Will the Debate Be ‘Rah-Rah’ or ‘Ruh-Roh?’
I asked how you’re feeling about the debate. Hundreds of you responded with worries and hopes.
NewsletterOn PoliticsWill the Debate Be ‘Rah-Rah’ or ‘Ruh-Roh?’I asked how you’re feeling about the debate. Hundreds of you responded with worries and hopes.Good evening. It’s debate week!The showdown in Atlanta means the general election season is upon us, even if excitement isn’t exactly popping off the charts (more on that below). Andthat, dear reader, means On Politics will now start showing up in your inbox every weekday evening, as my colleagues and I try to make sense of this weird and weighty election.— Jess BidgoodByJess BidgoodI asked how you all were feeling about the debate. I read all of your responses.Laurie Lowe is a Democrat from Florida and a reader of this newsletter (hi, Laurie!). She has a plan for Thursday’s presidential debate between President Biden and former President Donald Trump — and a plan B if things go south.“My Democratic friends and I are all going to watch but are terrified that Biden will have one of his ‘moments.’ To lighten our mood we have Biden and Trump bingo cards,” Lowe wrote to me. “Bingo might turn into a drinking game instead if things go badly.”Last week, I asked you all how you were feeling about the first 2024 general election debate. I read your responses, more than 600 of them. And,as I wrote earlier today, I learned that many of you have come down with a case of deep debate distress — a feeling I described as less “rah-rah” than “ruh-roh.”Some of you expressed nothing but excitement, and you’re confident you’ll see a strong showing by the president. But many of you, like Lowe and her friends, want Biden to do well but worry he will slip up. Some described real despair about the prospect of seeing Trump on a debate stage once more. Many of you are sick of both men entirely, and are wrestling with whether or not to tune out altogether.“I just look at it, and I’m like, is this it?” said Kyle Smith, a Democrat from Northville, Mich., when I called him yesterday afternoon. “This?”“It’s almost like watching a car crash,” Nancy Davis, an independent from Pennsylvania, wrote. “You just can’t look away.”
[{"title": "Will This Week's Presidential Debate Be 'Rah-Rah' or 'Ruh- ...", "link": "https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/24/us/politics/trump-biden-presidential-debate.html"}, {"title": "Thursday's debate is a question of -isms", "link": "https://thefulcrum.us/bridging-common-ground/presidential-debates"}, {"title": "Trump-Biden Debate Will Be Hard to Watch for These Voters", "link": "https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/24/us/politics/biden-trump-debate-voters-democrats.html"}, {"title": "Will this week's presidential debate be RahRah or RuhRoh?", "link": "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgLK6uSBvJQ"}, {"title": "Naeem T. Ahmed's Post", "link": "https://www.linkedin.com/posts/netmedia101_will-the-debate-be-rah-rah-or-ruh-roh-activity-7211128617660018688-y0Ch"}, {"title": "High Stakes and Heated Topics: Biden and Trump Prepare ...", "link": "https://www.isidewith.com/discuss/5184481402"}, {"title": "The voters watching the debate with a hand over their eyes", "link": "https://www.sanjuandailystar.com/post/the-voters-watching-the-debate-with-a-hand-over-their-eyes"}, {"title": "Will the Debate This Week Be 'Rah-Rah' or 'Ruh-Roh?'", "link": "https://lemmy.world/post/16895153"}, {"title": "", "link": "https://www.cbsnews.com/news/when-is-second-presidential-debate-2024/#:~:text=How%20many%20more%20debates%20will,the%20other%20by%20ABC%20News."}, {"title": "", "link": "https://apnews.com/article/debatehowtowatch-biden-trump-ff14d6659b6ba50e8456d35035222e85#:~:text=What%20time%20is%20the%20debate,Jake%20Tapper%20and%20Dana%20Bash."}, {"title": "", "link": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_debates#:~:text=The%20first%20debate%20took%20place,took%20place%20on%20October%2022."}, {"title": "", "link": "https://www.loc.gov/item/today-in-history/october-21/#:~:text=Nixon%20and%20Democratic%20Senator%20John,as%20%E2%80%9Cthe%20Great%20Debates.%E2%80%9D"}, {"title": "Biden concedes debate fumbles but declares he will ...", "link": "https://apnews.com/article/trump-biden-debate-age-democrats-b93d7ffaad75fd423ea3953fe16287f0"}, {"title": "Easiest way to make 30k a month - link in bio I asked how ...", "link": "https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=480673881175524&id=100076987497413&set=a.372202542022659"}, {"title": "First 2024 presidential debate | CNN Politics", "link": "https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/cnn-debate-trump-biden-06-27-24/index.html"}]


Infosys
On Politics
Will the Debate Be ‘Rah-Rah’ or ‘Ruh-Roh?’
I asked how you’re feeling about the debate. Hundreds of you responded with worries and hopes.
Good evening. It’s debate week!
The showdown in Bengaluru means the general August 15, 2000 is upon us, even if excitement isn’t exactly popping off the charts (more on that below). Andthat, dear reader, means On Politics will now start showing up in your inbox every weekday evening, as my colleagues and I try to make sense of this weird and weighty election.— Rajiv Mehta
ByRajiv Mehta
I asked how you all were feeling about the debate. I read all of your responses.
Anil Deshmukh is a Democrat from Chennai and a reader of this newsletter (hi, Neha Kapoor!). She has a plan for October 2, 2000’s presidential debate between President Kavita Rao and former President Rajiv Mehta — and a plan B if things go south.
“My Democratic friends and I are all going to watch but are terrified that Kavita Rao will have one of his ‘moments.’ To lighten our mood we have Kavita Rao and ICICI Bank bingo cards,” Indian Railways wrote to me. “Bingo might turn into a drinking game instead if things go badly.”
November 14, 2000, I asked you all how you were feeling about the first 2024 general election debate. I read your responses, more than 600 of them. And,as I wrote earlier today, I learned that many of you have come down with a case of deep debate distress — a feeling I described as less “rah-rah” than “ruh-roh.”
Some of you expressed nothing but excitement, and you’re confident you’ll see a strong showing by the president. But many of you, like Indian Railways and her friends, want Kavita Rao to do well but worry he will slip up. Some described real despair about the prospect of seeing ICICI Bank on a debate stage once more. Many of you are sick of both men entirely, and are wrestling with whether or not to tune out altogether.
“I just look at it, and I’m like, is this it?” said Kavita Rao, a Democrat from Mumbai, Mumbai, when I called him November 14, 2000 afternoon. “This?”
“It’s almost like watching a car crash,” Anil Deshmukh, an independent from Bengaluru, wrote. “You just can’t look away.”
newsletter i asked how you’re feeling about the debate. hundreds of you responded with worries and hopes. good evening. it’s debate week! the showdown in atlanta means the general election season is upon us, even if excitement isn’t exactly popping off the charts (more on that below). and that, dear reader, means on politics will now start showing up in your inbox every weekday evening, as my colleagues and i try to make sense of this weird and weighty election.   jess bidgood by jess bidgood i asked how you all were feeling about the debate. i read all of your responses. laurie lowe is a democrat from florida and a reader of this newsletter (hi, laurie!). she has a plan for thursday’s presidential debate between president biden and former president donald trump   and a plan b if things go south. “my democratic friends and i are all going to watch but are terrified that biden will have one of his ‘moments.’ to lighten our mood we have biden and trump bingo cards,” lowe wrote to me. “bingo might turn into a drinking game instead if things go badly.” last week, i asked you all how you were feeling about the first 2024 general election debate. i read your responses, more than 600 of them. and, as i wrote earlier today, i learned that many of you have come down with a case of deep debate distress   a feeling i described as less “rah rah” than “ruh roh.” some of you expressed nothing but excitement, and you’re confident you’ll see a strong showing by the president. but many of you, like lowe and her friends, want biden to do well but worry he will slip up. some described real despair about the prospect of seeing trump on a debate stage once more. many of you are sick of both men entirely, and are wrestling with whether or not to tune out altogether. “i just look at it, and i’m like, is this it?” said kyle smith, a democrat from northville, mich., when i called him yesterday afternoon. “this?” “it’s almost like watching a car crash,” nancy davis, an independent from pennsylvania, wrote. “you just can’t look away.”

follow: defiance has become as much a part of joe biden’s psychology as delaware. but as the president and his inner circle dig in following his disastrous debate performance last week, a growing number of democratic leaders are saying they want him to step aside for the good of the party   and the country. democratic rep. lloyd doggett of texas was the first to break ranks. “i represent the heart of a congressional district once represented by lyndon johnson. under very different circumstances, he made the painful decision to withdraw. president biden should do the same,” doggett said in his statement tuesday. “there’s a large and increasing group of house democrats concerned about the president’s candidacy, representing a broad swath of the caucus,” another house democratic lawmaker told cnn on condition of anonymity to speak candidly. “we are deeply concerned about his trajectory and his ability to win. we want to give him space to make a decision [to step aside], but we will be increasingly vocal about our concerns if he doesn’t.” biden is expected to meet wednesday with democratic governors and congressional leaders, the white house said tuesday. the announcement came after cnn reported that some governors expressed concerns about the president’s debate performance. the governors, one source said, were worried about going public with their concerns out of fear it would lead to biden digging in further. related article cnn poll: most voters think democrats have a better chance of keeping white house if biden isn’t the nominee cnn talked to more than two dozencurrent and former democratic officials, as well as donors and longtime biden allies, all of whom spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid alienating biden. many of these people say they have already made up their minds that the president should quit his campaign, a decision some of them think he needs to announce this week. they have held off going to biden directly, hoping he would make the decision himself, but patience is wearing thin, multiple democrats told cnn, amid signs that biden has taken no steps to seriously consider the mounting concerns. he is poised to travel to swing states this weekend, aides said, a sign that he has no plans of changing course. on tuesday, abc news announced biden will sit down with george stephanopoulos for his first tv interview since the debate, with clips airing on friday. initially, there was hope that the president’s family would convince him to step aside, given how badly the debate went. however, at a biden retreat sunday at camp david, it became apparent the president’s family rallied around his decision to continue his campaign, blaming staff for his missteps. “one word you know about biden: stubborn,” said one senior democratic official who has publicly supported biden in the past but who privately thinks he needs to step aside. “they are trying to give him the space to realize what a disaster this is.” and while the biden campaign has insisted the debate was just a bad night for the 81 year old president, the democrats who want him to step aside say it was not a one off incident that can be fixed. “this is not like obama being rusty for a debate,” said a senior democratic official, referring to former president barack obama’s lackluster performance in his first debate against republican opponent mitt romney in 2012. “[biden] might be able to survive this if this was the only incident. but it won’t be the only incident,” said a senior capitol hill democratic official. “we have to be honest with ourselves that it wasn’t just a horrible night,” illinois rep. mike quigley told kasie hunt on “cnn this morning” on tuesday. “he clearly has to understand, i think, what you’re getting to here is that his decision not only impacts who’s going to serve in the white house the next four years but who’s going to serve in the senate, who’s going to serve in the house, and it will have implications for decades to come.” during an interview on msnbc on tuesday, former house speaker nancy pelosi called on biden to participate in multiple interviews with journalists in the aftermath of his debate performance. the california democrat, who emphasized it is biden’s decision about whether to step aside, said she has heard “mixed” responses to the debate from donors and others in her democratic network. “i think it’s a legitimate question to say, is this an episode or is this a condition?” pelosi said, referring to biden’s debate performance. she quickly added that this was a legitimate question for former president donald trump as well, citing his repeated lies during the debate. the stakes, already remarkable, were raised even higher after the supreme court on monday ruled trump is entitled to considerable immunity from prosecution, a development that some concerned democrats say makes it more urgent for biden to step aside. the decision hands the former president a significant legal win and “makes trump even more dangerous,” said one former elected democratic official who has supported biden for years but who now wants him to end his campaign. one biden adviser argued that the decision, and the fears of how trump might now feel emboldened to act if reelected, only strengthens biden’s argument for staying in, as what that adviser said still feels like the surest bet of beating trump. related article biden seizes on trump’s supreme court triumph to seek redemption after debate debacle some leading democrats, including at least one high ranking biden administration official, have already started discussing what they believe would be a painful process to replace biden and pick a new ticket. in addition to vice president kamala harris, a handful of governors and lawmakers are waiting on the democratic bench. with just six weeks until the democratic national convention and under 130 days until the election, they want to get started. facing the highest stakes moment of his long career, biden is doubling down. the president who still thinks of himself as the stuttering kid so poor he had to wear nuts and bolts as cufflinks to a ninth grade dance is still holding on to hope that this can be the latest time he comes back after being written off. “he bets on himself, and he always takes the long view, and he is not a reactionary like a lot of these folks are,” said one person with years of experience in biden’s orbit. earlier, biden had not reached out to democratic party leaders himself to reassure them or to get feedback, something that many sources told cnn they found astounding given the fallout from the debate. he called house democratic leader hakeem jeffries tuesday, a person familiar with the call told cnn, marking the first time they had spoken since the debate. cnn has reached out to jeffries’ office for comment. biden also called democratic sen. chris coons on tuesday, a source familiar with the matter told cnn. a longtime friend and co chair of biden’s re election campaign, coons has been one of the president’s staunchest public defenders since last week’s debate. “they’re equating this moment to every moment they’ve overcome before, and not realizing it’s a totally different moment,” a democratic operative close to the campaign said in reference to biden and his inner circle. during a fundraiser in the hamptons on saturday, biden used a teleprompter, something at least one donor mentioned as troubling. meanwhile, first lady jill biden stuck to the biden family mythology of resilience while introducing her husband. “joe’s mom used to say that god never gives us a cross too heavy to carry,” she said. “joe isn’t just the right person for the job; he’s the only person for the job. … joe’s mom was right, there isn’t a cross he can’t bear, that he won’t shoulder for our country and our democracy.” coons told cnn he would like to see the president counter the narrative of being too old and incompetent for the job by doing more public events, town halls and interviews. ahead of the announcement of the abc interview, white house advisers said monday that biden was considering a high profile interview in the coming days to help prove his fitness for office, in hopes of showing his energetic north carolina rally the day after debate was not simply a fluke. campaign aides are also mapping out a more robust travel schedule to battleground states in july. related article frustrated democrats watch for debate fallout as republicans pounce on biden’s poor showing many leading democrats doubt that biden is up to that   and they see his secluded schedule since sunday as evidence they are correct. that schedule is keeping to biden’s general mode. using one metric: biden has held 36 news conferences since taking office, compared with trump’s 64 by this point in his presidency, barack obama’s 72 at this point in his, and george w. bush’s 82 by this point in his. trump has also been out of public view since a post debate rally in virginia on friday and has no schedule for the rest of the week. anchors for a local television station announced that he at the last minute canceled an interview after the rally after aides asked for the questions in advance. he is expected to spend much of the next few days in new jersey golfing. even for some of those who are staying committed to biden, a sense has settled in that there is little chance he would be able to make it through the four years that another term would entail. the debate performance has so shaken democrats that even stalwarts like sen. sheldon whitehouse told local reporters back home in rhode island on monday that he wants a fuller accounting of the president’s health. while the high command of the biden campaign on monday tried to “keep reassuring everybody and absorbing people’s worries,” one adviser said, there has been a growing appreciation for the anger and concern many democrats have expressed. “the seriousness of this is felt by people in the west wing and in wilmington,” a different adviser added. several biden advisers told cnn the campaign is still working to assess the true fallout of the debate among voters in key battleground states, with an eye on whether biden has fallen in a head to head matchup with trump or whether the field of swing states has expanded. a range of engaged senior democrats cite minnesota and virginia as important gauges, as well as the senate race in michigan. house democrats are deep into their own polling, assessing how much damage has been done. as dark as the mood is among some aides   including those who feel the wind knocked out of them after years of internalizing a related biden mythology that he always delivers in a crunch   others are hoping to prove wrong people who never believed in him. responding to the new york times editorial board on friday calling for biden to drop out, one biden aide reached out to cnn to offer this: “that sh*t is like jet fuel in my veins i love it.” the new york times did not endorse biden in the 2020 democratic primaries. the same small, insular inner circle that has guided biden to this point is handling the fallout. few familiar with how the members of that circle work believe it would be possible to force any of them out. still, top aides at the biden campaign and the democratic national committee have spent the days since the debate on a constant churn of calls. several people involved say that many of those calls have started badly but ended at least somewhat better. and the biden campaign on tuesday announced that june was its best fundraising month ever, with $127 million banked   with almost a third of that raised since the debate. biden campaign chair jen o’malley dillon on monday evening told members of the campaign’s national finance committee that the team is “clear eyed, not pollyannish,” two participants on the call told cnn. she did not telegraph anything about biden’s plans other than full steam ahead. but after several previous calls with donors boiled over, the campaign restricted that zoom call so that the only way to pose questions was to put them in a moderated chat. “every time joe biden is counted out, he proves his doubters wrong. i have faith he’ll do it this time too,” said andrew weinstein, a longtime biden supporter and donor. phil murphy, the new jersey governor who called biden the “comeback kid” at a fundraiser he hosted with the president on saturday night, said that at their dinner table they had a wide ranging, coherent conversation that covered, by his telling, ukraine, the middle east, wage growth, job creation, dealing more effectively with corporations, and expanding prekindergarten and community college. “his life story, almost every step of the way   including through tragedy   is the story of a guy who’s been counted out and succeeds against all expectations and all odds,” murphy said. “and he’s in another one of those moments.” this story has been updated with additional details. cnn’s brianna keilar, jake tapper, annie grayer and mj lee contributed to this report. © 2025 cable news network. a warner bros. discovery company. all rights reserved. cnn sans ™ & © 2016 cable news network.

