The Trump-Harris Debate

I'm usually of the opinion that debates are useless, that the participants don't really answer the questions and the moderators don't hold the candidates' feet to the fire, asking follow up questions. I certainly don't believe you can clearly declare winners and losers. After Tuesday's debate, I'm changing my mind, at least about this one. 

The debate between former President Trump and President Biden, was short on substance as usual. Biden presented his ideas and policies and mostly answered the questions, but he did so in such a halting manner, appearing confused and befuddled, and once even trailed off into unintelligible mumbles. All Trump had to do was stand up straight and speak in a confident tone and he appeared to be the stronger candidate. It brought focus to a situation which many Democrats had long feared: that Biden was not mentally and physically able to effectively campaign. (Whether he can still effectively lead for the remainder of his term is an open question). So the Democrats closed ranks and united behind Vice President Harris.

From the time it was clear that she would be the replacement nominee to the day of the debate Harris was written off as a weak candidate. That she had no accomplishments, that she was a "DEI Hire", that she was unintelligent, that she was incoherent when she spoke and had no plans. All of that was put to rest on Tuesday night.

I'm going to concede that she could have more clearly answered some of the questions. But I'll give any politician a pass if answering a question about a mistake is a no-win scenario. In a perfect world I'd like to see our elected office holders come clean when they erred, but what happens in reality is that the mea culpa becomes an out-of-context clip or meme that is used to attack them. For example, former Speaker of the House Pelosi has recently said that she takes responsibility for the events of January 6th, not because she actually did anything wrong, or incited the rioters, but because she was taking a "the buck stops here" position due to her position as Speaker. Right wing trolls have used this brief quote to claim that Pelosi was the instigator of the attempted overturning of an election. Harris addressed some of the questions aimed at her weaknesses and did as well as anyone - what she didn't do was attack the moderators for asking, calling them "nasty" and losing her temper. About the only time she got even a little bit rattled was when she talked about her change of position on fracking. 

MAGA world is accusing her of lying throughout, but most of what they are calling lies, might be misleading or out of context.

• The Trump National Sales Tax: Trump isn't proposing a national sales tax per se, but Harris is saying that his huge tariffs increases as effectively a tax increase since they will be levied on sales
• Trump supports Project 2025: Trump has specifically disavowed the plan, but many of his own proposals are mirrored in Project 2025, and in general they are not that different
• Trump calls for a bloodbath if he loses:  Trump used the term "bloodbath" to describe the state of the auto industry if he lost in November
• Trump will sign a national abortion ban: Trump says he won't, his VP pick, Vance, says he will. Trump has been all over the map on abortion, but he did very specifically nominate 3 avowedly anti-abortion justices to the Supreme Court

Many of the other things that the Trumpists are calling lies, were, in fact, true. One example is the post Charlottesville quote "there were very fine people on both sides". He said it, Harris quoted it accurately. Snopes recently posted an article debunking a misquoting of his statement - he did not literally say "Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists are very fine people". Snopes was clear in their article that most of the people on one side were Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists and that he did say "there were very fine people on both sides". 

Trump has bragged that he doesn't need to prepare for debates, whether this is true or not is up for debate (ha ha), but it's very obvious that Harris did prepare. The questions were ones that you would expect and she thought through ahead of time how she would respond. She didn't need to be given the questions prior to the debate. Trump is bragging that he won and also that the debate was rigged against him. Harris is accused of wearing CIA quality in-ear receivers so that she could be fed answers. Repeating information heard through an earpiece in real time would not have resulted in the smooth, no hesitation, delivery of Harris' responses. 

Trump did himself no favors. His responses were, from the start, defensive and rambling. His claims of baby executions and cat eating by immigrants (still no videos of that, despite every American having a cell phone camera with them 24/7 - if there is, I will gladly admit Trump was right) was only the tip of the iceberg. What really decided the winner of the debate in my opinion was how Harris was able to take control and goad Trump into losing control and lashing out angrily over inconsequential things like the size of rally crowds and whether people left early. She kept her cool and determined the way things proceeded. 

