And the race goes on.
If one bases one's decisions on stars despite the warnings about that crack down there, there's not much anyone can say except have a nice trip. I'll give it another shot nevertheless. Some answers came up to questions I'd asked earlier, notably those bits about SCOTUS, thresholds, and that non-answer of a history lesson, but a few other challenges to a challenger's platform also caught my eye.
First of all, there's plenty of coverage on whose plans are going to be enacted (not his) if the election goes the way of the challenger, but here's another article taking a look at that pressure, specifically around court appointments.
Second, this is a more detailed exploration on income taxes and how they affect different parts of the population. Don't like the way the current code works? Fine, but I've not seen details on a workaround.
Third, if the answer to the last debate question wasn't enough to seal my vote for not-Lotus, the deeper look into these other answers just might be. (And since there's some chatter about how to respect women in the workplace, referring to a recently deceased jurist - and a living one as well, come to think of it - by their initials is somehow more acceptable than to refer to a bartender the same way. Interesting interpretation of respect, but OK.)
Also, if that pandemic is still a concern, these test results sure look like the treatment in question works despite the person on whom it's being used. Yay, science. Isn't it funny how that sounds like a rerun?
There's an income tax hole in the challenger's tax policy. There's a backslide on fracking in his environmental policy. There's a veep candidate who answers a question on the division between sides on why her side deserves the vote more than the other. But hey, go ahead and focus on scoffing and flies, since there's a lack of substance to focus on otherwise.
On a side note, it's a gladsome thing to read up on who refuses to be complicit.