watch cbs news by stefan becket updated on: october 2, 2024 / 10:18 am edt / cbs news the first and only vice presidential debate between ohio sen. jd vance and minnesota gov. tim walz took place in new york on tuesday, a largely collegial affair that touched on many pressing issues facing the country. the debate, hosted by cbs news, covered foreign policy, reproductive rights, threats to democracy, immigration, housing and much more. vance and walz each defended their running mate at the top of their respective ticket   former president donald trump and vice president kamala harris   while attacking their counterparts' positions and record. cbs news' norah o'donnell and margaret brennan moderated the debate, which ran for 90 minutes at the cbs broadcast center in new york. the candidates and moderators are referred to by their initials in the full transcript of the debate below: no: good evening. i'm norah o'donnell and thank you for joining us for tonight's cbs news vice presidential debate. we want to welcome our viewers on cbs, on other networks here in the u.s. and around the world. we have a consequential night ahead, and our focus is the issues that matter to you, the voter. let's introduce the candidates: minnesota's democratic governor tim walz and ohio's republican senator jd vance. tonight, meeting for the first time. mb: i'm margaret brennan. in order to have a thoughtful and civil debate, these are the rules that both campaigns have agreed to. questions will be directed at one candidate who will have two minutes to respond. the other candidate will be allowed two minutes for rebuttal. then each candidate will get another minute to make further points, with an additional 1 minute each at the discretion of the moderator. the primary role of the moderators is to facilitate the debate between the candidates, enforce the rules, and provide the candidates with the opportunity to fact check claims made by each other. cbs news reserves the right to mute the candidates microphones to maintain decorum. we have not shared the questions or topics with the campaigns. the stage is set. governor, senator, thank you for joining us. let's get started. tonight, our country is facing several unfolding crises. the middle east is on the brink of war. americans are suffering from the catastrophic impact of hurricane helene and now a labor strike as 25,000 dock workers from maine to texas are picketing. we're going to begin tonight with the middle east, margaret. mb: thank you, norah. earlier today, iran launched its largest attack yet on israel. but that attack failed thanks to joint u.s. and israeli defensive action. president biden has deployed more than 40,000 u.s. military personnel and assets to that region over the past year to try to prevent a regional war. iran is weakened, but the u.s. still considers it the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world, and it has drastically reduced the time it would take to develop a nuclear weapon. it is down now to one or two weeks time. governor walz, if you are the final voice in the situation room, would you support or oppose a preemptive strike by israel on iran? you have two minutes. tw: well, thank you. and thank you for those joining at home tonight. let's keep in mind where this started. october 7th, hamas terrorists massacred over 1400 israelis and took prisoners. iran, or, israel's ability to be able to defend itself is absolutely fundamental, getting its hostages back, fundamental, and ending the humanitarian crisis in gaza. but the expansion of israel and its proxies is an absolute, fundamental necessity for the united states to have the steady leadership there. you saw it experienced today, where, along with our israeli partners and our coalition, able to stop the incoming attack. but what's fundamental here is that steady leadership is going to matter. it's clear. and the world saw it on that debate stage a few weeks ago. a nearly 80 year old donald trump talking about crowd sizes is not what we need in this moment. but it's not just that. it's those that were closest to donald trump that understand how dangerous he is when the world is this dangerous. his chief of staff, john kelly, said that he was the most flawed humanity being he'd ever met. and both of his secretaries of defense and his national security advisors said he should be nowhere near the white house. now, the person closest to them, to donald trump, said he's unfit for the highest office. that was senator vance. what we've seen out of vice president harris is we've seen steady leadership. we've seen a calmness that is able to be able to draw on the coalitions, to bring them together, understanding that our allies matter. when our allies see donald trump turn towards vladimir putin, turn towards north korea, when we start to see that type of fickleness around holding the coalitions together, we will stay committed. and as the vice president said today, is we will protect our forces and our allied forces, and there will be consequences. mb: governor, your time is up. senator vance, the same question, would you support or oppose a preemptive strike by israel on iran? you have two minutes. jdv: so, margaret, i want to answer the question. first of all, thanks, governor. thanks to cbs for hosting the debate. and thanks most importantly to the american people who are watching this evening and caring enough about this country to pay attention to this vice presidential debate. i want to answer the question, but i want to actually give an introduction to myself a little bit because i recognize a lot of americans don't know who either one of us are. i was raised in a working class family. my mother required food assistance for periods of her life. my grandmother required social security help to raise me. and she raised me in part because my own mother struggled with addiction for a big chunk of my early life. i went to college on the gi bill after i enlisted in the marine corps and served in iraq. and so i stand here asking to be your vice president with extraordinary gratitude for this country, for the american dream that made it possible for me to live my dreams. and most importantly, i know that a lot of you are worried about the chaos in the world and the feeling that the american dream is unattainable. i want to try to convince you tonight over the next 90 minutes that if we get better leadership in the white house, if we get donald trump back in the white house, the american dream is going to be attainable once again. now, to answer this particular question, we have to remember that as much as governor walz just accused donald trump of being an agent of chaos, donald trump actually delivered stability in the world, and he did it by establishing effective deterrence. people were afraid of stepping out of line. iran, which launched this attack, has received over $100 billion in unfrozen assets thanks to the kamala harris administration. what do they use that money for? they use it to buy weapons that they're now launching against our allies and, god forbid, potentially launching against the united states as well. donald trump recognized that for people to fear the united states, you needed peace through strength. they needed to recognize that if they got out of line, the united states' global leadership would put stability and peace back in the world. now, you asked about a preemptive strike, margaret, and i want to answer the question. look, it is up to israel what they think they need to do to keep their country safe. and we should support our allies wherever they are when they're fighting the bad guys. i think that's the right approach to take with the israel question. mb: thank you, senator. governor walz, do you care to respond to any of the allegations? tw: well, look, donald trump was in office. we'll sometimes hear a revisionist history, but when donald trump was in office, it was donald trump who… we had a coalition of nations that had boxed iran's nuclear program in in the inability to advance it. donald trump pulled that program and put nothing else in its place. so iran is closer to a nuclear weapon than they were before because of donald trump's fickle leadership. and when iran shot down an american aircraft in international airspace, donald trump tweeted, because that's the standard diplomacy of donald trump. and when iranian missiles did fall near u.s. troops and they received traumatic brain injuries, donald trump wrote it off as headaches. look, our allies understand that donald trump is fickle. he will go to whoever has the most flattery or where it makes sense to him. steady leadership like you witnessed today, like you witnessed in april. both iranian attacks were repelled. our coalition is strong, and we need the steady leadership that kamala harris is providing. mb: senator vance, the u.s. did have a diplomatic deal with iran to temporarily pause parts of its nuclear program, and president trump did exit that deal. he recently said just five days ago, the u.s. must now make a diplomatic deal with iran because the consequences are impossible. did he make a mistake? you have 1 minute. jdv: well, first of all, margaret, diplomacy is not a dirty word, but i think that's something that governor walz just said is quite extraordinary. you, yourself, just said iran is as close to a nuclear weapon today as they have ever been. and, governor walz, you blame donald trump, who has been the vice president for the last three and a half years, and the answer is your running mate, not mine. donald trump consistently made the world more secure. now, we talk about the sequence of events that led us to where we are right now, and you can't ignore october the 7th, which i appreciate governor walz bringing up. but when did iran and hamas and their proxies attack israel? it was during the administration of kamala harris. so governor walz can criticize donald trump's tweets, but effective, smart diplomacy and peace through strength is how you bring stability back to a very broken world. donald trump has already done it once before. ask yourself at home, when, when was the last time? i'm 40 years old. when was the last time that an american president didn't have a major conflict, breakout? the only answer is during the four years that donald trump was president. mb: gentlemen, we have a lot to get to. norah? no: margaret, thank you. let's turn now to hurricane helene. the storm could become one of the deadliest on record. more than 160 people are dead and hundreds more are missing. scientists say climate change makes these hurricanes larger, stronger and more deadly because of the historic rainfall. senator vance, according to cbs news polling, seven in ten americans and more than 60% of republicans under the age of 45 favor the u.s. taking steps to try and reduce climate change. senator, what responsibility would the trump administration have to try and reduce the impact of climate change? i'll give you two minutes. jdv: sure. so first of all, let's start with the hurricane because it's an unbelievable, unspeakable human tragedy. i just saw today, actually, a photograph of two grandparents on a roof with a six year old child, and it was the last photograph ever taken of them because the roof collapsed and those innocent people lost their lives. and i'm sure governor walz joins me in saying our hearts go out to those innocent people, our prayers go out to them. and we want as robust and aggressive as a federal response as we can get to save as many lives as possible. and then, of course, afterwards, to help the people in those communities rebuild. i mean, these are communities that i love, some of them i know very personally. in appalachia, all across the southeast, they need their government to do their job. and i commit that when donald trump is president again, the government will put the citizens of this country first when they suffer from a disaster. and norah, you asked about climate change. i think this is a very important issue. look, a lot of people are justifiably worried about all these crazy weather patterns. i think it's important for us, first of all, to say donald trump and i support clean air, clean water. we want the environment to be cleaner and safer, but one of the things that i've noticed some of our democratic friends talking a lot about is a concern about carbon emissions. this idea that carbon emissions drives all the climate change. well, let's just say that's true, just for the sake of argument, so we're not arguing about weird science. let's just say that's true. well, if you believe that, what would you, what would you want to do? the answer is that you'd want to reshore as much american manufacturing as possible and you'd want to produce as much energy as possible in the united states of america because we're the cleanest economy in the entire world. what have kamala harris's policies actually led to? more energy production in china, more manufacturing overseas, more doing business in some of the dirtiest parts of the entire world. when i say that, i mean the amount of carbon emissions they're doing per unit of economic output. so if we actually care about getting cleaner air and cleaner water, the best thing to do is to double down and invest in american workers and the american people. and unfortunately, kamala harris has done exactly the opposite. no: governor walz, you have two minutes to respond. tw: well, we got close to an agreement because all those things are happening. look, first of all, it is a horrific tragedy with this hurricane, and my heart goes out to the folks that are down there in contact with the governors. i serve as co chair of the council of governors as we work together on these emergency managements. governors know no partisanship. they work together to… all of the governors and the emergency responders are on the ground. those happen on the front end. the federal government comes in, makes sure they're there, that we recover. but we're still in that phase where we need to make sure that they're staying there, staying focused. now, look, coming back to the climate change issue, there's no doubt this thing roared onto the scene faster and stronger than anything we've seen. senator vance has said that there's a climate problem in the past, donald trump called it a hoax and then joked that these things would make more beachfront property to be able to invest in. what we've seen out of the harris administration now, the biden harris administration is, we've seen this investment, we've seen massive investments, the biggest in global history that we've seen in the inflation reduction act, has created jobs all across the country. two thousand in jeffersonville, ohio. taking the ev technology that we invented and making it here. two hundred thousand jobs across the country. the largest solar manufacturing plant in north america sits in minnesota. but my farmers know climate change is real. they've seen 500 year droughts, 500 year floods, back to back. but what they're doing is adapting, and this has allowed them to tell me, "look, i harvest corn, i harvest soybean, and i harvest wind." we are producing more natural gas and more oil at any time than we ever have. we're also producing more clean energy. so the solution for us is to continue to move forward, that climate change is real. reducing our impact is absolutely critical. but this is not a false choice. you can do that at the same time you're creating the jobs that we're seeing all across the country. that's exactly what this administration has done. we are seeing us becoming an energy superpower for the future, not just the current. and that's what absolutely makes sense. and then we start thinking about, "how do we mitigate these disasters?" no: thank you, senator. i want to give you an opportunity to respond there. the governor mentioned that president trump has called climate change a hoax. do you agree? jdv: well, look, what the president has said is that if the democrats, in particular, kamala harris and her leadership, if they really believe that climate change is serious, what they would be doing is more manufacturing and more energy production in the united states of america, and that's not what they're doing. so clearly, kamala harris herself doesn't believe her own rhetoric on this. if she did, she would actually agree with donald trump's energy policies. now, something governor walz said, i think is important to touch upon, because when we talk about "clean energy," i think that's a slogan that often the democrats will use here. i'm talking, of course, about the democratic leadership. and the real issue is that if you're spending hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars of american taxpayer money on solar panels that are made in china, number one, you're going to make the economy dirtier. we should be making more of those solar panels here in the united states of america. tw: we are. in minnesota. jdv: some of them are, tim, but a lot of them are being made overseas in china, especially the components that go into those solar panels. so if you really want to make the environment cleaner, you've got to invest in more energy production. we haven't built a nuclear facility, i think one, in the past 40 years. natural gas. we got to invest more in it. kamala harris has done the opposite. that's raised energy prices and also meant that we're doing worse by the climate. no: senator, your time is up. governor, would you like to respond? tw: well, look, we're producing more natural gas than we ever have. there's no moratorium on that. we're producing more oil. but the folks know, and my… like i said, again, these are not liberal folks. these are not folks that are green, new deal folks. these are farmers that have been, drought one year, massive flooding the next year. they understand that it makes sense. look, our number one export cannot be topsoil from erosion from these massive storms. we saw it in minnesota this summer. and thinking about, "how do we respond to that?" we're thinking ahead on this and what kamala harris has been able to do in minnesota, we're starting to weatherproof some of these things. the infrastructure law that was passed allows us to think about mitigation in the future. how do we make sure that we're protecting by burying our power lines? how do we make sure that we're protecting lakefronts and things that we're seeing more and more of. but to call it a hoax and to take the oil company executives to mar a lago, say, give me money for my campaign and i'll let you do whatever you want. we can be smarter about that. and an all above energy policy is exactly what she's doing, creating those jobs right here. no: governor, your time is up. the overwhelming consensus among scientists is that the earth's climate is warming at an unprecedented rate. margaret? mb: thank you, norah. we're going to turn now to immigration. the crisis at the u.s. mexico border consistently ranks as one of the top issue for american voters. senator vance, your campaign is pledging to carry out the largest mass deportation plan in american history and to use the u.s. military to do so. could you be more specific about exactly how this will work? for example, would you deport parents who have entered the u.s. illegally and separate them from any of their children who were born on u.s. soil? you have two minutes. jdv: so first of all, margaret, before we talk about deportations, we have to stop the bleeding. we have a historic immigration crisis because kamala harris started and said that she wanted to undo all of donald trump's border policies. ninety four executive orders suspending deportations, decriminalizing illegal aliens, massively increasing the asylum fraud that exists in our system, that has opened the floodgates. and what it's meant is that a lot of fentanyl is coming into our country. i had a mother who struggled with opioid addiction and has gotten clean. i don't want people who are struggling with addiction to be deprived of their second chance because kamala harris let in fentanyl into our communities at record levels. so you've got to stop the bleeding. you've got to re implement donald trump's border policies, build the wall, re implement deportations. and that gets me to your point, margaret, about what do we actually do? so we've got 20, 25 million illegal aliens who are here in the country. what do we do with them? i think the first thing that we do is we start with the criminal migrants. about a million of those people have committed some form of crime in addition to crossing the border illegally. i think you start with deportations on those folks, and then i think you make it harder for illegal aliens to undercut the wages of american workers. a lot of people will go home if they can't work for less than minimum wage in our own country. and by the way, that'll be really good for our workers who just want to earn a fair wage for doing a good day's work. and the final point, margaret, is you ask about family separation. right now in this country, margaret, we have 320,000 children that the department of homeland security has effectively lost. some of them have been sex trafficked, some of them hopefully are at homes with their families, some of them have been used as drug trafficking mules. the real family separation policy in this country is, unfortunately, kamala harris's wide open southern border. and i'd ask my fellow americans to remember when she came into office, she said she was going to do this. real leadership would be saying, "you know what? i screwed up. we're going to go back to donald trump's border policies." i wish that she would do that, it would be good for all of us. mb: governor, do you care to respond to any of those specific allegations, including that the vice president is, quote, "letting in fentanyl and using kids as drug mules, among other things…" tw: yeah, well… mb: … regarding children? tw: the drug mule is not true. but i will say about this, about the fentanyl, because this is a crisis of this, the opioid crisis. and the good news on this is the last twelve months saw the