Harris did say she was willing to debate again, but Trump has come out and said that he will not agree to any other debates...because he won. His rationale was that a loser in a prizefight will always ask for a rematch...even though after he debated Biden, Trump immediately asked to meet for another debate! make up your mind Donnie!

I doubt many minds were changed. The Trump cult is still 100% for Trump. The Harris camp isn't going to defect to Trump. Maybe a few people along the undecided fringes (who are these people?) will realize that Harris is a strong candidate and will be a strong president. I believe that some lukewarm anti-Trump voters will decide that sitting it out isn't in the cards any longer.

Meanwhile Losin' Don and his minions continue on, evil minds plotting destruction, sorcerers of death's construction, poisoning brainwashed minds. 

Policy vs. Personality

In every election, whether for President of the United States or for mayor of a small town, there's a the age-old question about what's more important, policy or personality. "Policy" should be the more obvious answer, but the reality is that most people consider personality, at least partially, as an important metric upon which to base a decision. 

In most elections candidates make a lot of promises. Sometimes they follow through, other times they don't. Sometimes they simply can't. Many times shit happens. Did George W Bush plan on presiding over a global war on terror when he was running? Did Barack Obama think he was going to walk into a recession when he threw his hat in the ring? Did Donald Trump anticipate a worldwide pandemic? Whatever they thought they'd be doing, events conspired against them. Even in the best of times Presidents are not dictators, they have to contend with two other co-equal branches of government, which may or may not be sympathetic. At best, campaign promises should be taken with a grain of salt and viewed only as a rough guide to how he or she will govern. After all, the point of campaigning is to convince more people to vote for you than for the other candidate, and getting down in the weeds of detailed policy proposals is going to lose most voters, and bore many of them. 

Often opposition to Trump is caricatured as "orange man bad", or TDS - Trump Derangement Syndrome, or "mean tweets". And I'm sure that there are people who oppose him just because he's an asshole, but for most it's deeper than that. While anyone who thinks they are qualified to be president has to possess a healthy ego and self regard, Trump's personality goes well beyond that. He is a narcissist who has demonstrated that whatever he thinks, no matter the evidence against it, is the right way - the only way. During his time in office, and during the campaign this year, he has demonstrated an abysmal ignorance of how things work, how anything works. Sure, a president can't know everything, but they have to have a willingness to learn, to lean on subject matter experts to help them arrive at the best decisions. This ignorance manifested itself in his view of how tariffs work, how NATO is funded and whether injecting disinfectant is a good idea, among many other areas.  He said out loud that he would be a dictator, but just on his first day, as if that made it acceptable. 

Trump's personality is such that he takes everything personally. Those who disagree with him are sick, evil, deranged, un-American, treasonous. Enemies of the people. He has made it clear that he will exact revenge on those who he believes have wronged him. A president has to be the president of all the people. All the people may not agree about how a president does their job, but it has to be clear that the president puts the welfare of all the people first. Trump pits us against each other. There's us and them. And his "us" are who he views as the "real Americans" and the rest of us...

So, while the policies that I'm aware of are enough to disqualify him from receiving my vote, who he is should disqualify him from receiving anyone's vote.

Arlington

Soldiers die in war. Soldiers die when there isn't a war. Soldiers die when there is bad planning by civilian leadership. Soldiers die when there is bad execution by military leadership. Soldiers die even in the midst of what seemed like a good plan. 

Should the withdrawal of our military from Afghanistan gone smoother, more orderly? In retrospect - of course. The withdrawal in its last stages was chaotic with Afghans clinging to departing aircraft and mobbing the airfield. A terrorist attack killed thirteen service members. When things like this happen, someone has to get the blame. And who is the most appropriate target for that blame? The President is the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces and the metaphorical buck stops with him. And he certainly was blamed. 

