02/10/2024
My Vice-president Debate Analysis:
1.) Tim Walz admitted he "misspoke". That was one victory.
2.) When Walz brought up the Trump income tax issue, Vance needed to ask how much income tax he or Harris paid last year. Ha. Then he needed to ask if he or Harris took advantage of any tax deductions. Boom! Finally, he needed to ask if either he or Harris gave their entire salaries back, like Trump did. Check Mate!
3..) Pro-life issues. Vance needed to tell a few stories to match the three stories Walz told. Vance got squishy on life before 15 weeks and really bad on IVF. He was unable to reveal that Walz is in agreement with laws that kill the unborn up until a minute before birth. Nobody brought up the millions of frozen embryos or thousands of children in our foster system who need to be adopted. I would have loved it if Vance had been able to ask Walz, "Why do you treat people differently? IF the baby comes from a rich family that can pay a hundred thousand for a designer baby, that's great. But if the baby comes from the ghetto, and was conceived by accident, we need to destroy it." That's eugenics!
The debate could have been awesome if Vance had said, "Abortion is when an innocent human life is violently destroyed. Do you agree that it's wrong to deny another human being of life?" Then just pause and watch him squirm or say something really bad. So that would have shifted the debate from laws onto the humanity of the baby.
A lost "fact check" moment happened when Walz told the story of the woman in Texas who had complications and "needed an abortion". That was the time for Vance to correct him, "Nobody *needs* and abortion...she needed healthcare". Walz told a small snippet of an uncheckable story and wanted us to make a judgement on that. "She needed medical care, but you don't know what she needed. Are you a doctor? Did you read her chart? The two women from Georgia died because they took abortion pills and suffered complications from purposely ingesting a poison. Now five people are dead (the two women and three babies) and Harris and Walz want to make these drugs easier to get with less involvement from doctors. HOW'S THAT FOR GREAT HELATHCARE! One out of every 25 women who take this drug will end up in the emergency room and YOU want to expand this. If one out of 25 people taking ANY drug ended up in the emergency room, it would be banned!" End of discussion.
I'm sure the polls showed they need to stay away from the outside edges, but if they win, they need to come back to reality. If they lose, they will have forfeited the opportunity to make people think about the harm caused to our Nation by this scourge. If I were in the debate, I would have corrected them every time they used the phrase "healthcare" instead of calling it abortion. Why are we letting them get away with that?
4.) The housing issue: Vance explained the reason why we have a housing shortage is because of the 20 million illegal aliens who shouldn't be here. If he had stopped there, he would have been ahead. However, this was a blown opportunity to educate Americans on who's job it is to provide housing. This is a LOCAL ISSUE. If the housing is too expensive in one location, people will naturally select housing out a little further. The weakest part of the debate happened when Vance said he would use National land to build housing. The poor people don't want to live in a forest and the rich people don't want their forests filled with poor people!
The largest cost of housing is the materials and labor, not the land. Also, if you give something to someone, they won't respect it or maintain it. He should have explained that as soon as the government adds a $25,000 credit to homeowners, the prices of houses will suddenly go up by $25,000!
Americans will find a way to do what they need. After world war II there was a housing shortage also, but we survived without needing the government to throw money at it. We will find a better way if government stays out of the way.
