I’m ok to keep it the Vance walz debate. It’s what I was posting about anyways. However, I appreciate the bulwark links and do agree. He made it all sound reasonable. That’s the point of debating. Present your case in an articulate poignant fashion. IMO, Vance did that. Walz did not.
Vance is a very good (excellent?) debater but he is also a morally hollow man that is very common among Private Equity people like him: He will say anything to get ahead, so when looking back with his former statements that should be clear. Btw, as far as I know Mitt Romney has never said anything similar about Graham that is a morally hollow man that lost his moral compass when John McCain died, and is still morally rudder less Ilike most of GOP at national level).
As for Harris changing her opinions over the years: Sure, if warranted when facts and circumstances changes so does rational peoples opinions; that is what I expect of those I vote for. That is very different from the crass brown-nosing Vance has done just to get ahead (he didn't mind working for and being bank rolled by creeps like Peter Thiel that is child less and have no stake in our future, using Vance own words), whatever the cost to anyone else.
So, to go back to Mrs Harris: Has she changed her opinion on several important issues since her failed bid for Democratic nominee for President in 2020 elections. Yeah, sure. Has being a Vice President something to do with this? Yeah sure. Do candidates for President change their (public) opinions between primary and officially becomes candidate and start campaigning as such? Hell yeah!
Who do I think will preserve democracy and rule of law? Harris any day, as she has shown so over the decades.