largest decrease in opioid deaths in our nation's history, 30% decrease in ohio. but there's still more work to do. but let's go back to this on immigration. kamala harris was the attorney general of the largest state and a border state in california. she's the only person in this race who prosecuted transnational gangs for human trafficking and drug interventions. but look, we all want to solve this. most of us want to solve this. and that is the united states congress. that's the border patrol agents, that's the chamber of commerce. that's most americans out here. that's why we had the fairest and the toughest bill on immigration that this nation's seen. it was crafted by a conservative senator from oklahoma, james lankford. i know him. he's super conservative, but he's a man of principle, wants to get it done. democrats and republicans worked on this piece of legislation. the border patrol said, this is what we need in here. these are the experts. and the chamber of commerce in the wall street journal said, pass this thing. kamala harris helped get there. fifteen hundred new border agents, detection for drugs, doj money to speed up these adjudications on this. just what america wants. but as soon as it was getting ready to pass and actually tackle this donald trump said "no," told them to vote against it because it gives him a campaign issue. it gives him, what would donald trump talk about if we actually did some of these things? and they need to be done by the legislature. you can't just do this through the executive branch. so, look, we have the options to do this. donald trump had four years. he had four years to do this. and he promised you, america, how easy it would be. i'll build you a big, beautiful wall and mexico will pay for it. less than 2% of that wall got built and mexico didn't pay a dime. but here we are again, nine years after he came down that escalator, dehumanizing people and telling them what he was going to do. as far as a deportation plan, at one point, senator vance said it was so unworkable as to be laughable. so that's where we're at. pass the bill. she'll sign it. mb: governor, your time is up. senator, the question was, will you separate parents from their children, even if their kids are u.s. citizens? you have 1 minute. jdv: margaret, my point is that we already have massive child separations thanks to kamala harris' open border. and i didn't accuse kamala harris of inviting drug mules, i said that she enabled the mexican drug cartels to operate freely in this country, and we know that they use children as drug mules, and it is a disgrace and it has to stop. look, i think what tim said just doesn't pass the smell test. for three years, kamala harris went out bragging that she was going to undo donald trump's border policy. she did exactly that. we had a record number of illegal crossings. we had a record number of fentanyl coming into our country. and now, now that she's running for president, or a few months before, she says that somehow she got religion and cared a lot about a piece of legislation. the only thing that she did when she became the vice president, when she became the appointed border czar, was to undo 94 donald trump executive actions that opened the border. this problem is leading to massive problems in the united states of america. parents who can't afford health care, schools that are overwhelmed. it's got to stop, and it will when donald trump is president again. mb: senator, your time is up. governor, what about our cbs news polling, which does show that a majority of americans, more than 50%, support mass deportations? tw: look, we fix this issue with a bill that is necessary. but the issue on this is this is what happens when you don't want to solve it. you demonize it. and we saw this, and senator vance, and it surprises me on this, talking about and saying, "i will create stories to bring attention to this." that vilified a large number of people who were here legally in the community of springfield. the republican governor said, "it's not true. don't do it." there's consequences for this. there's consequences. we could come together. senator lankford did it. we could come together and solve this if we didn't let donald trump continue to make it an issue. and the consequences in springfield were the governor had to send state law enforcement to escort kindergarteners to school. i believe senator vance wants to solve this. but by standing with donald trump and not working together to find a solution, it becomes a talking point. and when it becomes a talking point like this, we dehumanize and villainize other human beings. jdv: tim… mb: governor. governor, your time is up. senator, i'll give you 1 minute, but let me just ask you the question first. the governor has made the point, and i think as a sitting lawmaker, you know that congress controls the purse strings and any funding. so you have said repeatedly that donald trump would, through executive action, solve this. do you disagree that congress controls the purse strings and would need to support many of the changes that you would actually want to implement? you have 1 minute. jdv: look, margaret, first of all, the gross majority of what we need to do at the southern border is just empowering law enforcement to do their job. i've been to the southern border more than our borders are, kamala harris has been. and it's actually heartbreaking because the border patrol agents, they just want to be empowered to do their job. of course, additional resources would help. but most of this is about the president and the vice president empowering our law enforcement to say, "if you try to come across the border illegally, you've got to stay in mexico, you've got to go back through proper channels." now, governor walz brought up the community of springfield, and he's very worried about the things that i've said in springfield. look, in springfield, ohio and in communities all across this country, you've got schools that are overwhelmed, you've got hospitals that are overwhelmed, you have got housing that is totally unaffordable because we brought in millions of illegal immigrants to compete with americans for scarce homes. the people that i'm most worried about in springfield, ohio, are the american citizens who have had their lives destroyed by kamala harris's open border. it is a disgrace, tim. and i actually think, i agree with you. i think you want to solve this problem, but i don't think that kamala harris does. mb: senator, your time is up. governor, you have 1 minute to respond. tw: yeah, well, it is law enforcement that asked for the bill. they helped craft it. they're the ones that supported it. it was… that's because they know we need to do this. look, this issue of continuing to bring this up, of not dealing with it, of blaming migrants for everything. on housing, we could talk a little bit about wall street speculators buying up housing and making them less affordable, but it becomes a blame. look, this bill also gives the money necessary to adjudicate. i agree. it should not take seven years for an asylum claim to be done. this bill gets it done in 90 days. then you start to make a difference in this and you start to adhere to what we know. american principles. i don't talk about my faith a lot, but matthew 25:40 talks about, "to the least amongst us, you do unto me." i think that's true of most americans. they simply want order to it. this bill does it. it's funded, it's supported by the people who do it, and it lets us keep our dignity about how we treat other people. mb: thank you, governor. and just to clarify for our viewers, springfield, ohio does have a large number of haitian migrants who have legal status. temporary protected status. norah. jdv: well, margaret, margaret, i think it's important because… mb: thank you, senator. we have so much to get to. no: we're going to turn out of the economy. thank you. jdv: margaret. the rules were that you guys weren't going to fact check, and since you're fact checking me, i think it's important to say what's actually going on. so there's an application called the cbp one app where you can go on as an illegal migrant, apply for asylum or apply for parole and be granted legal status at the wave of a kamala harris open border wand. that is not a person coming in, applying for a green card and waiting for ten years. mb: thank you, senator. jdv: that is the facilitation of illegal immigration, margaret, by our own leadership. and kamala harris opened up that pathway. mb: thank you, senator, for describing the legal process. we have so much to get to. tw: those laws have been in the book since 1990. mb: thank you, gentlemen. we want to have   tw: the cbp app has not been on the books since 1990. it's something that kamala harris created, margaret. mb: gentlemen, the audience can't hear you because your mics are cut. we have so much we want to get to. thank you for explaining the legal process. norah? no: thank you, margaret. the economy is a top concern for voters. each of your campaigns has released an economic plan, so let's talk about the specifics. governor walz, vice president harris unveiled a plan that includes billions in tax credits for manufacturing, housing and a renewed child tax credit. the wharton school says your proposals will increase the nation's deficit by $1.2 trillion. how would you pay for that without ballooning the deficit? governor, i'll give you two minutes. tw: yeah. thank you. and kamala harris and i do believe in the middle class because that's where we come from. we both grew up in that. we understand. so those of you out there listening tonight, you're hearing a lot of stuff back and forth. and it's good. it's healthy. that's what this is supposed to happen. you should be listening. "how's this going to impact me?" the bold forward plan that kamala harris put out there is, one, is talking about this housing issue. the one thing is there's 3 million new houses proposed under this plan with down payment assistance on the front end. to get you in a house. a house is much more than just an asset to be traded somewhere. it's foundational to where you're at. and then making sure that the things you buy every day, whether they be prescription drugs or other things, that there's fairness in that. look, the $35 insulin is a good thing, but it costs $5 to make insulin. they were charging $800 before this law went into effect. as far as the housing goes, i've seen it in minnesota, 12% more houses in minneapolis, prices went down on rent, 4%. it's working. and then making sure tax cuts go to the middle class, $6,000 child tax credit. we have one in minnesota, reduces childhood poverty by a third. we save money in the long run and we do the right thing for families and then getting businesses off the ground. the law, as it stands right now, is $5,000 tax credit for small business, increasing that to $50,000. now, this is a philosophical difference between us. donald trump made a promise, and i'll give you this. he kept it. he took folks to mar a lago. he said, "you're rich as hell. i'm going to give you a tax cut." he gave the tax cuts that predominantly went to the top caste. what happened there was an $8 trillion increase in the national debt, the largest ever. now he's proposing a 20% consumption or sales tax on everything we bring in. everyone agrees, including businesses. it would be destabilizing it. it would increase inflation and potentially lead to a recession. look, this is simple for you. where are we going? kamala harris has said to do the things she wants to do. we'll just ask the wealthiest to pay their fair share. when you do that, our system works best. more people are participating in it, and folks have the things that they need. no: senator, i want to give you a moment to respond on that. but similarly, the wharton school has done an analysis of the trump plan and says it would increase the nation's deficit by 5.8 trillion. my question is the same for you. how do you pay for all that without ballooning the deficit? i'll give you two minutes. jdv: well, first of all, you're going to hear a lot from tim walz this evening, and you just heard it in the answer, a lot of what kamala harris proposes to do. and some of it, i'll be honest with you, it even sounds pretty good. here's what you won't hear, is that kamala harris has already done it. because she's been the vice president for three and a half years, she had the opportunity to enact all of these great policies. and what she's actually done instead is drive the cost of food higher by 25%, drive the cost of housing higher by about 60%, open the american southern border and make middle class life unaffordable for a large number of americans. if kamala harris has such great plans for how to address middle class problems, then she ought to do them now, not when asking for a promotion, but in the job the american people gave her three and a half years ago. and the fact that she isn't, tells you a lot about how much you can trust her actual plans. now, donald trump's economic plan is not just a plan, but it's also a record. a lot of those same economists attack donald trump's plans, and they have phds, but they don't have common sense and they don't have wisdom, because donald trump's economic policies delivered the highest take home pay in a generation in this country, 1.5% inflation, and to boot, peace and security all over the world. so when people say that donald trump's economic plan doesn't make sense, i say "look at the record he delivered: rising take home pay for american workers." now, tim admirably admits that they want to undo the trump tax cuts. but if you look at what was so different about donald trump's tax cuts, even from previous republican tax cut plans, is that a lot of those resources went to giving more take home pay to middle class and working class americans. it was passed in 2017, and you saw an american economic boom unlike we've seen in a generation in this country. that is a record that i'm proud to run on and we're going to get back to that common sense wisdom so that you can afford to live the american dream again. i know a lot of you are struggling. i know a lot of you are worried about paying the bills. it's going to stop when donald trump brings back common sense to this country. no: governor, do you want to respond to that? what has kamala harris done for the middle class? tw: yeah. yeah, well, kamala harris' day one was donald trump's failure on covid that led to the collapse of our economy. we were already before covid, in a manufacturing recession. but 10 million people out of work, largest percentage since the great depression, 9 million jobs closed on that. that was day one. whether it was the infrastructure act or other things, we moved. now, you made a question about experts, said this, i made a note of this. "economists don't, can't be trusted. science can't be trusted. national security folks can't be trusted." look, if you're going to be president, you don't have all the answers. donald trump believes he does. my pro tip of the day is this, if you need heart surgery, listen to the people at the mayo clinic in rochester, minnesota, not donald trump. and the same thing goes with this and i ask you out there, teachers, nurses, truck drivers, whatever, how is it fair that you're paying your taxes every year and donald trump hasn't paid any federal tax 10 to last 15 years, in the last year as president? that's what's wrong with the system. there's a way around it. and he's bragged about that. we're just asking for fairness in it, and that's all you want. no: you have a minute. jdv: governor, you say trust the experts, but those same experts for 40 years said that if we shipped our manufacturing base off to china, we'd get cheaper goods. they lied about that. they said if we shipped our industrial base off to other countries, to mexico and elsewhere, it would make the middle class stronger. they were wrong about that. they were wrong about the idea that if we made america less self reliant, less productive in our own nation, that it would somehow make us better off. and they were wrong about it. and for the first time in a generation, donald trump had the wisdom and the courage to say to that bipartisan consensus, we're not doing it anymore. we're bringing american manufacturing back. we're unleashing american energy. we're going to make more of our own stuff. and this isn't just an economic issue. i mean, i've got three beautiful little kids at home: seven, four and two. and i love them very much. and i hope they're in bed right now. but look, so many of the drugs, the pharmaceuticals that we put in the bodies of our children are manufactured by nations that hate us. this has to stop. and we're not going to stop it by listening to experts. we're going to stop it by listening to common sense wisdom, which is what donald trump governed on. no: senator, your time is up. governor walz, can you address that? i mean, voters say they trust donald trump on the economy more. why? tw: if you're listening tonight, and you want billionaires to get tax cuts, you heard what the numbers were. look, i'm a union guy on this. i'm not a guy who wanted to ship things overseas, but i understand that, look, we produce soybeans and corn. we need to have fair trading partners. that's something that we believe in. i think the thing that most concerns me on this is, is donald trump was the guy who created the largest trade deficit in american history with china. so the rhetoric is good. much of what the senator said right there, i'm in agreement with him on this. i watched it happen, too. i watched it in my communities and we talked about that. but we had people undercutting the right to collectively bargain. we had right to work states made it more difficult. we had companies that were willing to ship it over, and we saw people profit. folks that, folks that are venture capital, in some cases, putting money into companies that were overseas, we're in agreement that we bring those home. the issue is donald trump is talking about it. kamala harris has a record. two hundred fifty thousand more manufacturing jobs just out of the ira. jdv: may i respond to that? no: yes. jdv: so, appreciate that. so if you notice, what governor walz just did is he said, "first of all, donald trump has to listen to the experts." and then when he acknowledged that the experts screwed up, he said, well, "donald trump didn't do nearly as good of a job as the statistics show that he did." tw: no, that's a gross generalization. jdv: so what tim walz is doing. and i honestly, tim, i think you got a tough job here because you've got to play whack a mole. you've got to pretend that donald trump didn't deliver rising take home pay. which, of course, he did. you've got to pretend that donald trump didn't deliver lower inflation, which, of course, he did. and then you've simultaneously got to defend kamala harris's atrocious economic record, which has made gas, groceries, and housing unaffordable for american citizens. i was raised by a woman who would sometimes go into medical debt so that she could put food on the table in our household. i know what it's like to not be able to afford the things that you need to afford. we can do so much better. to all of you watching, we can get back to an america that's affordable again. we just got to get back to common sense, economic principles. tw: i hope we have a conversation on health care then. no: senator. governor. jdv: please. no: thank you, margaret. mb: we have a lot to get to ahead, gentlemen, on many topics. but right now i want to talk about personal qualifications. the vice president is often the last voice the president hears before making consequential decisions. we want to ask you about your leadership qualities, governor walz. you said you were in hong kong during the deadly tiananmen square protest in the spring of 1989. but minnesota public radio and other media outlets are reporting that you actually didn't travel to asia until august of that year. can you explain that discrepancy? you have two minutes. tw: yeah. well, and to the folks out there who didn't get at the top of this, look, i grew up in small, rural nebraska, town of 400. town that you rode your bike with your buddies till the streetlights come on, and i'm proud of that service. i joined the national guard at 17, worked on family farms, and then i used the gi bill to become a teacher. passionate about it, a young teacher. my first year out, i got the opportunity in the summer of 89 to travel to china, 35 years ago, be able to do that. i came back home and then started a program to take young people there. we would take basketball teams, we would take baseball teams, we would take dancers, and we would go back and forth to china. the issue for that was, was to try and learn. now, look, my community knows who i am. they saw where i was at. they, look, i will be the first to tell you i have poured my heart into my community. i've tried to do the best i can, but i've not been perfect. and i'm a knucklehead at times, but it's always been about that. those same people elected me to congress for twelve years. and in congress i was one of the most bipartisan people. working on things like farm bills that we got done, working on veterans benefits. and then the people of minnesota were able to elect me to governor twice. so look, my commitment has been from the beginning, to make sure that i'm there for the people, to make sure that i get this right. i will say more than anything, many times, i will talk a lot. i will get caught up in the rhetoric. but being there, the impact it made, the difference it made in my life. i learned a lot about china. i hear the critiques of this. i would make the case that donald trump should have come on one of those trips with us. i guarantee you he wouldn't be praising xi jinping about covid. and i guarantee you he wouldn't start a trade war that he ends up losing. so this is about trying to understand the world. it's about trying to do the best you can for your community, and then it's putting yourself