Critically Thinking about the recent Presidential Debate

Readers weigh in...

Sep 12, 2024

Rather than just hear my views about the 9-10-24 Presidential Debate, I thought it might be of interest to share with you what a cross-section of readers had to say.

Before we get to those, my brief 2¢ about the debate is that:

1 - Kamala appeared to show a lucidity that has studiously avoided her for 4+ years. Some proposed possible explanations are: a) she was being communicated to via her earrings, b) she was given all the questions in advance, c) she was in a drug-induced state of alertness, d) what we actually saw was a deep state generated AI hologram, etc.
2 - Kamala failed to explain why she has been unable to accomplish hardly any of her claimed plans, even though she has been in power for four years. One likely explanation is that her new plans are just for show to entice voters who have not been paying attention to her career positions.
3 - The ABC moderators feigned an air of seriousness in an attempt to convey that they were competent and objective. It didn’t work.
4 - Trump could have done a better job of responding to Harris. That said, when in every two minute segment your opponent tells 5± distortions, exaggerations, omissions, and outright lies, what is the best response? (Email me your answers and I’ll have another Critically Thinking Commentary on that important question.)

Although I received hundreds of comments, due to space limitations I could only print a representative sample. Here is a good analysis from a reliable media source. Here is a new video that shows a small sample of Kamala’s inaccurate statements.

One interesting thing I noted: although many people said that Harris did better than expected, not a single person said that her performance was sufficient to get them to change their vote… Critical Thinking works!

Note: I’m also going to try out a new Substack feature: polls. Please make your opinion known by answering the following question:

The JH commentary is listed first as it is the best I received, out of many good ones. THANK YOU to all who shared excellent insights! [Note: if any of the people who I listed by their initials want their full name shown, email me and I will. If there are any late-arriving comments, I’ll add them at the end, so periodically check back.]

Here are sample comments (with very light editing for grammar, clarity, length, etc.):

JH —

It was painful. Kamala was effective at putting Trump on the defense with lie after lie, and he couldn’t resist. Her (and the moderators’) lie about no full-term abortions was the final straw for me - and that was fairly early on in the evening.
Like Trump, I have a hard time responding to people who blatantly lie about obvious things with a straight face. You feel compelled to correct the record and address it. But all it does is make you look defensive and weak. .
I also felt for the first time that she may very well be a psychopath. I say that because psychopaths are masterful liars and she lied, lied, and lied from her (reduced size) podium — and appeared to enjoy doing so.
My personal opinion is that she was given the questions in advance. Her well-rehearsed answers (complete with witty one-liners) are beyond her capability. I felt like I was watching a script play out that she had been practicing for weeks.
Something very, very wrong took place on that stage, and part of it was due to the moderators’ blatant bias.

JW —

America Lost.

Dr. CM —

I think Trump accomplished his goal with last night’s debate. He said out loud all the facts that an ABC News/Fake News audience has never heard – late-term abortion of 9-month-term babies, $85 billion in US arms abandoned in Afghanistan, that Biden/Harris could end the border crisis immediately without any Congressional laws, that we were energy independent in 2020, that illegal immigrants are killing Americans and committing crimes even eating pets and more. If listeners Fact-check any of this, they will see Kamala is being protected by the Fake News and is incompetent to be President.

Mason Mahon (his Substack) —

It was disheartening to see the moderators join in on the Democratic side of the debate, arguing with Trump over the facts, and never once fact-checking Harris’s blatant falsehoods. The “very fine people” quote and the Central Park 5 full-page ad have both been debunked for years, but the moderators do not care!
But, it’s also encouraging. The left needs every tool in their toolbox to take on Trump, even if that means skewing the debate. Despite the hostile environment, I think Trump handled it well and gave a good debate performance. Good, but still not his best. This debate feels like it will be forgotten.

FP —

In the 3 1/2 years that Kamala has been on the world stage and these past several months in which we’ve seen her talk to audiences, she has never been as articulate as she was during the debate. I did too many years of TV news. I know how easy it is - with a little practice - to repeat word for word what is said in your ear. I do think her earrings were earbuds.
I also think that the moderators should be severely rebuked. They “fact-checked” Trump, but let every lie out of Kamala‘s mouth - of which there were a significant number - go unchallenged. Disgusting but not surprising.

TN —

Donald Trump is not one who studies principles. He acts on instinct, which is often correct. However, his lack of deep understanding of principles led to a lack of message discipline, which was on display. A more disciplined, principle, and fact-driven approach would have decimated Harris.

