Trump played Harris to a draw

Donald Trump and Kamala Harris had their debate last night. (Indeed they might have another, if rumors of Harris wanting another have any substance.) On one hand, Donald Trump missed a major opportunity to distinguish himself on a heart-wrenching issue. But on the other, Kamala Harris – even if you can believe what she says – put on an act that will not convince anyone that she qualifies, by temperament or training, to be Commander-in-chief of the United States Armed Services. Trump also exposed Harris’ key vulnerability on matters of policy. She makes big promises, but had three and a half years of opportunities she never took to carry them out. Still, Trump carelessly played Harris to a stalemate – and stalemate is not checkmate.

ABC stacked the deck

Several influencers produced livestreams of the debate, and some offered instant fact-checks as the show wore on. Of all these influencers, Dan Bongino did the best job:

ABC’s moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis clearly slanted their moderation, as is typical of legacy media outlets. (It’s also typical of user groups on most social media that treat controversial subjects, from politics to life origins.) At one point they broke their own rules, allowing Harris to interrupt Trump on the subject of abortion. (That likely reflects their devotion to the left’s singular passion; more below.) They also accepted uncritically everything Kamala Harris said, on matters of fact or policy. In contrast, they challenged Trump on everything he said, including a particularly gruesome story out of Springfield, Ohio.

Trump knew this going in. But on every issue but one, he held forth for the truth, though ABC insisted that was merely his version. Nor did he apologize for anything he’s said or done, knowing that is always a sign of weakness and doubt.

If Trump does agree to another debate, he would do well not to appear before ABC – or NBC or CBS. Actually, almost no media organ exists, the personnel of which are interested in the truth. Nor will any such organ appear, until Trump returns to office and removes the institutional obstacles that the Censorship Industrial Complex has placed in their way.

Trump misses the mark

Abortion is, of course, the singular passion of Kamala Harris, the tag team of Muir and Davis, and single women. It has also been Trump’s singular weakness – because in point of fact, Trump has never fully embraced the pro-life position. He did replace a dedicated abortion proponent on the Supreme Court with a Moderate, one Originalist with another, and the Court’s wild card (Anthony Kennedy) with another moderate. Kamala Harris did herself no favors by trotting out the cliché that conservative Presidents appoint Supreme Court members who do their bidding. That’s what liberal Presidents do, as everyone knows. More to the point, almost no one who comments on any courts, understands how they work.

Having said that, Trump said only one thing close to a principled stand. He urged a vote for a Florida measure that forbids abortion after the sixth week. Though he said six weeks was too short a time, he did not care to see abortion up to the eighth or ninth month. Harris, for her part, vowed to sign into law a bill to “codify” the old Roe v. Wade regime – when actually it would legalize abortion on demand, up to or past birth, for any reason or no reason. (The Roe standard was always “viability outside the womb,” which medical advances always pushed toward stricter limits.) She also said Trump would sign a national abortion ban. That is absolutely impossible – because Trump hasn’t the temperament.

Would he lose any votes?

This last illustrates the missed opportunity. Those who advocate for abortion on demand, for any reason or no reason, have one of two motives. Most who would vote that way, do so to preserve the convenience of adultery and fornication without biological consequence. They might think the risk of never having children again either doesn’t exist – or really wouldn’t matter to them. The risk they want to avoid, is pregnancy. So they argue as if pregnancy can strike out of the blue, like lightning.

The elites who offer abortion on demand, do so for a profit motive. This profit could be immediate, through the sale of body parts, for transplant or as talismans of witchcraft. Or it could be depopulation, while the elites pursue dreams, however futile, of physical immortality for themselves.

Such people will never vote for a Donald Trump. Trump should realize that and appeal to a pro-life base. In his position, your editor would say – as he once said to a fellow resident in a teaching hospital:

You, who advocate for abortion – at any stage of gestation – haven’t handled “abortion specimens” in a hospital “surgical pathology” laboratory. You have not stared, as many pathologists and trainees have done, into the severed eyeballs of a dismembered child after a Dilatation and Evacuation or Dilatation or Extraction operation. Absolutely any specimen handler who can do that with total equanimity, has a seared conscience. And that goes double for those who actually perform abortions, from the Dilatation and Extraction technique of practitioners like Leroy Carhart, Kenneth Edelin, or Kermit Gosnell, to the suction curettage technique more commonly employed – at least before mifepristone became available.

Will that “win friends or influence people,” as the late Dale Carnegie might say? No. But with friends like these, no Presidential candidate, interested in truth or justice, would need enemies. On some issues, it’s better to write off some voters as unwinnable. Abortion is one such issue. Policies that involve theft from some for the unearned, unpaid benefit of others, is another.

