Walz Wins a Debate That Will Have Little Effect
Published in Journal de Montreal
(Canada) on 1 October 2024
by Pierre Martin (link to original)
(Canada) on 1 October 2024
by Pierre Martin (link to original)
Translated from
by Reg Moss.
Edited by Michelle Bisson.
Tim Walz, the popular “good guy” with a grip on reality, narrowly won over JD Vance, the fake populist peddler of lies.
Tim Walz has two decades of political experience and admits to being less than gifted at debating. JD Vance has only two years of experience but has an agile tongue and does not suffer from modesty. However, the public has a much more favorable opinion of Walz than of Vance.
The Duel
The debate was remarkably civil and controlled, thanks to the absence of a certain Donald Trump.
On the crises in the Middle East, the exchanges were balanced, but Vance’s arguments rested on the myth that the world was a haven of peace during Trump’s presidency.
On immigration, Vance spun lies to placate his boss and systematically dodged the difficult questions. Walz merely scratched the surface of the blunders of Trump’s positions, notably on the Haitians in Springfield.
On the economy, Vance’s proposals were wide open to criticism, while Walz’ effectively targeted the middle class.
On abortion, Walz had the upper hand and played it well, but his plea was not as passionate as Kamala Harris’.
On guns, Walz probably scored points with the center by distancing himself from the image of the Democrat who poses a threat to the Second Amendment.
The Real Targets
Ultimately, the mission of the two debaters was to score points for their presidential candidate and effectively attack the opposing No. 1. Walz was more convincing without striking a fatal blow.
All in all, both camps can pat themselves on the back and claim victory, but this debate will quickly be forgotten. It was nearly a tie, but Walz will survive the fact-check better and, if only for this reason, he deserves to be declared the winner.
Tim Walz has two decades of political experience and admits to being less than gifted at debating. JD Vance has only two years of experience but has an agile tongue and does not suffer from modesty. However, the public has a much more favorable opinion of Walz than of Vance.
The Duel
The debate was remarkably civil and controlled, thanks to the absence of a certain Donald Trump.
On the crises in the Middle East, the exchanges were balanced, but Vance’s arguments rested on the myth that the world was a haven of peace during Trump’s presidency.
On immigration, Vance spun lies to placate his boss and systematically dodged the difficult questions. Walz merely scratched the surface of the blunders of Trump’s positions, notably on the Haitians in Springfield.
On the economy, Vance’s proposals were wide open to criticism, while Walz’ effectively targeted the middle class.
On abortion, Walz had the upper hand and played it well, but his plea was not as passionate as Kamala Harris’.
On guns, Walz probably scored points with the center by distancing himself from the image of the Democrat who poses a threat to the Second Amendment.
The Real Targets
Ultimately, the mission of the two debaters was to score points for their presidential candidate and effectively attack the opposing No. 1. Walz was more convincing without striking a fatal blow.
All in all, both camps can pat themselves on the back and claim victory, but this debate will quickly be forgotten. It was nearly a tie, but Walz will survive the fact-check better and, if only for this reason, he deserves to be declared the winner.
Previous article![]( "The ‘Verdict’")
Next article![]( "Hurricane Helene in the US: A Disaster Waiting To Happen")