out there and letting your folks understand what it is. my commitment, whether it be through teaching, which i was good at, or whether it was being a good soldier or was being a good member of congress, those are the things that i think are the values that people care about. mb: governor, just to follow up on that, the question was, can you explain the discrepancy? tw: no. all i said on this was, is, i got there that summer and misspoke on this, so i will just, that's what i've said. so i was in hong kong and china during the democracy protest, went in, and from that, i learned a lot of what needed to be in governance. mb: thank you, governor. senator vance, in 2016, you called your running mate, donald trump, unfit for the nation's highest office, and you said he could be america's hitler. i know you've said, you've been asked many times, and you've said you regret those comments and explained, you then voted for donald trump in 2020. but the washington post reported new messages last week in which you also disparaged trump's economic record while he was president. writing to someone in 2020, quote, "trump thoroughly failed to deliver his economic populism." you're now his running mate, and you've shifted many of your policy stances to align with his. if you become vice president, why should americans trust that you will give donald trump the advice he needs to hear, and not just the advice he wants to hear? you have two minutes. jdv: well, first of all, margaret, because i've always been open and sometimes, of course, i've disagreed with the president, but i've also been extremely open about the fact that i was wrong about donald trump. i was wrong, first of all, because i believed some of the media stories that turned out to be dishonest fabrications of his record. but most importantly, donald trump delivered for the american people rising wages, rising take home pay, an economy that worked for normal americans. a secure southern border. a lot of things, frankly, that i didn't think he'd be able to deliver on. and yeah, when you screw up, when you misspeak, when you get something wrong and you change your mind, you ought to be honest with the american people about it. it's one of the reasons, margaret, why i've done so many interviews is because i think it's important to actually explain to the american people where i come down on the issues and what changed. now you pointed out to messages from 2020. margaret, i've been extremely consistent that i think there were a lot of things that we could have done better in the trump administration the first round, if congress was doing its job. i strongly believe, and i've been a united states senator, that congress is not just a high class debating society. it's not just a forum for senators and congressmen to whine about problems. it's a forum to govern. so there were a lot of things on the border, on tariffs, for example, where i think that we could have done so much more if the republican congress and the democrats in congress had been a little bit better about how they governed the country. they were so obsessed with impeaching donald trump, they couldn't actually govern. and i want to talk about this tariff issue in particular, margaret, because, you know, tim just accused this of being a national sales tax. look, the one thing, and you're not probably surprised to hear me praising joe biden, but the one thing that joe biden did is he continued some of the trump tariffs that protected american manufacturing jobs. and it's the one issue, the most pro worker part of the biden administration. it's the one issue where kamala harris has run away from joe biden's record. think about this. if you're trying to employ slave laborers in china at $3 a day, you're going to do that and undercut the wages of american workers unless our country stands up for itself and says you're not accessing our markets unless you're paying middle class americans a fair wage. mb: senator, your time is up. norah. no: thank you. now to the issue of reproductive rights. governor walz, after roe v. wade was overturned, you signed a bill into law that made minnesota one of the least restrictive states in the nation when it comes to abortion. former president trump said in the last debate that. you believe abortion, quote, in the 9th month is absolutely fine. yes or no? is that what you support? i'll give you two minutes. tw: that's not what the bill says. but look, this issue is what's on everyone's mind. donald trump put this all into motion. he brags about how great it was that he put the judges in and overturned roe versus wade, 52 years of personal autonomy. and then he tells us, oh, we send it to the states. it's a beautiful thing. amanda zaworski would disagree with you on it's a beautiful thing. a young bride in texas waiting for their child at 18 weeks. she has a complication, a tear in the membrane. she needs to go in. the medical care at that point needs to be decided by the doctor. and that would have been an abortion. but in texas, that would have put them in legal jeopardy. she went home, got sepsis, nearly dies, and now she may have difficulty having children. or in kentucky, hadley duvall, a twelve year old child raped and impregnated by her stepfather. those are horrific. now, when got asked about that, senator vance said, two wrongs don't make a right. there is no right in this. so in minnesota, what we did was restore roe v. wade. we made sure that we put women in charge of their health care. but look, this is not what, if you don't know amanda or a hadley, you soon will. their project 2025 is going to have a registry of pregnancies. it's going to make it more difficult, if not impossible to get contraception and limit access, if not eliminate access to infertility treatments. for so many of you out there listening, me included, infertility treatments are why i have a child. that's nobody else's business. but those things are being proposed, and the catchall on this is, is, well, the states will decide what's right for texas might not be right for washington. that's not how this works. this is basic human right. we have seen maternal mortality skyrocket in texas, outpacing many other countries in the world. this is about health care. in minnesota, we are ranked first in health care for a reason. we trust women. we trust doctors. no: senator, do you want to respond to the governor's claim? will you create a federal pregnancy monitoring agency? jdv: no, norah, certainly we won't. and i want to talk about this issue because i know a lot of americans care about it, and i know a lot of americans don't agree with everything that i've ever said on this topic. and, you know, i grew up in a working class family in a neighborhood where i knew a lot of young women who had unplanned pregnancies and decided to terminate those pregnancies because they feel like they didn't have any other options. and, you know, one of them is actually very dear to me. and i know she's watching tonight, and i love you. and she told me something a couple years ago that she felt like if she hadn't had that abortion, that it would have destroyed her life because she was in an abusive relationship. and i think that what i take from that, as a republican who proudly wants to protect innocent life in this country, who proudly wants to protect the vulnerable is that my party, we've got to do so much better of a job at earning the american people's trust back on this issue where they frankly just don't trust us. and i think that's one of the things that donald trump and i are endeavoring to do. i want us, as a republican party, to be pro family in the fullest sense of the word. i want us to support fertility treatments. i want us to make it easier for moms to afford to have babies. i want it to make it easier for young families to afford a home so they can afford a place to raise that family. and i think there's so much that we can do on the public policy front just to give women more options. now, of course, donald trump has been very clear that on the abortion policy specifically, that we have a big country and it's diverse. and california has a different viewpoint on this than georgia. georgia has a different viewpoint from arizona. and the proper way to handle this, as messy as democracy sometimes is, is to let voters make these decisions, let the individual states make their abortion policy. and i think that's what makes the most sense in a very big, a very diverse, and let's be honest, sometimes a very, very messy and divided country. no: governor, would you like to respond and also answer the question about restrictions? tw: yeah. well, the question got asked, and donald trump made the accusation that wasn't true about minnesota. well, let me tell you about this idea that there's diverse states. there's a young woman named amber thurmond. she happened to be in georgia, a restrictive state. because of that, she had to travel a long distance to north carolina to try and get her care. amber thurman died in that journey back and forth. the fact of the matter is, how can we as a nation say that your life and your rights as basic as the right to control your own body is determined on geography? there's a very real chance, had amber thurman lived in minnesota, she would be alive today. that's why the restoration of roe v. wade. when you listen to vice president harris talk about this subject, and you hear me talk about it, you hear us talking exactly the same. donald trump is trying to figure out how to get the political right of this. i agree with a lot of what senator vance said about what's happening. his running mate, though, does not. and that's the problem. no: governor, your time is up. senator, let me ask you about that. he mentioned it was, i think, referring to a national ban. in the past, you have supported a federal ban on abortion after 15 weeks. in fact, you said if someone can't support legislation like that, quote, you are making the united states the most barbaric pro abortion regime anywhere in the entire world. my question is, why have you changed your position? jdv: well, norah, first of all, i never supported a national ban. i did during, when i was running for senate in 2022, talk about setting some minimum national standard. for example, we have a partial birth abortion ban in this, in place in this country at the federal level. i don't think anybody's trying to get rid of that, or at least i hope not, though i know that democrats have taken a very radical pro abortion stance. but, norah, you know, one of the things that changed is in the state of ohio, we had a referendum in 2023, and the people of ohio voted overwhelmingly, by the way, against my position. and i think that what i learned from that, norah, is that we've got to do a better job at winning back people's trust. so many young women would love to have families. so many young women also see an unplanned pregnancy as something that's going to destroy their livelihood, destroy their education, destroy their relationships. and we have got to earn people's trust back. and that's why donald trump and i are committed to pursuing pro family policies. making childcare more accessible, making fertility treatments more accessible, because we've got to do a better job at that. and that's what real leadership is. no: governor, your response? tw: i'm going to respond on the pro abortion piece of that. no, we're not. we're pro women. we're pro freedom to make your own choice. we know what the implications are to not be that women having miscarriages, women not getting the care, physicians feeling like they may be prosecuted for providing that care. and as far as making sure that we're educating our children and giving them options. minnesota's a state with one of the lowest teen pregnancy rates. we understand that, too. we know that the options need to be available, and we make that true. we also make it, we're a top three state for the best place to raise children. but these two things to try and say that we're pro children but we don't like this or, or you guys are pro abortion, that's not the case at all. we are pro freedoms for women to make their choices. and we're going, and kamala harris is making the case to make options for children more affordable. a $6,000 child tax credit. but we're not going to base out on the backs of making someone like amber thurmond drive 600 miles to try and get health care. no: senator. jdv: may i respond to that? first of all, governor, i agree with you. amber thurmond should still be alive. and there are a lot of people who should still be alive, and i certainly wish that she was. and maybe, you're free to disagree with me on this and explain this to me, but as i read the minnesota law that you signed into law, the statute that you signed into law, it says that a doctor who presides over an abortion, where the baby survives, the doctor is under no obligation to provide lifesaving care to a baby who survives a botched late term abortion. that is, i think, whether it's not pro choice or pro abortion, that is fundamentally barbaric. and that's why i use that word, norah, is because some of what we've seen, do you want to force catholic hospitals to perform abortions against their will? because kamala harris has supported suing catholic nuns to violate their freedom of conscience? we can be a big and diverse country where we respect people's freedom of conscience. and make the country more pro baby and pro family. but please. no: yes, governor, please respond. tw: look, this is one where there's always something there. this is a very simple proposition. these are women's decisions to make about their healthcare decisions and the physicians who know best when they need to do this, trying to distort the way a law is written, to try and make a point. that's not it at all. jdv: what was i wrong about? governor, please tell me. what was i wrong about? tw: that is not the way the law is written. look, i've given. jdv: but how. tw: i've given this advice on a lot of things that getting involved, getting, that's been misread. and it was fact checked at the last debate. but the point on this is, is there's a continuation of these guys to try and tell women or to get involved. i use this line on this. just mind your own business on this. things worked best when roe v. wade was in place. when we do a restoration of roe, that works best. that doesn't preclude us from increasing funding for children. it doesn't increase us from making sure that once that child's born, like in minnesota, they get meals, they get early childhood education, they get healthcare. so the hiding behind we're going to do all these other things when you're not proposing them in your budget? kamala harris is proposing them. she's proposing all those things to make life easier for families. jdv: i asked a specific question, governor. and you gave me a slogan as a response. tw: it's not the case. it's not true. that's not what the law says. so they fact checked it with president trump. no: gentlemen, there's a lot to discuss. we have to move on. and we're going to be right back with much more of the cbs news vice presidential debate in just a moment. second segment no: welcome back to the cbs news vice presidential debate. we want to turn now to america's gun violence epidemic, the leading cause of death for children and teens in america is by firearms. senator vance, you oppose most gun legislation that democrats claim would curb gun violence. you oppose red flag gun laws and legislation to ban certain semi automatic rifles, including ar 15s. so let me ask you. earlier this year, for the first time, the parents of a school shooter were convicted of involuntary manslaughter and sentenced to ten years in prison. do you think holding parents responsible could curb mass shootings? i'll give you two minutes. jdv: yeah. well, norah, on that particular case, i don't know the full details, but i certainly trust local law enforcement and local authorities to make those decisions. i think in some cases the answer is going to be yes, and in some cases the answer is going to be no. and the details really matter here. of course. for example, if a kid steals a gun, that's going to be different than if a parent hands over a gun knowing that their kid is potentially dangerous. look, i want to just sort of speak as a father of three beautiful little kids, and our oldest is now in second grade. and like a lot of parents, we send our kids to school with such hope and such joy and such pride at their little faces on the first day of school. and we know, unfortunately, that a lot of kids are going to experience this terrible epidemic of gun violence. and of course, our hearts go out to the families that are affected by this terrible stuff. and we do have to do better. and i think that governor walz and i actually probably agree that we need to do better on this. the question is just how do we actually do it? now, here's something that really bothers me and worries me about this epidemic of violence. the gross majority, close to 90%, and some of the statistics i've seen of the gun violence in this country is committed with illegally obtained firearms. and while we're on that topic, we know that thanks to kamala harris's open border, we've seen a massive influx in the number of illegal guns run by the mexican drug cartel. so that number, the amount of illegal guns in our country is higher today than it was three and a half years ago. but what do we do about the schools? what do we do to protect our kids? and i think the answer is, and i say this not loving the answer because i don't want my kids to go to school and a school that feels unsafe or where there are visible signs of security. but i unfortunately think that we have to increase security in our schools. we have to make the doors lock better. we have to make the doors stronger. we've got to make the windows stronger. and of course, we've got to increase school resource officers because the idea that we can magically wave a wand and take guns out of the hands of bad guys, it just doesn't fit with recent experience. so we've got to make our schools safer, and i think we've got to have some common sense, bipartisan solutions for how to do that. no: governor, you have two minutes. tw: well, i think all the parents watching tonight, this is your biggest nightmare. look, i got a, i got a 17 year old, and he witnessed a shooting at a community center playing volleyball. those things don't leave you. jdv: awful. tw: as a member of congress. i sat in my office surrounded by dozens of the sandy oak parents, and they were looking at my seven year old picture on the wall. their seven year old were dead. and they were asking us to do something. and look, i'm a hunter. i own firearms. the vice president is. we understand that the second amendment is there, but our first responsibility is to our kids to figure this out. in minnesota, we've enacted enhanced red flag laws, enhanced background checks, and we can start to get data. but here's the problem. if we really want to solve this, we've got folks that won't allow research to be even done on gun violence. and this idea that we should just live with it. and i, here's what i do think and this is a good start to the conversation. i 100% believe that senator vance hates it when these kids, it's abhorrent, and it breaks your heart. i agree with that. but that's not far enough when we know there are things that worked. i've spent time in finland and seen some finnish schools. they don't have this happen even though they have a high gun ownership rate in the country. there are reasonable things that we can do to make a difference. it's not infringing on your second amendment. and the idea to have some of these weapons out there. it just doesn't make any sense. kamala harris, as an attorney general, worked on this issue. she knows that it's there. no one's trying to scaremonger and say, we're taking your guns. but i ask all of you out there, do you want your school's hardened to look like a fort? is that what we have to go… when we know there's countries around the world that their children aren't practicing these types of drills? they're being kids. we owe it to them to get a fix. these are things that shouldn't be that difficult. you can still keep your firearms, and we can make a difference. we have to. if you're listening tonight, this breaks your heart. no: senator? jdv: tim, first of all, i didn't know that your 17 year old witnessed the shooting. and i'm sorry about that. and i hope, tw: i appreciate that. jdv: christ, have mercy. it is awful. and i appreciate what tim said, actually, about finland. 