One in my debate group offered criticism in regard to my post on the presidential debate: who-is-lying-now?:
Your bias is definitely showing. Like you so often do, you only mention possible discrepancies by the Democrats yet fail to be balanced and acknowledge the blatant lies by Trump
I must water down my criticism of VP Harris to satisfy my critic’s sense of fair play? I must acknowledge Trump lies, exaggerates, and stretches the truth sometimes? I never claimed Trump was a boy scout and I am aware of his checkered past. However, my intent was to establish Harris and the moderators lied extensively during this debate. She, not Trump, was the subject of my premise: she deceived the American public–especially drive-by voters just tuning into the election–without adequate pushback from moderators or from Trump–and her deception was aided by biased moderators.
Furthermore, Harris has never demonstrated the necessary skills to lead: as California Attorney General, US Senator, or Vice President. We have heard little about her past accomplishments, and we did not hear specifics during the debate. These are legitimate concerns, so why chastise me for not focusing on President Trump? That’s my critic’s role, not mine. I challenged the group with this response:
Tell me what Trump lied about during the debate. Show me that his lies compare with what Harris lied about. If you can do that, I will respect your criticism. I took the time to research and write about the lies. Can you do it also?
Nevertheless, in this post I compare and contrast the two candidates and offer criticism to my preferred candidate (who can withstand the scrutiny).
Why Bother?
Far too many citizens disengage from politics. Many simply cannot be bothered. Others engage, but then turn away because politics is an ugly business. Nevertheless, politics these days has an increasingly large impact on our lives. If we ignore politics altogether, one day we will wonder what happened to all our nice things.
“How did you go bankrupt?” Bill asked.
“Two ways,” Mike said. “Gradually and then suddenly.” From: The Sun Also Rises (Ernest Hemmingway).
While the masses disengage from politics, changes come gradually. When the trap is sprung suddenly: our freedoms are gone, our elections no longer matter, those in power control the message completely, and it is too late to recover. All is not lost yet though, but it will be if more do not vigorously engage. Know the issues and know the candidates, please! Politicians know the ignorant are much easier to manipulate.
So, what should we do? First, acknowledge all our choices are flawed. We must vote for folks despite the flaws we detect and the disagreements we may have with proposed policies or past actions. It has been axiomatic since I was a child that politicians lie. This corrupting flaw among so many of our politicians makes our choices very difficult. Still, don’t sit idle because you dislike all the candidates. There are generally enough differences to distinguish two flawed candidates. I have often held my nose and voted. It is not sinful to vote for a flawed candidate (although I have been schooled by ardent liberals who think so). You are not corrupted by the process. You have done your civic duty as long as you vote in good conscience.
Who is Genuine?
Many believe it best to remain independent and vote for the person. However, consider also the direction their party wants to take us; even sincere and well-intentioned candidates are often subsumed by the party once in office. You may like your representative, but he may be beholden to his party to get elected and stay in office. Furthermore, the longer your well-intentioned, good hearted representative remains in power, the more likely he is corrupted by politics.
In my estimation, voting Republican is the only moral choice–absent a glaring problem for an individual candidate. The Democrats have nothing to offer; they are morally, spiritually, and intellectually bankrupt (and have been for years). The party’s unwavering support for abortion (a holocaust greater than the Nazi holocaust) is enough to dissuade me. The party has been given over to evil via abortion, but supports other awful practices: completely open borders, transgender surgeries for minors, biological males in female sports, and openly discriminatory DEI policies. It continually violates the first and second amendments, seeks to impose one-party rule by manipulating election laws, builds support for itself (and divides the nation) by creating victimized classes and (falsely) blaming victimizers, lowers military standards, and refuses to fully support long-time allies like Israel (the party supports them in rhetoric but not action). Other than these minor sticking points, I’d say Democrats are a great bunch of people.
I am not blind, however; I know many Republicans are phonies. I make no excuses for the many poor Republican candidates or the poor party leadership during most of my lifetime. Republicans barely hold back the demonic flood that may ruin our nation forever; we cannot be sanguine about going to Hell just a bit slower. Yet, Republicans are by default far better than a demonically guided party guided demonic-marxism-rises-who-will-oppose-it. The garden variety Republican candidate stands with me on at least one or two important issues while I find nothing in common with any Democrat. If there is a political figure that will unite the nation and spark a national revival, I am certain that figure will come from the Right.
