ABC's Disastrous Debate
Likely Did Little To Sway Voters As They Seemingly Wanted
Sadly, as has been the case with several presidential and vice presidential debates over the last couple of decades, the biggest loser of the night was the American people.
Going into last night’s debate, we already knew a few things.
1. ABC, and specifically moderator David Muir, have historically had a very personal bias against former president Trump.
2. The person in charge at ABC News, Dana Waldon, is a close personal friend of Kamala Harris and was responsible for her meeting her husband.
We had all hoped that perhaps the network and moderators could set their biases aside and conduct a fair and professional debate. Sadly, that did not happen. Instead of a real debate, it turned into more of a 3 against 1 boxing match.
Moderators repeatedly live fact-checked Trump five times and as it turns out, all of their fact checks were wrong.
On the other hand, they did not once fact-check Harris despite the fact that records show she lied or misled with her comments at least 21 times. The most obvious and notable ones were attempting to affiliate Trump with the writing of Project 2025 and the long since debunked “fine people” hoax about the tragic events in Charlottesville, Virginia.
Understanding these two concepts, it’s no surprise that the supposed debate turned into most of an inquisition of Donald Trump as opposed to a fully, softball interview of Kamala Harris. And the fact is, most reasonable people would probably find this to be obvious.
Pundits from across the political spectrum have spoken out on the terrible job ABC did and question why it is always only left-leaning outlets that Democrats will agree to host debates.
While most spot polling regarding the outcome of the debate shows a modest victory if you will for the vice president, how much, if any, does that matter given some of the following circumstances?
First and foremost, Harris had much more to gain or lose in the debate. Polling suggested that as much as 30% of voters still needed more information on her to decide whether or not she is fit for the position. On the other hand, very few said they needed any more about Trump in order to know who he is and what he stands for. So simply put, this debate could impact her more than it would him.
Another interesting notion came from spot polling results from both CNN, a network with a strong liberal reputation, and Reuters, which has a more balanced record. A CNN poll showed that before the debate, Trump led Harris on the question of who would handle the economy better by a margin of 53% to 37%. But after it was over, he led 55% to 35%, actually gaining two percentage points in the far and away top issue of the election. And Reuters interviewed a selection of 10 voters who were undecided prior to the debate. After it was over, 6 of them said they would vote for Trump or were leaning that way, while only 3 said the same for Harris with one remaining undecided. Focus group polling like the one conducted by Lee Carter of Maslansky + Partners live during the debate shows that, similar to 2016, Independent voters are largely agreeing with the Republican viewpoint on most issues.
I’d like to think that the discerning voter viewed the debate for what it was, largely propaganda with little substance. If they do, this debate will likely do very little to move the needle in polling. The ABC network may have seemingly tried to put their thumb on the scale for Harris, but I think most people have either seen through that or will given the benefit of time and allowing the whole thing to sink in.
About the Creator
Jason A
Writer, photographer and graphic design enthusiast with a professional background in journalism, poetry, e-books, model photography, portrait photography, arts education and more.
Greenlanders Say “We Don’t Want to Be Americans” as Trump’s Threats Rekindle Arctic Tensions
When former U.S. President Donald Trump once again raised the idea of asserting American control over Greenland, the response from the Arctic island was swift, united, and unequivocal. Greenlanders, through their political leaders, made one message clear to the world: they do not want to be Americans. The renewed rhetoric from Trump has not only revived an old controversy but also exposed deeper questions about sovereignty, identity, and the rights of small nations in an era of aggressive geopolitics. Greenland, the world’s largest island, may be sparsely populated, but its strategic importance has grown dramatically in recent years. Melting ice due to climate change has opened new shipping routes and access to vast reserves of rare-earth minerals, oil, and gas. These developments have turned the Arctic into a focal point of global power competition, drawing interest from the United States, China, and Russia alike. Yet for Greenlanders themselves, the conversation is not about global dominance — it is about dignity, autonomy, and the right to decide their own future. A United Political Front in Greenland One of the most striking aspects of the current moment is the rare unity displayed by Greenland’s political leadership. All major parties in the Inatsisartut, Greenland’s parliament, issued a joint statement rejecting any suggestion that Greenland could or should become part of the United States. Their words were firm and symbolic: “We don’t want to be Americans. We don’t want to be Danish. We want to be Greenlanders.” This statement was more than a reaction to Trump’s remarks; it