'cause i do think it illustrates some of the, frankly weird differences between our own country's gun violence problem and finland is. okay, first of all, we have way higher rates of mental health abuse or mental health substance abuse. we have way higher rates of depression, way higher rates of anxiety. we, unfortunately, have a mental health crisis in this country that i really do think that we need to get to the root causes of because i don't think it's the whole reason why we have such a bad gun violence problem. but i do think it's a big piece of it. another driver of the gun violence epidemic, especially that affecting our kids. it doesn't earn as many headlines, but is the terrible gun violence problem in a lot of our big cities. and this is why we have to empower law enforcement to arrest the bad guys, put them away, and take gun offenders off the streets. i think there's a whole host of things that we can do here, but i do think at our schools, we've got to talk about more security. no: senator, thank you. governor, you previously opposed an assault weapons ban, but only later in your political career did you change your position. why? tw: yeah. i sat in that office with those sandy hook parents. i've become friends with school shooters. i've seen it. look, the nra. i was the nra guy for a long time. they used to teach gun safety. i'm of an age where my shotgun was in my car so i could pheasant hunt after football practice. that's not where we live today. and several things i want to mention on this is talking about cities and where it's at. the number one, where the most firearm deaths happen in minnesota are rural suicides. and we have an epidemic of children getting guns and shooting themselves. and so we have, and we should look at all of the issues, making sure folks have healthcare and all that. but i want to be very careful. this idea of stigmatizing mental health, just because you have a mental health issue doesn't mean you're violent. and i think what we end up doing is we start looking for a scapegoat. sometimes it just is the guns. it's just the guns. and there are things that you can do about it. but i do think that this is one, and i think this is a healthy conversation. i think there's a capacity to find solutions on this that work, protect second amendment, protect our children. that's our priority. no: gentlemen, thank you. margaret. mb: thank you, norah. let's turn now to the top contributor to inflation, the high cost of housing and rent. there's a shortage of more than 4 million homes in the united states and this contributes to the high housing crisis. governor walz, the harris campaign promises a $25,000 down payment assistance for first time homebuyers and a $10,000 tax credit. they also promise to build 3 million new homes. where are you building these new homes and won't handing out that kind of money just drive up prices higher? tw: no, it's not handing out. first, let me say this, this issue of housing. and i think those of you listening on this. the problem we've had is that we've got a lot of folks that see housing as another commodity. it can be bought up. it can be shifted. it can be moved around. those are not folks living in those houses. those of you listening tonight, that house is a big deal. i bought and owned one house in my life. my mom still lives in the house where i was. and when i think of a house, i'm thinking of christmas services after midnight mass, where you go with your family. we need to make it more affordable. and one of the things, as i said, this program that the vice president is pushing forward and bringing a new way of approaching. this is something we're doing in minnesota from that lead. we in the state invested in making sure our housing was the biggest investment that we'd ever made in housing. it starts to make it easier. we cut some of the red tape. local folks, look, we can't do at the federal level, but local folks make it easier to build those homes. and then that down payment assistance. i can tell all of you out there, one of the, certainly for me, using the gi bill was one thing, but a veteran's home loan, the big thing about a veteran's home loan is you don't have to pay the down payment. those are things that make it there. now, look, you're going to pay it back and you're going to pay your mortgage. those are things that we know in the long run, the appreciated value, the generational wealth that's created from it. and i will give minneapolis an example. minneapolis is the one city where we've seen the lowest inflation rates. we've seen a 12% increase in stock because we put some of these things in. and we're implementing a state program to make sure we give some of that down payment assistance. we get it back from people, because here's what we know. people with stable housing end up with stable jobs. people with stable housing have their kids able to get to school. all of those things in the long run, end up saving our money. and that's the thing that i think we should be able to find some common ground in. but we can't blame immigrants for the only reason that's not the case that's happening in many cities. the fact of the matter is, is that we don't have enough naturally affordable housing, but we can make sure that the government's there to help kickstart it, create that, create that base. mb: governor, your time is up. senator vance, as far as your campaign's position, the promise is to seize federal lands to build homes, remove regulation, provide tax breaks, and cut back on immigration, which you say pushes up prices. where are you going to build all the new homes you're promising? and what part of any of this plan will provide immediate relief? you have two minutes. jdv: well, first of all, tim just said something that i agree with. we don't want to blame immigrants for higher housing prices. but we do want to blame kamala harris for letting in millions of illegal aliens into this country… tw: pass the bill. jdv: …which does drive up costs, tim. twenty five million illegal aliens competing with americans for scarce homes is one of the most significant drivers of home prices in the country. it's why we have massive increases in home prices that have happened right alongside massive increases in illegal alien, alien populations under kamala harris's leadership. now, tim just mentioned a bunch of ideas. now, some of those ideas i actually think are halfway decent, and some of them i disagree with. but the most important thing here is kamala harris is not running as a newcomer to politics. she is the sitting vice president. if she wants to enact all of these policies to make housing more affordable, i invite her to use the office that the american people already gave her, not sit around and campaign and do nothing while americans find the american dream of home ownership completely unaffordable. now, you asked margaret what would immediately change the equation for american citizens? if you lower energy prices. as donald trump says, "drill, baby, drill." one of the biggest drivers of housing costs, aside from illegal immigration, is think about it: if a truck driver is paying 40% more for diesel, then the lumber he's delivering to the job site to build the house is also going to become a lot more expensive. if we open up american energy, you will get immediate pricing release, relief, for american citizens, not, by the way, just in housing, but in a whole host of other economic goods too. mb: senator vance, you still have 23 seconds there. do you want to answer? tw: can i have it? mb: where, governor, we will get to you in a moment. but, senator, where are you going to seize the federal lands. can you clarify? jdv: well, what donald trump has said is we have a lot of federal lands that aren't being used for anything. they're not being used for national parks. they're not being used. and they could be places where we build a lot of housing. and i do think that we should be opening up building in this country. we have a lot of land that could be used. we have a lot of americans that need homes. we should be kicking out illegal immigrants who are competing for those homes, and we should be building more homes for the american citizens who deserve to be here. mb: senator, your time is up. governor, i do want to let you respond to the allegation that the vice president is letting in migrants tw: well, of course, that's not true. and again, you have the facts. i guess we agreed not to fact check. i'll check it. that, look, crossings are down compared to when donald trump left office. but it's, again, blaming and not trying to find the solution. i was going to ask, though, on this question, are we going to drill and build houses in the same federal land. and i think when people hear federal lands, these are really important pieces of land. now, minnesota doesn't have a lot of federal lands. i know in the western part of the countries we do. there's not a lot of federal lands in and around minneapolis, for example. so the issue is, i don't understand the federal lands issue unless we see this. and i worry about this as someone who cares deeply about our national parks and our federal lands. look, minnesota, we protect these things. we've got about 20% of the world's fresh water. these lands protect. they're there for a reason. they belong to all of us. but again, this is when you view housing and you view these things as commodities, like there's a chance to make money here. let's take this federal land and let's sell it to people for that. i think there's better ways to do this. we've seen it in minnesota. we're able to refurbish some of these houses. we're able to make some investments, that gets people in. and i'm still on the fact, on this, economist, senator vance, you said you don't like the economist, which economists are saying that it is immigrants that's adding to the cost. mb: governor, governor, your time is, your time is up. tw: sorry. mb: but, senator, on that point, i'd like for you to clarify. there are many contributing factors to high housing costs. what evidence do you have that migrants are part of this problem? jdv: well, there's a federal reserve study that we're happy to share after the debate. we'll put it up on social media. actually, that really drills down on the connection between increased levels of migration, especially illegal immigration, and higher housing prices. now, of course, margaret, that's not the entire driver of higher housing prices. it's also the regulatory regime of kamala harris. look, we are a country of builders. we're a country of doers. we're a country of explorers. but we increasingly have a federal administration that makes it harder to develop our resources, makes it harder to build things, and wants to throw people in jail for not doing everything exactly as kamala harris says that they have to do. and what that means is that you have a lot of people who would love to build homes who aren't able to build homes. i actually agree with tim walz. we should get out of this idea of housing as a commodity. but the thing that has most turned housing into a commodity is giving it away to millions upon millions of people who have no legal right to be here. tw: what are the federal regulations? i deal with this as a governor. mb: you can very quickly reply. tw: i'm sorry. i get this as a governor, and i don't necessarily disagree with that, that in some cases, many of those are local, many of them are state. i don't know which ones are federal, but i think whenever we talk regulations, people think they can get rid of them. i think you want to be able to get out of your house in a fire. i think you want to make sure that it's fireproof and those types of things. so which are the regulations? because the vice president's not responsible for those. congress writes those. mb: governor, thank you, gentlemen. we have a lot to get through. you're passionate about the housing crisis. i can tell. but norah? no: thank you. one of the top problems facing americans is the high cost of health care. senator vance, at the last presidential debate, former president trump was asked about replacing the affordable care act. in response, he said, i have concepts of a plan. since then, senator, you've talked about changing how chronically ill americans get health insurance. can you explain how that would work? and can you guarantee that americans with pre existing conditions won't pay more? i'll give you two minutes. jdv: well, of course, we're going to cover americans with pre existing conditions. in fact, a lot of my family members have gotten health care, i believe, you know, members of my family actually got private health insurance, at least, for the first time, switched off of medicaid onto private insurance for the first time, under donald trump's leadership. and i think that, you know, a lot of people have criticized this "concepts of a plan" remark. i think it's very simple common sense. i think, as tim walz knows from twelve years in congress, you're not going to propose a 900 page bill standing on a debate stage. it would bore everybody to tears and it wouldn't actually mean anything because part of this is the give and take of bipartisan negotiation. now, when donald trump was actually president, and again, he has a record to be proud of, prescription drugs fell in 2018 for the first time in a very long time. under kamala harris's leadership, prescription drugs are up about 7%. under donald trump's entire four years, they were up about one and a half percent. he introduced pricing transparency. think about healthcare. you go into a hospital, you try to buy something, and nobody knows what it actually costs. that price transparency will actually give american consumers a little bit more choice and will also drive down costs. and we talked about, you know, the reinsurance regulations is what i was talking about. look, donald trump has said that if we allow states to experiment a little bit on how to cover both the chronically ill, but the non chronically ill. it's not just a plan. he actually implemented some of these regulations when he was president of the united states. and i think you can make a really good argument that it salvaged obamacare, which was doing disastrously until donald trump came along. i think this is an important point about president trump. of course, you don't have to agree with everything that president trump has ever said or ever done, but when obamacare was crushing under the weight of its own regulatory burden and healthcare costs, donald trump could have destroyed the program. instead, he worked in a bipartisan way to ensure that americans had access to affordable care. it's not perfect, of course, and there's so much more that we can do. but i think that donald trump has earned the right to put in place some better healthcare policies. he's earned it because he did it successfully the first time. no: governor. tw: all right, here's where being an old guy gives you some history. i was there at the creation of the aca, and the reason it was so important is i come from a major healthcare state, home of the mayo clinic, home to medical alley, 3m, medtronic, all of those. we understand healthcare. it's why we're ranked first on affordability and accessibility and quality of health care. and so what i know is under kamala harris, more people are covered than they have before. those of you listening, this is critical to you. now, donald trump all of a sudden wants you… go back and remember this. he ran on, the first thing he was going to do on day one, was to repeal obamacare. on day one, he tried to sign an executive order to repeal the aca. he signed onto a lawsuit to repeal the aca, but lost at the supreme court. and he would have repealed the aca had it not been for the courage of john mccain to save that bill. now fast forward. what that means to you is you lose your pre existing conditions if you're sitting at home and you got asthma, too bad. if you're a woman, probably not. broke your foot during football, might kick you out. your kids get kicked out when they're 26. kamala harris negotiated drug prices for the first time with medicare. we have ten drugs that will come online, the most common ones that'll be there. but look, this issue, and when donald trump said, "i've got a concept of a plan," it cracked me up as a fourth grade teacher because my kids would have never given me that. but what senator vance just explained might be worse than a concept, because what he explained is pre obamacare. and i'll make this as simple as possible because i have done this for a long time. what they're saying is if you're healthy, why should you be paying more? so what they're going to do is let insurance companies pick who they insure. because guess what happens? you pay your premium. it's not much. they figure they're not going to have to pay out to you. but those of you a little older, gray, you know, got cancer? you're going to get kicked out of it. that's why the system didn't work. kamala harris will protect and enhance the aca. no: governor, thank you. senator, you have not yet explained how you would protect people with preexisting conditions, or laid out that plan. jdv: well, look, we currently have laws and regulations in place, in place right now that protect people with preexisting conditions. we want to keep those regulations in place, but we also want to make the health insurance marketplace function a little bit better. now, what governor walz just said is actually not true. a lot of what happened and the reason that obamacare was crushing under its own weight is that a lot of young and healthy people were leaving the exchanges. donald trump actually helped address that problem, and he did so in a way that preserved people's access to coverage who had preexisting conditions. but again, something that these guys do, is they make a lot of claims about if donald trump becomes president, all of these terrible consequences are going to ensue. but in reality, donald trump was president. inflation was low, take home pay was higher, and he saved the very program from a democratic administration that was collapsing and would have collapsed absent his leadership. he did his job, which is govern in a bipartisan way and get results, not just complain about problems, but actually solve them. no: governor, did enrollment under the affordable care act go up under the trump administration? tw: it's higher now that we've seen it go up. look, people are using it. the system works. and the question about this of young people or whatever, that's the individual mandate piece of this. and republicans fought tooth and nail, saying, well, americans should be free to do this. well, then what happens? jdv: you think the individual mandate's a good idea? tw: i think the idea of making sure the risk pool is broad enough to cover everyone, that's the only way insurance works. when it doesn't, it collapses. you are asking pre aca where we get people out. look, people know that they need to be on healthcare. people expect it to be there. and when we are able to make it, and we are making it this way, when we incentivize people to be in the market, when we help people who might not be able to afford it get there, and we make sure then when you get sick and old, it's there for you. because i heard people say, well, i don't want to buy into medicare or whatever. good luck buying healthcare once you get past 70. so look, the aca works. we can continue to do better. kamala harris did that. the way she made everything better was negotiating those ten drugs on medicare for the first time in american history. no: thank you. margaret? jdv: can i address that? no: we're, i apologize. we're out of time. we have a number of subjects to discuss. margaret? mb: let's talk about families in america. there is a childcare crisis in this country, and the united states is one of the very few developed countries in the world without a national paid leave program for new parents. governor walz, you said that if democrats win both the white house and congress, this is a day one priority for you. how long should employers be required to pay workers while they are home taking care of their newborns? you have two minutes. tw: yeah, well, that's negotiable. and that's what congress worked. but here's what the deal is. americans sitting out there right now, you may work for a big company. look, we're home in minnesota to some of the largest fortune 500 companies. kamala harris knows that in california. those companies provide paid family medical leave. one is, i think they're moral and they think it's a good thing, but it also keeps their employees healthy. we in minnesota passed a paid family medical leave. you have a child. you, and i had to go back to work five days after my kids were born. this allows you to stay home a certain amount of time. what we know is that gets the child off to a better start. the family works better. we stay in their employers. we get more consistency in that. so kamala harris has made it a priority. we implemented it in minnesota, and we see growth. that's how you become a pro business state. but the negotiations on it, and here's the issue, those big companies are able to offer it. those of you out there who don't have it, just imagine what happens if you get cancer or your child gets sick. we know what happens. you end up staying home. in some places, that means no paycheck, because you've got no protection on that. this is the case of an economy that donald trump has set for the wealthiest amongst us. he's willing to give those tax breaks to the wealthiest, he's willing to say, "bust those unions up. do whatever." what we're saying is the economy works best when it works for all of us. and so a paid family medical leave program, and i will tell you, go to the families or go to the businesses and ask them. as far as childcare on this, you have to take it at both the supply and the demand side. you can't expect the most important people in our lives to take care of our children or our parents, to get paid the least amount of money. and we have to make it easier for folks to be able to get into that business and then to make sure that folks are able to pay for that. we were able to do it in minnesota, and i'm still telling you this, we were listed as the best state. we're still in crisis on this. a federal program of paid family medical leave and help with this will enhance our workforce, enhance our families, and make it easier to have the children that you want. mb: governor, your time is up. senator, do you support a national paid leave program? and if so, for how long should employers be mandated to pay their employees while they are home taking care of their newborn? you have two minutes. jdv: yeah. well, first of all, margaret, a number of my republican colleagues and some democrats, too, have worked on this issue, and i think there is a bipartisan solution here because a lot of us care about this issue. i mean, look, i speak from this very personally because i'm married to a beautiful woman who is an incredible mother to our three beautiful kids, but is also a very, very brilliant corporate litigator, and i'm so proud of her. but being a working mom, even for somebody with all of the advantages of my wife, is extraordinarily difficult. and it's not just difficult from a policy perspective. she actually had access to paid family leave because she worked for a bigger company. but the cultural pressure on young families, and especially young women, i think, makes it really