Trump tells the truth about a disgusting Ohio tragedy

In contrast, Trump took a direct opportunity to shame not only Harris but also Muir and Davis. Springfield, Ohio is the unwilling host to a large group of Haitian immigrants having “temporary protected status.” Kamala Harris has boasted about granting that status, and said, “They need our support!”

Someone forgot to tell those immigrants that animals not in a zoo, are not food for any passers-by. At least one emergency-response (“911”) call records the taking of geese in public areas. Those might be Canada geese on their annual migration, who stopped to feed – and took their last meal. But several citizens appeared before the Springfield City Commission and told more dire stories than that.

They are taking ducks out of ponds in city parks – animals for which the city is responsible. Worse than that, they are taking pet dogs and cats. At least one pet owner saw a sight that broke her heart: the remains of her pet cat, hanging from a tree.

So Donald Trump addressed the issue directly:

They’re eating the dogs, those people who are coming in! They’re eating the dogs; they’re eating the cats!

And off to the side, Kamala Harris was – laughing. Now did that laugh mean,

I’ve got you nailed to the wall, dead-to-rights! City authorities have checked out those accounts, and there’s nothing to them. Those people are lying! Their pets ran off, and that’s all that’s happened!

Or did it mean,

Awwww. Poor boy. I guess Mama never told you that that’s life. It happens all the time – and we don’t need a President who cries over lost dogs and cats!

David Muir insisted that Springfield’s city manager told ABC that “no credible report” existed of the consumption or abuse of pet-kind animals by “members of the immigrant community.” Trump retorted that he believed those citizens who testified at a televised, or at least video-recorded, hearing. Laughing Girl doubled down on her scorn, both for Trump and for those Springfield citizens.

On the Election of 2020 – and the January 6 event

Nor did Trump flinch from his understanding that Joe Biden and the Democrats stole the Election of 2020. If anything, Harris started that fight. She described the January 6 Event as “the worst attack on our democracy since the Civil War.” She – and Muir and Davis – also were demanding assurances in advance that Trump would concede the Election of 2024. Muir brought up one unfortunate slip by Trump on an earlier occasion:

I lost by a whisker.

Trump replied – correctly – that he was being sarcastic. Six million nominal votes is not “a whisker.” Furthermore he pointed out that he has the receipts – from at least five States (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin). Voters in those States can hope that the “cheating and skulduggery” of 2020 cannot entirely repeat themselves in 2024. Muir also brought up the tired canard that sixty judges had “looked at the evidence and found none.” False, of course; those judges denied standing to Trump – and lack of standing precludes examination of the merits.

Trump pointed out one thing more. No person, on the Capitol Police side, died from any shot fired, or blow swung, in anger. On the other hand, Ashli Babbett died from a bullet from a half-crazed officer.

The one exception to the tag team

Linsey Davis handled nearly all the questioning of Kamala Harris. Very early in the debate she asked about Harris’ attempts to paint herself moderate. Davis couched her question with words to this effect:

What do you say to your leftist supporters who might feel betrayed?

In fact she asked the same questions Kirsten Welker asked of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). Sanders, of course, smiled and said Harris was pragmatically saying what she had to say to get elected. Harris, given the same question, threw up clouds of terminology and refused to answer directly. (As an aside, the obstinacy of Vermonters is proverbial. That’s probably why they have elected a consistent Soviet socialist for so many House and Senate terms.)

In fact Davis’ first question to Harris was an opportunity to get the “Are you better off” question out of the way. Harris refused to answer that question, either.

Which brings us to Trump’s closing statement – which he sensibly elected, after winning a coin toss, to deliver last. He pointed out that Harris now promises to do many things that (to some) seem wonderful. Yet in three and a half years she has taken no action. In any case, says Trump, look for Harris to return to extreme leftist form in every policy area. And why should voters expect anything else? Joe Biden did the same, and so did Gov. Tim Walz (D-Minn.).

Trump has one other issue with the media

Donald Trump will always have issues with the media – and not merely the legacies. Certain Never Trumpers exist even within the “alternative” media. One of them – Erick-Woods Erickson – has made statements that deserve a response here.

Even before the debate, Erickson asserted, without evidence, that some of the stories out of Springfield, Ohio were lies. He referred to the “false story … that Haitians were eating house cats.” At least the only evidence he adduced were a few callers – he didn’t say how many – who denied that any Haitian ate anyone’s pet.

