While I think each of the contributors had good points to make, to me, the debate was like a Rorchach test: If you are a Democrat, you thought Ms. Harris killed it at the debate. If you are a Trump supporter, you probably admired his defiant stance. Since I am a post-duopoly person, supporting neither candidate, I found the debate, and the reactions to it, to be an exercise in tribalism. I saw one side bloviating and the other side engaging in platitudes. As James Cardin aptly stated, "Lincoln Douglas it was not." Mr. Martin also had a good point in asserting that Mr. Muir and Ms. Davis acted more like fact-checkers, one-sided ones against Trump, rather than moderators. In addition, while Mr. Cardin correctly highlights the most egregious comments made by Trump (immigrants eating dogs and cats, etc.), it seemed as though Ms. Harris got away with not answering questions that were put to her, for example regarding inflation and the messy withdrawal from Afghanistan. Finally, Mr. Trump and Ms. Harris's respective answers on foreign policy were dismal. Ms. Harris assumed the role of war-monger with relish and has embraced the neo-conservative foreign policy agenda. By weloming Dick Cheney's support, she loses any progressive standing. Trump might have been a bit better in this respect because he actually mentioned the danger of nuclear weapons and the possibility of WWIII. In closing, while people are arguing who had the best debate performance, President Biden is about to give Ukraine authorization to launch deeper strikes into Russia with long-range weapsons, thus crossing the Russian's red line. This is a further step up the escalation ladder, which brings with it a greater possibility that nuclear weapons may be employed; this is what keeps me up at night.
While I think each of the contributors had good points to make, to me, the debate was like a Rorchach test: If you are a Democrat, you thought Ms. Harris killed it at the debate. If you are a Trump supporter, you probably admired his defiant stance. Since I am a post-duopoly person, supporting neither candidate, I found the debate, and the reactions to it, to be an exercise in tribalism. I saw one side bloviating and the other side engaging in platitudes. As James Cardin aptly stated, "Lincoln Douglas it was not." Mr. Martin also had a good point in asserting that Mr. Muir and Ms. Davis acted more like fact-checkers, one-sided ones against Trump, rather than moderators. In addition, while Mr. Cardin correctly highlights the most egregious comments made by Trump (immigrants eating dogs and cats, etc.), it seemed as though Ms. Harris got away with not answering questions that were put to her, for example regarding inflation and the messy withdrawal from Afghanistan. Finally, Mr. Trump and Ms. Harris's respective answers on foreign policy were dismal. Ms. Harris assumed the role of war-monger with relish and has embraced the neo-conservative foreign policy agenda. By weloming Dick Cheney's support, she loses any progressive standing. Trump might have been a bit better in this respect because he actually mentioned the danger of nuclear weapons and the possibility of WWIII. In closing, while people are arguing who had the best debate performance, President Biden is about to give Ukraine authorization to launch deeper strikes into Russia with long-range weapsons, thus crossing the Russian's red line. This is a further step up the escalation ladder, which brings with it a greater possibility that nuclear weapons may be employed; this is what keeps me up at night.