So? Who Won “The Debate”?

Well, of course, that is going to depend on who you ask. But it appears that the “Big Debate”, the Lincoln/Douglas Debate of the 21st Century, went to Mehmet Oz in a landslide.

Oh, don’t get me wrong. There were quite a few libs out there that wanted to say what an admirable job John Fetterman did, seeing how he suffered a debilitating stroke just five months ago. But on substance…on what you bring to a debate stage? There was no doubt that Oz was the overall winner without much question.

Even liberals took to Twitter to ask why in the world Fetterman’s team ever would have let him take the debate stage against Oz. I can answer that one very quickly. What Fetterman has been doing on the campaign trail hasn’t been working. If it has, he would have played Katie Hobbs out here in the desert and refused to debate. Except, she isn’t leading in the polls.

Look, if you haven’t been able to watch the debate, I will give Fetterman credit for showing up. Let’s face it. Even without a stroke and at full mental capacity, Fetterman was up to his eyeballs in crap last night. Mehmet Oz has made a living over the last decade in front of a TV camera. You think he was the least bit worried or nervous? C’mon! Here’s a guy that has pitched some of the lamest medical devices in the history of the world to an adoring public and got away with it. Facing a stroke victim and having to keep a straight face and he bumbles his way through an answer? Childs play!

On substance, Fetterman apparently flip-flopped on his stance on fracking. He had earlier even signed a pledge stating that he would ban fracking. That’s not what came out of his mouth. He said during the debate that he always “supported fracking”. Ooops!

On a different subject, Fetterman said that he never backed a Bernie Sanders style socialist healthcare plan. However, back in 2016, Fetterman said that a national single-payer plan was “ideal”. Now, which was it?

Oz didn’t escape entirely. He was asked about abortion, and here was his reply, “There should not be involvement from the federal government in how states decide their abortion decisions,” Oz said. “As a physician, I’ve been in the room when there are some difficult conversations happening. I don’t want the federal government involved with that at all. I want women, doctors, local political leaders, letting the democracy that’s always allowed our nation to thrive, to put the best ideas forward so states can decide for themselves.”

Liberals of course, had a problem with that. Anyone that comes out with any restrictions (including a states’ rights argument) on abortion is deemed to have lost any debate, or any sane person’s vote. Actually, what Oz said mimicked the Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson decision and is actually the only correct legal decision the high court could have reached if you take emotion out of it.

Overall? Oz in a landslide. If this doesn’t move him into the lead over Fetterman, as he only trailed by 1.6% before the debate, I don’t think anything will. Move Pennsylvania into the safely RED column.

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!

Arguing With Ignorance

Larry The Cable Guy once made a catch phrase out of “You can’t fix stupid”. Well, I learned this past week that you can’t fix ignorance either. Actually you can if you just learn, but you can’t fix ignorance when people aren’t able to understand they are ignorant.

So, over the Thanksgiving week, I got into a debate with someone that felt that Donald Trump should indeed be impeached because of all of the ruinous things he’s done to the country. Now, this person couldn’t specifically identify what ruinous things Trump had done except “be a bully”, which I whole-heartedly agree with. But being a bully, last I checked isn’t an impeachable offense. No, it’s not very presidential, but it’s not illegal.

And it got me to thinking, that when you are debating the merits of anything with someone that’s ignorant and hasn’t done their research, you are not going to win. You are going to prove to yourself that you shouldn’t be having that discussion in the first place. This was the case in my situation. I was talking with someone who didn’t know who Adam Schiff was. They didn’t know who Jerry Nadler was. They weren’t aware that people on the Democrat side had called for Donald Trump’s impeachment even before he took office, just because… well, that was another thing they couldn’t identify.

We’ve talked about impeachment for months here, and probably will for at least a couple more as it continues to be the elephant in the room. But for the Millennials and even some Gen X’ers out there, they don’t follow this stuff. And when they do, they get their news from NPR, or the three major networks, or another of the liberal press outlets. So, they’re getting tainted fake news that is filtered and not factual. And of course, they aren’t up to speed on what is factual. So, they spew whatever opinions they have heard last. Hence, Donald Trump is a terrible person, an illegal president because he’s a bully and he badgers people he doesn’t agree with, and for that reason, he should be impeached. They don’t say, removed from office because they don’t understand the whole impeachment process, and don’t realize that impeachment is simply the accusation phase.

You can’t argue with people that aren’t equipped to argue the facts. If all they have is their opinion, you’re going to get semantics and circular logic, which is what I found out. You’re best at that point to either tell them to get educated on the subject before opening their mouth (and that won’t end well!), or just wave them off and let them have their say. You can write them off as another of the uneducated masses.

I think it was Mark Twain who said, “Never argue with a fool. Onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.”

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!