Tell that to Sen. J. D. Vance (R-Ohio):

But a certain Indian billionaire denied the claim:

“Could be worse, I suppose…” said Elon Musk, who quoted this story about cannibalistic practices in Haiti itself.

Elon continued with police bodycam footage of an officer responding to a complaint about someone eating a cat.

If the city manager of Springfield denied this claim, he’s lying to protect his job. He still has to explain why the new arrivals are taking ducks from the park. But the only story Erickson prefers to believe, is about the taking of Canada geese. And Erickson forgives that – because geese are pests. (But the Migratory Bird Treaty Act,and international law,protect them.) Not everyone is so forgiving.

And if any Springfield residents are denying the claim, they weren’t at that City Commission meeting. Other residents have repeatedly confirmed the claim.

And furthermore…

The taking of the geese has a confirmatory police report, which has its basis in the 911 call. To repeat: the taking of Canada geese, however pestiferous anyone might find them, violates federal law and treaties. So that’s already something no American would do – nor have we heard reports of such behavior before.

Now consider this: Those Haitians are taking geese – and ducks from the park – to eat. So how can anyone predict they would spare someone’s pet? Could they even tell the difference between wild and companion animals? Would they care?

We have the receipts, Mr. Erickson. Deny them further if you dare.

Which brings us to the Election of 2020. Erickson says:

He chose to relitigate 2020.

Of course he did; your editor would have done the same. Trump has two grounds:

1. Eighty-one million votes, our hindquarters. No one wins that many votes who can’t attract a crowd large enough to fill a donor’s parlor.
2. The Stairstep. That is prima facie evidence of fraud. Someday even Mr. Erickson will understand that.

Next:

He chose to defend those who moved into the Capitol. Ashley Babbit, for the record, was trying to smash her way through a window to let a mob get through a door as, literally, members of Congress were fleeing down the hallway on the other side of the door. The police officer was justified in using force.

That’s a lie. First, her first name was Ashli, not Ashley. At least spell her name correctly. Second, Michael Byrd acted precipitously, in anger that anyone would dare delegitimize the Presidential candidate for whom he voted. Beyond that, the January 6 Event was a false-flag pseudo-operation. Someday, perhaps, Mr. Erickson will understand that, too, when President Trump, returning to office, will fire those who are arresting and imprisoning anyone who dares bring forward the receipts.

Reaction

Apart from that ignoramus who calls himself “The Georgia Political Junkie,” reaction to this debate has been uniformly negative. Nearly all influencers condemn David Muir and Linsey Davis for giving Harris a pass and backing her up in lies. The fact checks of Trump might have been excusable, if:

1. They actually had any basis in fact, and
2. Harris had come in for the same treatment.

Neither was true, and the country knows it.

Furthermore, anyone who displays such ignorance of federal law as Erick-Woods Erickson does, shows himself an unreliable, therefore untrustworthy, witness.

This afternoon another electrifying rumor came forward: that Kamala Harris was wearing a NOVA H1® Audio Earring during the debate.

Close-ups of her left ear on several platforms reveal an object bearing an uncomfortable resemblance to this hearing-aid-like transmitter. Naturally this would be in direct violation of the rules. Actually, the influencer who revealed the pictures, doubts the rumor – because, he says, any advice she got, didn’t help. According to Dr. Steve Turley, post-debate poll results seem to bear this out.

So why did Trump achieve a stalemate?

Kamala Harris needed to achieve checkmate – putting the king in threat and leaving him no way out. Trump could and should have achieved checkmate himself. He didn’t. The reason he settled for stalemate is that he lacks full conviction on issues of basic social importance. Conviction of a new believer by the Holy Spirit is often a slow process, and in Trump it is incomplete. Once it does complete itself, Trump will not merely sign a bill to forbid “abortion tourism” at least. He will actively campaign for such a measure, regarding “abortion tourism” as every bit as disgusting as is the child sexual trafficking he already condemns. (Some abortion-ban States already are looking to ban abortion tourist trafficking of minor girls.) An actual abortion ban will likely require a Constitutional amendment.

Kamala Harris, on the other hand, wouldn’t even answer the “Are You Better Off” question. Nor would she have been able to answer Trump’s final question: why haven’t you done anything already? But worst of all, she whined during the debate, when she wasn’t laughing at the spectacle of immigrants eating pets (and implicating their host country in treaty violations). Very rich, considering her warmongering stance toward the Russia-Ukraine War.

In short: stalemate. Several election cycles ago, that would have been a waste. But today’s voters, being more sophisticated, already are looking things up. That’s why Dr. Steve Turley says Trump is winning post-debate polls, and ABC News has wrecked its reputation.