At the debate, Vice President Kamala Harris talked about the future. Donald Trump talked about the past and what he did or would have done. Mr. Trump stuck to his guns against the administration, but Ms. Harris talked about her vision for the next administration and took strong swipes at Mr. Trump’s character and his record. Even Fox News commentators acknowledged that Ms. Harris performed well and that Mr. Trump’s diversions about immigrants stealing and eating cats were dismaying.
By Letters to the Editor
She was positive. He was mad and argumentative. She was specific. He was vague. Both dodged some questions and went off on tangents. But he was the defendant. And she was the clear leader for our future.
Jill Feldon LaNouette, Healdsburg, Calif.
Ms. Harris’s face said it all
Did everyone notice Vice President Kamala Harris’s facial expressions? How could we not? Ms. Harris showed bewilderment, surprise, skepticism, outrage and humor. There is no doubt what Ms. Harris was thinking as she listened to Mr. Trump speak. It seemed as though even Mr. Trump was picking up on this in real time. He visage was dour and tired, showing no energy.
Ms. Harris’s vibrant face said it all. Is this how to look presidential? I think so. In Ms. Harris’s face, I see a powerful negotiator on both the international and domestic scenes. She uses her expressions to communicate commitment and passion both on the issues she is championing — including women’s bodily autonomy and the needs of parents — and on the American values of truth, equality and the rule of law. This is a negotiator who is successful, who won’t be denied and whom we desperately need at the helm of our country.
The only person I worry about is Doug Emhoff, the second gentleman, trying to win an argument with Ms. Harris over one of her “kitchen table issues.”
Patricia Beatley-Patterson, Severna Park, Md.
Mr. Trump’s fantasy land
Donald Trump gets what he deserves when he surrounds himself with sycophants. They will tell him he won the debate when he did not. Fox News host Sean Hannity claimed the debate moderators did not ask the tough questions that needed to be asked of Vice President Kamala Harris. Mr. Trump has already claimed ABC rigged the debate against him and will continue taking that approach.
None of this will help because Mr. Trump will learn nothing from his performance and will not be able to change what he does in the future to reset his campaign. Mr. Trump bullies his campaign staff into letting him do what he wants, which is to attack, degrade, humiliate, lie and rant incoherently. And then he blames them when his self-indulgence doesn’t work. He doesn’t understand that he is the problem, not them. And they are too cowardly to tell him that or know how fruitless it is.
Mr. Trump appeared to be on the verge of being delusional in the debate, and he is no longer paying attention to what is going on and is living in a bubble.
George Magakis, Jr., Norristown, Pa.
What tariffs and tax cuts really do
The economic policy articulated by former president Donald Trump in Tuesday evening’s debate focused on imposing a 10 percent to 20 percent tariff on nearly all imports and cutting corporate taxes. These are both bad ideas. Such tariffs would raise prices for consumers, reignite inflation and lead to retaliation on U.S. exports by our trade partners.
And this is the wrong time to cut corporate taxes: The federal budget deficit is already $1.5 trillion. The Tax Foundation estimates that reducing corporate taxes to 15 percent from the current rate of 21 percent would decrease federal revenue by between $350 billion and $450 billion per year and that taken together with other tax cuts he proposes could eliminate between $5.3 trillion and $6.1 trillion in federal revenue over a 1o-year period.
Those who say they support Mr. Trump because of his policies should think carefully about what he is proposing.
William Krist, Fairfax Station, Va.
Climate change, anyone?
For those who recognize climate change as the most important issue to be decided in November, Tuesday’s debate was a disappointment. Although it affects everything from the economy to health, climate was once again not a party-distinguishing policy topic. Even Taylor Swift got more coverage than climate change.
Maybe there will be enough climate-induced wildfires, floods and destruction before November to convince voters that there is one party that takes climate change seriously.
Michael Wright, Glen Rock, Pa.
A missed chance
Vice President Kamala Harris won the debate. But she seemed so intent on being prepared and staying within her guidelines that I think she missed an opportunity to make one clear separation between herself and Donald Trump.