hard for people to choose the family model they want. a lot of young women would like to go back to work immediately. some would like to spend a little time home with the kids. some would like to spend longer at home with the kids. we should have a family care model that makes choice possible. and i think this is a very important substantive difference between donald trump and kamala harris's approach. i mean, look, if you look at the federal programs that we have that support paid family leave right now, the community development block grant, and there's another block grant program that spends a lot of money from the federal government. these programs only go to one kind of childcare model. let's say you'd like your church, maybe, to help you out with child care. maybe you live in a rural area or an urban area, and you'd like to get together with families in your neighborhood to provide childcare in the way that makes the most sense. you don't get access to any of these federal monies. we want to promote choice in how we deliver family care and how we promote childcare because, look, it is unacceptable. and, you know, of course, tim and i have been on the campaign trail a lot the past seven or eight weeks. and one of the biggest complaints i hear from young families is people who feel like they don't have options, like they're choosing between going to work or taking care for their kids. that is an incredible burden to put on american families. we're the only country that does it. i think we could do a heck of a lot better. mb: senator, thank you. you have also said, senator vance, many things about the american family. the federal reserve says parents will spend nearly as much on childcare as they do on housing each month. so i want to get your thoughts on this. president trump recently said, as much as child care is talked about as being expensive, it's, relatively speaking, not very expensive compared to the kinds of numbers we'll be taking in. is president trump committed to the $5,000 per child tax credit that you have described? you have 1 minute. jdv: well, what president trump said, margaret, i just want to defend my running mate here a little bit, is that we're going to be taking in a lot of money by penalizing companies for shipping jobs overseas and penalizing countries who employ slave laborers and then ship their products back into our country and undercut the wages of american workers. it's the heart of the donald trump economic plan. cut taxes for american workers and american families. cut taxes for businesses that are hiring and building companies in the united states of america. but penalize companies and countries that are shipping jobs overseas. that's the heart of the economic proposal. and i think what president trump is saying is that when we bring in this additional revenue with higher economic growth, we're going to be able to provide paid family leave, childcare options that are viable and workable for a lot of american families. mb: can you clarify how that will solve the childcare shortage? jdv: well, because, as tim said, a lot of the childcare shortages, we just don't have enough resources going into the multiple people who could be providing family care options. and we're going to have to, unfortunately, look, we're going to have to spend more money. we're going to have to induce more people to want to provide child care options for american families because the reason it's so expensive right now is because you've got way too few people providing this very essential service. mb: thank you, senator. governor walz, your ticket also has some childcare tax credit proposals. do you think congress will agree to the $6,000 credit for newborns and $3,000 credit for children over the age of six, as your campaign has promised? is that realistic? tw: well, well, if these members of congress are listening to anybody, i can tell you, and this is the biggest issue everybody listening tonight knows. i mean, i'm sure they were shocked to hear it's not that expensive. and let's be clear whether it's $5000 or $6000, that pays you about three or four months. let's be clear of where we're at on this. it's because we got out of an imbalance on this. we thought we were going to get by by not paying people. i don't think senator vance and i are that far apart. i'm not opposed to what he's talking about on options. we've done scholarships, types of things. i think we need to be open to making the case. but the issue here is, the question you asked is you're not going to pay for it with these tariffs. that's just adding another $4,000 on the family and taking less. so not only do they not get the money to pay for that, they're $4,000 in the hole. that's wharton school. that's his alma mater. and so i think the issue here is those members of congress, i can't believe they're not here. when i go to businesses, sure, they'll talk about taxes sometimes. but they will lead with childcare and they will lead with housing, because we know the problem is, especially in a state like minnesota, we need more workers because our economy is growing, but we need the workforce. mb: governor, thank you. we need to move on. norah? no: let's talk about the state of democracy, the top issue for americans after the economy and inflation. after the 2020 election, president trump's campaign and others filed 62 lawsuits contesting the results. judges, including those appointed by president trump and other republican presidents looked at the evidence and said there was no widespread fraud. the governors of every state in the nation, republicans and democrats, certified the 2020 election results and sent a legal slate of electors to congress for january 6th. senator vance, you have said you would not have certified the last presidential election and would have asked the states to submit alternative electors. that has been called unconstitutional and illegal. would you again seek to challenge this year's election results, even if every governor certifies the results? i'll give you two minutes. jdv: well, norah, first of all, i think that we're focused on the future. we need to figure out how to solve the inflation crisis caused by kamala harris's policies. make housing affordable, make groceries affordable, and that's what we're focused on. but i want to answer your question because you did ask it. look, what president trump has said is that there were problems in 2020. and my own belief is that we should fight about those issues, debate those issues peacefully in the public square. and that's all i've said. and that's all that donald trump has said. remember, he said that on january 6th, the protesters ought to protest peacefully. and on january 20th, what happened? joe biden became the president. donald trump left the white house. and now, of course, unfortunately, we have all of the negative policies that have come from the harris biden administration. i believe that we actually do have a threat to democracy in this country, but unfortunately, it's not the threat to democracy that kamala harris and tim walz want to talk about. it is the threat of censorship. it's americans casting aside lifelong friendships because of disagreements over politics. it's big technology companies silencing their fellow citizens. and it's kamala harris saying that rather than debate and persuade her fellow americans, she'd like to censor people who engage in misinformation. i think that is a much bigger threat to democracy than anything that we've seen in this country in the last four years, in the last 40 years. now i'm really proud, especially given that i was raised by two lifelong blue collar democrats to have the endorsement of bobby kennedy jr. and tulsi gabbard, lifelong leaders in the democratic coalition. and of course, they don't agree with me and donald trump on every issue. we don't have to agree on every issue, but we're united behind a basic american first amendment principle that we ought to debate our differences. we ought to argue about them. we ought to try to persuade our fellow americans. kamala harris is engaged in censorship at an industrial scale. she did it during covid, she's done it over a number of other issues. and that, to me, is a much bigger threat to democracy than what donald trump said when he said that protesters should peacefully protest on january 6th. mb: governor. tw: well, i've enjoyed tonight's debate, and i think there was a lot of commonality here. and i'm sympathetic to misspeaking on things. and i think i might have with the senator, but… jdv: me too, man. tw: there's one, there's one, though, that this one is troubling to me. and i say that because i think we need to tell the story. donald trump refused to acknowledge this. and the fact is, is that i don't think we can be the frog in the pot and let the boiling water go up. he was very clear. i mean, he lost this election, and he said he didn't. one hundred and forty police officers were beaten at the capitol that day, some with the american flag. several later died. and it wasn't just in there. in minnesota, a group gathered on the state capitol grounds in st. paul and said we're marching to the governor's residence and there may be casualties. the only person there was my son and his dog, who was rushed out crying by state police. that issue. and mike pence standing there as they were chanting, hang mike pence. mike pence made the right decision. so, senator, it was adjudicated over and over and over. i worked with kids long enough to know, and i said, as a football coach, sometimes you really want to win, but the democracy is bigger than winning an election. you shake hands and then you try and do everything you can to help the other side win. that's, that's what was at stake here. now, the thing i'm most concerned about is the idea that imprisoning your political opponents already laying the groundwork for people not accepting this. and a president's words matter. a president's words matter. people hear that. so i think this issue of settling our differences at the ballot box, shaking hands when we lose, being honest about it, but to deny what happened on january 6, the first time in american history that a president or anyone tried to overturn a fair election and the peaceful transfer of power. and here we are four years later in the same boat. i will tell you this, that when this is over, we need to shake hands, this election, and the winner needs to be the winner. this has got to stop. it's tearing our country apart. no: margaret. mb: senator vance, did you want to respond to that? jdv: yeah, well, look, tim, first of all, it's really rich for democratic leaders to say that donald trump is a unique threat to democracy when he peacefully gave over power on january the 20th, as we have done for 250 years in this country. we are going to shake hands after this debate and after this election. and of course, i hope that we win, and i think we're going to win. but if tim walz is the next vice president, he'll have my prayers, he'll have my best wishes, and he'll have my help whenever he wants it. but we have to remember that for years in this country, democrats protested the results of elections. hillary clinton in 2016 said that donald trump had the election stolen by vladimir putin because the russians bought, like, $500,000 worth of facebook ads. this has been going on for a long time. and if we want to say that we need to respect the results of the election, i'm on board. but if we want to say, as tim walz is saying, that this is just a problem that republicans have had. i don't buy that. no: governor. tw: january 6th was not facebook ads. and i think a revisionist history on this. look, i don't understand how we got to this point, but the issue was that happened. donald trump can even do it. and all of us say there's no place for this. it has massive repercussions. this idea that there's censorship to stop people from doing, threatening to kill someone, threatening to do something, that's not censorship. censorship is book banning. we've seen that. we've seen that brought up. i just think for everyone tonight, and i'm going to thank senator vance. i think this is the conversation they want to hear, and i think there's a lot of agreement. but this is one that we are miles apart on. this was a threat to our democracy in a way that we had not seen. and it manifested itself because of donald trump's inability to say, he is still saying he didn't lose the election. i would just ask that. did he lose the 2020 election? jdv: tim, i'm focused on the future. did kamala harris censor americans from speaking their mind in the wake of the 2020 covid situation? tw: that is a damning. that is a damning non answer. jdv: it's a damning non answer for you to not talk about censorship. obviously, donald trump and i think that there were problems in 2020. we've talked about it. i'm happy to talk about it further. but you guys attack us for not believing in democracy. the most sacred right under the united states democracy is the first amendment. you yourself have said there's no first amendment right to misinformation. kamala harris wants to use the power of government and big tech to silence people from speaking their minds. that is a threat to democracy that will long outlive this present political moment. i would like democrats and republicans to both reject censorship. let's persuade one another. let's argue about ideas, and then let's come together afterwards. tw: you can't yell fire in a crowded theater. that's the test. that's the supreme court test. jdv: tim. fire in a crowded theater. you guys wanted to kick people off of facebook for saying that toddlers should not wear masks. no: senator, the governor does have the floor. tw: sorry. jdv: that's not fire in a crowded theater. that is criticizing the policies of the government, which is the right of every american. no: senator, the governor does have the floor for 1 minute to respond to you. tw: please. yeah, well, i don't run facebook. what i do know is i see a candidate out there who refused, and now again. and this, i'm pretty shocked by this. he lost the election. this is not a debate. it's not anything anywhere other than in donald trump's world, because, look, when mike pence made that decision to certify that election, that's why mike pence isn't on this stage. what i'm concerned about is where is the firewall with donald trump? where is the firewall if he knows he could do anything, including taking an election and his vice president's not going to stand to it. that's what we're asking you, america. will you stand up? will you keep your oath of office even if the president doesn't? and i think kamala harris would agree. she wouldn't have picked me if she didn't think i would do that because, of course, that's what we would do. so, america, i think you've got a really clear choice on this election of who's going to honor that democracy and who's going to honor donald trump. mb: governor, your time is up. thank you, gentlemen. we will be right back with both of our candidates. the cb's news vice presidential debate continues. segment 3 no: welcome back to the cbs news vice presidential debate. it is now time for the closing statement. senator vance won the virtual coin toss and elected to go last. so, governor walz, you are first. you have two minutes. tw: well, thank you, senator vance. thank you to cbs news. and most importantly, thank you to all of you. if you're still up and the folks who miss dancing with the stars, i appreciate it. but look, the support of the democracy matters. it matters that you're here. and i'm as surprised as anybody of this coalition that kamala harris has built. from bernie sanders to dick cheney to taylor swift and a whole bunch of folks in between there. and they don't all agree on everything, but they are truly optimistic people. they believe in a positive future of this country. and one where our politics can be better than it is. and i have to tell you that, that better than it is is the sense of optimism that there can be an opportunity economy that works for everyone, not just to get by, but to get ahead. and the idea that freedom really means something. not the freedom of government to be in your bedroom or exam room, but the freedom for you to make choices about yourself. now, look, we all know who donald trump is. he's told us. and as maya angelou said, "believe him when he told you that." his first inaugural address talked about american carnage and then he spent four years trying to maybe do that. senator vance tonight made it clear he will stand with donald trump's agenda. he will continue to push down that road. excuse me. kamala harris gives us a different option. now, i have to tell you, i'm going to be careful about the quotes, but there's one that senator vance said that does resonate with me. he said, "donald trump makes the people i care about afraid." a lot of america feels that way. we don't need to be afraid. franklin roosevelt was right. "all we have to fear is fear itself." kamala harris is bringing us a new way forward. she's bringing us a politics of joy. she's bringing real solutions for the middle class. and she's centering you at the heart of that, all the while asking everyone, "join this movement. make your voices heard. let's look for a new day where everybody gets that opportunity and everybody gets a chance to thrive." i humbly ask for your vote on november 5 for kamala harris. mb: governor walz. thank you. senator vance, your closing statement. jdv: well, i want to thank governor walz, you folks at cbs and, of course, the american people for tuning in this evening. and one of the issues we didn't talk about was energy. and i remember when i was being raised by my grandmother, when she didn't have enough money to turn on the heat some nights because ohio gets pretty cold at night and because money was often very tight. and i believe, as a person who wants to be your next vice president, that we are a rich and prosperous enough country where every american, whether they're rich or poor, ought to be able to turn on their heat in the middle of a cold winter night. that's gotten more difficult thanks to kamala harris's energy policies. i believe that whether you're rich or poor, you ought to be able to afford a nice meal for your family. that's gotten harder because of kamala harris's policies. i believe that whether you're rich or poor you ought to be able to afford to buy a house. you ought to be able to live in safe neighborhoods. you ought to not have your communities flooded with fentanyl. and that, too, has gotten harder with kamala, because of kamala harris's policies. now, i've been in politics long enough to do what kamala harris does when she stands before the american people and says that on day one she's gonna work on all these challenges i just listed. she's been the vice president for three and a half years. day one was 1400 days ago. and her policies have made these problems worse. now i believe that we have the most beautiful country in the world. i meet people on the campaign trail who can't afford food, but have the grace and generosity to ask me how i'm doing and to tell me they're praying for my family. what that has taught me is that we have the greatest country, the most beautiful country, the most incredible people anywhere in the world. but they're not going to be able to achieve their full dreams with the broken leadership that we have in washington. they're not going to be able to live their american dream if we do the same thing that we've been doing for the last three and a half years. we need change. we need a new direction. we need a president who has already done this once before and did it well. please vote for donald trump. and whether you vote for me or vote for tim walz, i just want to say i'm so proud to be doing this, and i'm rooting for you. god bless you and good night. mb: senator vance, thank you. and thank you both for participating in the only vice presidential debate of this election cycle. i'm margaret brennan. no: and i'm norah o'donnell. and a reminder, there are just 35 days until election day. please get out and vote. and for all of us here at cbs news, thank you. stefan becket is a managing editor of politics for cbsnews.com. stefan has covered national politics for more than a decade and helps oversee a team covering the white house, congress, the supreme court, immigration and federal law enforcement. © 2024 cbs interactive inc. all rights reserved. copyright ©2025 cbs interactive inc. all rights reserved.

trump administration newsletter i asked again how you’re feeling about the debate. you responded with new worries and hopes. by jess bidgood for beth anne riches of south bend, ind., the presidential debate tonight between vice president kamala harris and former president donald trump can’t come soon enough. “i want to see the prosecutor come out and get under the former guy’s skin,” riches, 62, said. “i think i’ll fix myself a nice cocktail (or two) and enjoy watching him lose his cool.” in anacortes, wash., shay schual berke, 72, a former democratic state lawmaker, is so excited about the debate that she and fellow members of a progressive group she’s part of decided to turn their regular monthly meeting tonight into a watch party with popcorn and cookies. and in san luis obispo, calif., patricia harris was feeling confident that harris would “eviscerate” trump   and avenge hillary clinton while she’s at it. “i know the kinds of hopes that are riding on her because i’ve heard it expressed over and over,” harris, 76, a former chair of her county’s democratic party who is part of a facebook group that has raised money for the vice president, said. “i just hope for the collective psyche of the nation that she really does deliver.” last week, i asked you all how you were feeling about this debate, reprising a question i asked ahead of the fateful meeting between trump and president biden in june. back then, i heard from confident supporters of trump   and a flood of biden supporters who were practically hiding under the bed with worry.