I will acknowledge President Trump, like most politicians, has issues with the truth on occasion (no, he doesn’t walk on water). If we agree the vast majority of politicians lie, exaggerate, avoid questions, grandstand, put their fingers in the wind, have ugly skeletons in their closets, and basically do the annoying things politicians generally do, then what is to distinguish candidates from one another? Is one better only because his or her flaws are less common or less noticeable? I don’t wish to debate someone who argues his preferred candidate lies less often than mine. We need a better standard than who deceives us the least.
Furthermore, one candidate often appears better because media intervenes and distorts the picture. One-channel media certainly paints a caricature of President Trump which does not acknowledge any redeeming qualities. They exaggerate his faults (which are already apparent) and remove the nuance and the humor from everything he says. They also put their thumbs on the scale for their favorites, not just ignoring faults, but also denying or covering up any such fault. They unabashedly invent stories to support their narratives. Of course, conservative media can distort as well, but not to anywhere near the same degree.
Still, how do folks who do not put much stock in political affiliation decide? I suggest they examine the one characteristic which best separates the good from the bad politicians, separates the men from the boys basically: genuineness.
Americans can forgive or overlook candidates gaffes or inconsistencies, but hypocrisy and insincerity are the kisses of death. Are you creating a false impression of yourself? Do you really believe the things you say you stand for? Every candidate claims to be a patriot and stand for American democratic principles, but do their positions, their words and their actions support or belie those claims? Are they for the working man? Are they really public servants? Are they concerned for what is best for the nation and its people? Do tey have every intention of following through on their word or do they only seek power?
So, Mirror, Mirror on the wall, tell us: who is the truest of them all?
Rorschach Test
After ten years of the political Trump, media continues to attempt to re-define him. I cannot say how many times I have heard he or his followers portrayed as Nazis or fascists.
Democratic strategist James Carville warns voters that Donald Trump is a full-blown Nazi who is openly telling people he is going to use the military to “round up his political opponents.”
This mantra no longer has impact on me. Tell me what else you think. The shelf life expired long ago.
In any case, Trump didn’t do this his four years, so why would he start now? Furthermore, who has been arresting or prosecuting their political opponents: Trump or Democrats? What happened to Dinesh D’Souza, Peter Navarro, Steve Bannon, Michael Flynn, and even Donald Trump? Which Democrats had similar treatment?
Two years ago, President Biden labeled MAGA Republicans traitors:
biden-remarks-september-01-2022
Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic.
But there is no question that the Republican Party today is dominated, driven, and intimidated by Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans, and that is a threat to this country.
And here, in my view, is what is true: MAGA Republicans do not respect the Constitution. They do not believe in the rule of law. They do not recognize the will of the people.
They refuse to accept the results of a free election. And they’re working right now, as I speak, in state after state to give power to decide elections in America to partisans and cronies, empowering election deniers to undermine democracy itself.
MAGA Republicans have made their choice. They embrace anger. They thrive on chaos. They live not in the light of truth but in the shadow of lies.
In another speech, Biden labeled MAGA Republicans “semi-fascists”:
biden-calling-maga-semi-fascist-movement
“What we’re seeing now is either the beginning or the death knell of an extreme MAGA philosophy,” Biden told Democratic donors during a private meeting last week. “It’s not just Trump, it’s the entire philosophy that underpins the—I’m going to say something: It’s like semi-fascism.”
We are continually told Trump is an evil genius who will undermine our democracy and our Constitution during the next four years, even though he didn’t undermine them previously. I don’t like Trump’s flaws either, but I cannot tolerate the hyperbolic rhetoric and over-the-top exaggerations regarding Trump’s character. Why can’t they stick to what he actually said and actually did? Why must they embellish and play on fears?
We are told elections will end if Trump takes office, but they didn’t end after his last term and there was a peaceful transfer of power in 2021. Yes, many Republicans still dispute the results of 2020 (and worry about shenanigans in 2024), but Democrats did not accept results in the 2000, 2004, and 2016 presidential elections along with gubernatorial races in 2018.
WATCH THE FOLLOWING IF YOU WANT THE WHOLE STORY. I DARE YOU. THEY ATTEMPT TO TRANSFER THEIR OWN GUILT. IT IS THEIR OWN WORDS, NOT MINE.
