Who knew we would ever see this moment? Since the fateful day that Kamala Harris accepted the nomination as the Democratic candidate, the idea of a presidential debate has fostered curiosity and interest in the American people. Election season has arrived, and what a time it is. We are enshrouded in chaos, living in the reality of a polarized system with a fuzzy recollection of what diplomacy looked like before 2016.
I began my watch of this debate nervous, to say the least. Witnessing years of adults at the helm of this nation in juvenile altercations, surprisingly, does not instill hope. Due to my recent fascination in bipartisanship, I wanted to listen to the arguments of each candidate with an open mind and truly consider their arguments. The quirks of this debate entertained me. At times, it felt as if the moderators were scolding the candidates; they lost their microphone privileges and were cut off at the time limit multiple times.Â
We started with the economy. Trump emphasized the work he did throughout COVID to ensure economic security in the United States, while Harris praised her own administration for pulling the country out of the pandemic. This was the beginning of the end; like most of the debate, the topic quickly veered to different subjects leaving many unanswered questions. For the most part, the debate remained civil with little jabs here and there, yet one could tell that this volcano was going to erupt at any moment.Â
The next question led the debate to immigration and border control, though even when discussing a different topic, both candidates often returned to this pressing issue. The accusatory punches were thrown left and right, and my ears went into emergency shutdown mode with this unproductive conversation. Trump continued his buzzword mission of instilling fear surrounding the topic of illegal immigrants yet avoiding answering with tangible ideas. Harris went on to state that Trump campaigned for Republicans to kill a bipartisan bill that would enhance border security and claimed that Trump would rather fearmonger than let other people create solutions. He continued with a hard argument on the dangers that face the country if foreign policy isnât tightened down, reassuring his followers that he will be the one to bring the hammer down when the time comes (while circulating a few conspiracies along the way.)
With Donald Trumpâs business career, time on “The Apprentice” and a handful of movie cameos (“Zoolander” plug), one would expect a certain charisma or charm from his demeanor. They might be surprised to find that his temperament often gets the best of him. Trump had an opportunity to speak civilly and highlight the policies that his voters expect from him in an educated manner, but in a demonstration of “debate skills 101,” Harris goaded him and he fell for the bait. After Harris outlined her plan for middle-class America, she followed with a direct hit to Trumpâs character. This led to Trump repeating a common line throughout the night, “She has no plan, she will do nothing,” which simply made him look like he was unable to comprehend anything she said.Â
More than ever, it is difficult to find credible news sources, especially with figures so controversial. Therefore, I was very interested in hearing the candidatesâ political views straight from the source. I was left hanging when questions asked to Trump were met with extreme defensiveness and evasiveness. This was not all his fault, though. I was skeptical of the moderators and their somewhat aggressive tactics pointed towards Trump. I would have enjoyed more general questions rather than specific circumstances directed towards one candidate over the other. Moderators tended to ask more invasive and accusatory questions towards the Republican candidate that threw the debate off-balance, which I believe was somewhat of an abuse of power from the ABC team. Less biased questions may also have made it easier for one candidate to truly outshine the other, by making the overall tone of the night less combative and more intellectual.Â
Harris kept calm for the majority of the debate. On the split screen, her face was often left with a shocked scowl in disbelief. This historically is a tactic in poor taste. In 2000, Al Gore used this same method to belittle former President George Bush and people claimed that Gore was a condescending know-it-all. Harris had her words thrown back at her when she briefly interrupted Trump, getting hit with the now infamous line, âExcuse me Mr. Vice President, Iâm speakingâ from Trump, who concluded this burn with, âSound familiar?â She emphasized his criminal record and privilege, but more importantly, she spoke about her specific plans regarding subjects like the economy, reproductive rights, fracking, Israel vs. Palestine and border control. Harris responded with clear and concise points that highlighted her experience as a prosecutor. Trump provided many rebuttals, showing a strong front but I think it was a waste of time. I canât speak for the majority, but having a candidate who is clear and articulate is something I previously took for granted, so it was refreshing to experience this in a presidential debate.Â
Weâve made it this far and I didnât mention eating dogs once. Trying to give the benefit of the doubt is the theme of the article, but it all feels negated when a man stands in front of a nation and states baseless accusations of baby executions and consumed pets. In both counts he was immediately fact-checked, an over exaggeration of how abortion law is used in each state creating opportunity for misinformation to spread. The idea that haitian immigrants were eating cats or dogs was completely out-of-the-blue with no proof to back it up. In reality, it feels like Trumpâs news source was a game of telephone gone wrong. On the contrary, one of my favorite takeaways was how humanistic Harrisâs points were. She spoke about important issues by involving âthe peopleâ in every topic. She highlighted that women are responsible beings capable of making decisions and insinuating otherwise is insulting to half the nation.Â
The American people have always had an interesting relationship with their politicians. Idolized, hated, dehumanized, beloved, the spectrum is endless. As voters, it is almost impossible to determine a candidate’s true intentions behind the smoke and mirrors of campaign tactics. Picking a president is a trudge in the mud.
It takes effort to find facts from unbiased media sources that arenât influenced by candidates and conglomerates, but we are all in this together which is often when we are in such a battle of pointing fingers. I challenge everyone to go that extra mile and strive for bipartisanship. In the end, I believe this is a better one of the debates weâve been blessed with in the last 10 years. All thatâs left is to take everything youâve heard and vote for which candidate you believe has the best objectives and intentions for this nation. None of this can be done though if you are still unregistered! Â
REGISTER TO VOTE