Rhetoric, Bias, and Lies: The Recipe for Harris's Debate Win. Taylor Swift Falls in Line

Harris triumphed on style over substance, baiting and exploiting Trump's outsized ego. She also benefited from the bias of ABC News moderators who are in the Democratic Party camp.

MSNBC commentators were jubilant and giddy after the debate, convinced Harris had decisively won. Taylor Swift's endorsement, with her massive influence over 283 million followers, was the crowning achievement of the night for the Harris campaign.

“She commanded the room from the second she walked up and shook his hand and said: ‘My name is Kamala Harris.’ And she had him on the defense from the second that debate opened up,” California Gov. Gavin Newsom told reporters afterwards. “Donald Trump has a real problem, and that is, he’s Donald Trump. He cannot change; he can’t help himself. And she proved that tonight. He’s so easy to trigger.”

Harris and her team deserve credit. She exceeded the low bar of expectations and outmaneuvered an unprepared Donald J. Trump who took the bait, falling into her carefully laid traps throughout the debate. She effectively took advantage of how the debate was structured and outflanked the more debate-experienced Trump.

Kamala Harris won the debate because she was (1) better prepared than Trump, (2) aided by biased ABC moderators, (3) more effective in argumentation, (4) willing to deceive and lie, and (5) well-prepped to evade the most important questions, which would have exposed her hypocrisy.

As a lawyer trained in argumentation, Harris had an edge when combined with thorough preparation. She was prepped to troll and play on Trump's ego, which ate up time—beneficial because the more time spent on substantive policy issues and values, the more Harris loses.

Harris secured her victory through a combination of preparation, rhetoric, calculated deception, outright lies, and the assistance of visibly biased moderators. She triumphed on style over substance, baiting and exploiting Trump's outsized ego.

A key factor in her success was keeping Trump constantly on the defensive, which kept him on his heels throughout the debate. Trump's underestimation of his opponent proved costly, allowing Harris to dominate the debate's direction and ultimately claim victory.

This spectacle, while a tactical triumph for Harris, ultimately cheated the audience of a substantive debate on policies and governing principles, reducing a crucial political discourse to mere theatrics.

Biased Moderators Helped Harris

ABC News moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis drew criticism for their apparent bias against Donald Trump during Tuesday's presidential debate. Their partiality was painfully evident in multiple aspects:

1. Posing more antagonistic "gotcha" questions to Trump compared to Harris

2. Pressing Trump with follow-up questions while allowing Harris to sidestep inquiries without further probing

3. Fact-checking Trump's statements while permitting Harris to make many unchallenged false claims

A report from the Media Research Center’s (MRC) NewsBusters found that an analysis of “100 campaign stories” aired on World News Tonight, hosted by David Muir, found “25 clearly positive statements” made about Harris from “reporters, anchors, voters or other non-partisan sources,” which represented a 100 percent positive spin on the outlets reporting for Harris.

The 100 campaign stories that MRC reviewed stemmed from July 21, when Harris entered the 2024 presidential race, to September 6.

An analysis of ABC’s reporting on Trump found “five clearly positive statements” and “66 negative statements,” representing a 93 percent negative spin on the outlets reporting for Trump.

The MRC’s NewsBusters report noted that “ABC’s reporters and anchors either jumped in to criticize Trump themselves, or broadcast negative comments from non-partisan sources to impart a heavily negative spin to the former President’s coverage.”

Argumentation and Rhetoric

Harris and the Democrats, particularly the far-left progressives, mirror the ancient Sophists in their tactics. They wield deceptive and misleading rhetoric, masquerading as effective messaging, to manipulate the uninformed, naive, and gullible segments of society. Their use of terms like 'value' and 'vision' is a smokescreen, imbuing destructive policies with a false sense of virtue. These are policies and values that, when stripped of their linguistic camouflage, the majority of Americans would reject outright.

A substantial portion of the country—potentially as much as half—has embraced the left's rhetoric and purported 'values'. This demographic, which includes influencers like Taylor Swift, was Harris's primary target audience during the debate. She tailored her performance to resonate with and further entrench this base, rather than engaging in a genuine exchange of ideas.

