Given how obsessed the left has claimed to be regarding the “facts,” it’s awfully strange that they’ve selected a running mate for Harris that appears pathologically incapable of telling the truth.
Walz has been busted in a number of lies over the last several weeks, which were on full display during the recent debate.
One such lie included his apparent presence in China during the Tiananmen massacre, which emerged during the debate.
Nonetheless, rather than admitting his blatant error, Walz doubled down and claimed that he simply had his “dates wrong” to reporters following his disastrous performance.
“Look, I have my dates wrong. I was in Hong Kong and China in 1989. You’ve seen me. These teachers see me. I speak like everybody else speaks,” Walz rambled.
Is that so? Because a large number of people don’t speak lies day in and day out, which appears to be a prerequisite for running with Comrade Kamala.
In addition, several professionals are deeply leery of Walz, given how blatantly obvious his lies are.
As reported by the Daily Mail, Ryan Waite notes that Walz has a troubling “pattern” of lying.
Waite, who serves as vice president of public affairs at the corporate marketing firm Think Big, initially assumed that Walz was merely inexperienced, though he now believes deeper issues are afoot.
“I would have chalked this up to inexperience a little bit, but there is also a pattern now that is starting to get a little deeper I think …Normally, these sorts of kinks would be worked out during the primaries process before hitting the national stage … But with Walz, he has been catapulted forward without the normal on ramp,” Waite observed.
Well, “normally” an actual political process occurs to choose a nominee in the first place, but the Dems steamrolled right over that tradition in favor of their coronated candidate.
Dr. Christian Hart, a psychologist at Texas Woman’s University, also sounds off on Walz’s mental state, which does not bode well for his leadership abilities.
“When we look at lying, we see people only lie when they believe they are going to derive something beneficial out of it … If there is no potential perceived benefit, people are almost exclusively honest according to research,” Hart remarked.
Alas, it seems the globalists and Dems alike see “potential perceived benefit” in as much disinformation as they can spew, especially through their Big Tech collaborators.
“For Walz, he may believe he gets some sort of favor out of it – whether that’s burnishing his reputation or appearing as someone who has more expertise on a topic than he actually does,” Hart continued.
Well, he’s “burnishing” his reputation all right. One that’s laden with easily disproven disinformation.
Then, rather hilariously, Hart mused that Walz may well be deeply insecure.
“One thing we also see is that people who have low self-esteem tend to lie considerably more than people who are more secure … It could be that he sees himself maybe not quite at the level one would expect a presidential candidate to be at, and so is making some exaggerated claims to help seem more like he is,” Hart continued.
“Some exaggerated claims” is one of the nicest ways to put it.
Outright lies would be a more accurate characterization.
On his part, Walz blames his apparently unclear communication, rather than his blatant lies, as the most problematic element of his campaign.
“I need to be clearer. I will tell you that,” Walz declared.
Actually, you just need to be more honest.
That’s all.
Author: Jane Jones