright attack on the country and on the base it was formed on.

          1. crankalicious profile image93
            crankaliciousposted 9 months agoin reply to this

            The only disagreement I have here is that the Republicans nominate their judicial nominees based on political ideology as well. They don't adhere to the law anymore than Democratic nominees. There are simply two, opposing views of how the law works and whether the Constitution is a living document and should shift with the times.

            1. Credence2 profile image81
              Credence2posted 9 months agoin reply to this

              Yes, why can't I get more people to see that and admit to it? Their "so called" "original intent" and Judicial restraint" is what they use to justify voting conservatively on what is on the docket, rather than it being just that.

              With a 6/3 rightwing majority on the SC and Biden as President with a Democrat controlled Congress, the GOP minority will "crybaby" to the court to overturn the will of the majority of legislators and Biden's agenda.

              The new right wing tribunal will give new meaning to the idea of "legislating from the bench". Just watch....

              That is why I want a change in the number of jurors as the Republicans have cheated and the balance needs to be reestablished. Not at numbers to overwhelm the court, but I will work with Eleven jurors establishing the balance that would have existed if the GOP had operated with any kind of ethics.

              That may be too much for Biden and corporate Democrats to acknowledge, but I want it, all the same.

            2. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

              That's no disagreement at all, for I think the Republicans do the same.  Although I did see one man (don't know who) on the PBS news comment that the questions being asked reflect that the Democrats are interested in results while the Republicans are more interested in the process used to make a verdict. 

              My own opinion: yes, the Constitution is a living document and should shift with the times.  If you don't like what it says, then change what it says; there is a very specific description of how to do that.

              But don't just decide that the words there suddenly mean something else now.  All that does is destroy the entire thing - when we simply claim that the words (regardless of what they are) mean whatever we want them to, the whole thing is meaningless and worth no more than the word of a politician.

    3. Credence2 profile image81
      Credence2posted 9 months ago

      Suppressing my partisan preferences, I would say that it can be considered a draw with both candidates being equally evasive regarding touchy questions.

      Pence had pleasantly surprised me with a unifying comment toward the end that is totally out of character with a representative from the GOP.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        Yeah, I liked that much better than "Biden is the best man!"  It actually meant something.

    4. GA Anderson profile image91
      GA Andersonposted 9 months ago

      After the debate, I bounced between CNN, Fox, and ABC pundit panels. The results were predictable; CNN says Harris won the debate hands-down, Fox says Pence won the debate by a landslide, and ABC said that Haris won just by a hair.

      Noone thought the debate changed any minds.

      Here is my depressing take-away: Everyone was pleased that it was a "normal" debate that was civil and mostly followed the rules. A debate like they were used to. The depressing part is that it was just like debates we are used to; both candidates evaded the questions asked and answered with whatever they wanted to talk about, and both candidates routinely ignored the moderator and spoke over their time limits.

      On the first point—evading questions, I think Harris did it more than Pence, and on the second point—speaking too long and ignoring the moderator, I think Pence was worse than Harris.

      My perception is that Pence scored more 'points'; (court-packing, her California record, the Green New Deal), than Harris did. (she got the Covid-19 "points").

      The worst moment: I think Harris looked awful when you went on the military point about "losers and suckers, etc.."

      And the fly . . .  I think Pence gets sympathy points. (it was really a Democrat-controlled micro-drone)

      GA

    5. GA Anderson profile image91
      GA Andersonposted 9 months ago

      Would you be supportive of expanding the Supreme Court to eleven judges if there wasn't the current question of a Conservative majority?

      If the sides were reversed would you support the Republicans expanding the Court to 11 judges?

      Or, as Wilderness claims, do you support the Supreme Court becoming just another political branch and tool?

      I think your views would be; no, no, yes. It seems you are more prone to want Justices to rule on the Law by what you want it to be, (or think it should be), rather than what it actually is. That perspective should be an issue for your preferred politicians, not the Supreme Court.

      Speaking of "ethics" relative to political parties seems a foregone issue. I can only hope it doesn't become the same for Supreme Court Justices.

      GA

      1. crankalicious profile image93
        crankaliciousposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        Who are you asking?