To listen to the pro-Trump/anti-Biden voices, you would think that the thirteen deaths were the only ones to have occurred. It's true that they were the only military deaths in Afghanistan in 2021, but there were also 15 military deaths in 2017 (12 killed-in-action KIA); 16 (13 KIA) in 2018; 23 (17 KIA) in 2019 and 11 (4 KIA) in 2020. Where was the outrage and recriminations toward Trump during that time? There wasn't any. People outside MAGA world understood that deaths happen. When military deaths happened when Biden was president, it became political. 

I'm not going to pretend to understand the grief of the families who lost their loved ones during that terrorist attack. They have every right to express their anger and point the finger at who they believe is to blame for the death of a family member. But the Trump campaign has politicized the grief of these families in order to score points. 

Let's jump to the Arlington visit.

Last week media, including social media, reported that Former President Trump participated in a wreath laying ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery to honor the thirteen service members who were killed in a terrorist attack during the withdrawal from Afghanistan on the third anniversary of their deaths. It was also reported that neither President Biden nor Vice President Harris attended. The reports gave the impression that this was an official commemoration that Trump attended. MAGA-oriented social media accounts quickly jumped on this story, accusing Biden and Harris of "not showing up" for this commemoration. Something seemed off about this story, so I dug a little to get some context. A quick Google search indicated that the only "official" wreath laying ceremonies take place on Memorial Day and Veterans Day with the President laying the wreath (although the president does not always do so). Anyone can apply to do a wreath laying at the Tomb of the Unknowns, and they occur every single day of the year. The application was made by Marlon Bateman, a Trump administration State Department official, on behalf of the family of one of the service members killed in the attack. Initially NPR reported that the memorial was for three of service members, not all thirteen, although I can no longer find that reference, so it may have been incorrect. It was clear, although it was not reported as such, that this was a privately sponsored event that Trump was invited to and that Biden and Harris were not invited to. This context did not surface until NPR reported a few days later that a campaign video was made from images of the event, including images taken in a prohibited area, and that a Trump aide pushed an Arlington staffer, ignoring her instruction to refrain from recording in the prohibited area. 

Once the full story came out Trump was rightly criticized, but being his usual self, doubled down, lying that he had received permission, or that the families had authorized the video in Section 60 (which they had no authority to do). Gaslighting proceeded in full force, with MAGA world spreading the lie that those chiding Trump were attacking Gold Star families.  And amid the denial that he was there for political purposes, his campaign released a campaign video of him strolling among grave stones. What can I even say about the disgusting "thumbs up" photo at the gravesite?

And somehow - somehow people believe that Trump supports the military, even after disrespectful events like this, after he ridiculously states that the Presidential Medal of Freedom is "better" than the Medal of Honor - on top of all the ugly things he has said about the military over the years. "Suckers and Losers"; "I like those who weren't captured"; "I always wanted a Purple Heart"...and on and on. 

And yet...there's still a chance he'll be re-elected.

Debunking

The other day I expressed some frustration about what I called the hair-splitting of fact-checkers. Bleach or disinfectant? What difference does it make? In the grand scheme of things, not much, but accuracy is important, especially when getting one word wrong is going to convince people that your whole argument is wrong. 

Injecting Disinfectant

The whole "he told people to inject bleach" story is a perfect example. In 2020 Trump, along with some of his medical advisors was having regular press conferences to update the nation on aspects of the Covid-19 pandemic. In April of that year he said this:

"So supposing we hit the body with a tremendous — whether it's ultraviolet or just a very powerful light — and I think you said that hasn't been checked because of the testing...And then supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or some other way, and I think you said you're going to test that, too."

This was a follow up to remarks by Bill Bryan, head of Homeland Security's Science and Technology Division about the virus not surviving on surfaces that were exposed to light or cleaned with disinfectants, like bleach or isopropyl alcohol. 

