[ad_1]
How effectively can you explain yourself to others? Learn to embrace the healthy challenge of describing your beliefs to sharpen your thinking and worldview.
The post Explain Yourself: The Healthy Challenge of Describing Your Beliefs appeared first on The Emotion Machine.
[ad_2]
Steven Handel
Source link
[ad_1]
Watch CBS News
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
Watch CBS News
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
The GOP shit show will go on Wednesday night—but once again without its biggest star. And while the second Republican debate is, in theory, an opportunity for seven of Donald Trump’s competitors to audition for his lead role, it’s not clear whether enough people are tuning in for any of this to matter. “Sans Trump…these debates just aren’t big-time TV, because the GOP primary race has become a snoozer,” as an ad buyer told Semafor’s Max Tani, who reported Wednesday that Fox News cut its rate for a 30-second spot by more than half from the first debate to the second, which will be hosted by Fox Business Network and Univision.
The rate cut is, of course, understandable: That first go-around in Milwaukee last month—which Trump also skipped in favor of a fawning interview with Tucker Carlson—did little to alter the landscape of the 2024 race, as my colleague Charlotte Klein noted. None of the candidates made a dent in the former president’s formidable lead; few even tried to mount a serious attack on him; and the night ended without much clarity on who in this bunch will become the top pick for the GOP’s anti-Trump wing. We shouldn’t expect Wednesday night’s showdown at the Reagan Library in California to be any different.
“I just don’t see a path for anybody that’s not Donald Trump right now,” as Senator Kevin Cramer—who is supporting North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum’s longshot bid for the party nod— conceded to the Washington Post this week.
But Trump’s opponents are still holding out hope: Ron DeSantis, his next closest competitor who has been plummeting in the polls, is looking to reestablish himself as a serious contender; Mike Pence, his former vice president, is trying to get out of his old boss’s shadow; Chris Christie will attempt to keep his fantasy of restoring the pre-Trump GOP alive; Nikki Haley will look to build off her comparatively strong first debate performance; and Vivek Ramaswamy will once again try to steamroll the rest of the field. (Burgum and Tim Scott, meanwhile, will surely be content to make any impression at all.)
But they have a lot of ground to make up against Trump—and they’re running out of time to do so. “This debate, it’ll be interesting to see whether or not folks realize that the sand is going through the hourglass pretty quickly right now,” Republican strategist Kevin Madden, who worked on Mitt Romney’s 2008 and 2012 campaigns, told the Associated Press.
Perhaps they’ll feel that sense of urgency and actually find the courage to go after the former president—something most of them were reluctant to do last time around, in fear of running afoul of his base. But without Trump there himself, will anyone be watching to notice?
[ad_2]
Eric Lutz
Source link
[ad_1]
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ appearance at Wednesday night’s Republican presidential debate might be best remembered not for what he said, but what he did.
Or rather, what he tried to do.
DeSantis seemed to attempt a smile at the end of an applause line, then either thought the better of it or simply failed to pull it off during the Fox News event:
DeSantis’ odd facial expressions and mannerisms have often been turned into jokes and memes on social media.
After Wednesday night’s debate, his odd smile attempt had many of his critics wincing:
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
Economists don’t much like presidential-campaign seasons. For them, it’s a bit like seeing their manicured gardens getting trampled by schoolchildren having a water-balloon fight.
Robert Brusca, the president of consulting firm FAO Economics, predicted that the political discussion of the U.S. economy in the 2024 campaign would be “a farce.”
Talk of inflation is likely to dominate the Aug. 23 Republican debate, for example.
Republicans, eager to lay the blame for higher prices at the feet of President Joe Biden, are going to make the strongest case they can for that. For them, it is a happy coincidence that inflation started to pick up right when Biden was sworn into office.
Larry Kudlow, a former top economic adviser to President Donald Trump, put it succinctly. “I have numbers. The consumer-price index is up 16% since February 2021. Groceries are up 19%. Meat and poultry up 19%. New cars up 20%. Used cars up 34%,” Kudlow said in an interview on the Fox Business Network.
From last month: Mike Pence says inflation is 16%, but CPI is 3%. This is his logic.
Unlike Kudlow, the Federal Reserve doesn’t usually measure inflation over 29 months. Instead, the central bank favors using inflation data that looks at the past 12 months.
