US Presidential Debate: Donald Trump says Kamala Harris “put out” to get into power, and nobody batted an eyelid
The first televised US presidential debate – possibly the only one before this year’s election – between current vice president Kamala Harris and former president Donald Trump was a schemozzle in so far as clarity and actual policy are concerned. It was a different presentation to the debate months earlier between Trump and sitting (sleeping?) president, Joe Biden. Where that previous debate saw Trump unnervingly composed and articulate, and Biden all dumbfounded, deadpan and, quite frankly, looking dead, the recent debate was one carefully crafted to give Harris airtime to fluff about the American people’s “dreams” and “aspirations” and for her to instigate fury in Trump by tapping into his delicate ego. Even the presenters, who feign non-partisanship in their supposedly non-biased questioning, appeared to favour Harris over Trump – cutting him off just as Harris threw massive accusations at him.
Harris knew Trump would fume whenever she would mention “low numbers” at rallies, felonies or favours he’s made to world dictators, and she’d bring these up right at the end of her two minutes to really rile him up.
Trump thrives on his large rally numbers and the chummy relationships he has with overseas delegates, and Harris knew full well she could tug at his anxieties so that he would fill his response time with quips about being “loved” by overseas delegates rather than focus at the real question at hand: what has the sitting vice president done to help the American people these last three-and-three-quarter years?
Harris was well-rehearsed from a week of studying notes so that all was word “perfect” on debate day. She also threw in more of her favourite phrases “Understand this…” and “Let’s be clear…”, even while her actual policies and plans were neither understandable nor clear. As for being well-studied for this debate, what will happen if she were to become president and had to meet other world leaders? Would the word salads come back into play?
Harris’s clearest points were that she would provide $50,000 to small business starters, and $6,000 for each child born so as to help with childrearing costs. And that’s about it. Trump’s most blatant statements were that he’d remain adamant on border closure and would tend to this as soon as being made president-elect, and that he’d stop the war between Russia and Ukraine while also reducing the conflict between Israel and Palestine and financial support to these wars. Trump perhaps focused too much on the border, and should have mentioned it maybe twice, three times, but not a dozen times.
Meanwhile, Harris’s policies appeared to be specialised but with not much detail provided. While Harris assumes the American people are all going to suddenly start up small businesses and have babies, that’s not how economy works: it needs people happy to be employed in everyday jobs, not all clamouring to be business owners and capitalist string-pullers, and its people need to seriously consider the cost of raising children in an economy that just isn’t on their side. And while Trump might think all it takes to stop two major wars is to cosy up to war-mongering leaders, well, that might just work.
The ABC and its presenters – David Muir and Linsey Davis – feigned non-bias posing of questions but they clearly favoured Harris over Trump throughout the debate – from the way the camera framed each candidate (Harris, though shorter in real life, was presented as two inches taller), to the manner in which they cut off Trump’s rebuttals right after Harris left a load of extreme criticisms up in the air.
“We’ve just gotten word from our fact checkers and, No, I’m not a credible moderator. I am a King Dickwad.”
It was obvious, too, that the ABC moderators gave Harris more time for rebuttals than they gave Trump. So much for moderation.
Australian news reporters fared no better, with legacy media hacks going right for the jugular when it came to Trump’s faux pas, and using the most ridiculous examples at that (something about immigrants eating cats and dogs). Redundant reporting in the US and Australia also made a point of mentioning that this debate was “an introduction of Kamala Harris to the American people”. WTF? Hasn’t this woman been doing her job as vice president properly enough for the American people to consider her already introduced to them?
Back to the subject of policies, issues that ought to have been extrapolated on were those of climate change and abortion. Where Harris insisted her administration has “invested in clean energy” and “opened up factories all over”, she didn’t explain how this supposed balance happened (paid primarily out of the taxpayer dollar) or how it would be maintained. And while Trump used words like ‘execution’ and ‘murder’ when referring to the Democrats’ desire to keep abortion options open for longer than six months per pregnancy, such extreme word usage did the former president more harm than good.
But the key takeaway I got from all this politicking was when Trump said, in response to his referencing Harris as “suddenly changing” her nationality and colour, “I read that she was not black… and that she put out.” Forget the “not black” part – we’ve heard enough from both candidates on the subject of racism. It’s the “she put out” part that saw cards falling for the Democrat candidate. Or at least saw Harris’s spirit deflate. Even for a moment. In two seconds, you could see Kamala Harris’s beady glint turn into a split moment of despair. Yes, he went there. Will he go further with it? For now, he didn’t.
Whenever Harris called out Trump on issues and faux pas, he’d stand there looking like a chump, lips all glued together sadly. Whenever Trump called out Harris, she’d be looking away into the air, avoiding eye contact with a knowing glint in her eyes that she has indeed stuffed up as many times as Trump has.
For the most part though, Kamala held her head high, as though she were the most righteous person in the room, looking patronising part teacher, and all arrogant prosecuting attorney. One thing was evident: she certainly studied her notes for this proverbial court appearance.
In short, this debate showed a sitting US vice president insistent on focusing on the “aspirations”, “desires” and “dreams” of the American people – products that ultimately cannot come to fruition with such a glut in the economy. And remember, not everyone wants to start up a business; they just want a decent job that contributes to community and the economy. It also showed a former president whose foibles of the past came back to hurt him with the mere mention of them – when he should have let the sticks and stones go over his head and keep on asking the one important question: What has Kamala Harris done over the past three-and-three-quarter years to fix America’s weakening economy, high cost of living, global warming, disparate arguments over abortion issues, terrifying gun laws, broken woke agenda, and so on?
It’s a pity these debates don’t give the candidates the opportunity to talk about their respective administration teams. It would be a wise thing for the general public to be more aware of the fact, for example, that Trump has recently welcomed former United States Army Reserve officer, Tulsi Gabbard into the Republican fold, who is sure to provide some truer insight into how the US military actually operates, along with environmental specialist and activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr (with a surname you ought to be familiar with), providing much-needed climate discussion within the Trump camp. And that’s a good thing because it shows the former, possibly future, president is keen to learn more on the military and eco fronts.
Antonino Tati
Discover more from
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
One Response to “US Presidential Debate: Donald Trump says Kamala Harris “put out” to get into power, and nobody batted an eyelid”
The truth, not found in your “reporting” is that Trump grabbed NINE MINUTES more speaking time when the (by your account) “biased” moderators turned his mike back on for rebuttal even though he had already used his agreed upon time. Those rebuttals were all the same unfocused rambling angry rants and added nothing except extra camera time for your clearly favored candidate. But hey, thanks for reporting your slant.
LikeLike