As a lawyer trained in argumentation and rhetoric, Harris had an edge when combined with thorough preparation. Argumentation is a means of decision-making. It takes place with the audience in mind, and the audience is the ultimate judge of success or failure. It occurs only under conditions of uncertainty, and it involves justification (rather than proof) of ideas and beliefs. The difference between justification and proof is critical.

Studies of argumentation trace their origins to classical Greece. New itinerant teachers in Athens were known as Sophists taught that there were two sides to every question, and they were accused of excessive concern for technique. They regarded winning an argument as an end in itself, regardless of one’s purpose or the soundness of one’s position. Plato regarded these excesses as inherent in rhetoric (and hence in argumentation) itself. Argumentation was the foundation of rhetoric, the basis for attempts to influence others.

Deception and Lies to Win an Election

The calculated deception and lies were likely rationalized as necessary to secure electoral victory. This cost-benefit analysis prioritized winning over maintaining credibility, banking on a significant portion of the electorate being uninformed, misinformed, or naive. In essence, Harris and her party are counting on voter 'stupidity' to catapult her into office. This tactic echoes the Obama administration's approach when they purposely misled the public about Obamacare to ensure its passage.

As an example, neither of the moderators clarified Harris’ claim that Trump once said, “there will be a bloodbath if this and the outcome of this election is not to his liking”—an incorrect interpretation of a comment the former president made during an Ohio rally in March. The full context of that particular statement makes it clear Trump was referring to a “bloodbath” in the domestic automobile industry if Biden was reelected, not advocating for or suggesting a violent reaction.

She lied repeatedly about her support for fracking

“I will not ban fracking. I haven’t banned fracking since 2020,” Vice President Kamala Harris said Tuesday night in her debate with former President Donald Trump.

“There is no question I’m in favor of banning fracking,” candidate Kamala Harris said during a town hall hosted by CNN in 2020. Harris also falsely claimed she cast “the deciding vote to increase drilling.”

The following content is attributed to David Blackmon, posted on September 11:

Harris claimed to have cast the tie-breaking vote in her role as president of the Senate to pass the Orwellian Inflation Reduction Act, which even President Joe Biden recently admitted was mis-named. That bill contains language designed to lead to increased leasing and drilling for oil and gas on public lands. But the Biden/Harris Department of Interior, led by lifelong anti-oil and gas activist Deb Haaland, has consistently chosen to ignore the law.

Indeed, the Bureau of Land Management’s own data demonstrates that leasing of federal lands during the Biden/Harris regime has been a small fraction of even the low levels seen during the Obama/Biden era.

When the ABC moderators did pose a question on energy, it was slanted in a way to set up Harris to launch an attack on Trump, as when David Muir asked Trump about climate change by couching the question in terms of Trump’s belief that climate change theory is a hoax.

In the end, it was an unserious question posed by biased moderators that did nothing to advance the debate and little to inform the public about what Ms. Harris would do differently than her current administration has done over the last 4 years.

More than once, Harris repeated her mantra that, whatever she says about fracking or climate change or any other issue, “my values haven’t changed.” Many believe that is a coded message to her ideological supporters that they shouldn’t worry about all the position changes she’s made since being anointed as the nominee, because she doesn’t really mean them.

Taylor Swift Endorsement

In a post on Instagram, Swift told her over 283 million followers that she will vote for the US vice president in the Nov. 5 election, in the biggest celebrity endorsement yet for Harris. "I will be casting my vote for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz in the 2024 Presidential Election. I'm voting for @kamalaharris because she fights for the rights and causes I believe need a warrior to champion them," Swift said in her post.

Swift was pictured with her cat in the post, which she signed as "childless cat lady," in a dig at Trump's running mate JD Vance, who in a 2021 interview called some Democrats "a bunch of childless cat ladies." He has since said it was merely a "sarcastic remark."

Swift also said she was impressed by Harris' running mate Tim Walz, who the singer described as someone "who has been standing up for LGBTQ+ rights, IVF, and a woman's right to her own body for decades." Walz, who was on air on MSNBC when the endorsement was announced, said he was "incredibly grateful" and urged the singer's large fan base of "Swifties" to "Get things going."