By that year-over-year measure, CPI is up 3.2%. Groceries are up 3.6%. Meat and poultry prices are up 0.5%. New-vehicle prices are up 3.5%, but prices of used cars and trucks are actually down 5.6%.
Economists, meanwhile, tend to like even shorter measures, such as the three-month annualized rate. They think the 12-month rate says more about the rate a year ago than it does about what is happening today.
“Looking at year-over-year [data], the only new piece of information is the current month. You are looking at 11 months that you already know,” said Omair Sharif, president and founder of research company Inflation Insights.
Using the shorter metric, headline CPI for the three months ending in July is up 1.9%, while food at home rose 1.1% and meat and poultry is down 4.5%, he said.
Trends have been favorable in recent months, but that might not last. “It’s been a good summer,” Sharif said. “But unfortunately, the winter data won’t be as pleasant.”
Economists tend not to blame one political party or the other for spikes in inflation.
In the 1970s, for example, the culprit was increases in oil prices by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries.
This time, there was no one single factor. While the debate is not yet over, economists tend to focus on the pandemic, the war in Ukraine and the move to end reliance on fossil fuels in order to combat climate change.
Brian Bethune, an economics professor at Boston College, said prices started to rise when the healthcare industry had to adjust to a new, unforeseen risk. There were steep costs to dealing with the deadly coronavirus and developing vaccines.
People working in frontline industries were able to command higher wages. And demand outstripped supply for many things, as shelves were emptied by consumers and supply chains were strained.
Bethune also stressed recent moves toward renewable energy. The best way to explain inflation to your grandmother, he said, is to look at a chart of electricity prices.
The steady increase stems from efforts to move closer to a carbon-free economy, Bethune said. And those prices get passed along “right through the whole cost pressure of the economy,” including the price of refrigerated foods.
Inflation boomed and is now coming off its peak, said Brusca of FAO Economics. Prices are still rising, but not at the same rapid clip. And they won’t roll back to prepandemic levels.
“Consumers are caught in a trap,” he said. “If prices are going to come down, you have got to have deflation.”
Deflation comes with its own unique set of woes. It can make the cost of borrowed money, like mortgages, much more expensive. And it can lead to serious economic weakness.
“All of this is why the Fed targets price stability,” Brusca said.
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
“It feels sort of surreal.” That’s how one political reporter sized up this week’s split screen media moment, with second- and third-tier 2024 Republican candidates taking the stage in Milwaukee as party front-runner Donald Trump is expected to surrender to 2020-election-related charges in Atlanta. The reporter continued: “If you were to have said to me six months ago, he’s gonna be indicted by two different states and twice by the federal government, and his numbers are gonna go up, and he’ll be saying, Keep indicting me, my numbers are gonna go up—I’m not sure I would have believed that.”
Indeed, despite facing 91 charges across four separate criminal cases, the former president has 62% of the GOP primary vote, according to a CBS News poll released Sunday. Florida governor Ron DeSantis is trailing at 16%—the only other Republican presidential candidate whom the poll puts in the double digits. “We’re just in this really foggy period of time. Trump is such a unique and singular figure, where all of these negatives are so built into his brand and shocking things don’t seem to really affect him that much,” said a second political reporter. “We’re seeing a lot of signs the electorate doesn’t give a shit overall. All of this noise, and the signal hasn’t really changed.”
Trump has cited his whopping lead in his decision to skip the first primary debate, hosted by Fox News, and perhaps the rest. He’ll surely dominate headlines regardless this week, as he is expected to turn himself in at a Fulton County jail in Georgia—and reportedly plans to counterprogram the debate through a pretaped interview with former top Fox News host Tucker Carlson, who was taken off the air earlier this year.
“The most important news story this week, affecting the presidential election, is not going to be on that debate stage,” a third political reporter said, referring to the Georgia charges. But there’s still reason to pay attention to Milwaukee, they added. “I must admit that I am really excited to go, because despite this concept [that the debate doesn’t matter if Trump doesn’t show], the fact of the matter is that half the party, polling shows, doesn’t want Trump.” The debate presents an opportunity for the rest of the qualified contenders—DeSantis, Chris Christie, Tim Scott, Nikki Haley, Vivek Ramaswamy, Doug Burgum, and Mike Pence, as of this writing—to distinguish themselves, but they’ll likely do so based on how they handle questions about the former president.