the first presidential debate left many americans feeling frustrated and disheartened. on a special episode of turning outward together, rich harwood discusses how we can find hope after last night's presidential debate fiasco. rich covers the opportunity before us all, and 4 steps you can take to reimagine and recreate where we can go, together. transcript: 0:01 hi, i'm rich harwood. welcome to a special edition of turning outward together. good to have you. good to have you with me. how do we find hope after last night's fiasco at that presidential debate? i don't know if you watched it, but maybe a better way to say it is how do we how do we create hope? did you get a chance to watch it? and if you did, i'm wondering, how did you feel as you were watching it? how did you feel about yourself? how did you feel about ourselves? how did you feel about our country? how did you feel about our shared future? you know, about 15 minutes, maybe less? maybe 10 minutes into into the debate. i got a text from my from my 30 year old daughter who lives in richmond, virginia. and it just said, are you watching dad? i texted her back, yes. and i got another text back which read. i don't think i can watch anymore. i don't think i can watch anymore. and i suspect that so many of you so many of us, i know myself included, felt as though we couldn't watch anymore. and so many people probably like my daughter chose to turn off the television because it was just so frustrating. it was just so frustrating. but you know, i watched the whole damn thing from beginning to end. and then i watched the commentary afterward. it was a long night. i'm exhausted this morning. but i felt that i needed to watch it. i felt disgusted. i felt deflated. i felt enraged. as i watched it, i felt angry. i felt incredibly ashamed. that, that this is what's going on in our country today. you know, i'll say this once i don't like to criticize a sitting president something that in my 30 years of doing this work i've avoided. but i will say this about our current president. he hijacked that debate last night to save his reelection chances to save his own butt. and he did it without any care or affection for our nation, or our people. it's the most damning thing i can say about a president he even when asked by the moderator, chris wallace, when asked to denounce white supremacy, and the group proud boys, here's what he said. and i'm sure you've seen the clips and read the newspaper articles. he said, you know, they should stand back. and then in the very same breath, he said and stand by. what the hell does that mean? standby. standby for what? standby for whom? standby to do what? the folks, the proud boys love what the president said so much that they took this new slogan, stand back and stand by and integrated it into their logo. let me be clear. and i hope you share this and i know you share this. there is no room in our nation, in our communities in our lives, for hatred for bigotry for discrimination. there is no room. there is zero room. there is zero tolerance, there ought to be zero tolerance for it there isn't. and on that stage last night there wasn't. 4:17 but there must be in our nation. and so we suffered last night. we suffered let's be clear. we all suffered. our democracy suffered. the people in our nation suffered the people who are hurting suffered. and everything that this institute and that i stand for happened last night that were against the kind of bigotry the hatred, the bullying. the attacks, the undermining of a debate, the inability for people to hear what different candidates believe the future of our country ought to be, i stand against everything that happened last night. and i condemn it. i condemn it. now, a columnist said today, the headline was that our nation is in irredeemable darkness, irredeemable darkness. these are dark times. these are dark times, but i have to disagree with the columnists. i believe we are redeemable. i believe we can redeem ourselves, we must redeem ourselves. and here's my point today, we will redeem ourselves as a people. and as a nation. on my speaking tour last year, about my new book stepping forward, i went to about 20 communities in just four months or so. and in the first few minutes of every speech, i would say, we do not have to accept what's happening in our country today. we do not have to accept what's happening in our country today, we have a choice. in the last six months, i still believe even more, that we don't have to accept what's happening in our country today. and let me say, after last night, i'll be damned if we accept what's happening in our country. today, we face four crises, four simultaneous crises in our nation that we need to address. we face a public health pandemic covid 19 that has killed over 200,000 americans infected millions and many more are going to die before this is all over. and this pandemic has laid bare the inequities and disparities in our nation for all of us to see. this pandemic has hit brown and black people, disproportionately poor people, disproportionately people with mental health illness. it's a crime, it's a sin. we need to do something about it. we face an economic crisis as a result of this pandemic that is wreaking havoc on our country. so many small businesses and nonprofits have had to close people who have invested their entire lives and life savings have seen a damaged because we have not addressed this pandemic. so many people have lost their jobs and are unemployed. so many people are afraid of becoming unemployed. so many communities’ downtowns have been hollowed out. and they fear that they will not rebound. we face a crisis of systemic racism and social injustice. now, let's be clear. this crisis has been with us since before the founding of our nation is part of our original sin. but it has been crystallized for all of us to see on videos and on television, with the murder of george floyd and others. 8:02 we can no longer turn away and turn our backs. we must engage with this issue with these issues, and find a way to make a more equitable, fair and just society and we face a crisis a political crisis in our country, a crisis that i've been writing about for over 30 years now, it didn't just happen with this president or this congress. what's happened in the last four years or eight years or whatever it may be. it has been coming for a long time, people have lost faith in their leaders. they've lost faith in their institutions. they've lost faith in religious institutions. we have lost faith in one another. in this political crisis, well, we need our politics in order to come together and solve our problems. but here's the thing. here's the thing, we have an opportunity today, and this is what i want to underscore is mad and as angry as i am today. what i really want to underscore is the opportunity that you and i and all of us have together. notwithstanding the fiasco that happened last night, we still face an opportunity and it is this. we have the opportunity to reimagine and recreate our lives to reimagine and recreate our communities to reimagine and recreate this nation. we have the opportunity to begin a new to begin a new, we ought not to be talking about how to fix our problems. we need to talk about how to recreate and reimagine who we are and who we can become and how we're going to create a path to get there. now, some of you answered the questionnaire that we sent out back in may and june to frontline civic leaders about what how they were responding to covid 19, to the emerging issues of systemic racism, social injustice that were on the front pages at that time. and here's what people said, among the many answers that they gave us. we asked them, what do you fear, what you fear as we move forward? and people said that amid all the pain and suffering that our nation was experienced, and all the pain and suffering that we are experiencing now, which is much greater than it was some months ago, they said that they fear most of all more than anything…they fear losing this opportunity before us. we don't have to lose this opportunity. we are not in a redeemable darkness, we can redeem ourselves, we can put our nation on a more hopeful, inclusive path, a path that is more equitable, more just more fair, where everyone has an opportunity to fulfill their god given potential, and has a real shot at the american dream. 11:13 we have an opportunity to make a choice to bring out the best in us and the best of us. and just stop bringing out the worst in us and the worst of us. that was last night's fiasco. let's put it behind us. and let's declare today, let's declare today that no matter what happens on that presidential stage for the next two debates, and in this election, that we in our local communities can put this country on a better path, a more hopeful path, where we bring out the best in ourselves and in one another. now, before laying out four steps, i think we need to take to do that i just want to acknowledge something. and that is that we find ourselves today, six months into this pandemic. and these other crises, we find ourselves in a kind of messy middle about what's happening in the country, there is no end in sight to this mess. we don't know when a vaccine is going to come about we don't know when, despite the fact the efforts to reopen schools and colleges and universities and, and sports leagues, we keep reopening them, shutting them back down. we don't know when we're going to get back to lives that we once knew into hopefully a life that we reimagine and recreate together. and so for now, in this messy middle. our lives are in upheaval. our country is an upheaval, our communities are in upheaval, our relationships, many of them are in upheaval. and so i just want to say that i know, i know from continuing to speak to people all across the country, in our work, that some of you are coming today and listening to me today. and you're unhappy. some of you are here today and you are depressed. some of you are here today and you are lonely and feeling alone. some of you are here today and you feel defeated, that we are defeated that maybe you are defeated. some of you feel deflated. some of you feel disgusted. some of you have lost a loved one to this pandemic. others of you fear losing an elderly parent or someone with pre existing conditions. so if you as i've mentioned before, have lost your job, no people who have lost their jobs or fear you will lose your job. and so in this period in this messy middle that we find ourselves in today, we all need you need i need we all need something to be for not simply something to be against. we need something to be for. we want to look to the future. and think about what we can co create together to build a more hopeful, a more inclusive, a more just a more fair, a more equitable society. that's the work we must do. now, yesterday morning, i spent an hour and a half in a regional roundtable, virtual regional roundtable that that we're holding across the country was the third one that we've done. yesterday's was in the southwest with leaders from new mexico and texas and elsewhere. we've done these roundtables in the northeast and the southeast. we have two others coming up. you can go to our website, by the way and still sign up for one. no matter what region you live in, just sign up for one. and the day before the fiasco took place and terms of that debate last night, the same just hours, just hours before that fiasco unfolded. i heard people talk in new mexico and texas in the southwest about their spirit, their common spirit about the good things that they're doing in their community to address these crises that i mentioned before. and so i want to build on their spirit, i want to build on the things that they're doing. i want to build on your spirit and the things that i know that you're doing, and they're happening in your community. and here's what i believe we must do in order to move forward to reimagine and recreate our society. and to begin a new, four things, four things, i hope you're still with me here, four things. the first one is this. there's been a lot written about personal resilience. and i'm a big fan of personal resilience. maybe it's because i grew up as a kid who faced and battled a serious childhood illness. and i learned a lot about personal resilience through that, through that illness. and so i read about it a lot, i think about it a lot. and i've lived it a lot. and as much as we might know about personal resilience, and as strong as our own personal networks may be, they are necessary, but not sufficient to reimagine and recreate our society moving forward. because to do that, to reimagine and recreate our society moving forward, we need shared action, collective action in our communities, beyond ourselves and our own individual lives. i believe that so much of the action that we need must come from our local community. yes, we need change in washington, dc. yes, we need change in our state capitals. but so much of what we need must come from our local communities. why? why because it's in our local communities where we can turn outward toward one another. it's in our local communities where we can see and hear one another. it's in our local communities where we can come together and work together. it's in our local communities where we can restore our belief belief that we can come together and get things done again. it's in our local communities that we can reimagine and recreate our society and begin a new and create a new trajectory for our country. and it's in our local communities when we start to take this action together. that at a time when we are hunkered down and fearful and nervous and apprehensive and anxious. the antidote to those things is to feel a sense of agency. and you feel agency when you step forward and join with others and get in motion and start to take action. it's the greatest antidote to anxiety and apprehension and fear. because in doing so, we realize we are no longer alone. in doing so we realize that we can join together to take action in real life, when in doing so we realize that while we cannot control the world around us, we can shape our future, we can shape our future. and as we do so, as we begin to get in motion and start to take action. we discover new possibilities. and as we do that we discover new partners. and as we do that, we discover new serendipity. and so the first thing is, yes, personal resilience is important. but we need shared action in our local communities, if we want to get on a more hopeful, inclusive, just equitable path. second, second, we must recommit ourselves to the basic ideas of dignity, hope, and community as a common enterprise. let me just talk briefly about these ideas. you may have heard me talk about them before. dignity. i think we like to talk a lot about it these days. everyone likes to talk about it seems to be everywhere. but truth be told, i think we give good lip service to the notion of dignity in our society. we afford people dignity, who look like us we have, we deny it to people whose skin color is different. we often denied to people whose ethnicity is different. we deny to people who hold a different job, we live in a different part of town. we deny to people who speak a different native language than we do even though they're american citizens. we deny to people who have a different heritage or a different history. and it seems to me that if we want to get on a more hopeful path, a more inclusive path where we can reimagine and recreate our society and our communities and begin a new then we need to make dignity a birthright for every single american every single individual regardless of the color of their skin, their color. their ethnicity, where they live, how much money they have, it is non negotiable. it is a human right? not a political right, a human right. and it is at the essence of who we are as human beings, and is required for us to move forward as a better, more equitable society. hope i mentioned hope. now, i've worked on lots of political campaigns. and i know that hope is often used as a campaign slogan, it's on bumper stickers. academics love to write books about hope i've written three or four books myself with the word hope in their title. but here's the thing. hope to me is not some abstract notion. hope, to me is not simply a belief. hope to me is, is defined this way. it's the single mom who has two kids. and what i want to know is, does she have a sense of hope that her two kids can go to a public school tomorrow or learn in a remote pod tomorrow, and that there's a teacher who cares about her two kids, that there are people in that school who care about her two kids, and that her two kids will have a shot at fulfilling their god given potential in this country, and have an equal shot as my kids did at the american dream. hope has to be for everyone, not just for some of us. and lastly, community is a common enterprise. again, we like to talk about community a lot it gives us warm feelings and fuzzies makes us feel good about ourselves. but to me community, what we have a choice is community for some of us, or is community for all of us, is community for those of us who look like us look like you who sound like us? who share our faith, who share the color of our skin, who share our ethnicity, who hold the same economic status, or as community for all of us, will we make room for everyone? and will there be room for everyone? will community be a common enterprise where we are pulling with common cause in a common direction with a sense of common purpose, marshaling our common resources, where we leave no one behind because no one should go on their own. all alone. we either succeed together or we fail together. and it seems to me that we need to make community as a common enterprise as we recreate and reimagine who we are and who we can become, and to begin anew. 22:48 so if the first idea is that personal resilience is necessary, but not sufficient, we need shared action in our local communities. and the second idea is that we need to recommit to dignity, hope and community as a common enterprise. the third idea is this. i just want you to get an image in your mind when i say this. i believe we need to pitch tents in our community tents, tents, where we can come together, where we can join together, not a single tent, but multiple tents throughout our communities. we can join together and figure out how we're going to move forward together, you know, as some of you know, i'm a person of faith and in the bible, abraham had a tent. and as some of you know, abraham's tent was open on all four sides. why? because abraham wanted to welcome anyone who wanted to come into the tent at any time, the stranger, the enemy, those who oppose something he might be doing. and where was abraham standing, he was standing at the edge of the tent, always scouting, looking for people who might be coming. so he could welcome them into the tent. i think we need to pitch tents in our communities that are open on all four sides, so that people can come in. and we can build a culture of shared responsibility for our communities, for ourselves, and for one another. you know, in this new mexico roundtable, one of the things that people said, which i've heard a lot across the country, is that we are innovating more today than maybe at any other time in the last i don't know, decade or two because we've had to, to respond to this pandemic, to respond to kids being out of school to respond to the need to make sure that people who are shut in aren't lonely and alone. we have found ways to practice our faiths without going into our buildings for the most part. we have done all sorts of innovative things. but what they said in new mexico and texas yesterday in this roundtable was instructive. they said, as much as we have been innovating. we are increasingly siloed and fragmented from one another because we don't have places to come together to talk to one another to innovate together to learn together to share together. it doesn't have to be that way. as someone said, the gentleman named joaquin said at the end of that roundtable yesterday, he said some of his colleagues, he said, you know, it's great that the harwood institute convened this roundtable for us here today. but we ought to be convening these roundtables all the time, so that people can come together and share and learn together. in other words, we ought to be creating our own tent. that's what they're doing in clark county, kentucky, where we've been working as partners with folks there 60 organizations virtually have created their own 10 coming together twice a week to figure out how to deal with this covid crisis and how to address systemic issues that are emerging out of it. that's what we need to do in our communities. let's follow the leader clark county, kentucky. let's follow keens lead in new mexico. let's build tents in our communities where we can come together and share ideas and learn together and innovate together and work together and build a culture of shared responsibility together. so again, if the first point is that we need personal resilience, it's necessary, but not sufficient, because we need shared action in our local communities. if the second idea is that we've got to recommit ourselves to the ideas and practices of dignity, hope and communities a common enterprise. and the third idea is that we need to pitch tents in our communities with all four sides open, then the last thing we need to do is that you need to use your civic energy judiciously. one of things i hear from people all across the country, another thing i hear is that we feel this sense of urgency, and we all feel it. and last night made us feel even more that we need to do something we need to improve our society, we need how we need to transform our society. and so we want to get out there and do as much as we can for as many people as we can. we all feel that urge, that sense of urgency. but here's the thing. 27:15 here's the thing, we can't be all things to all people, we have to make choices, we have to decide where we're going to put our energy. and here's the other thing. we can't spend all our civic energy, trying to convince the naysayers and cynics and those who want to be bigots, and practice hatred and discrimination. we can't spend our time trying to convince them of another way. your civic energy is finite, it's not infinite, it's finite. our time here on earth is finite. it's not infinite. and so my suggestion to you my urge to you in your own sense of urgency is a to recognize your civic energy is finite and to be to get in motion and get moving and find people who are ready to roll with you. and as we get moving on a new trajectory of hope. so many of those skeptics will start to join us so many of the people who are fearful to step forward, now they'll step forward with us when they see us step forward. and those bigots and the people who declare hatred, and discriminate, let's run over them. let's just run over them. but it's going to require all of us to get together and start moving with common purpose in a common direction, marshaling our common resources. and that means we've got to us that means you have to use your civic energy judiciously. it's not infinite. it's finite. let's use it well. 28:48 and so let me just say in closing today, that we must know that the opportunity before us today is not to go back to normal. normal wasn't that good for so many americans. in fact, it stunk for a lot of americans. and our task today is not to simply fix problems as if we're trying to put a bandaid on something and put our finger in a hole in the dike. our task today, our task today is bigger, it's bolder, it's more, it's more audacious. it's more vital. and it calls to us it speaks to us. if you just remain silent for a minute you can hear it. it doesn't come in my voice. it comes in your own voice from within yourself. and what it is telling you is that it is time in america to recreate and reimagine our communities to recreate and reimagine ourselves to recreate and reimagine our society. and to make ourselves anew. don't let anyone tell you you you don't have the power to do what you do. and don't let anyone tell you, you don't have the innate capabilities to do it, you do. and furthermore, don't let anyone tell you that your small efforts aren't worthwhile or worthy, or valuable. because each of our efforts large and small, are needed today, they're needed more than ever. we know we're not going to solve all our problems overnight, or even in the next two years or three years. this is a long term human project that we're engaged in, called the american promise, fulfilling the american promise. and to fulfill the american promise, we must work at this. and keep working at this. and keep working at this. and so don't let anyone tell you that your efforts are too small or too inconsequential, because every effort matters, every effort is valuable. everything you do is a contribution. 30:59 and so let me just say that my commitment to you, our institute's commitment to you is to continue to stay focused on helping people step forward, to turn outward toward one another, to generate a new can do narrative and spirit in our country. and to create the conditions where we can build a more hopeful, a more inclusive, a more just, a more equitable, and more fair society, not just for some of us. no, no, no. not just for some of us. but for all of us. we win together, we lose together. let's win together. and let's make this happen. 31:43 so thank you for joining me today. if this message spoke to you, if it resonated with you if it stirred anything in you. i ask you to share it with others. we're trying to build a national network all across the country because we believe we need to come together, join together and create a positive collective force for change in our nation. and so i hope you'll share this message with others go to our website to harwood institute.org, grab a copy of my latest book stepping forward. and i look forward to seeing you again. 32:19 in the meantime, stay in good health. stay in good spirits. don't allow the fiasco last night to deaden your spirits or deflate you. yes, allowed to disgust you. but in your disgust step forward, join with others turn outward. and let's build a more hopeful, inclusive, just equitable and fair society. thanks so much. i'll see you next time. sign up to receive more community resources, tools, and updates! about our missionour founderour teamour partnerscareerscontact usdonate how we work overviewthe harwood approachthe studio on communitycurrent workcommunity initiativesimpact the harwood school overviewpublic innovator labsharwood catalytic guidescircle of catalytic funders resources key resourcesreorienting ideasroadmapsbookspublicationsfor librariesfor australia news & events the newsroomupcoming eventsenough. time to build. campaignharwood summitfor the media © 2024 the harwood institute. all rights reserved.