Trump continued with this:

"I see the disinfectant that knocks it out in a minute, one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside or almost a cleaning? As you see, it gets in the lungs, it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it would be interesting to check that."

So no, he didn't tell people to inject bleach, but he did suggest that it was a viable option. It's a distinction without a difference. How is musing that injecting disinfectant in front of the whole country any better than telling people to inject bleach? As usual, Trump cannot admit that he was wrong, or misspoke. He could have apologized for the miscommunication, especially in light of the fact that medical health experts, not to mention Lysol, felt the need to clarify that injecting or ingesting disinfectant was a bad idea and could kill you. What he did do was claim that he was being "sarcastic":

“I was asking a question sarcastically to reporters like you just to see what would happen...a very sarcastic question to the reporters in the room about disinfectant on the inside.”

What?! - How is that any better? Or any more believable? We're in the early stages of a pandemic that will end up killing a million Americans and he's being sarcastic? The White House spokesperson claimed that the press had taken him out of context. 

I once actually encountered a couple of men in person who actually believed that he was joking. 

When someone claims, as was done at the Democratic National Convention, that Trump suggested that people inject bleach, the details may be wrong, but not all that different than the specifics.

Suckers and Losers

During a trip to Paris in 2018 Trump passed up an opportunity to visit the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery — which is home to the graves of Americans who fought and died in World War I. He is alleged to have said "Why should I go to that cemetery? It's filled with losers." In a separate conversation on the same trip, Trump allegedly referred to the more than 1,800 marines who lost their lives at Belleau Wood as "suckers" for getting killed. The media who reported this at the time relied on anonymous sources. 

I tend to trust that reporters don't make up quotes by anonymous sources. These are professionals who would not like to get "burned" by publishing inaccurate information. However, the sources themselves might have had an axe to grind - had a personal reason for feeding the press false information. Trump's team denied these allegations and nothing surfaced to either confirm or deny them. One staffer backed up his assertion that Trump did not say that veterans were "suckers and losers" by noting that retired General Kelly was standing with Trump: "I did not hear POTUS call anyone losers when I told him about the weather. Honestly, do you think General Kelly would have stood by and let ANYONE call fallen Marines losers?" As if an aid to the president would publicly remonstrate his boss, whatever his personal feelings.

Which is interesting, because in October 2023 Kelly said this: "What can I add that has not already been said? A person that thinks those who defend their country in uniform, or are shot down or seriously wounded in combat, or spend years being tortured as POWs are all 'suckers' because 'there is nothing in it for them.' A person that did not want to be seen in the presence of military amputees because 'it doesn't look good for me.' A person who demonstrated open contempt for a Gold Star family – for all Gold Star families – on TV during the 2016 campaign, and rants that our most precious heroes who gave their lives in America's defense are 'losers' and wouldn't visit their graves in France."

Trump talks out of both sides of his mouth when it comes to the military and veterans. On one hand he claims to support them, which usually doesn't go beyond saying "I support the military". But I don't have to dig too deep to find Trump's true thoughts about the men and women in the military: he doesn't like people who were captured and the Presidential Medal of Freedom is better than the Medal of honor. "That’s the highest award you can get as a civilian. It’s the equivalent of the Medal of Honor, but civilian version," the former president said during his remarks. "It’s actually much better, because everyone gets the Congressional Medal of Honor — that’s soldiers. They’re either in very bad shape because they’ve been hit so many times by bullets, or they’re dead." Let's not forget his statement at Turning Point USA in 2022 that he wanted to give himself the Congressional Medal of Honor but was talked out of it. 

Even without Kelly's statement, Trump's "suckers and losers" remark is extremely believable

Very Fine People

Recently Snopes came out with a report stating that Trump did not call Neo-Nazi and White Supremacists "very fine people". MAGA world jumped on this as somehow debunking his support for the alt right at the August 2017 "Unite the Right" rally. Interesting in that conservatives generally discount anything from Snopes due to its supposed liberal bias. In fact they disdain any fact checkers who question their version of events. 