We already know many of Trump’s faults because he makes little effort to hide them. His worst is in the open. However, one-channel media takes it much too far. Trump says tongue-in-cheek he will be dictator for a day and media compares him to Julius Caesar undermining the Roman Republic. Strip away the hyperbolic rhetoric and a flawed but reasonable Donald Trump emerges.
This other side of Trump shines through in an interview with podcaster and comedian Andrew Shultz: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ry1IjOft95c&t=4463s.
- Trump says he “is basically a truth teller”. He tacitly admits he stretches the truth and exaggerates at times. I am not condoning lying, but this is more than most politicians will admit.
- When Shultz shares a story relayed to him from Don Jr., Trump Sr. comes across as a loving dad. Many politicians exploit their families for political gain, but this was a genuine and interesting exchange not raised by Trump himself. Furthermore, his five kids appear to have led normal and successful lives, unlike the children of a great many public figures, including two of the three Biden kids.
- I was appalled when Trump mocked Senator John McCain’s (incredible) war record, yet he (partially) disarms his critics on this point: “I can’t mention some of those names I used before because some of them are my friends now.” I laughed because it was funny. He also describes how the names are developed and delivered. It is a bit gauche, but still very amusing.
- Trump also talks about doing the “weave”, a term he invented for describing his rambling answers. It is a self-deprecation that seems genuine. At least, he recognizes this fault.
I still do not like the name calling, the excessive attacks, the exaggerations, the imprecise language, along with the bombast, but they are not the sum total of Trump. During this interview, Trump comes across as self-deprecating, funny, quick-witted, empathetic, likeable, and genuine. Steve Deace describes Trump as “the most likeable narcissist” he knows. It is impossible to fake genuineness in a long interview with several others (who are not partisan supporters by any means). This interview enables voters to find common ground with Trump and shatters the caricature continually embellished by one-channel media.
On the other hand, in a recent exchange VP Harris appears to be trying to recreate her image. During a visit to Georgia to view storm damage, she criticized Florida Governor DeSantis whom she said was avoiding her phone calls:
“Moments of crisis, if nothing else, should really be the moment that anyone who calls themselves a leader says they’re going to put politics aside and put the people first. People are in desperate need of support right now and playing political games with this moment in these crisis situations, these are the height of emergency situations, it’s just utterly irresponsible and it is selfish.”
Perhaps the governor is indeed avoiding her, and for political gain. But then Governor DeSantis lays the VP’s comments bare:
I am working with the President of the United States. I am working with the Director of FEMA. I am marshalling all my state assets. We’ve been doing this non-stop for over two weeks between Helene and this, and so if there is anything I can leverage to benefit my people, I am going to do it.
The fact of the matter is they put out a story saying I didn’t take a phone call from her. I didn’t even know she was trying to reach me. She [Harris] has no role in this process. I have been dealing with these storms under both Trump and Biden. Neither of them politicized it, and in fact in all the storms I’ve dealt with under this administration . . . she has never called in. She has never offered any support. She’s trying to inject herself into this because of her political campaign.
She never offered help during prior storms? She parachutes in when it might look good? Surprisingly, President Biden added the finishing touch by saying DeSantis, a rival Republican, is doing well during the recent hurricane crises. Hmm.
“The governor of Florida has been cooperative. He said he’s gotten all that he needs. I talked to him again yesterday, and I said – no – you’re doing a great job, it’s all being done well and we thank you for it,” President Biden, press conference Tuesday, October 8
These two examples are telling as they come in the waning days of the campaign when both candidates are trying to make final impressions. Ask yourself: who is the most genuine? Who is creating a false impression of themselves?
Vance Lied?
I didn’t receive a substantive list of Trump’s debate lies from my debate group. They say I am biased, but I actually outlined substantive criticisms. They should reciprocate with substantive claims themselves. However, I found Salon’s criticism of Senator J.D. Vance during his debate with Governor Tim Walz. Let it be their proxy:
Republicans are drowning in Donald Trump’s lies | Salon.com
GOP leaders, like Vance and House Speaker Mike Johnson, have obviously discovered that if they lie with a congenial look on their faces, there is no limit to how much they can get away with.
Salon raises four substantive points during which Vance congenially lied (I inserted Vance’s debate comments in parenthesis):
- Consider that he congenially but blatantly lied about having said that he favored a national abortion ban (Vance: I never supported a national ban. I did during, when I was running for Senate in 2022, talk about setting some minimum national standard)
- that Donald Trump had saved Obamacare, (Vance: Look, Donald Trump has said that if we allow states to experiment a little bit on how to cover both the chronically ill, but the non chronically ill. It’s not just a plan. He actually implemented some of these regulations when he was President of the United States. And I think you can make a really good argument that it salvaged Obamacare, which was doing disastrously until Donald Trump came along.)
