Contents
- 1 Trump Harris Debate: How Trump and Harris Faced Off on National Issues
- 2 Economic Policies: Divergent Visions
- 3 Abortion Rights: Federal vs. State Control
- 4 Immigration and Border Security: Contrasting Strategies
- 5 Foreign Policy and National Security: Ukraine, Russia, and Israel
- 6 Climate Change: Existential Threat or Hoax?
- 7 Healthcare: A Right or a Market Opportunity?
- 8 Performance and Standpoints: Comparing the Two Candidates’ Performance
The second presidential debate of 2024 and the first between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump took place on September 10, marking a historic moment with the two candidates locking horns on critical national and global issues. With President Joe Biden stepping out of the race, the focus shifted fully to Harris and Trump, both vying for the Oval Office. In this article, we delve into the key issues discussed during the Trump Harris debate, the policies of each candidate, and an analysis of their performances and standpoints.
Trump Harris Debate: How Trump and Harris Faced Off on National Issues
Economic Policies: Divergent Visions
The economy emerged as a central topic, with both candidates presenting their visions for the future. Harris promoted her “Opportunity Economy” plan, which aims to boost the middle class by offering tax cuts. She proposed extending a $6,000 tax cut for families with a newborn child and introducing a $50,000 deduction for small businesses, emphasizing that these measures would reduce the burden on average Americans and small enterprises.
Trump, in contrast, focused on his tariff policies, defending his previous actions on trade and tariffs as beneficial for the U.S. economy. He argued that his tariffs on countries like China brought in significant revenue without causing inflation, stating, “Billions flowed into the U.S. from these tariffs. There was no inflation under my watch.” Trump accused Harris and the Biden administration of presiding over economic failures, citing high unemployment rates during their tenure.
David Mania
Harris countered, claiming Trump left behind the “worst unemployment since the Great Depression” and criticized him for failing to provide a clear economic strategy. She suggested Trump’s policies were divisive, full of “lies, grievances, and name-calling.” She also attacked Trump’s association with Project 2025, a Republican-led plan that she described as harmful to economic stability.
In terms of tariffs, Harris criticized Trump for leading the U.S. into a trade war that ultimately hurt American consumers by inflating prices. Trump maintained that the tariffs targeted foreign competitors and “China had been ripping us off for years.” The economic discussion revealed a sharp contrast: Harris focused on lifting the middle class, while Trump aimed to return to the strong, business-first stance of his previous term.
Abortion Rights: Federal vs. State Control
The topic of abortion highlighted the two presidential candidates’ stark ideological differences. Trump reiterated his anti-abortion stance, describing himself as the “most pro-life president” in U.S. history. He praised his administration for appointing conservative justices who ultimately overturned Roe v. Wade, thus returning the issue to the states. He denied supporting a national abortion ban but emphasized that the decision should rest with the states. He also made unfounded allegations about nine-month pregnancies and “babies that are born” being aborted.
Harris, however, firmly opposed Trump’s rhetoric, calling his approach a “direct attack on women’s rights.” She vowed to reinstate the protections of Roe v. Wade through federal legislation. Harris portrayed Trump as “radical and inconsistent” on reproductive rights, accusing him of “intentionally appointing justices to overturn Roe” and pledging that her administration would protect access to reproductive health care.
This debate further solidified Harris as a defender of women’s rights, while Trump maintained his pro-life credentials, leaving voters with a clear choice on this divisive issue.
Immigration and Border Security: Contrasting Strategies
Immigration took center stage as Trump pushed for large-scale deportation operations, promising a more aggressive approach if elected. He blamed Harris and Biden for allowing “dangerous people” into the country and causing a “border crisis”. Trump proposed using the National Guard and local police forces to remove millions of undocumented immigrants, stressing that his policy would protect U.S. citizens and restore order.
Harris shot back, accusing Trump of “sabotaging” a bipartisan border security bill that would have added 1,500 border agents and cracked down on transnational criminal organizations trafficking guns and drugs. She argued that Trump preferred to “run on the problem” rather than solve it. The debate showcased Harris’s emphasis on a balanced immigration policy, addressing both security concerns and humanitarian obligations, while Trump’s approach leaned heavily on enforcement and deportation.