What Trump did say was that there were "very fine people on both sides" and he did also say that he wasn't talking about Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists "who should be condemned totally". 

Most people who heard Trump say this, or read about it afterward, concluded that despite his disavowal of the Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists, the people on one of those sides were almost exclusively Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists, therefore he was calling Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists "very fine people". The Snopes article on this subject seems to acknowledge this. 

Editors' Note: Some readers have raised the objection that this fact check appears to assume Trump was correct in stating that there were "very fine people on both sides" of the Charlottesville incident. That is not the case. This fact check aimed to confirm what Trump actually said, not whether what he said was true or false. For the record, virtually every source that covered the Unite the Right debacle concluded that it was conceived of, led by and attended by white supremacists, and that therefore Trump's characterization was wrong. 

Trump seems to conclude, whether ignorantly or purposefully, that there were people there to peacefully protest the pulling down of a Confederate statue that had nothing to do with the Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists - and these were the "very fine people". This stretches the bounds of credulity. This was a rally organized by and for Neo-Nazis, the whole purpose was to bring their views out in public. But we're to believe that "very fine people", who were not at all, not even a little bit, sympathetic or supportive of Neo-Nazi or White Supremacist ideology somehow held their noses and participated. If I march with the Nazis the logical conclusion is that I'm a fellow traveler with the Nazis - not among the "very fine people". You can't say "Josef Stalin was a great guy, but I condemn the mass murders that he conducted" - you can't say you're condemning the Nazis while saying what great guys they are. 

Russia, Russia, Russia

This one would take more time, but it's worth addressing anyway. Mueller's report did nothing to exonerate Trump. In fact it specifically says that it doesn't exonerate Trump. Here's a few links to things I wrote about the Mueller Report:

https://tjpolitics.blogspot.com/2019/04/i-just-finished-reading-redacted.html

https://tjpolitics.blogspot.com/2019/05/yes-there-was-collusion.html

https://tjpolitics.blogspot.com/2020/10/russia-russia-russia-and-lil-bit-o.html

https://tjpolitics.blogspot.com/2022/07/russia-russia-russia.html

Conclusion

It's important to get our facts straight and not get sucked into our own conspiracy theories regarding Trump that are based on what we wish were true but are simply not. It's equally important to recognize that there is a difference between denying and debunking. A denial is someone simply stating that an allegation is false. A debunking is proof that an allegation is false. 

Determining what Trump did or didn't say is not always straightforward. His statements meander and ramble. He contradicts himself. He gaslights us. His supporters want to concentrate on whether we get a word or two wrong when the issue is the context and intent. Is injecting disinfectant actually better than injecting bleach? Is making sarcastic comments to "see what [reporters] will do" better than making ignorant statements? Is calling a crowd comprised mainly of Nazis and their ilk "very fine people" any different than calling Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists "very fine people"? 

It's incumbent upon us to know what we're talking about. Don't double down with an inaccurate quote and insist that you heard him say "bleach". You didn't. If they're going to split hairs, be prepared. 

I Alone Can Fix It

One of the criticisms that I have seen about Vice President Harris' campaign is that she is promising to "fix" things. Her critics ask what it is she's planning on fixing, since her party has been in control of the White House for 12 out of the last 16 years. It's a fair question to ask - is she saying that her own team has made a mess that she, turning her back on that team, now has to "fix"? It's a fair question, but a bit disingenuous, coming from people who have already decided that they'll be supporting her opponent. 

Let's start with the assertion that Harris is pledging to fix things. There may be video of her out there using those words, but I haven't seen it. And it's not Harris who infamously declared "I alone can fix it". Harris and her supporters are also not claiming that the country is in a mess of Trump's doing, even though he left office almost 4 years ago. The Trumpublicans are framing things to make it seem as if that's what she and the Democrats are running on. They are also intentionally ignoring and misrepresenting how the government works. 