One can only wonder if Swift aligns with Harris's far-left stances: taxpayer-funded gender reassignment for illegal aliens; citizenship pathways for those who entered illegally; decriminalizing all drugs, including cocaine and fentanyl, for personal use; and effectively dismantling ICE by banning deportations. These radical policies, championed by Harris, raise questions about the depth of Swift's political understanding and the implications of her influential endorsement.

Why do more women vote for Democrats?

The voting patterns of single women have been a subject of political interest and study. Recent research suggests correlations between lifestyle choices, physical fitness, and political leanings.

A study from Brunel University in England found that men who are more muscular, frequent gym-goers, and exhibit powerful body language tend to favor less government intervention in the economy. This builds on a 2021 study suggesting that testosterone injections could influence Democratic men to lean more Republican. Various theories attempt to explain why single women tend to vote Democratic:

1. Government as a paternal figure

2. Economic factors (desire for social programs)

3. Potential lack of public policy knowledge

4. Left-wing Media influence

Paul Rubin's 2002 book "Darwinian Politics" offers an evolutionary perspective on this trend. Voting patterns across countries show women generally leaning left and men right, with about a 15-point gap in the US. Notably, married women tend to vote Republican by 5 points, similar to men, while single women favor Democrats by 48 points.

Media focus also differs:
• Right-leaning media emphasizes national strength, wealth, and health
• Left-leaning media often portrays societal conflicts between various groups

This difference in messaging particularly resonates with single women, influencing their voting behavior.

Values and Policies

The following is a summary of John Soloman’s Just the News report published on September 10, 2024:

The far-left confession that Kamala Harris may not be able to escape, even after debate

Kamala Harris is facing the possibility that the candidate questionnaire she filled out for the American Civil Liberties Union in 2019 may undercut her efforts to rebrand herself as a moderate and distance herself from the insecurity, immigration crisis, and inflation unleashed by her boss Joe Biden’s liberal agenda the last four years.

Five years ago Harris tried desperately to run to the left of Joe Biden during the 2020 Democratic primary, planting her flag on positions far from the American mainstream, particularly on immigration, law and order and social policy. She also suggested her earlier actions as California attorney general and a U.S. senator were proof of her commitment to far-left policies.

Writing to woo the ACLU, she committed to:

1. Taxpayer funding of gender reassignment surgeries and treatments for illegal aliens;

2. A pathway to citizenship for those who broke the law by crossing the U.S. border without permission;

3. The decriminalization of all illegal drugs under federal law including cocaine, heroin and fentanyl if a defendant claimed they were for personal use; and

4. The knee-capping of the nation’s main deportation agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement or ICE, as it is colloquially known in Washington circles, by banning its use of deportation.

You can read the full questionnaire here: Harris-ACLU-Candidate-Questionnaire.pdf

Harris's Debate Deceptions: Fact-Checking Key Claims Against Trump

Tax Policy Misrepresentation:
Harris falsely claimed the 2017 Tax Act favored billionaires. In reality, it increased the tax burden on high earners while decreasing it for middle and low-income groups. FACT: High earners' tax burden increased by $16 billion, while middle-class and low-wage workers saw decreases of $31 billion and $4 billion respectively.

Project 2025 Falsehood:
Harris incorrectly attributed Project 2025 to Trump's campaign. FACT: Trump has repeatedly stated, "Project 2025 is not part of my campaign proposals."

Reproductive Rights Distortion:
She misrepresented Trump's stance on reproductive rights. FACT: Trump supports exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother, and backs widespread availability of birth control and IVF.

"Bloodbath" Comment Mischaracterization:
Harris took Trump's "bloodbath" comment out of context, implying violence. FACT: Trump said, "If I don't get elected, it's going to be a bloodbath for the [auto] industry," referring to economic consequences, not violence.

"Fine People" Quote Manipulation:
She misused the "fine people on both sides" quote. FACT: Trump's full statement included, "I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists because they should be condemned totally.

"Dictator” Claim Exaggeration:
Harris's claim about Trump becoming a dictator misrepresented his statement. FACT: Trump said, "We're closing the border, and we're drilling, drilling, drilling. After that, I'm not a dictator," referring to using executive authority on border issues, not declaring dictatorship.