After Mr. Trump strayed into his bizarre and false story of immigrants eating pets, I know I would have been tempted to turn to him and say something along the lines of: “Are you kidding me? Is that what you’re here to talk about? I think the American people would hope we’d talk about health care, child care, the cost of housing, climate change and all the other day-to-day concerns they have while they go to work and worry about their families. Not crowd sizes and fantasies about eating cats!”
I think voters would appreciate a candidate who expresses genuine frustration with Mr. Trump’s obsessions that have no connection to their everyday needs.
Paul Fox, Charlottesville
Enough with Project 2025!
As a left-center voter, I think that Vice President Kamala Harris did a good job in the debate staying relatable and energizing her base. However, I am tired of hearing Ms. Harris’s arguments about Project 2025 and Mr. Trump’s dire portrait of our supposedly failing country.
Both sides had trouble answering simple questions, which was frustrating to a typical voter. I teach forensics for a living: It’s not bad to answer a yes-or-no question in detail, provided the question is ultimately answered. Ms. Harris and Mr. Trump both failed to lay out a specific vision. But there is less fog on the Harris campaign’s trail.
Malia Ebel, Seward, Neb.
Enough with ‘plans’
I found the debate to be lacking in substance, with both candidates resorting to rhetoric and finger-pointing rather than addressing the critical issues facing our nation.
Vice President Kamala Harris repeatedly mentioned having “a plan” without providing any specific details. It is essential for the American public to be informed about the concrete steps and strategies proposed by candidates for the betterment of our country.
Former president Donald Trump’s excessive use of adjectives and emphasis on past accomplishments without outlining plans for our country’s future was also disappointing. Constantly repeating the same short list of complaints does not show an increased grasp of the issues and problems facing the country.
The American people deserve better than the current political discourse. We have moved backward economically, lost respect in the global arena and failed to provide for the basic homeland security needs essential and expected by all of us. If we illegally crossed into another country, we would be jailed and deported, yet we refuse to hold accountable those who do the same here.
The presidency should not be given to the next person in line, to the person who has waited the longest or the person who has done tribute to their predecessor. The White House should go to the person who has a keen and clear perspective of the future, a clear idea of how to fix the problems we face, and a clear commitment to the public, not just their own party or a select group of favored individuals.
Pete Magee, Portland
Don’t Make America Hungary
In Tuesday’s debate, Donald Trump once again mentioned his friendship with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, a leader he has called “a great man” and vowed to treat as an important partner should he be elected again.
Such statements should alarm the American voter more than any other aspect of Mr. Trump’s debate performance. Fidesz, Orban’s party, rewrote the Hungarian constitution in secret, packed the country’s constitutional court and eliminated a requirement that justices have multiparty support, concentrated the media in the hands of oligarchs connected to the party, banned independent news outlets, and co-opted public broadcasters. Mr. Orban and his party have banned gay couples from adopting, fenced the Serbian border to block immigration and forbidden legal recognition of transgender people’s identities.
Want to see the real effects of this “illiberal democracy”? Visit Hungary as I’ve repeatedly done, with my husband, a veteran of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution. Listen to relatives begging for money as the value of their savings plunges. Listen to them asking us to sponsor their children to come to the United States and help them find jobs. Hear them complain about the takeover of their private pension funds, the government’s bond ratings, or Hungary’s deplorable cancer and heart disease rates.
For all American conservatives’ praise of Mr. Orban’s incentives for family formation, Hungary’s fertility rate appears to have peaked. And no wonder: everything else about Hungary’s economy and bureaucracy gives younger Hungarians an incentive to leave the country in search of better wages and for greater freedoms. The country’s population is predicted to fall by nearly 12 percent, below 9 million, by 2050.
If Mr. Trump and Mr. Vance want to emulate Mr. Orban’s failing economy, paper-thin democracy and authoritarianism, then surely most American voters will and should wholeheartedly embrace the Democratic ticket in November.
Kathy A. Megyeri, Washington
