the Conservative TAKE
Politics • Culture • News
The Vance-Walz Debate Could Be the Most Influential VP Debate in U.S. History
October 01, 2024
post photo preview
Left: Republican vice presidential nominee Sen. J.D. Vance speaks at a campaign rally on August 6 in Philadelphia. Right: Democratic vice presidential nominee Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz addresses the Democratic National Convention on August 21 in Chicago. Justin Sullivan/Getty Images; Drew Hallowell/Getty Images

As we head into one of the most critical elections in modern U.S. history, the vice-presidential debate between J.D. Vance and Tim Walz has the potential to be the most influential VP debate ever. With Vice President Kamala Harris dodging detailed policy discussions and offering little more than vague soundbites throughout the campaign, this debate will be the first opportunity for voters to hear substantial policy discourse—something that has been sorely missing from the Harris/Walz ticket. Here’s why this debate could eclipse previous VP matchups and alter the trajectory of the race.

1. Kamala Harris: The Queen of Word Salad

Vice President Kamala Harris has become synonymous with vague, meandering answers that often leave the public and media searching for any coherent policy stance. Whether in interviews or public appearances, Harris tends to lean on her background, reciting personal anecdotes about growing up in a middle-class neighborhood or her work as a prosecutor. However, she has consistently avoided specifics on pressing issues, from immigration to the economy. Critics, like Peggy Noonan from The Wall Street Journal, have pointed out that Harris’s inability to deliver clear, direct answers reflects poorly on her ability to lead.

Voters are hungry for real answers. Harris has yet to hold a formal press conference during this campaign, avoiding direct engagement on policy. Meanwhile, her running mate, Tim Walz, has mirrored this strategy, offering little more than progressive platitudes without diving into the details of his platform. The American people have grown tired of the “word salad” responses from the Harris/Walz camp, and this debate will finally offer the stark contrast voters are seeking.

2. J.D. Vance: A Voice for the Working Class with Substance

While the Harris/Walz campaign has relied on vague talking points, J.D. Vance offers something different—clarity and substance. Vance has been dismissed by Democrats as “weird,” but his appeal to the working-class voter is undeniable. Raised in the heart of Ohio, Vance understands the economic struggles of middle America, and he speaks to these issues with authenticity. Unlike the Democratic ticket, which avoids direct policy discussions, Vance is a policy wonk with a deep understanding of complex issues that matter to voters, from economic revitalization to trade and manufacturing.

This debate is Vance’s opportunity to showcase his command of policy and, in doing so, expose Tim Walz as a politician disconnected from the Rust Belt’s reality. Walz, who allowed his state to spiral into chaos during the riots of 2020, will have to answer for his failures in leadership—a stark contrast to Vance’s promise to restore order and economic stability in struggling regions. Vance’s ability to communicate real policy while connecting with working-class voters is what sets him apart in this debate and could be the deciding factor for millions of Americans.

3. Tim Walz: Rust Belt Fraud or Progressive Puppet?

Tim Walz will face significant challenges in this debate, as his record as governor of Minnesota will come under intense scrutiny. During the summer of 2020, Minneapolis became a focal point of the nationwide protests and riots following the death of George Floyd. Walz was heavily criticized for his mishandling of the situation, as the state suffered massive property damage, and many Minnesotans felt abandoned by his lack of decisive action. This debate gives Vance the chance to highlight Walz’s failures, showing that his leadership during the crisis was weak and ineffective.

In addition, Walz’s support for far-left policies—like tampons in boys’ bathrooms and other progressive cultural issues—will alienate moderate voters, especially those in swing states like Ohio and Pennsylvania. These policies may align with the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, but they do little to address the concerns of everyday Americans in the Rust Belt who care more about jobs, safety, and economic opportunity. Vance will likely draw a sharp contrast between Walz’s out-of-touch progressive positions and his own focus on economic growth and rebuilding American industry.