These inaccuracies highlight the importance of fact-checking during debates and the need for voters to verify claims made by candidates. Harris's persistent reliance on debunked claims and out-of-context quotes raises grave ethical concerns about her credibility. This pattern of deception exposes the underhanded smear tactics at the core of her campaign messaging strategy.

The ABC moderators exhibited clear bias, effectively championing Harris by subjecting Trump to fact-checking while allowing Harris's numerous falsehoods and lies to go unchallenged throughout the debate.

Switch and Bait

Leftist Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders essentially endorsed Harris’s tactics to deceive this past Sunday on “Meet the Press,” when host Kristen Welker asked, “She [Harris] has previously supported Medicare for All, now she does not. She's previously supported a ban on fracking, now she does not. These, Senator, are ideas that you have campaigned on. Do you think that she is abandoning her progressive ideals?"

"No, I don't think she's abandoning her ideals," Sanders admitted, adding, "I think she is trying to be pragmatic and do what she thinks is right in order to win the election." In essence, Sanders is justifying Harris's deception, suggesting it's acceptable to misrepresent herself as a moderate if it secures her the presidency.

Final Thoughts

Harris's debate victory stemmed from a calculated strategy to provoke Trump into self-defending tangents, leaving her own destructive policies and history of radical statements largely unexamined. Trump consistently took the bait, spending much of the debate rehashing past grievances. This meticulously planned and rehearsed tactic successfully shielded Harris's extreme leftist policies and radical past statements from scrutiny. Trump, predictably, took the bait and stumbled into Harris's carefully laid trap.

The ABC News moderators displayed blatant partiality, fact-checking Trump while allowing Harris's numerous misstatements and lies to go unchallenged. This one-sided scrutiny enabled Harris to freely smear, belittle, and delegitimize Trump throughout the debate without consequence.

Trump's most compelling moments centered on foreign policy, where he effectively juxtaposed the current global turmoil with the relative stability during his tenure. In contrast, Harris struggled to offer substantive responses, largely parroting Democratic Party talking points without providing depth or original insight.

Harris secured her debate victory with a calculated and conniving strategy to provoke Trump. By taunting and trolling him, she successfully lured Trump into rabbit holes of vanity issues like the size of his rallies. He squandered precious debate time rehashing the past, fixating on Joe Biden, and making a debunked claim - although there were news articles - about immigrants eating pets. Consequently, Trump had little opportunity to articulate his vision for improving Americans' lives in a potential second term.

Harris benefited from the evident bias of ABC News moderators, who were clearly in her corner. They repeatedly fact-checked Trump while allowing Harris's numerous falsehoods to go unchallenged. Her unchecked lies included misrepresentations of Trump's stance on Project 2025, his views on in-vitro fertilization, and the false claim that no American troops are in combat zones overseas. This one-sided scrutiny enabled Harris to freely smear, belittle, and delegitimize Trump throughout the debate without consequence.

Trump repeatedly missed opportunities to challenge Harris on her radical progressive policies. His inability to articulate concise, compelling policy arguments within the debate's time constraints is a significant weakness. Instead of substantive critiques, he resorted to inflammatory labels like "Marxist" or "worst Vice President in history." Notably, he failed to highlight Harris's proposed $5 trillion tax increase and its negative impacts on economic growth and living standards for most Americans.

If Trump won on any topic, it was foreign policy, where he contrasted the current world disorder with the relative peace of his four years. Harris simply parroted Biden Administration talking points.

Harris exploited the debate's dynamics, portraying Trump as outdated and urging voters to "turn the page." She cunningly positioned herself as the "change" candidate, despite being a key figure in the current administration for three and a half years. This shrewd tactic allowed Harris to criticize the previous administration while distancing herself from her own role in shaping disastrous policies that resulted in historic levels of inflation, open borders and 17 million illegal aliens, soaring crime and drug use, and lower real wages for middle- and lower-income earners.

The pivotal question remains: Did Harris's performance convince undecided voters that a far-left San Francisco progressive is worth the gamble? If she succeeded in this, her victory can be largely attributed to Trump's lack of preparation, her own deceitful rhetoric, and the biased moderators who are firmly entrenched in the Democratic party camp.