Fox News’ Martha MacCallum, who is co-moderating with Bret Baier, recently told me that it will “absolutely be incumbent” upon the candidates to address Trump’s criminal charges, acknowledging that it could be a “minefield” for them. “He’s completely blotting out the sun,” a fourth political reporter said of Trump. “I see it as a continuation of what’s gone on during this campaign and also what’s gone on in the last eight years,” they said of the dynamic. “It’s made it very hard for any of these other candidates to get any real attention. Does anyone know what Nikki Haley said yesterday?”
“It’s gonna be a debate to see who can be number two,” the second political reporter said, likening Christie—the most vocal Trump critic of the bunch—to the scorpion in the “Scorpion and the Frog” fable. “If Donald Trump is not there, then Ron DeSantis is getting stung. And what better thing than to watch your two enemies destroy each other?” This reporter wasn’t very optimistic about the viewing experience. “Expectations are very low that it’s gonna be that interesting. This is covering, like, the junior varsity,” they said.
Some I spoke to are most interested to see who, aside from Christie, will be willing to take the gloves off on Trump. “It’s sort of a bizarre situation where he’s ahead of them by 40 points and they won’t take him on most of the time—in fact, most of the time they defend him,” said the first political reporter. “The whole thing has been, throughout his presidency, these folks who view themselves as smart Republicans saying he’s gonna fade, or go away on his own, or the justice system will take care of it, or voters will change their mind. Clearly, eight years in, sitting back and hoping someone else does something about it has not worked for Republicans who want to take him on.”
Unprecedented is a word that has been thrown around often since 2016 to describe Trump and his impact on national politics. Some journalists feel it has never been more fitting than it is now. “It’s really uncharted territory for American political reporters,” as one put it, especially given those on the trail who are not necessarily familiar with the intricacies of the federal and state criminal law they’re now reporting on and talking to voters about. “It’s become a story where the people who cover the Justice Department and FBI are as much a part of the 2024 story as political reporters,” the reporter said. “They’re just as essential.”
[ad_2]
Charlotte Klein
Source link
[ad_1]
Mark your calendars. On August 23, Republicans who qualify to participate will take the stage for the first presidential debate. It’s always a big night for any candidate who can steal the TV sound bites and headlines: A strong performance can mean a path to the nomination and perhaps the presidency.
But for those who fail the test and melt under the spotlight, it can also mean the end of the line.
There are arguably three prime opportunities for an aspiring presidential nominee to truly move the dial of public awareness: the announcement that he or she is running; the nomination of his or her vice presidential choice at the convention (along with both candidates’ convention speeches); and his or her debate appearances.
It’s the debates, however, that can be the ultimate X factor, good or bad, in determining the fortunes of a candidate. Because they’re the one platform where candidates have an opportunity to show their skills relative to the strengths and weaknesses of their opponents. Voters want to see candidates in that arena. Without teleprompters. Without scripts. Without aides whispering into their ears. It is arguable that it was the 2016 debates, forums, and town halls—more than 40 of them!—that, for better or for worse, gave us GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump. (Okay, I’ll amend that: for worse.)
And if there is one cold, hard truth I can impart, it is this: If you blow it on the debate stage, there’s no net to catch you when you fall. You have competitors and moderators who are ready to strafe you the moment you falter. A sizable audience will be tuned in (or will be sure to watch the highlight—or the lowlight—reel online). And the cameras will record every hair-raising moment—from the smallest verbal stumble to the last droplet of flop sweat.
There’s a long list of aspirants who failed the test and paid the price. Here are my top five.
5. Richard Nixon. The first guy to blow a televised candidate debate was the first guy to appear in one. And because then vice president Richard Nixon, in 1960, did not fully understand the power of television, he lost the debate that evening to then Massachusetts senator John F. Kennedy—and, arguably, the presidency. Nixon, because he was relatively unfamiliar with the medium (his infamous 1952 “Checkers” speech aside), prepared for the event as if it were taking place on radio. Which meant he didn’t apply basic television makeup and looked like he hadn’t shaved. So he came off looking sweaty and swarthy. And because Nixon didn’t know where to look—at the camera, at the audience, at Kennedy, or at the moderator, CBS’s Howard K. Smith—his eyes darted around. Which made him look even shiftier. A bronzed, youthful, commanding Kennedy, looking at ease, easily won the night—and, eventually, the White House.
[ad_2]
Mark McKinnon
Source link
[ad_1]
Watch CBS News
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
This is an opinion editorial by Heidi Porter, an entrepreneur with 35 years in the tech industry.
I love Bitcoin — and the world that Bitcoin helps create — as much as any of the most passionate Bitcoiners do. As such, I want to do and say things that help it succeed. This desire is not even an iota unique.
However, sometimes what does not feel productive, is productive.
Constructive criticism is productive discourse for Bitcoin. Pointing out incorrect assumptions is productive discourse for Bitcoin. Enumerating dangers is productive discourse for Bitcoin. Calling out hypocrisy of goals versus actions is (or can be) productive discourse.
That said, illogical or nonsensical criticism is not productive discourse. Criticizing because you haven’t done the work to understand is not productive discourse. Appealing to authority or intuition versus well-researched information is not productive discourse. Refusing to understand different use cases for different people is not productive discourse.
I think most people would agree in theory with the above. But then, we are human. Our wants, needs and emotions get in the way.
Getting criticism does not feel good. Giving criticism —regardless of merit — feels good. Immediate or short-term gratification does feel good. These are part and parcel of the incentives in the business of being human.
The result is that noise is amplified and signal is de-amplified. The result is that the wisest and most prophetic people in Bitcoin are often dismissed or ignored. Or shot. This shoot-the-messenger behavior is not correlated with price.
Messengers are shot in the bull market. Messengers are shot in the bear market. Messengers are shot in the sideways market. Messengers are just… shot.
The bullet-riddled know who they are. They repeat themselves, repeatedly. Let’s repeat and review just a few of these messages:
If you don’t think any of the above is that important, then steel man the counter argument of the above. With the possible exception of the last one, all of the above present real threats to both people’s physical safety and security. All of the points are part and parcel of what people are themselves claiming to be the goals of Bitcoin.
Human incentives often operate from short-term or immediate gratification versus a look at long-term consequences or results. It takes humble research, hard work and an effort at discourse to deal with the above issues as well as other technical and business concerns that are raised and need to be solved.
For 2023, let’s not shoot productive messages or their messengers. Instead, let’s all take a good look at our own short-term incentives and gratification — and align them better with the goals we want for Bitcoin…
..in order to make a happier year for more, not just the few.
This is a guest post by Heidi Porter. Opinions expressed are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.
[ad_2]
Heidi Porter
Source link
[ad_1]
This is an opinion editorial by Mickey Koss, a West Point graduate with a degree in economics. He spent four years in the infantry before transitioning to the Finance Corps.
Barely a week into 2023, and I’ve seen Anthony “Pomp” Pompliano debate Michael Shellenberger and Joe Rogan interview Peter Ziehan. While these media impressions may seem unrelated, a common thread is sewn between the two: experts in different fields confidently professing uninformed opinions on Bitcoin.
Ziehan’s misunderstandings can be heard in the last 20 minutes or so of the interview. In fact, our friend Guy Swann just made a nearly 90-minute long episode of “Bitcoin Audible” dedicated to tearing Ziehand’s analysis apart. Café Bitcoin did the same recently in the first half or so of its January 9, 2023 episode.
Shellenberger made it a little easier to locate his misunderstandings, apparently going on Pomp’s podcast for the sole purpose of demonstrating his complete and utter ignorance.
I think one of the most pertinent questions to consider following these conversations is: How are either of these two gentlemen qualified to make such assessments in the first place?
How could someone feel so comfortable saying something they so obviously know so little about? If these two are so confident with opinions that are so obviously wrong and uninformed, why should I trust them on anything else?
While discussing these two interviews in a small group, one of the members said something that inspired the idea behind this article:
“For now they both feel secure in their assertions. In the next bull cycle these clips will haunt them and tarnish their credibility.”
–Alex Brammer, board of directors member for the Bitcoin Today Coalition (BTC)
He even turned that sentiment into a tweet, seen below:
A characteristic common to Bitcoiners is their low time preference — the willingness to sacrifice short-term comfort for long-term gains, as opposed to following every whim.
These individuals are the personification of what the fiat system is doing to people, a symptom of what happens when the money ceases to communicate clear pricing signals. Their time preference has been so skewed that they are willingly sacrificing their long-term credibility for short-term notoriety. They do it thoughtlessly, with little understanding of what they’re even critiquing, let alone the long-term implications of what they’re saying. They do it because they must, lest they be cast out as simpletons, like the rest of us.
What ever happened to simply saying “I don’t know”? Perhaps more importantly, what happens when all these naysayers are not just proven wrong, but completely, spectacularly and absolutely wrong in every way?
I predict in the months and years to come, that those who chose to speak carelessly will begin to quickly lose any semblance of the credibility that they once had.
“Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward — reversing cause and effect. I call these the ‘wet streets cause rain’ stories. Paper’s full of them.
“In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.”
Bitcoin is the orange pill that wakes you up from the matrix, yes, but what if the narrative became too absurd? What if the critiques and the gripes became so obviously wrong that these so-called experts were no longer respected, let alone listened to?
I was a fan of Ziehan. I found his books interesting and informative. They appeared well thought out and thoroughly researched. But after that interview, I don’t know what to think anymore. After hearing him speak, before even hearing his Bitcoin critique, all I really heard was a quasi-automaton; a character who was well rehearsed at speaking in polished sound bites. His Bitcoin analysis was so smooth, well worded and confident. Man, was he confident. And everything he said was absolutely wrong.
I see the next few years as the precipice for the dissolution of current day experts. Much like the economist uncle in the dystopian tale “The Mandibles,” these experts will have answers for everything, and yet won’t be able to explain a thing. Slowly but surely, people will realize that the world that these “experts” have created inside their theoretical minds no longer exists. Reality will eventually come crashing down.
But you don’t have to wait for that.
Once you understand Bitcoin, you understand that the long-term price is slowly approaching infinity as central banks gradually, then suddenly, add monetary units to the system in order to manipulate the cost of capital as they see fit.
Saving in bitcoin may be a bumpy road for those who do not yet see the value, but in my eyes, it’s the safest thing that I own. As I sit to reflect during this tumultuous week in the bear market, I feel that I have never been more bullish than I am right now.
This is a guest post by Mickey Koss. Opinions expressed are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.
[ad_2]
Mickey Koss
Source link
[ad_1]
Watch CBS News
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
Watch CBS News
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
Watch CBS News
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
Orem, Utah — Fending off attacks from his independent challenger, Sen. Mike Lee of Utah worked to distinguish himself from former President Donald Trump in a contentious debate Monday evening.
“I stood against my party time and time again to oppose reckless spending. I will do it again and again and again. We need people who say no,” the second-term Republican said.
Lee repeatedly pointed to his voting record and twice told the audience at Utah Valley University that he voted less in line with Trump than all but two Republican senators – Rand Paul and Susan Collins.
“To suggest that I’m beholden to either party, that I’ve been a bootlicker for either party is folly. And it’s contradicted by the plain facts,” Lee said.
Lee faces a challenge from Evan McMullin, a former Republican known most for his long-shot bid for president six years ago, when as an independent he won 21.5% of voters in Utah, including Lee. McMullin has remained a pillar of the anti-Trump movement, attacking the former president as an authoritarian who poses a threat to democracy.
Rick Bowmer / AP
Lee’s attempts to draw a distinction from Trump reflect the peculiar dynamics emerging in Utah this election cycle. In the red state’s marquee race, one candidate is running as an independent and the other is attempting to emphasize his independent streak.
The race has taken shape as one of the nation’s many referendums on the direction Trump has taken the GOP. McMullin is attempting to harness anti-Trump sentiment that has distinguished Utah from other Republican strongholds. Lee’s last minute efforts to put space between his voting record and Trump’s stances depart from his past messaging as Election Day nears.
“I don’t think he’s trying to distance himself from Trump. What I think he’s trying to do is draw that contrast,’” Utah Republican Party Chair Carson Jorgensen said.
“No, he’s stood up for what he believed every time, even when it came to Trump,” he added.
Utah is a reliably Republican state, but its religion-infused politics are idiosyncratic. The majority of residents belong to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which places a high value on manners and eschews alcohol and foul language. Members of the faith lean Republican, yet polling has shown Trump commands less robust support among them than other prominent GOP politicians.
Trump failed to win support from a majority of Utah voters in 2016 and Joe Biden performed better with Utah voters in 2020 than any Democrat since 1964.
Lee’s emphasis on his willingness to stray from Trump comes as McMullin attempts to paint him as one of the former president’s most loyal disciples. McMullin recently released an attack ad based on Lee’s 2020 remarks comparing Trump to Captain Moroni, a scriptural hero in the Book of Mormon.
Monday’s debate was McMullin’s first chance to directly confront Lee about the text messages he sent to Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows in the lead-up to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, which he’s made a centerpiece of his campaign.