4. J.D. Vance’s Strength: Mastery of Policy vs. Walz’s Vagueness

One of the defining features of this debate will be the stark difference in how the candidates handle policy discussions. J.D. Vance is a master of policy minutiae. While President Trump—known for his bold, sweeping rhetoric—does not often dive into the weeds of policy, Vance excels in this area. Trump, having already served four years in office, doesn’t need to get into the fine details because his record speaks for itself—he was vetted by his performance as president, during which the country experienced historic economic growth, energy independence, and stronger border security.

Vance fills the gap by offering voters the detailed policy arguments that Trump doesn’t always emphasize. Vance’s expertise on issues like manufacturing, trade, and working-class economics will stand in stark contrast to the Harris/Walz ticket, which has so far been all slogans and no substance. This debate will force Walz to engage on real issues—something the Democratic campaign has been avoiding for months. As voters become increasingly frustrated with the lack of specific answers from Harris and Walz, Vance’s command of policy will be a breath of fresh air.

Additionally, Vance can effectively counter the false narrative that MAGA’s future agenda is driven by Project 2025, a think tank plan attributed to the Heritage Foundation. In reality, Vance will likely emphasize the real vision of MAGA: Agenda 47, a platform focused on economic revitalization, energy independence, and restoring American greatness. By clearly articulating the policies behind Agenda 47, Vance can dispel misconceptions and offer a compelling alternative to Walz’s vague progressive talking points.

5. The Debate America Has Been Waiting For

The American people are desperate for substance. In an election where much of the public discourse has been dominated by rhetorical dodges and talking-point politics, this debate offers something different. J.D. Vance will bring clarity, detail, and a focus on real issues that have been missing from the campaign thus far. For the first time, voters will hear from a candidate who can not only connect with the working-class electorate but also explain, in detail, how his policies will improve their lives.

This is a critical moment for the Republican ticket, as Vance’s clear command of policy will stand in stark contrast to the vague and often contradictory positions of Kamala Harris and Tim Walz. Where the Democrats have been offering word salads and avoiding press conferences, Vance will deliver concrete solutions to the problems facing America. This debate could be the moment where the Republican ticket begins to decisively pull ahead, showing the American people that there is a real alternative to the vague promises and empty rhetoric that have characterized the Harris/Walz campaign.

This VP debate has the potential to be the most influential in U.S. history. J.D. Vance will have the opportunity to showcase his policy expertise and connect with the working-class voters who feel neglected by the progressive agenda. Meanwhile, Tim Walz will be forced to defend his record and provide real answers—something his campaign has avoided up to this point. This debate will finally give voters what they’ve been waiting for: a substantive conversation about the future of America.

community logo
Join the the Conservative TAKE Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
0
What else you may like…
Videos
Posts
Articles
Odds of Love: A Probability Study Proving Jasmine Crockett’s Race Baiting Ignores the Real Challenges of Finding a Conservative Black Match

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Representative Jasmine Crockett’s recent criticism of Representative Byron Donalds for marrying a white woman highlights a regressive mindset steeped in ignorance and racial bias, casting doubt on her ability to engage with the diverse realities of American life.

https://x.com/EricLDaugh/status/1906302926571618409

By implying that Donalds has been “whitewashed” through his interracial marriage, Crockett clings to outdated stereotypes that dictate racial loyalty over personal agency, exposing her own hypocrisy in advocating for equality while policing others’ private choices. This narrow perspective stands in stark contrast to the evolving dynamics of relationships across racial lines, as evidenced by a probabilistic analysis of partner selection among conservative Black individuals. To illustrate the complexity of such dynamics, consider the following study estimating the likelihood of a conservative Black man finding and marrying a conservative Black woman who aligns with his values—a scenario Crockett might deem more “acceptable,” yet one fraught with its own...

