Analyzing the Vice Presidential Debate
Energy/financial guru Robert Rapier writes:
JD Vance was the smoother speaker, and I thought if you didn’t consider the substance of what was being said, you might conclude that he won the debate. I thought Walz played too nice with him and didn’t call him out for many things. The thing about Vance is that he lies with absolute confidence. There were many questions Vance just didn’t answer, pivoting instead to his talking points.
What amazes me is that what’s at stake here in another four years in which the Unites States could be led by a criminal sociopath. The situation, taken as a whole, couldn’t be any more dire. Yet no one’s even mentioning the elephant in the room.
I guess everyone wants our candidates to behave respectfully and not to use the “C” word (criminal). I don’t think I could refrain myself from saying something like, “Next month, some voters, and we’ll see how many, will go to the polls and cast their ballots for a man whom four separate grand juries, each manned by impartial Americans, handed down indictments including 91 felony counts, including Trump’s attempt to overthrow the U.S. government.
“Did Trump, as Mr. Vance asserts, ‘rescue Obamacare?’ Of course not. That couldn’t be a more obvious lie. In fact, he tried to kill it, with nothing to replace it with other than ‘a concept of a plan.’ But who cares, when we’re talking about electing a man who will soon go on trial for sedition and treason.”