The texts show Lee asking for advice on how to contribute to efforts to challenge the 2020 election results. Lee has defended his actions by saying he merely intended to look into the legal arguments and rumors about swing states putting forth slates of fake electors, noting that he ultimately voted to certify the results.
On Monday, Lee demanded an apology from McMullin and said his version of events exhibited a “cavalier, reckless disregard for the truth.”
Though the messages suggest Lee researched the legality of alternate elector slates in the lead-up to Jan. 6, Lee said they showed no evidence that he would have supported such a scheme.
A raucous crowd made up mostly of Lee supporters jeered and booed when McMullin called Lee’s actions “a travesty.”
“Senator Lee, that was the most egregious betrayal of our nation’s Constitution in its history by a U.S. Senator. I believe it will be your legacy,” McMullin said, wagging his finger at Lee.
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
Herschel Walker, the GOP nominee for a U.S. Senate seat in Georgia, was reprimanded by a moderator for flashing a “prop” police badge in his debate Friday against Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock.
During a response to a question about crime, Warnock criticized Walker for falsely claiming in the past that he had once worked in law enforcement.
“One thing I’ve not done is I’ve never pretended to be a police officer, and I’ve never threatened a shootout with the police,” Warnock said, referring to how the former football star once talked about a police shootout, according to a 21-year-old police report.
Walker then pulled out what appeared to be a fake police badge and held it up on stage, drawing a scolding from one of the moderators.
“You’re very well aware of the rules, aren’t you?” the moderator said.
In a 2019 speech, Walker claimed he had once worked in law enforcement.
“I spent time at Quantico at the FBI training schools. Y’all didn’t know I was an agent? I probably shouldn’t tell y’all that. Y’all don’t care about that. Yeah, I’ve been in law enforcement,” Walker said at the time.
There’s no record of Walker ever having worked in law enforcement. He has touted the fact that he received an honorary deputy sheriff card reportedly given to him by the Cobb County Sheriff’s Office in Georgia.
Walker’s campaign has been marred by a string of scandals surrounding his personal conduct, including the recent allegation that he paid for the abortion of a former girlfriend in 2009 despite his staunch anti-abortion views. Walker has denied the reports and accused the woman of lying. His conservative son, meanwhile, has turned on him and called him a liar.
The race is one of the key battles in the upcoming election that could determine control of the Senate. Warnock, a pastor who won his seat in a 2021 runoff, is seeking his first full term in office.
Public polling has shown Warnock with a small but consistent lead over Walker. If either candidate doesn’t receive more than 50% of the vote in November, there will be a runoff.
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
Press Release
–
updated: Feb 19, 2018
HOUSTON, February 19, 2018 (Newswire.com)
–
Today, Rick Walker, candidate for U.S. Congress in Texas’ 2nd Congressional District, is once again challenging Kathaleen Wall to a live-streamed debate. Walker has previously challenged Wall and others to debates on Dec. 11 and Jan. 1, so this is the third time. There has yet to be a debate in this election; only forums have been held so far.
Republican Candidate Rick Walker said, “With weighty issues facing our nation, it’s worth taking the time to understand the differences between these two candidates who have been polling in the top two for the past several weeks, according to third-party WPAintel. As I said before: I am ready to take a stand!”
I am willing to debate Mrs. Wall any time and any place.
Rick Walker, Candidate for U.S. Congress, Texas CD2
Kingwood resident Rick Walker and Memorial-area resident Kathaleen Wall are both running to replace retiring GOP Congressman Ted Poe for Texas’ 2nd Congressional District of the U.S. Congress.
“Kathaleen Wall has not accepted either of my calls for a series of debates and walked out of the largest forum of the election season. I’m reissuing my challenge to Mrs. Wall, asking her to join me in a one-on-one public debate,” said Rick. “With our values under attack by Democrats nationwide, Texans deserve someone who will not shrink from a fight, who will walk towards the fire. I am willing to debate Mrs. Wall any time and any place.”
Specifics will be released if Walker and his team ever hear back from Mrs. Wall’s campaign. Walker recommends the other seven candidates select the moderator, venue and each submit two questions at the start of the debate, which would then be randomly drawn and answered by both debating candidates. Walker recommends no prior disclosure of the questions to be made before the debate, no note cards and no earpieces allowed.
Source: Rick Walker for Congress
[ad_2]