00:00:46
00:01:20
Biblical Citizenship in Modern America Commentary Ep14 - Understanding the Times 3

00:00 Introduction
02:03 Week 13 review
04:56 Our Current Education System
05:59 Six Verbs for Advancing Truth in the Country
09:08 What Our Elected Officials Don't Know About America
10:44 The Foundation of Law
12:12 Who Were the Signers of the Declaration of Independence?
13:52 Benjamin Rush
15:44 What is Patriotism?
18:34 Summary of Workbook

00:25:36
🧨 The Deep State’s Attempt to Spin Damning Declassified Evidence

As declassified documents continue to expose what appears to be a coordinated intelligence operation against Donald Trump, the Deep State and their media allies are in full damage-control mode.

Case in point: Fox News just featured an op-ed by former CIA officer and Biden State Department spokesman Ned Price, attempting to “debunk” the bombshells released by DNI Tulsi Gabbard.

Make no bones about it, this isn’t an objective counterpoint. This is a narrative-management operation by a career Deep State insider.

🕵️‍♂️ Here’s What They’re Trying to Sell You:
That Obama couldn’t have led a coup because… he congratulated Trump after the election. (Yes, seriously.)

That Gabbard is using “sleight of hand” and “conflating” terms, even though her claims are backed by declassified U.S. intelligence.

That the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) was sound , even though multiple internal reviews, the Durham Report, and Senate oversight found evidence it was politicized.

That the ...

post photo preview
Why Subpoena Them If They’ll Plead the Fifth? Because It’s Protocol for Prosecution.

Here is what many do not understand. I get the frustration but there is a method to the madness. Let me explain.

Subpoenaing Barack Obama, John Brennan, James Clapper, and others over the RussiaGate scandal (even if they ultimately plead the Fifth) is not just a procedural move; it’s a necessary step in any serious pursuit of justice and public accountability.

🔹 Why Subpoena Them?

1. Establish the Record:

You must formally bring these individuals under oath to compel their testimony. Whether they answer or invoke the Fifth, the act of subpoenaing is essential to build the official record and demonstrate due diligence in investigating the alleged conspiracy.

2. Indictment Requires Precedent:

Before a prosecutor can credibly seek an indictment (especially against former high-level officials) there must be an evidentiary trail. That includes prior sworn testimony or refusal to testify. Subpoenaing them is a legal and political prerequisite to indictments.

3. Public Opinion Matters:

...

post photo preview
How to Prevent Temporary Work Status from Becoming a Pathway to Citizenship

As Congress debates proposals like Rep. Maria Salazar’s Dignity Act (H.R. 4393), which offers temporary legal work status to undocumented immigrants, it is essential to demand ironclad safeguards to prevent any backdoor pathway to citizenship. Though marketed as a limited fix for labor shortages, the Dignity Act risks becoming a stepping stone to amnesty without strict statutory limits. This is something history has repeatedly shown can happen.

Other legislative efforts (such as proposed tweaks to the H-2A visa program or Temporary Protected Status (TPS) provisions within broader packages like the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (H.R. 1)) are more narrowly focused. These alternatives address specific visa categories or enforcement priorities but do not provide comprehensive legal status to undocumented workers. That makes the Dignity Act uniquely broad and therefore especially in need of close scrutiny and firm constraints.

To ensure that any temporary worker program remains truly temporary, Congress must...

post photo preview
Census and Gerrymandering: How the GOP Is Fighting Back
UPDATED - 8/15/25 7:55am

America is standing at the edge of a political earthquake. It’s not just about one executive order, one census, or one round of redistricting. What’s unfolding is the culmination of decades of partisan maneuvering, demographic shifts, and constitutional disputes (and the results could permanently change the balance of power in Washington).

At the center of the storm is a startling admission: the U.S. Census Bureau overcounted several Democrat-leaning states in 2020, while undercounting Republican-leaning states. According to the Bureau’s own post-enumeration survey, these errors handed Democrats an estimated five extra congressional seats (and the electoral college votes that go with them) at the direct expense of red states like Florida and Texas.

