What did you think of the Vice-Presidential Debate between Senator JD Vance and Gov. Tim Walz? Personally, I thought it went well for both candidates.  Although many will give you a reason why this candidate or that won the debate, I was glad to see what these debates are all about.  Knowledge concerning the party’s platforms as they pertain to the questions asked.  When this happens, the debate is useful and there is no true winner.

I thought that Tim Walz started out slowly and was a bit nervous.  Something I would certainly be if I had been in his shoes.  He, as I understand, had not debated before.  During much of the debate Walz reiterated the platform we have heard about from him and Vice President Harris on the campaign trail. There is no doubt about what the Democratic platform has in store for our future.  So, in the scheme of things, I thought he did very well and had more details about his party’s proposals.  What were your thoughts about how Walz did?  Did you learn what you wanted to?

As far as Sen. Vance is concerned, I thought he did very well, too.  Some of the information I heard on their campaign trail wasn’t repeated so I was happy about that.  Yet, I did wonder what happened to the campaigning Vance.  In the debate he was professional, quick to respond, and very cordial.  I haven’t seen any of this in his speeches around the country.  What were your thoughts about this side of him?  Did you learn any more in the debate about the missing Republican platform?

And the platform is missing.  We only have Project 2025 and what it details.  We do know that the Republicans want to deport many millions of illegal immigrants.  Yet with a movement this big, how would they reinforce the economy to make it through an effort this detrimental to it?  Even if they could determine who is in our country illegally and who is here legally.  In their speeches, former President Trump and Vance seem to have already written off the Haitians in Springfield, Ohio as illegal; which they are not.

The Republicans also want to place across-the-board tariffs on many imports including foodstuffs.  Do we really think that other countries will absorb the costs of these tariffs and not raise their prices?  These other countries will pay the tariffs, the U. S. government will see the income from them, and the consumers, us, will pay for the tariffs through price increases.  We pay for them and the money ends up in the U.S. Government treasury.  When I pay the government, I call it taxes.

Towards the end of the debate, I became very interested in a few comments by Vance.  As reported by MSNBC, one was: “When Vance was asked if he would seek to challenge the results of the 2024 election if he and Trump lost, he deflected. “I believe that we actually do have a threat to democracy in this country,” he said. “It is the threat of censorship.” Vance later added, “Kamala Harris is engaged in censorship at an industrial scale.”  You can find this at: www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/jd-vance-claim-democrats-censoring-conservatives-rcna173859.

Just how does the Executive branch engage in censorship?  How would they stop the internet from placing online what you and others have to say?  How would they stop each paper in the country from publishing your opinions?  How would they tell Congress to write a law of censorship of free speech?  If you watch any C-SPAN or other news about congressional hearings, you’ve seen where it is almost impossible for any particular social media or news outlet to be asked to take fiction off their sites let alone be told to.

In the same article mentioned above, there was another statement by Vance to try and prove that the censorship was happening: “One example appeared in the debate itself, when Vance alleged to Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, ‘You yourself have said there’s no First Amendment right to misinformation.’ What he — and the conservative influencers who made this old quote go viral over the summer — didn’t tell viewers was that Walz was speaking about misinformation in the context of voter intimidation and disenfranchisement, neither of which are protected speech.”

There are so many more examples of various untruths, (to be polite), that what we need to do as voters is to check various political fact checking sites to get the truth. It shouldn’t have to be this way.  We should not have to do this.  But this is the way of politics today.  More on one side than the other.  So, Vance was professional, quick to respond, and very cordial.  But did he always tell the truth or nearly the whole truth?  Only you can decide.