        1. GA Anderson profile image91
          GA Andersonposted 9 months agoin reply to this

          That comment was supposed to be linked to Credence2, but I missed a step

          GA

      2. Credence2 profile image81
        Credence2posted 9 months agoin reply to this

        If the democrats behaved the way the Republicans have, applying double standards, I would not fault them for doing what I now propose Democrats do when they are in control.

        McConnell does not have to take this course, but if he does, they will be a price to pay.

        I suggested on another threat that 11 jurors with Biden selecting the 2 additional would put the court at the balance it was in 2016 prior to Scalia's death.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

          Don't you think it would be better to back up the "balance" to whatever it was the last time it was firmly conservative?

          Or is GA right - you demand a SCOTUS that makes decisions based on what YOU think the law should be?

          1. Credence2 profile image81
            Credence2posted 9 months agoin reply to this

            Yours is a rightwing opinion...

            What are you Rightwingers saying except the same thing you accuse me of but instead it is what YOU think the law should be? So, how is it any different?

            5/4 was the balance with the conservative lead.

            If Obama were allowed to make his selection and Trump made his at this last minute, we would still have that balance.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

              ??? I didn't give an opinion, just asked what yours was.  And you declined to give it.

              Personally I think that any "balance" should be firmly on the side of judges with an ironclad, unshakable understanding that they are NOT legislators; that they should, and will, make decisions based SOLELY on the law and not their, or anyone else's determination of what is "good" for the country.  Or any political party or their dogma.

              But that's just MY opinion; yours seems different.

              1. Credence2 profile image81
                Credence2posted 9 months agoin reply to this

                "Personally I think that any "balance" should be firmly on the side of judges with an ironclad, unshakable understanding that they are NOT legislators; that they should, and will, make decisions based SOLELY on the law and not their, or anyone else's determination of what is "good" for the country.  Or any political party or their dogma".
                --------
                High sounding words until there is ruling with which you disagree, then they all "legislate from the bench". Then they automatically will be suspect of not ruling under the auspices of the law. So, you can come down from Mt. Olympus now.

                All rulings based solely on the law and not someones determination of what is good for the country are not necessarily always conservative in nature. That is the message that I pass on to you.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                  Oh, I came off that mountain long ago, as shown in my earlier post where I said: "I think the Republicans do the same" (Republicans nominate their judicial nominees based on political ideology as well) just a few posts up.  And if they didn't expect rulings based on conservative ideology they wouldn't be doing that.

                  But I DO think that liberal judges are much more guilty of that than conservative ones.  If nothing else, conservative judges want the past to continue and liberals want to make something different - that single difference would explain most of the variance between the two.  Conservatives are content with old law, and wish it to remain while liberals want a different law and make it so in their verdicts.

                  1. Credence2 profile image81
                    Credence2posted 9 months agoin reply to this

                    "He continued: "Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means." The majority's "invention of a brand-new 'constitutional right'", he wrote, showed it was "impatient of democratic change".[5

                    Antonin Scalia excerpt from a dissenting opinion on "Lawrence v. Texas" 2003 regarding striking down Texas laws prohibiting sodomy practices between consenting adults.

                    You are right about liberal jurors and their tendency to interpret the Constitution in ways that conservatives don't approve.

                    But when you think about it what does it mean to wait for "democratic change"?

                    I have heard the tired arguments in defense of miscegenation laws or discriminatory statues that have remained on the books. Who is asking those that are unfairly afflicted to wait? Wait on what? For bigoted legislation and legislators to see the light?

                    You conservatives are always so fearful of rule by the majority, we on the left see the same problem, entrenched, intractable interests that are not going away because certain people all of the sudden become enlightened. That is where the court comes in to move things along faster.

                    I don't care what state legislators say, consenting adults have the right to intimate relations and can associate with whom ever they wish. That is not legislating from the bench but looking at the intent of the Constitution and making certain that the state laws do not violate its underlying principles that are not always explicitly stated. If everything and every aspect of our lives had an explicit guiding direction found in the Constitution, there would be no need for interpretation.


                    That is at least as important as your concern about liberals overreach on the bench. For me, anyway.

                    1. GA Anderson profile image91
                      GA Andersonposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                      "I don't care what state legislators say. . . "

                      I think you certainly should care. it is those legislators that make our laws. It is our laws that guide our nation.

                      You seem to want our nation to be guided by what you think is right. Well, if you are right, then it should be no problem electing legislators that will write laws that suit your perspective. But instead, you seem to advocate having a judiciary determination that laws mean what you want, instead of what they actually say.

