Published on September 14, 2024, 12:38 am

The recent presidential debate held on September 10 showcased the evasive tactics often employed by politicians. The key players involved – Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump – each provided their own unique dynamics to the event.

Vice President Kamala Harris was observed to dodge questions about her agenda, with a strategy that centered around triggering Trump into off-topic arguments. Among her assertions were claims of faltering Trump rallies, ¬¬accusations of his role in initiating the precipitous departure from Afghanistan, and a slew of other criticisms aimed directly at him.

Despite this aggressive stance, she refrained from defending policies she had advocated throughout her political career. In the face of critique over opportunistic political steps taken during her career – including an alleged partnership with Bay-Area left-wing follower Willie Brown – Harris painted an alternative picture. She crafted an image as being the product of a middle-class upbringing and maintained strong advocacy for border control, fracking, and strict law enforcement affairs.

Conversely, former President Donald Trump played into Harris’s hand by biting on some of these incitements rather than focusing on refuting her evident deceits. Instead of exposing her contradictions and highlighting false implications about his administration, he veered off course in defense of his rallies and wealth.

One aspect that cannot be ignored is the role ABC moderators played during this event. David Muir and Linsey Davis remained steadfastly one-sided with their fact-checking limited only to Trump but not extending to Harris’ discourse. While ensuring Trump adhered strictly to debate rules, they largely overlooked Harris’ deviations from set protocols which included interrupting others’ speaking times.

This gross violation went further when they repeatedly emphasized events such as January 6 but ignored instances where violence was propagated during the 2020 protests publicly endorsed by Harris.

Observations like these confirm why consumers demand real news through trusted news sources for accurate information representing a balanced Christian worldview; avoiding biases that plague too many media establishments.

The aftereffects of the debate are unlikely to sway public opinion significantly. Harris’s theatrical antics mediate her dodging and evasiveness while Trump remains a fiery, quick-tempered figure, easily riled by strategic prodding. However, the most resounding loss was to ABC and its partisan moderators. Their brazen bias managed to exceed even CNN’s Candy Crowley’s infamous prejudice in the 2012 debate between Romney and Obama.

Moderators like these, who disgrace their networks through attempts at manipulating debates for political gain, demonstrate why they should be kept at arm’s length from future events. The need for real news sustained by trusted sources under a Christian worldview is more pertinent now than ever before.