- that carbon emissions aren’t the main cause of climate change (Vance: but one of the things that I’ve noticed some of our democratic friends talking a lot about is a concern about carbon emissions. This idea that carbon emissions drives all the climate change.)
- that Chinese imports raised the cost of consumer goods. (Vance: Governor, you say trust the experts, but those same experts for 40 years said that if we shipped our manufacturing base off to China, we’d get cheaper goods. They lied about that. )
Let’s address them in order.
First, Vance was not asked about his own view on the abortion (he is adamantly pro-life). Instead, he was asked why he changed his position on a national abortion ban. NBC news in a fact check listed several Vance quotes which supposedly show he had indeed flip-flopped. https://www.nbcnews.com/health/womens-health/jd-vance-abortion-stance-rcna162086
But, not so fast. Did he actually shift his position?
When running for Senator in October 2022, Vance said: “You can have some minimum national standards, which is my view, while also allowing the states to make up their minds. California is going to have a different view than Ohio. That’s totally fine.”
This is completely consistent with his debate answer. He said states should decide.
Last December, Vance told Jake Tapper: “We have to accept that people do not want blanket abortion bans. They just don’t.”
This is also true. A complete national ban is supported by a small segment (people like me). Bans can (and have been) implemented in states, but there is not enough support for a national ban. This comment too is consistent with his debate response.
This past May, Vance told Face the Nation: “What I’ve said consistently is the gross majority of policy here is gonna be set by the states,”
Consistent again. Where is the problem folks?
Finally, Vance told the Very Fine People podcast he “certainly would like abortion to be illegal nationally.” I want this as well. How we get there is another story; strategy differs widely among pro-lifers.
Still, Vance didn’t commit his support for national legislation in this or any other quote. The question to Vance insinuated he flip-flopped. He had not. The real concern for one-channel media is that Vance is pro-life, but nobody addressed that concern to Vance directly.
The next issue is Obamacare. Trump did attempt to overturn Obamacare early in his administration, but Vance only claims that Trump, after losing legislatively, later worked within the system to improve it. Salon offers no proof Vance’s claim is inaccurate. It seems like an opinion to me.
Next, Vance is skeptical regarding carbon emissions as the main source of “climate change”. First, that’s an opinion supported by many others. Perhaps you think the “science is settled”? The science is rarely ever settled. That’s the argument given Copernicus and Galileo as well; they took the counter-intuitive position and were proven correct.
Second, there is evidence CO2 levels have been substantially higher in the past, yet the planet did not overheat.
On yet another scale, geology shows that all six of the great ice ages were initiated when atmospheric C02 was far higher than present . . . When atmospheric C02 was up to one thousand times higher than present, there were no tipping points, no carbon dioxide driven climate change, and no runaway global warming. Dr. Ian Pilmer, The Science of Climate Change
Current CO2 levels are in the low 400s (parts per million), a relatively modest level when compared to earth’s very long history.
Vance’s skepticism appears justified.
Finally, we consider the impact of Chinese imports on consumer goods. It is admittedly tough, if not impossible, to unravel the impact of individual policies on the price of goods over the last forty years. We should call it a debatable point, not a definitive lie. However, we can definitively say: consumer prices are markedly higher than four years ago. Furthermore, shipping our manufacturing to China is problematic when critical items, like antibiotics (90% are made in China) or lithium (China is a leading producer of this element necessary for EV batteries) are controlled by an increasingly bellicose government. We have cause for concern if China cuts off critical supplies we rely on them for.
Who you Gonna Vote for?
I attempted to appease my debate friends and offered criticism of both sides. I also demonstrated who I think is the most genuine. Genuineness seems a good measuring stick if you have no other and are not aligned with a party. Unfortunately, I could not be so equitable with advocacy for both sides because I simply cannot find reasons to vote Democrat. Please forgive my bias in this regard.
In any case, the election is near. Please consider your vote carefully and vote your conscience. Our nation will be better off if all take this seriously.
Dave https://seek-the-truth.com/about/
https://seek-the-truth.com/category/systemic/
seek-the-truth.com
Seek the Truth 