was a declaration of identity. Greenland has spent decades gradually moving away from colonial dependence on Denmark. Since gaining home rule in 1979 and expanded self-government in 2009, the island has taken control of most domestic affairs, while Denmark still manages defense and foreign policy. Many Greenlanders view eventual independence as a long-term goal, but one that must come through democratic choice — not external pressure. Public opinion strongly supports this stance. Surveys consistently show that the overwhelming majority of Greenland’s population opposes becoming part of the United States. The idea of being “bought” or absorbed by another country is widely seen as outdated, disrespectful, and incompatible with modern principles of self-determination. Trump’s Renewed Interest and Strategic Arguments Donald Trump’s fascination with Greenland is not new. During his presidency, he openly floated the idea of purchasing the island, reportedly seeing it as a strategic asset that could strengthen U.S. military positioning in the Arctic and counter rival powers. His latest comments, which hinted that America might take Greenland “one way or another,” reignited fears about coercive diplomacy. From Washington’s perspective, Greenland’s location makes it invaluable. The U.S. already maintains a military presence at Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule Air Base), a key component of missile defense and space surveillance. Trump and his allies argue that greater U.S. control would enhance security, prevent Chinese investment, and limit Russian influence in the Arctic. However, Greenlandic leaders strongly dispute the notion that their island is vulnerable or incapable of managing foreign partnerships responsibly. They argue that security concerns should be addressed through cooperation with Denmark and NATO, not through threats or unilateral ambitions. To many in Greenland, Trump’s rhetoric feels less like a security strategy and more like a return to 19th-century power politics. Identity, Culture, and the Fear of Losing Control Beyond geopolitics, Greenlanders’ resistance is deeply rooted in cultural and social concerns. Greenland’s population, predominantly Inuit, has a distinct language, traditions, and worldview shaped by Arctic life. The island’s social model prioritizes community welfare, public healthcare, and local decision-making tailored to its harsh environment. Many fear that becoming part of the United States would fundamentally alter these systems. Questions arise about healthcare access, land rights, environmental protection, and the preservation of Indigenous culture. For a society that has already experienced the long-term impacts of colonial rule, the idea of exchanging one external authority for another is deeply unsettling. Local voices have repeatedly emphasized that Greenland is “not for sale.” This sentiment reflects a broader rejection of being treated as a commodity rather than a community. The frustration is not only with Trump personally but with the mindset that assumes powerful nations can redraw borders without the consent of the people who live there. Denmark, NATO, and International Concerns Denmark has firmly backed Greenland’s position, warning that any attempt to force a change in the island’s status would violate international law and strain alliances. Danish leaders have stressed that Greenland’s future can only be decided by Greenlanders themselves, in accordance with existing self-rule agreements. The controversy has also raised concerns within NATO. If a leading alliance member were to threaten the territorial integrity of another member’s realm, it could undermine trust and cooperation at a time when unity is already under pressure from global crises. Allies worry that such disputes weaken the moral authority of democratic nations that claim to uphold international norms. A Defining Moment for Greenland’s Future Ironically, Trump’s threats may have accelerated conversations within Greenland about full independence. While economic challenges remain — including reliance on Danish subsidies — the current situation has strengthened national consciousness and political solidarity. Many Greenlanders now see greater autonomy not just as an aspiration, but as a safeguard against external interference. This moment is a reminder that in the modern world, power should not override principle. Greenland’s leaders are not denying the island’s strategic importance; they are insisting that strategic value does not cancel human agency. Their message resonates far beyond the Arctic, echoing the struggles of small nations everywhere that find themselves caught between competing global powers. Conclusion: Sovereignty Is Not Negotiable As tensions simmer, one truth stands out: Greenlanders are determined to speak for themselves. They reject the idea of becoming Americans not out of hostility, but out of a profound commitment to self-identity and self-rule. In doing so, they challenge a world order that too often prioritizes strategy over sovereignty. Whether Greenland eventually becomes fully independent or continues its partnership with Denmark, its future will be shaped by the will of its people — not by threats, deals, or geopolitical ambition. And in asserting that right so clearly, Greenland has delivered a powerful message: in the 21st century, nations are not possessions, and people are not bargaining chips.
By Muhammad Hassan2 days ago in The Swamp
Comments (1)
You brought out great points.