I’m pretty sure a Junior High School debate team judge would give the President an F+ and the Democratic Presidential candidate a D-. That was painful and un-illuminating.
The low level of respect each candidate has for the other was evident early and often. Interruption as a debate strategy? Not a good look for either candidate, but especially bad for a sitting President.
The most often used phrase, after “here’s the deal” and “fact is” was “that’s not true”. What was true? What statements of fact were uttered by either candidate?
In defense of his nomination of a Supreme Court Justice, President Trump stated “Elections have consequences” and “a President is elected for four years”. These are true statements. But not for the Democratic Party candidate. His response was “He’s elected to the next election”. This is typical of the Democratic Party to morph an understanding of a concept or the English language itself, to favor their outcomes.
In the Democratic Party candidates view of the United States Presidency, the President should stop working when an election cycles starts. A President can’t start governing until they take the oath of office, more than two months after the election. According to the Democratic Party candidate, the sitting President should stop working during an election cycle. When did that begin? After the party conventions? There’s no recent precedent for this kind of behavior of a sitting President.
I keep repeating, vote for the policies, not the personality. I don’t understand how anyone can be “undecided” in this Presidential election. Either you think abortion is murder and you support Pro-Life or you think abortion is just birth control. If you call yourself a practicing Catholic and support abortion, but don’t see the hypocrisy in that, you’re not really Catholic. But Roe v Wade isn’t on the ballot. Except according to the Democratic Party candidate. The difference in the candidates is one opposes a policy of abortion, the other supports it.
Vote for the policies on Gun Rights. One candidate believes the Second Amendment is the fundamental right of self defense using a device that can be a force equalizer. The other candidate believes no Citizen should have the use of such a device and would confiscate all firearms (except for his protection detail of course).