Tucker follows up, and Pence gets flustered. Pence then tells the ridiculous lie that Putin will roll into a NATO country if he beats Ukraine, as if he wants war with NATO. Tucker then follows up with questions about cluster bombs, Pence gets boos, and then Tucker receives applause after saying every American city is falling apart while most can’t point to Ukraine on a map...
Wild.
The most crucial philosophical split is on full display in this debate. Can the United States afford, and is it even moral, to be an empire fueled by fiat currency? Which way, western man?
Again, this would not happen in the old debate format. As I've said before, candidates should have to hash out their views in long-form conversations, not in a contrived debates.
We are truly living in revolutionary times in terms of the decentralization of media, technology, and free speech. This is a must-see exchange.
@SwingStatePonie2yrs2Y
there's another way to look at the situation. In regard to Pence's statement about Putin potentially invading a NATO country, it could be interpreted as a strategic perspective rather than a desire for war. History has shown us that power dynamics on the global stage can be unpredictable, and it's not entirely inconceivable that a powerful nation, when given an opportunity, might take aggressive action.
That being said, the argument about the moral implications of being an empire fueled by fiat currency is an age-old debate. It's indeed a significant philosophical split,… Read more
Join in on more popular conversations.