                      It appears that you only have problems with our Constitution when the juduciary rules that it doesn't say what you say it says.

                      You speak of "underlying principles," and I say the most important of those underlying principles is that we are a nation of laws. If you want a different outcome, then advocate for different laws. Elect representatives that will legislate the laws you want. If you can't do that, then maybe your views aren't the views of the nation—as a whole.

                      Waiting for "Democratic change" means waiting for the nation to agree with you. Otherwise, your thought reeks of I know better than you . . ." And we, (speaking for us Conservatives), have had a belly-full of that Democrat perspective. Here are your 8 ozs. of soda and 2 grains of salt.

                      GA

                2. GA Anderson profile image91
                  GA Andersonposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                  Well hell Cred, you just know I have to jump in on this one.

                  "So, you can come down from Mt. Olympus now."

                  What you are really saying, and what your previous comments have said, (they did it first so we'll do it now), is not come down from the mountain, it is "'get in the mud with me."

                  I think the Conservative expectations from Justices is really as simple as ruling on a law as textually constructed; if the law says "red" then an interpretation that wants to include "Burgandy" should be ruled against.

                  As a conservative view, I see a Justice ruling that Burgandy is red too, (as I view a Liberal interpretation because they want Burgandy covered by the law),  as legislating from the bench. It is not an ideological position of what we want, or think is right, but simply a ruling on a Law as written.

                  So I can agree that both sides nominate judges with ideological considerations in mind, but, and of course, this is only my opinion, I don't think wanting a Justice to rule on a Law's actual textual construction is a political ambition or ploy.

                  Contrarily, I do think a Justice ruling on what the law may be interpreted to mean—based on ideology and societal preferences, is wrong, and doing so is legislating from the bench. Burgandy is not red. If you want burgundy, write the law to include it.

                  So even if both sides do "it," that is why the view from Mt. Olympus is that  the Liberal perspective is the one in the mud.

                  GA

                  1. Credence2 profile image81
                    Credence2posted 9 months agoin reply to this

                    "What you are really saying, and what your previous comments have said, (they did it first so we'll do it now), is not come down from the mountain, it is "'get in the mud with me."
                    ---------
                    I am going to simplify for you, GA.

                    "If you don't want it done to you don't do it to anyone else......

                    In these politically contentious times that should be something we had better remember if we want to avoid more partisan angst.
                    -----
                    "So even if both sides do "it," that is why the view from Mt. Olympus is that  the Liberal perspective is the one in the mud."
                    --------
                    I don't recall conferring any status of "deity" to Rightwinged oriented ideas and thinking, quite the contrary. You have a conservative viewpoint and I don't on these matters. It is a matter preference and opinion, as opinions cannot objectified.

                    I have seen plenty of excellent jurors on both sides of the political divide and without the liberal ones much of the progress made within many areas of this society would not be possible if every answer to pressing questions of the day were interpreted from the view point of knee breeches and powdered wigs. Isn't that what conservatives call "original intent"?

                    Watch now,  with a 6/3 rightwing court and a Biden presidency and a Democrat controlled legislature, all your conservative jurors will show you what legislating from the bench really means when the Republican minority does not get its way and whines to them for relief. I can then show you all the "mud" that you want.

                    I invite you to have a look at what I wrote to Wilderness on this topic.

                    1. GA Anderson profile image91
                      GA Andersonposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                      I have read what you wrote to Wildeness, and from start to finish, your position seems to be that integrity and rightness be damned, all is fair in love and war.

                      You say that perspective is the necessity of the situation, I say it is the reason for the situation. I would ask what happened to the concepts of integrity and rightness, and I would anticipate your answer to be, Well, they did it first.

                      [sarcasm alert] Yep, that is the ticket. Let's guide our nation by the lowest common denominator. [end sarcasm alert] Geesh Cred, doesn't "what is right" mean anything to you anymore?

                      If the Republicans do shitty things I think your choice should be to get them out of the position to do those things—instead of getting in the mud with them and trying to outdo their shittiness. And if you can't vote them out, then maybe that might be a signal that your view isn't the majorities' view—shitty or not.

                      GA

     
    working

    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

    Show Details
    Necessary
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Features
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Marketing
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
    Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
    Statistics
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
    ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)