Despite the perception that a serving president is an all-powerful figure, our government was very consciously set up with three co-equal branches, each with its own ways of asserting authority and frustrating the well-laid plans of the other branches. The last time the Democrats held the White House and Congress, including a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate (counting 2 Democratic caucusing Independents), was during the first two years of President Obama's first term from 2009 - 2011. This was when the Affordable Care Act was passed. By the midterm elections of 2010 the Democrats lost 64 House seats and handed over the majority to the Republicans; the Senate majority shrunk to 53. By the midterms of Obama's second term the Republicans gained the Senate majority as well. Republicans held the presidency and both houses of Congress for the first two years of Trump's term, but it's been split ever since. Divided government limits what any president can do, despite optimistic campaign promises. 

Let's not underestimate the influence of the federal judiciary, especially the Supreme Court. Appointments to the various levels of federal judgeships is one of the main ways that a president can extend their influence beyond their term. Senator McConnell was a main force behind putting a conservative stamp, not only on the Supreme Court, but on lower court appointments. The precedent breaking refusal to consider a Supreme Court nominee by President Obama during his final year in office and the reversal of the new "rule" during Trump's final year in office effectively changed the balance of the court from 5-4 favoring the liberal justices to 6-3 in favor of the conservatives. The new conservative majority is systematically reversing long standing precedent, ostensibly deferring to an originalist  judicial philosophy, but arguably simply using originalism to mask instituting a right wing agenda. 

So, despite 12-4, D's vs. R's in the last 16 years, there's potentially a lot of Republican damage still to be undone. So, despite Republican misrepresentation of her message, she's not suggesting that President Biden is leaving her a mess to fix, or that the "mess" is the result of Democratic mismanagement, but that the job isn't done. 

Harris' campaign philosophy is also partly focusing on the danger that a second Trump term means, separate from any damage that still remains undone during the last three and a half years. I've written regularly on why a second Trump term would be a disaster for the country, so I won't recount it all now, but Harris is prioritizing reminding the electorate of the cons of a Trump presidency, especially since there seems to be some amnesia about some of what went on during his term. 

As with any politician, there are legitimate areas of Harris' record and her proposed agenda, that are subject to criticism. This isn't one of them.

Candidates' Policies - Part II

Is there one single voter out there who is in the dark about how either Trump or Harris will govern if elected? What off-the-grid corner of the backwoods are these people living in? I suppose there are true conservatives, disgusted with Trump, who might be persuaded to vote for a Democrat or an Independent, or far-left liberals who don't think the Democratic Party is progressive enough, or amnesiacs who remember the low inflation days of the Trump administration but have blocked out the whole of 2020. Theoretically these people exist, but "c'mon man" (as President Biden would exclaim) - what cave are they living in?

Any of us who pay the slightest attention to politics (the governor of Nebraska is excluded from this demographic) knows that despite a president's best (or worst) intentions, there are two other co-equal branches of government. The last time a president had a Congress that (mostly) supported his agenda was 2008, when President Obama had a large Democratic majority in the House and 60 Democrats in the Senate - a filibuster-proof majority. After this election either party could control either house of Congress, with a likely single digit majority in the House and a one seat majority at most in the Senate. Hardly the scenario for tyranny of the majority. 

For the most part we know the broad strokes of how each candidate would govern, whether you like either's policies or personality or not. And since we are a de facto two party system, both of the major parties need to be "big tent" organizations, welcoming a range of views. We know what Trump was like since he was the president for four years, and we know how Harris most likely would govern - she was in the Senate, has a long career of public service, has been in the public eye as Vice President and has not been reticent about her goals as president. We also know that a lot of what any candidate says during a campaign is to get people excited, encourage the base to show up on Election Day and yes, maybe draw in those eleven people who are yet undecided. 