Even more frustrating to many Americans, the Bureau insists the “oops” must stand until the next census numbers are applied in 2032. That’s nearly a decade of political power built on faulty data.

Trump’s Bold Countermove

President Donald J. Trump has decided that’s unacceptable. On August 7, 2025, he instructed the Commerce Department to conduct a new, highly accurate mid-decade census (one that excludes illegal aliens from the population count used for congressional apportionment and electoral college allocation).

Trump’s rationale rests on both constitutional and practical grounds. The Constitution requires an “actual Enumeration,” not statistical guesswork, and certainly not a count that inflates the representation of states with large populations of non-citizens. Under this new approach, red states like Texas and Florida could gain multiple seats, while blue strongholds like California, New York, and Illinois could see their delegations shrink.

Analysts estimate that excluding illegal aliens from the count could shift up to 14 seats from blue states to red states. California alone might lose four House seats. Florida and Texas could each gain four. The ripple effects on the Electoral College would be seismic, potentially locking Democrats out of a 270-vote path even if they won every “blue wall” state.

The Hypocrisy of Gerrymandering

While Democrats howl that this is an “attack on democracy,” they’ve long played the very same game in reverse. In fact, some of the most egregious gerrymanders in modern history exist in deep-blue states:

  • Massachusetts: Republicans make up 36% of voters but hold zero congressional seats.

  • Connecticut: 42% Republican, zero seats.

  • Maine: 46% Republican, zero seats.

  • New Mexico: 46% Republican, zero seats.

  • New Hampshire: 48% Republican, zero seats.

  • Rhode Island: 42% Republican, zero seats.

  • Vermont: 32% Republican, zero seats.

  • Hawaii: 38% Republican, zero seats.

  • Delaware: 42% Republican, zero seats.

Even in states where Republicans do hold seats, the imbalance is stark:

  • California: 38% Republican voters, but just 9 of 52 seats (20.9%).

  • Illinois: 44% Republican voters, but only 3 of 17 seats (17.6%).

  • Maryland: 34% Republican voters, but just 1 of 8 seats (12.5%).

  • Oregon: 41% Republican voters, but only 1 of 6 seats (16.7%).

This disparity is no accident. Blue states have systematically drawn maps to wipe out Republican representation. Now that red states are returning the favor, Democrats are discovering they have no room left to retaliate… they’ve already maxed out their own partisan advantages.

Texas as the Flashpoint

The battle has been especially fierce in Texas. After Democrat lawmakers fled the state to block legislation, Governor Greg Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton moved aggressively. Arrest warrants were issued for runaway legislators, and GOP lawmakers openly discussed increasing Republican representation with each week Democrats refused to return.

Under the Supreme Court’s 2019 Rucho v. Common Cause decision, partisan gerrymandering is a “political question” beyond federal court jurisdiction (meaning states can draw districts however they see fit). Red states are seizing that opportunity to counter decades of Democrat-drawn maps in blue territory.

The Bigger Picture

What’s happening now isn’t just about maps, or census methodology, or one executive order. It’s about a political realignment that could define American governance for a generation. By excluding non-citizens from the count and aggressively redrawing districts, Republicans could secure a structural advantage in both Congress and the Electoral College that Democrats would be hard-pressed to overcome.

Democrats have long argued these tactics undermine democracy. But as even some liberal commentators admit, they’ve been using the exact same tactics in their own states for years (and in many cases, more aggressively than Republicans ever did).

The irony is inescapable: the party that perfected the art of gerrymandering and census manipulation is now on the receiving end of its own playbook.

If the trends hold, the 2026 midterms could deliver a decisive shift in power… not just for the next Congress, but for decades to come.

Read full Article
Restoring Federalism: Repealing Selective Incorporation and Returning to the Founders’ Vision of State Sovereignty

 

Executive Summary

If constitutional originalists such as historian David Barton or jurists in the tradition of Justice Clarence Thomas could propose one constitutional amendment, it would be this:

"To repeal the doctrine of selective incorporation, thereby restoring the Bill of Rights to its original purpose: a restraint solely on the federal government, not the states."