Dr. Bill Lynch —

CNN gave a neat summary: “She baited him; he took the bait and she spanked him; she baited him again and she spanked him again.”
Trump’s better response - to almost everything – could have been “Your plan is a Christmas fantasy in which you play Santa Claus giving out money gifts. The money for this comes from seizures, taxes, or debt. This is simply an inflationary expansion of the Biden failures in which you have been consistently complicit.”

CA —

I heard part of her first response but I couldn’t handle listening to her. I found myself shaking from the vibrations of death and hell coming through her so I turned down the volume and prayed the rest of the hour.

FW —

There is no reason Trump should have been unprepared or ambushed. His staff was to point out these possibilities. He should have taken B-H policies apart point by point and shown the immense damage they have and will do. Instead, he kept getting off the subject, repeating his attack on immigration without stating how he stopped it before and just `yelling’ he did a good job. His approach and execution were completely inadequate for the attack.

BK —

I thought Harris did a fantastic job. However, it was so unlike anything she has uttered publicly previously that I believe it was written for her by others. All she had to do was memorize her lines, and then regurgitate them when the appropriate topic was triggered by the moderator. It's probably what Trump and his team should do for future debates, as, like Harris, I think he's boring when publicly speaking.

Dr. TS —

I thought it was a major blunder by Donald Trump not to go heavy on the "border reform bill" that Republicans rejected. Trump could have pointed out that it was all about increased ability to process immigrants, not about increased border enforcement. He must have been rattled by some assertion of Kamala's and forgot to explain the truth about this. Another example of "taking the bait."

PM —

Harris is a crafty and determined climber. I was surprised that Harris was able to mostly avoid the word salad she’s famous for, suggesting that she is trainable. Will any on-the-fence voters be convinced after last night to vote for her? Perhaps some, but not so many that the Democrat Party should stop worrying. We have two Unity parties at play in this election. One, the unity party of the New Democrat embracing the neocon Cheneys; the other, anti-establishment Trump being joined by the Peace/Health/Anti-Censor party of RFK jr, Musk, etc. A person either sees this truth or is blind to it, much like being able to see that masking toddlers is child abuse; you either see it or you don’t. No amount of debates will change this.

BF —

Although Kamala Harris was never fact-checked for any misinformation which she gave, President Trump's performance was lackluster, at best. It seemed as if Trump was always attempting to defend himself, against Harris' accusatory "facts" regarding President Trump's time in office . . . as a result he rarely answered the question being asked by the moderator.
President Trump also spoke too much about his past record, and also about how if he is reelected, everything will automatically be great (presumably because he has all the answers to our national problems). This seemed to me to be a poor tactic for those of us who are looking for real answers to the inflation issue, the government corruption issue, the excessive spending and the unsustainable national debt, the nearly unlimited immigration, and so much more.
Trump made this debate all about himself, whereas it should have been about what he would do to fix our problems if reelected as president for another term. I believe President Trump lost a lot of votes with his debate performance.

MAR —

Honestly, I learned nothing about Trump or Harris, except that Trump’s message is the same as it’s been and Harris’s message sounds like Obama talking. She’s a strong speaker, but so was Obama. Trump speaks from the heart while Harris spoke from scripted and dated talking points.
A third grader could detect the bias on the part of the moderators. A little disappointed RFK jr joining Trump was not a key message from Trump. It’s a strong message to Americans about the state of the Democratic Party. Especially to undecided voters.
I am glad Trump mentioned his attempted assassination. There’s much more he could have said about that but probably didn’t want to start a gun discussion. I believe our country has lost its way and communist operatives are already in our government at the highest levels. Of course, I’m voting for Trump.
I try to avoid the storm of politics and confrontation of corruption. However, I will never forget, nor vote for, those who mandated mass vaccination with an experimental drug. The American people were mandated into a phase 3 clinical trial of an experimental drug without their consent. There’s so much more to be said about this.
My humble advice to everyone is be your own person and don’t let yourself get eaten up by the system. Follow your intuition—that first gut feeling is always right. And vote for Trump.

Bob Cavanaugh —

Harris came across as well rehearsed and succeeded in getting over a low bar of expectation. Trump underperformed due to misrepresentation of his policies as well as personal attacks which combined kept him on the defensive...not a good place to be in a debate. Bias by ABC was expected and the first time a moderator interjected, he should have stood his ground and said he wasn't there to debate three people and to call him when they got their act together. Then exit the stage.

Russ Babcock —

The Tuesday event on ABC was NOT a debate. It was a 3-pronged attack against one person. Who the "winner" was depends upon the criteria being considered by the observer doing the judging. Trump beat off the attacks as well as could be expected with a combination of real substance coupled with his poorly articulated criticisms of Harris's disingenuous, virtue-signaling platitudes. If it was preparedness, style, delivery, and harmony-with-moderators that we were looking for, then Trump didn't win.
Many watching did not need to hear Trump take better advantage of his air time by pouncing on Harris's record, her ad-hominem remarks, her lies, her non-answers, her lack of achievement, her contributions to anti-American policy and initiatives. However, many others who are just beginning to learn some truths and realities regarding both domestic and international issues over the last 4 years really DID need to see Trump do a much better job of distinguishing what he (and all conservatives, not just him) stands for and what Harris does and doesn't stand for. Harris didn't have to do that at all.
She had the so-called moderators fully on her side, so it wasn't even necessary for her to even try. Harris did a great job of taking advantage of Trump's inability to ignore her urgings down rabbit holes. Had he instead spent his rebuttal energy on revealing Harris for who she REALLY is, he would easily have come out the clear winner.
For example, Right off the bat, in his first moment with a live mike, he could have and should have simply asked the moderator: Please ask her to explain to us why she refused to even answer your very first question. You are interested in the answer, are you not? I'm sure that the American public is. But no, he just went off on a tangent. Opportunity lost.
There was indeed a clear loser in this event. It was ABC. They were clearly exposed by their so-called moderators as being nothing more than a shill organization for the Democrat Party, with zero regard for anything to do with the best interests of their country.

Terry Oldberg —

Harris is a member of the political left while Trump is a member of the political right and one observes that the beliefs of the members of the the political left differ from the beliefs of the members of the political right. Through usage of the appropriate critical thinking skill, one can discover whether to vote for Trump or Harris.
The applicable critical thinking skill is to draw a distinction between a "complex" physical system and a "non-complex" physical system, where, by the definition of terms, a "complex" physical system exhibits one or more "emergent properties," each of which is a property of the whole system and not of the separate parts of this system whereas a "non-complex" physical system exhibits no such properties.. In the public policy research that I have conducted, I have learned that a member of the political left. such as Harris, characteristically mistakes a "complex" system for a "non-complex" physical system whereas a member of the political right, such as Trump, characteristically does not make this mistake.
In the psychological research that he has conducted, in the historical record, the statistician and professor of clinical psychology Mattias Desmet has discovered that for a large group of citizens of a given country to mistake "complex" physical systems for "non-complex" physical systems" is a precursor to totalitarian rule over the people of this country. He reports this finding in the book that is titled "The Psychology of Totalitarianism."
Thus, a desire for human beings to thrive would lead a knowledgeable voter to vote for Trump while a desire for human beings to suffer would lead this voter to vote for Harris.

CB —

Harris over-performed expectations no doubt and was far more polished and sharp than she’s probably ever been. Score big wins for the yay brat crowd & ‘educated’ class who loves that style schtick.
But in substance, she was surprisingly hollow and came off as bitchy in demeanor and phony with her faux-emotional claims to ‘rise above the fray’ when all she did was name-call and lie about Trump for 100 minutes. Trump in contrast didn’t have his best night but also didn’t have his worst night either. However, in the context of the absolutely atrocious ‘moderation’ of a ‘debate’ (easily worse than ever) which was in fact a 3 on 1 ambush, he did quite well - especially in counter-fact checking their fake ‘fact checks’ with real ones that many Americans likely had never heard on key topics (2020 election, Jan 6th riot, fudged crime stats, Kamala’s record).
And his closing was THE key Q: why hasn’t she done all these great things she’s promising in the last 3.5 years or right now? By rightly letting that Q hang for his entire closing statement he let her hang on it, which is likely what people will remember (and what they don’t like about continuing the crap status quo).
Harris wins on style & amongst the Acela class; to all other Americans seeking resolute & serious commitment to solving the main issues ravaging the country (including and especially taking on the corrupt ruling class), Trump simultaneously gained sympathy and dominated yet again (which all seems reflected in overnight snap polling of viewers and undecideds fwiw).

Walter Perkins —

See his Substack for his commentary on the debate.

ML —

I felt and was disappointed that President Trump was not on the offensive outlining his accomplishments. I knew in my heart the moderators wouldn’t be unbiased. 3 on 1 is usually not going to be a fair fight in any venue. Harris’s camp wants another debate, fine, let’s do it on Fox with Hannity and/or Levine as moderators and see how that plays out.
I don’t give much credence to conspiracy theories that I cannot “Critically Think” through. What struck me last night was how Ms. Harris was able not to get entangled in her “Word Salad” usual responses. Perhaps the scripted answers were transmitted through the earrings. Even so, she related nothing of substance regarding her stance on the issues besides the usual Democratic talking points! I hope the independent voters understand this point!

MM —

While Mr. Trump is a horrible communicator he produces great results. Conversely, Ms. Harris produces horrible results (e.g., border czar; inflation reduction act, etc.) but when prepped for two weeks she can perform pretty well. The office to which she aspires does not allow two weeks to prep for encounters with world leaders… Also, she is a fraud, saying her values have not changed.

KL —

Harris did a pretty good job baiting Trump with lies. For the most part, he didn’t take the bait. But he can't stand it when she tells a lie about him. Trump missed a couple of opportunities. He missed the chance to point out that Biden gave Putin the ok to invade Ukraine just a little.
He did pretty well considering he was debating three people.

John Mikkelsen —

We watched the debate live in Australia and it was obvious from the start that Trump was up against three adversaries. It wasn’t just Harris as the moderators kept contradicting his statements and allowing her free rein, while many of her claims were obviously untrue but unchallenged. Hopefully not too many would be influenced to change their vote in her favor.

LW —

A very short comment. If you want the country to be run like a business vote for Trump. If you want it run like a charity vote for the Democrats, and take your chances on whether you are a giver or a recipient.

BR —

Trump summation lines: "Why are you promising to do all these good things (which I actually did!) On Day 1? You have been in office for 3 1/2 years now! Why haven't you done this? In fact, Get Joe out of bed and go down there RIGHT NOW! You have the power to do these things without Congress. Let’s go!”
KPOW. Proof the Democrats don't want to and like the last 200 years...they say Whatever it takes and do whatever it takes to win power and devour the Deplorable Useless Eaters Cause we are too ignorant to make decisions on how we should live. They live a luxurious life with our money and have no morals or conscience.
Can't wait for them to meet their Maker who they conveniently think doesn't exist.

Late Arrivals — — — — —

Dr. DL —

My 2 cents: It was a tie. Trump spent too much time on the defensive. Every time KH talked, she spewed lies. Trump should have led with... "What Kamala said needs to be fact checked- they are outright lies or stretching the truth." Then go on the offensive. Start every response with: "She had 3.5 years... it certainly appeared that Biden was not in control; it was either Kamala or the deep state." "Here is what my administration will need to do to make America great again." Then state it. That kind of repetition will be powerful. Trump also rambles too much. Compare how Reagan would respond to how Trump responds.
I found all the comments by Dr. Wolf both before and after the debate to be spot on. The ear ring- Blue Tooth catch should be emphasized at the beginning of every Trump rally from now on. Show picture of KH, then show picture of earrings with ad. Then Trump should say: "What does that look like to you? Do you want THAT to be your next President" Then go on with whatever he has to say.

NB —

Your first answer was hilarious! Seriously, though. Kamala did NOT win the debate. The media did. Trump was being shot at from three directions and I think he was tired from campaigning, so he was not at his best. But in the opening half hour when most viewers would have stayed to watch, he hit her hard on the economy and illegal migration. Go to Red State, PJ Media, and Townhall and you will find a bunch of polls and focus group interviews showing that independents favored Trump despite what the media says about Kamala winning. The Faulker focus group video is truly fascinating as you can see independents going way up when Trump mentioned not being able to afford cereal in one of his early answers.
P.S. You didn’t mention Trump’s great line about migrants in Ohio eating people’s cats!! Have you seen the media hullabaloo over that one today? Fox even sent a reporter to the city to talk with residents and one guy said he saw a van full of migrants with “100 cats in it and they were eating them.” Unfortunately, it’s all too believable.

CS —

Being an Australian obviously makes me ineligible to vote on Nov.5, but I am very interested in the outcome as are many Australians. If I were an American voter, I would certainly vote for Trump; my principal reason for that, is that he recognises that the whole “climate crisis” and the enormous negative effect it has on the economy, is nonsense promulgated by the UN in order to redistribute wealth globally. The result of which is that the USA, Europe, Japan, South Korea and some smaller ones, emitted about 9 million tonnes of CO2 in 2023 (and reducing), while the rest of the world, led by that “developing nation”, China, emitted 30 million tonnes and increasing. Australia and the other nations duped into harming their economies, might sit up and take some notice of US actions on climate issues if Trump took over and started applying their revenue to beneficial causes such as hospitals, roads, etc. instead of subsidising inefficient wind turbines, solar panels, batteries, electric cars and hydrogen projects.
On a related matter, I am disappointed in the strong anti-Trump bias in the US media and the lack of fact-checking Harris got in the debate by the moderators.

Here are other materials by this scientist that you might find interesting:

Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.
WiseEnergy.org: discusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.
C19Science.info: covers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.
Election-Integrity.info: multiple major reports on the election integrity issue.
Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from COVID to climate, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2024 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time - but why would you?

Critically Thinking About Select Societal Issues

Discussion about this post