What is the right way for a candidate to get their message across? Well certainly not by succumbing to the "standards" that their opponents have set.  Donald Trump was certainly successful in 2016 by setting his own rules. He ignored all norms and "the way it's done" by insulting his way through the early debates, the primaries and the general election campaign. He refused to release his tax returns as had been customary for 40 years. His campaign rallies were more religious tent meetings than political gatherings. He was unapologetically hateful. He famously was asked after the election whether he regretted his divisive rhetoric, "No, I won didn't I?" was his response. But now, VP Harris is being criticized for not having a platform on her website and for not yet doing a sit down interview. Why does she need to do either of those things? I refer you back to the first paragraph. 

There's is no one who doesn't know, at least in general terms, what Harris stands for. She has been in politics for a long time, she makes speeches, she has done interviews, she's done a few rallies. The Democratic convention is next week - we'll see a platform and we'll hear her speak again. She's a Democrat! The calls for her to do things differently than how she's doing them come from her opponents, not from her supporters, the same people who were apoplectic about the supposedly undemocratic method of her nomination as the Democratic candidate for president - that Democrats understood was the best way to move forward and defeat Trump. 

Listen to what she's saying...she's speaking!

The Candidates' Policies - Part I

Vice President Harris has been criticized lately for (1) not sitting down for a long interview with the press and (2) not listing her agenda or policy platform on her website. She is contrasted with Trump, who has sat down for "interviews" and has something that he calls a "platform" on his website. Set aside for a a moment the ridiculous notion that there is anyone out there who is genuinely ignorant of the contrast in governing styles of the two candidates and consider Trump's "platform". I'm going too look at the more ridiculous claims, or those that are so vague as to be worthless. All of the following are from Trump's campaign website https://www.donaldjtrump.com/platform . My comments are in bold italics.

End inflation, and make America affordable again

Okay - so when Harris puts forth a specific plan, that's Communism, but when Trump suggests it. How specifically does he plan on "ending inflation"? Is he talking about bringing prices back down to pre-2024 levels? What about wages? 

Defend our constitution, our bill of rights, and our fundamental freedoms, including freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to keep and bear arms

What does any of this look like? When he was president the only amendment he thought worth defending was the Second. He is on record as wanting to weaken the freedom of the press. 

Prevent world war three, restore peace in Europe and in the middle east, and build a great iron dome missile defense shield over our entire country -- all made in America

Of course no specifics on any of this. Does he even know what the 'Iron Dome' even is?

End the weaponization of government against the American people

We all know that he believes that his legal troubles are some kind of government persecution. This from the guy who encouraged his followers to "lock her up" and is on record as wanting to go after President Biden and any other enemies as revenge for his own prosecutions. 

Cancel the electric vehicle mandate and cut costly and burdensome regulations

The mandate that doesn't exists? Or is he for electric vehicles now that the owner of Tesla is being nice to him?

Cut federal funding for any school pushing critical race theory, radical gender ideology, and other inappropriate racial, sexual, or political content on our children

More things that aren't happening?

Deport pro-Hamas radicals and make our college campuses safe and patriotic again

He thinks anyone who criticizes Israel is "pro-Hamas". Is he talking about deporting American citizens?

Secure our elections, including same day voting, voter identification, paper ballots, and proof of citizenship

He literally tried to overturn the last presidential election

Unite our country by bringing it to new and record levels of success

In the Trump dictionary "unite" means muzzle dissent

Okay, so he has a list that he is calling a policy platform. Where it's not vague it's either dangerous or an unworkable fantasy. He's also being praised, and contrasted positively with Harris because he's sitting down for interviews and inviting reporters in for press conferences. Let's not get too excited about those either. The one with Elon Musk was a lot of softball questions. His press conferences are invitation only. When he gets tough questions he goes on the attack, or rambles incoherently. 

So I don't know what we're learning from these performances that we didn't already know.