There is widespread suspicion that Vance received the questions in advance.

[Patton French]

This is a distinct possibility that must be addressed.

[Cha]

1. It should be Investigated. TY

[JohnSJ]

2. I don't buy. Unless there is evidence nothing needs to be addressed. Suspicion from who?

[Silent Type]

13. Totally agree. They questions were pretty much what anyone would have expected.

[niyad]

16. I think you are missing the point. Turn-about is fair play, perhaps.

[JohnSJ]

18. I don't think we want to become conspiracy nuts. but I understand your point.

[sprinkleeninow]

3. That is EXACTLY what entered my mind! nt

[applegrove]

4. The debate questions are predictable. Vance's gaslighting

Last edited Wed Oct 2, 2024, 01:48 AM - Edit history (1)

was predictable but the content of that gaslighting was not. So it was harder on Walz. He had to tell the truth all night. Vance did not because he is from the MAGA liars party and the lies were prepared beforehand. Again: the questions were predictable.

[OAITW r.2.0]

5. LOL...didn't help. He lost and is a loser like his boss.

[Polybius]

6. Only from these people:

[Abolishinist]

7. Very widespread, very widespread.

It's been spread everywhere, huge and small and in between.

Very distinct, and all are suspicious.

[Lovie777]

8. That's what was going around after VP Harris' debate.................

I don't want to go there.

[Polybius]

10. This!

Let's not look like Trump conspiracy nuts. What's so hard to believe about that Vance is smart and a good debater? Same thing with Ted Cruz, who's arguably smarter and an even better debater. That doesn't mean that I agree with them, far from it.

[elleng]

9. ' widespread suspicion ' by WHOM?

No unexpected issues, so WTF???

[canetoad]

24. Thanks Ellen

My question too. OP gave no details whatsoever.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

11. I think they know the subjects they'll be asked about

Not necessarily that they were “told”.
The answers often didn’t answer the question but may be related to the subject.
Even Walz’s answer about Hong Kong had elements that were clearly rehearsed (and a lot that was just awkward)

[iemanja]

12. This is exactly what Trump said for the last debate

and it sounds exactly the same. When you say the same thing as Magats, there is a problem.

It's not exactly rocket science to figure out the areas that will be addressed. The questions are irrelevant. He didn't answer them anyway.

[Tweedy]

14. Mr. Vance certainly

had his lies prepared in advance.

[onenote]

15. Did I miss the sarcasm thing?

Because that's the only explanation I can come up with for the OP.

[applegrove]

17. I know. Is this a thing where trolls try and start a conspiracy theory

on the left so they can point to it to the MAGA base and say "see they are the ones with conspiracy theories". Or is it practice for us for if Gilead happens so our brains will be malleable..

[Whiskeytide]

22. If you think about it, the sarcasm thing is...

… an affront to sarcasm.

[betsuni]

19. RIGGED conspiracy theory.

[JustAnotherGen]

20. I see what you did here

[Whiskeytide]

21. Yep. Definitely. My brother-in-law works with ...

… with this guy who went to college with a woman who is best friends with the people who use to live next door to a teacher at a school in the same district as this high end restaurant where the bar-tender says Vance’s aunt use to frequent. His name is Chet. Anyway, Chet says he thinks that probably happened.

Weird, huh?

[Prairie Gates]

23. In my experience, whichever side is saying "The other side cheated or received Qs in advance"

lost the debate.