The selective incorporation doctrine—derived from the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause—has enabled federal courts to impose nationalized standards on state governments, in areas ranging from religion and speech to criminal procedure and gun rights. Though seemingly protective of individual liberties, this doctrine has also eroded state sovereignty, upended local moral governance, and consolidated federal judicial supremacy—a direction wholly foreign to the Founders’ original design.

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
post photo preview
Yes, We Have the Evidence: Obama Officials Accused in Treasonous Coup Against Trump

In a bombshell report, conservative commentator Dr. Steve Turley claims that former President Barack Obama is at the center of a scandal that dwarfs Watergate, potentially marking one of the most significant political controversies in American history.

placeholder
 

According to Turley, newly declassified intelligence documents (released by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard) reveal a "treasonous conspiracy" orchestrated at the highest levels of government, implicating Obama himself.

Turley cites a Truth Social post by President Donald Trump, featuring an AI-generated video symbolically depicting Obama’s arrest and imprisonment. While the video is not literal, Turley argues it reflects a growing sentiment that “the walls are closing in” on the former president. He describes the unfolding events as a “national scandal” with a paper trail leading directly to Obama—one that could become what Turley calls the “crown jewel” of Trump’s historic legacy.

AI Generated

 

The Allegations: A Coup in Motion

Turley’s central claim is based on over 100 declassified documents, which he says have been referred to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution. According to Turley:

  • Before the 2016 election, every major U.S. intelligence agency (including the FBI, CIA, NSA, and Department of Homeland Security) agreed there was no evidence of Russian collusion with Trump’s campaign.

  • Despite this, Turley alleges that in December 2016, shortly after Trump’s victory, Obama ordered a coordinated effort to fabricate intelligence contradicting those findings.

This alleged effort involved senior officials such as:

  • FBI Director James Comey

  • Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe

  • CIA Director John Brennan

  • Director of National Intelligence James Clapper

  • Secretary of State John Kerry

  • National Security Adviser Susan Rice

According to Turley, this operation was intended to delegitimize Trump’s presidency, amounting to a “systematic creation of false intelligence.” Citing Tulsi Gabbard, Turley calls this a “treasonous” act that undermined the democratic process and triggered a constitutional crisis.

Beyond Partisan Lines: A Threat to Democracy

Turley emphasizes that this is not a partisan issue:

“It’s irrelevant whether you’re Republican or Democrat… What Tulsi is exposing represents a fundamental attack on the democratic process.”

He warns that the alleged actions went far beyond political maneuvering. They represented a direct assault on the legitimacy of a duly elected president and on the will of the American people.

Whistleblowers & the Call for Justice

Turley also claims that whistleblowers from within Obama’s administration are now coming forward, ready to testify. These individuals, he says, are preparing affidavits describing how federal institutions were weaponized against the American people.

Gabbard has emphasized the need for accountability:

  • Prosecutions and indictments are necessary, she argues, to restore trust in democratic institutions.

  • Turley agrees, framing this not as a matter of revenge, but of justice, ensuring that no future administration can misuse intelligence agencies for political ends.

Media Complicity & the Fight for Truth

Turley warns that the legacy media—which he labels as “complicit” in the scandal—may attempt to bury or discredit the story. However, he insists:

“The documents don’t lie.”

He predicts that within months, a major media figure might break ranks and expose the media’s role in covering up the scandal, further amplifying its national impact.

Final Word: A Populist Crossroads

In a broader appeal, Turley urges Americans to stay engaged:

  • He calls on citizens to demand accountability and stand with a populist movement that cuts across traditional political lines.

  • He stresses: “The rule of law must apply equally to everyone.”

As the Justice Department—now led by Pam Bondi, reviews the evidence, Turley promises to continue monitoring developments and keep his audience informed.

placeholder


Source: Dr. Steve Turley

Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals