It was a peculiar ‘debate’; some would say that it was not a debate, with two ABC reporters ( i.e US ABC) asking both parties to comment on subjects they, the reporters, chose. They asked one, then gave the other the nod to reply or give his or her version.

Harris didn't have much in the way of policies, and was asked by Trump why the ones she was ‘promising’ - big spending of other people's money - hadn't been put into practice over the past three and a half years.

Trump. Well he spent most of the time responding to Harris’s criticism, and that of the stone-faced moderators; was very scathing about Harris’s failure to stop illegal immigrants, and made a strange claim that immigrants were eating their neighbours dogs and cats.

No winner or loser. Trump's final speech was quite strong. But, really, it was just a load of politicking that would not have impressed or stirred anyone.

The Forum's little band of Trumpsters must be mortified, Harris made Trump look the fool he really is. 'Hot Lips' is said to have won the debate 63% to 37%, and the Dangerous Doctor Donald was left eating his dogs and cats. Seems if Harris was a "clean cut", bible bashing young white guy she'd be leading the poll by 63 to 37 and the Donald would be out looking for one of those "black jobs" he raves on about!

The debate is “said to have been won…”, by whom? Experienced adjudicators? Highly unlikely. These so-called debates are beyond adjudication. The “decision” most likely resulted from careful questions to get wanted answers - or just unsolicited comments - by people expressing their political bias.

It is impossible to choose winners or losers. Neither would-be President did themselves any favours; and, most certainly, American voters will not have learnt anything they didn't already know.

At least we were spared the Kamala Cackle: quite harmless, even attractive in the woman herself, but not very presidential.

Kamala Armageddon Harris. About to complete the unfinished task of Obama/Biden to blow up the Middle East by first destroying Israel, a task predicted to take two years from her Inauguration resulting from a scorched election.

Kamala Harris set the tone by walking across the space
separating the podium from Trump's, and reaching out
with a handshake, introducing herself, and saying,
"Let's have a good debate." It was a powerful move.
Which continued throughout the debate with Harris
exuding a level of confidence - as Trump's unravelling
did not.

Harris tapped into Trump's weaknesses and unsettled
him. Trump became a spectacle of little substance.
He did himself no favours by ranting, lying, getting
angry, and failing to stick to issues.

Harris pushed his buttons to help Trump express himself in
the manner most revealing to his character.

Trump seemingly could not shake off his fury at being
taunted over his supporters leaving his rallies early and
also at being fact-checked by moderators at every turn.

Trump missed multiple opportunities to land attacks and
ultimately argued with the moderators about whether Haitian
immigrants were eating pets in Ohio.

There's no doubt that Harris succeeded in rattling Trump,
baiting him, and both she and the moderators fact-checking
some of his most outrageous claims.

It was a bad night for Trump. Harris walked off smiling.
Trump walked off angry.

Unfortunately, Trump's content
is very rarely fact-based and relies heavily on emotions
rather than rational responses.

I hate to think what Trump will do if he loses the election.