David Mania
Foreign Policy and National Security: Ukraine, Russia, and Israel
Kamala Harris and Donald Trump clashed over foreign policy, particularly on issues related to Ukraine, Russia, and Israel. Trump claimed that he could end the war in Ukraine “within hours” if reelected, boasting of his relationships with both Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelensky.
David Mania
He criticized the Biden administration for its handling of the conflict, asserting that Harris and Biden lacked the courage to involve Europe meaningfully and warning that the war could escalate into World War III under their watch.
Harris rebuffed Trump’s claims, highlighting her past efforts to deter Russia’s invasion of Ukraine by strengthening NATO and providing intelligence support to Ukraine. She emphasized the importance of standing up to authoritarian regimes and accused Trump of being too cozy with dictators like Putin. On Russia, Harris stated that “Trump’s friendliness toward authoritarian leaders would have allowed further aggression by Putin.”
Harris also went hard on Trump saying that if he were President “Vladimir Putin would be sitting in Kiev and looking at [invading] the rest of Europe, starting with Poland“. She dared Trump to explain to the hundreds of thousands of Polish Americans in Pennsylvania how his favor-trading with dictators such as Putin would serve them.
Watch MSNBC’s analysis of the Trump Harris Debate below, including how Harris may have “destroyed” Trump. Source: MSNBC.
Regarding Israel, Harris underscored her stance supporting a two-state solution and an immediate ceasefire in the Gaza War, emphasizing the need for humanitarian considerations in conflict zones. Trump, however, accused her of being weak on national security and favoring foreign powers over U.S. interests.
David Mania
Climate Change: Existential Threat or Hoax?
Climate change emerged as another critical area of disagreement. Harris defended her previous statements calling the climate crisis an “existential threat”. Harris’s stance on climate change, she reiterated, included advocating for policies that would address the issue through investments in clean energy and American-made products. She argued that addressing climate change was both an environmental necessity and an economic opportunity to create new jobs in sustainable industries. She also recognized that the climate issue is important to voters, especially the youth.
David Mania
Trump, on the other hand, doubled down on his stance formerly dismissing climate change as a “hoax”, focusing instead on the economic benefits of domestic gas production. He criticized Harris’s approach as impractical and potentially devastating to the fossil fuel industry, which he views as essential to maintaining U.S. economic dominance.
This contrast revealed the candidates’ vastly different priorities: Harris sought to tackle climate change with long-term, sustainable policies, while Trump prioritized short-term economic gains from traditional energy sectors.
Healthcare: A Right or a Market Opportunity?
The debate over healthcare showcased another major policy divide. Harris defended the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), proposing expansions to include caps on prescription medication costs and further subsidies for low-income families. She emphasized healthcare as a right for all Americans, pointing out her administration’s successes in lowering the cost of insulin and prescription drugs.
David Mania
Trump admitted that despite his longstanding promises to repeal and replace Obamacare, he had not yet presented a concrete alternative. He remained focused on private insurance, advocating for market-driven healthcare solutions rather than government mandates.
Harris positioned herself as a protector of healthcare rights, while Trump’s position aligned more closely with free-market principles, leaving the onus on private insurers and businesses.
Performance and Standpoints: Comparing the Two Candidates’ Performance
Kamala Harris came into the debate with the advantage of incumbency, as the sitting Vice President. She portrayed herself as a compassionate and forward-thinking leader, focused on middle-class prosperity, climate change, and women’s rights. Her tone was measured, emphasizing unity and progress, and she frequently urged voters to look to the future rather than revisit the controversies of the past.
David Mania
Donald Trump, true to his style, was combative and unapologetic. He leaned heavily on his record from his first term, emphasizing border security, economic strength, and his tough stance on foreign adversaries. He portrayed Harris as weak on national security and accused her of implementing policies that would harm the economy. Trump’s appeal was directed squarely at his base, focusing on law and order, immigration, and his ability to restore the economy.
Watch the debate below. Source: WSJ.
Ultimately, the debate offered voters a clear choice: Harris’s vision of progressive policies aimed at uniting the country and addressing long-standing issues, versus Trump’s promise to return to a “great” America, focusing on traditional economic and national security strategies. Each candidate’s policies reflected a fundamental difference in how they envision America’s future, setting the stage for a highly polarized election campaign.
David Mania
