This post is a response to a question posed in its full format as follows: “JD Vance said in the debate that he has never supported a national ban on abortion. Does that mean that he was lying when he said (on tape) that he wanted a National Ban on abortion?”

I hadn’t intended on “upgrading” this answer to the level of a post, but the upvotes I’ve been getting suggest to me that perhaps fewer people are skilled in “reading between the lines” of what people say than should be the case with critical political issues that significantly impact people’s lives. What I’ve realized — and what prompted me to make this “bonus post” today- is that what appears blazingly obvious to me is not so for far too many others. Understanding the art of dialectics within the context of political leadership has never been a more crucial skill for people to develop as part of the critical thinking kit. Hence, my response to the question posed is below. (Plus, this is an opportunity to share a meme I created when J.D. accepted his invitation to serve as POTUS potentially.)

Does it really matter if he lied about something in one instance but not in the next?

How can you tell which is the lie and which is the truth?

How can anyone know what someone really means if you have to choose between multiple conflicting statements?

What’s the point of trying to parse them to determine their belief in an issue?

What they are saying by making conflicting statements is that they choose their words to appeal to whatever audience they are speaking to.

They practice “the art of telling people what they want to hear.”

They admit that they believe in nothing but achieving whatever goal they seek and care little about how much their actions might hurt others.

They admit they have no values beyond manipulating gullible people.

He has admitted to doing just that when he claimed to be justified in “creating stories” to get attention — even though innocent people have been put in jeopardy because of his “stories.”

The only valid conclusion any sane person can draw from that is they can’t be trusted because one should know that they will continue to lie to anyone and everyone they can to achieve whatever benefits they can for themselves.

It means that if he can personally benefit from a national abortion ban, he will support it.

It means he’s openly bargaining with the people who want a national abortion ban by telling them in public through his “hidden message” that if they grease his palms, he will support a national abortion ban because he doesn’t care who he will hurt in the process.