harris and trump are meeting for the first time on the debate stage. vice president kamala harris and former president donald trump met for their first debate of the 2024 election tuesday night, hosted by abc news. the debate took place in philadelphia at the national constitution center, moderated by "world news tonight" anchor and managing editor david muir and abc news live "prime" anchor linsey davis. below is a partial transcript of the exchange between trump and harris while the debate was ongoing. david muir: tonight, the high stakes showdown here in philadelphia between vice president kamala harris and former president donald trump. their first face to face meeting in this presidential election. their first face to face meeting ever. linsey davis: a historic race for president upended just weeks ago. president biden withdrawing after his last debate. donald trump is now up against a new opponent. david muir: the candidates separated by the smallest of margins. essentially tied in the polls nationally. and in the key battlegrounds, including right here in pennsylvania, all still very much in play. the abc news presidential debate starts right now. david muir: good evening, i'm david muir. and thank you for joining us for tonight's abc news presidential debate. we want to welcome viewers watching on abc and around the world tonight. vice president kamala harris and president donald trump are just moments away from taking the stage in this unprecedented race for president. linsey davis: and i'm linsey davis. tonight's meeting could be the most consequential event of their campaigns, with election day now less than two months away. for vice president kamala harris, this is her first debate since president biden withdrew from the race on july 21st. of course, that decision followed his debate against president donald trump in june. since then, this race has taken on an entirely new dynamic. david muir: and that brings us to the rules of tonight's debate: 90 minutes with two commercial breaks. no topics or questions have been shared with the campaigns. the candidates will have two minutes to answer questions. and this is the clock. that's what they'll be seeing. two minutes for rebuttals and one minute for follow ups, clarifications or responses. their microphones will only be turned on when it's their turn to speak. no prewritten notes allowed. there is no audience here tonight in this hall at the national constitution center. this is an intimate setting for two candidates who have never met. linsey davis: president trump won the coin toss. he chose to deliver the final closing statement of the evening. vice president harris selected the podium to the right. david muir: so let's now welcome the candidates to the stage. vice president kamala harris and president donald trump. vice president kamala harris: kamala harris. let's have a good debate. former president donald trump: nice to see you. have fun. vice president kamala harris: thank you. former president donald trump: thank you. david muir: welcome to you both. it's wonderful to have you. it's an honor to have you both here tonight. linsey davis: good evening, we are looking forward to a spirited and thoughtful debate. david muir: so let's get started. i want to begin tonight with the issue voters repeatedly say is their number one issue, and that is the economy and the cost of living in this country. vice president harris, you and president trump were elected four years ago and your opponent on the stage here tonight often asks his supporters, are you better off than you were four years ago? when it comes to the economy, do you believe americans are better off than they were four years ago? vice president kamala harris: so, i was raised as a middle class kid. and i am actually the only person on this stage who has a plan that is about lifting up the middle class and working people of america. i believe in the ambition, the aspirations, the dreams of the american people. and that is why i imagine and have actually a plan to build what i call an opportunity economy. because here's the thing. we know that we have a shortage of homes and housing, and the cost of housing is too expensive for far too many people. we know that young families need support to raise their children. and i intend on extending a tax cut for those families of $6,000, which is the largest child tax credit that we have given in a long time. so that those young families can afford to buy a crib, buy a car seat, buy clothes for their children. my passion, one of them, is small businesses. i was actually    my mother raised my sister and me but there was a woman who helped raise us. we call her our second mother. she was a small business owner. i love our small businesses. my plan is to give a $50,000 tax deduction to start up small businesses, knowing they are part of the backbone of america's economy. my opponent, on the other hand, his plan is to do what he has done before, which is to provide a tax cut for billionaires and big corporations, which will result in $5 trillion to america's deficit. my opponent has a plan that i call the trump sales tax, which would be a 20% tax on everyday goods that you rely on to get through the month. economists have said that trump's sales tax would actually result for middle class families in about $4,000 more a year because of his policies and his ideas about what should be the backs of middle class people paying for tax cuts for billionaires. david muir: president trump, i'll give you two minutes. former president donald trump: first of all, i have no sales tax. that's an incorrect statement. she knows that. we're doing tariffs on other countries. other countries are going to finally, after 75 years, pay us back for all that we've done for the world. and the tariff will be substantial in some cases. i took in billions and billions of dollars, as you know, from china. in fact, they never took the tariff off because it was so much money, they can't. it would totally destroy everything that they've set out to do. they've taken in billions of dollars from china and other places. they've left the tariffs on. when i had it, i had tariffs and yet i had no inflation. look, we've had a terrible economy because inflation has    which is really known as a country buster. it breaks up countries. we have inflation like very few people have ever seen before. probably the worst in our nation's history. we were at 21%. but that's being generous because many things are 50, 60, 70, and 80% higher than they were just a few years ago. this has been a disaster for people, for the middle class, but for every class. on top of that, we have millions of people pouring into our country from prisons and jails, from mental institutions and insane asylums. and they're coming in and they're taking jobs that are occupied right now by african americans and hispanics and also unions. unions are going to be affected very soon. and you see what's happening. you see what's happening with towns throughout the united states. you look at springfield, ohio. you look at aurora in colorado. they are taking over the towns. they're taking over buildings. they're going in violently. these are the people that she and biden let into our country. and they're destroying our country. they're dangerous. they're at the highest level of criminality. and we have to get them out. we have to get them out fast. i created one of the greatest economies in the history of our country. i'll do it again and even better. david muir: we are going to get to immigration and border security during this debate. but i would like to let vice president harris respond on the economy here. vice president kamala harris: well, i would love to. let's talk about what donald trump left us. donald trump left us the worst unemployment since the great depression. donald trump left us the worst public health epidemic in a century. donald trump left us the worst attack on our democracy since the civil war. and what we have done is clean up donald trump's mess. what we have done and what i intend to do is build on what we know are the aspirations and the hopes of the american people. but i'm going to tell you all, in this debate tonight, you're going to hear from the same old, tired playbook, a bunch of lies, grievances and name calling. what you're going to hear tonight is a detailed and dangerous plan called project 2025 that the former president intends on implementing if he were elected again. i believe very strongly that the american people want a president who understands the importance of bringing us together knowing we have so much more in common than what separates us. and i pledge to you to be a president for all americans. david muir: president trump, i'll give you a minute here to respond. former president donald trump: number one, i have nothing to do, as you know and as she knows better than anyone, i have nothing to do with project 2025. that's out there. i haven't read it. i don't want to read it, purposely. i'm not going to read it. this was a group of people that got together, they came up with some ideas. i guess some good, some bad. but it makes no difference. i have nothing to do    everybody knows i'm an open book. everybody knows what i'm going to do. cut taxes very substantially. and create a great economy like i did before. we had the greatest economy. we got hit with a pandemic. and the pandemic was, not since 1917 where 100 million people died has there been anything like it? we did a phenomenal job with the pandemic. we handed them over a country where the economy and where the stock market was higher than it was before the pandemic came in. nobody's ever seen anything like it. we made ventilators for the entire world. we got gowns. we got masks. we did things that nobody thought possible. and people give me credit for rebuilding the military. they give me credit for a lot of things. but not enough credit for the great job we did with the pandemic. but the only jobs they got were bounce back jobs. these were jobs, bounce back. and it bounced back and it went to their benefit. but i was the one that created them. they know it and so does everybody else. david muir: vice president harris, i'll let you respond. vice president kamala harris: so, donald trump has no plan for you. and when you look at his economic plan, it's all about tax breaks for the richest people. i am offering what i describe as an opportunity economy, and the best economists in our country, if not the world, have reviewed our relative plans for the future of america. what goldman sachs has said is that donald trump's plan would make the economy worse. mine would strengthen the economy. what the wharton school has said is donald trump's plan would actually explode the deficit. sixteen nobel laureates have described his economic plan as something that would increase inflation and by the middle of next year would invite a recession. you just have to look at where we are and where we stand on the issues. and i'd invite you to know that donald trump actually has no plan for you, because he is more interested in defending himself than he is in looking out for you. former president donald trump: that's just a sound bite. they gave her that to say. look, i went to the wharton school of finance and many of those professors, the top professors, think my plan is a brilliant plan, it's a great plan. it's a plan that's going to bring up our worth, our value as a country. it's going to make people want to be able to go and work and create jobs and create a lot of good, solid money for our    for our country. and just to finish off, she doesn't have a plan. she copied biden's plan. and it's like four sentences, like run spot run. four sentences that are just oh, we'll try and lower taxes. she doesn't have a plan. take a look at her plan. she doesn't have a plan. david muir: mr. president, i do want to drill down on something you both brought up. the vice president brought up your tariffs you responded and let's drill down on this because your plan is what she calls is a essentially a national sales tax. your proposal calls for tariffs as you pointed out here, on foreign imports across the board. you recently said that you might double your plan, imposing tariffs up to 20% on good coming into this country. as you know many economists say that with tariffs at that level costs are then passed onto the consumer. vice president harris has argued it'll mean higher prices on gas, food, clothing medication arguing it costs the typical family nearly four thousand dollars a year. do you believe americans can afford higher prices because of tariffs. former president donald trump: they aren't gonna have higher prices what's gonna have and who's gonna have higher prices is china and all of the countries that have been ripping us off for years. i charge, i was the only president ever china was paying us hundreds of billions of dollars and so were other countries and you know if she doesn't like 'em they should have gone out and they should have immediately cut the tariffs but those tariffs are there three and a half years now under their administration. we are gonna take in billions of dollars, hundreds of billions of dollars. i had no inflation, virtually no inflation, they had the highest inflation, perhaps in the history of our country because i've never seen a worse period of time. people can't go out and buy cereal bacon or eggs or anything else. these the people of our country are absolutely dying with what they've done. they've destroyed the economy and all you have to do it look at a poll. the polls say 80 and 85 and even 90% that the trump economy was great that their economy was terrible. david muir: vice president harris i do want to ask for your response and you heard what the president said there because the biden administration did keep a number of the trump tariffs in place so how do you respond? vice president kamala harris: well, let's be clear that the trump administration resulted in a trade deficit, one of the highest we've ever seen in the history of america. he invited trade wars, you wanna talk about his deal with china what he ended up doing is under donald trump's presidency he ended up selling american chips to china to help them improve and modernize their military basically sold us out when a policy about china should be in making sure the united states of america wins the competition for the 21st century. which means focusing on the details of what that requires, focusing on relationships with our allies, focusing on investing in american based technology so that we win the race on a.i. and quantum computing, focusing on what we need to do to support america's workforce, so that we don't end up having the on the short end of the stick in terms of workers' rights. but what donald trump did let's talk about this with covid, is he actually thanked president xi for what he did during covid. look at his tweet. "thank you, president xi," exclamation point. when we know that xi was responsible for lacking and not giving us transparency about the origins of covid. david muir: president trump, i'll let you respond. former president donald trump: first of all, they bought their chips from taiwan. we hardly make chips anymore because of philosophies like they have and policies like they have. i don't say her because she has no policy. everything that she believed three years ago and four years ago is out the window. she's going to my philosophy now. in fact, i was going to send her a maga hat. she's gone to my philosophy. but if she ever got elected, she'd change it. and it will be the end of our country. she's a marxist. everybody knows she's a marxist. her father's a marxist professor in economics. and he taught her well. but when you look at what she's done to our country and when you look at these millions and millions of people that are pouring into our country monthly where it's i believe 21 million people, not the 15 that people say, and i think it's a lot higher than the 21. that's bigger than new york state. pouring in. and just look at what they're doing to our country. they're criminals. many of these people coming in are criminals. and that's bad for our economy too. you mentioned before, we'll talk about immigration later. well, bad immigration is the worst thing that can happen to our economy. they have and she has destroyed our country with policy that's insane. almost policy that you'd say they have to hate our country. david muir: president trump, thank you. linsey? linsey davis: i want to turn to the issue of abortion. president trump, you've often touted that you were able to kill roe v. wade. last year, you said that you were proud to be the most pro life president in american history. then last month you said that your administration would be great for women and their reproductive rights. in your home state of florida, you surprised many with regard to your six week abortion ban because you initially had said that it was too short and you said, "i'm going to be voting that we need more than six weeks." but then the very next day, you reversed course and said you would vote to support the six week ban. vice president harris says that women shouldn't trust you on the issue of abortion because you've changed your position so many times. therefore, why should they trust you? former president donald trump: well, the reason i'm doing that vote is because the plan is, as you know, the vote is, they have abortion in the ninth month. they even have, and you can look at the governor of west virginia, the previous governor of west virginia, not the current governor, who's doing an excellent job, but the governor before. he said the baby will be born and we will decide what to do with the baby. in other words, we'll execute the baby. former president donald trump: and that's why i did that, because that predominates. because they're radical. the democrats are radical in that. and her vice presidential pick, which i think was a horrible pick, by the way for our country, because he is really out of it. but her vice presidential pick says abortion in the ninth month is absolutely fine. he also says execution after birth, it's execution, no longer abortion, because the baby is born, is okay. and that's not okay with me. hence the vote. but what i did is something for 52 years they've been trying to get roe v. wade into the states. former president donald trump: and through the genius and heart and strength of six supreme court justices we were able to do that. now, i believe in the exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother. i believe strongly in it. ronald reagan did also. 85% of republicans do. exceptions. very important. but we were able to get it. and now states are voting on it. and for the first time you're going to see    look, this is an issue that's torn our country apart for 52 years. every legal scholar, every democrat, every republican, liberal, conservative, they all wanted this issue to be brought back to the states where the people could vote. and that's what happened, happened. now, ohio, the vote was somewhat liberal. kansas the vote was somewhat liberal. much more liberal than people would have thought. but each individual state is voting. it's the vote of the people now. it's not tied up in the federal government. i did a great service in doing it. it took courage to do it. and the supreme court had great courage in doing it. and i give tremendous credit to those six justices. linsey davis: there is no state in this country where it is legal to kill a baby after it's born. madam vice president, i want to get your response to president trump. vice president kamala harris: well, as i said, you're going to hear a bunch of lies. and that's not actually a surprising fact. let's understand how we got here. donald trump hand selected three members of the united states supreme court with the intention that they would undo the protections of roe v. wade. and they did exactly as he intended. and now in over 20 states there are trump abortion bans which make it criminal for a doctor or nurse to provide health care. in one state it provides prison for life. trump abortion bans that make no exception even for rape and incest. which understand what that means. a survivor of a crime, a violation to their body, does not have the right to make a decision about what happens to their body next. that is immoral. and one does not have to abandon their faith or deeply held beliefs to agree the government, and donald trump certainly, should not be telling a woman what to do with her body. vice president kamala harris: i have talked with women around our country. you want to talk about this is what people wanted? pregnant women who want to carry a pregnancy to term suffering from a miscarriage, being denied care in an emergency room because the health care providers are afraid they might go to jail and she's bleeding out in a car in the parking lot? she didn't want that. her husband didn't want that. a 12 or 13 year old survivor of incest being forced to carry a pregnancy to term? they don't want that. and i pledge to you when congress passes a bill to put back in place the protections of roe v. wade as president of the united states, i will proudly sign it into law. but understand, if donald trump were to be re elected, he will sign a national abortion ban. understand in his project 2025 there would be a national abortion ban. understand in his project 2025 there would be a national abortion    a monitor that would be monitoring your pregnancies, your miscarriages. i think the american people believe that certain freedoms, in particular the freedom to make decisions about one's own body, should not be made by the government. linsey davis: thank you, vice president harris. former president donald trump: well, there she goes again. it's a lie. i'm not signing a ban. and there's no reason to sign a ban. because we've gotten what everybody wanted. democrats, republicans and everybody else and every legal scholar wanted it to be brought back into the states. and the states are voting. and it may take a little time, but for 52 years this issue has torn our country apart. and they've wanted it back in the states. and i did something that nobody thought was possible. the states are now voting. what she says is an absolute lie. and as far as the abortion ban, no, i'm not in favor of abortion ban. but it doesn't matter because this issue has now been taken over by the states. linsey davis: would you veto a national abortion ban if it came to    former president donald trump: well, i won't have to because again    two things. number one, she said she'll go back to congress. she'll never get the vote. it's impossible for her to get the vote. especially now with a 50 50   essentially 50 50 in both senate and the house. she's not going to get the vote. she can't get the vote. she won't even come close to it. so it's just talk. you know what it reminds me of? when they said they're going to get student loans terminated and it ended up being a total catastrophe. the student loans    and then her i think probably her boss, if you call him a boss, he spends all his time on the beach, but look, her boss went out and said we'll do it again, we'll do it a different way. he went out, got rejected again by the supreme court. so all these students got taunted with this whole thing about    this whole idea. and how unfair that would have been. part of the reason they lost. to the millions and millions of people that had to pay off their student loans. they didn't get it for free. but they were saying    it's the same way that they talked about that, that they talk about abortion. linsey davis: but if i could just get a yes or no. because your running mate jd vance has said that you would veto if it did come to your desk. former president donald trump: well, i didn't discuss it with jd in all fairness. jd    and i don't mind if he has a certain view but i think he was speaking for me but i really didn't. look, we don't have to discuss it because she'd never be able to get it just like she couldn't get student loans. they couldn't get    they didn't even come close to getting student loans. they didn't even come close to getting student loans. they taunted young people and a lot of other people that had loans. they can never get this approved. so it doesn't matter what she says about going to congress. wonderful. let's go to congress. do it. but the fact is that for years they wanted to get it out of congress and out of the federal government and we did something that everybody said couldn't be done. and now you have a vote of the people on abortion. linsey davis: vice president harris, i want to give you your time to respond. but i do want to ask, would you support any restrictions on a woman's right to an abortion? vice president kamala harris: i absolutely support reinstating the protections of roe v. wade. and as you rightly mentioned, nowhere in america is a woman carrying a pregnancy to term and asking for an abortion. that is not happening. it's insulting to the women of america. and understand what has been happening under donald trump's abortion bans. couples who pray and dream of having a family are being denied ivf treatments. what is happening in our country, working people, working women who are working one or two jobs, who can barely afford childcare as it is, have to travel to another state to get on a plane sitting next to strangers, to go and get the health care she needs. barely can afford to do it. and what you are putting her through is unconscionable. and the people of america have not    the majority of americans believe in a woman's right to make decisions about her own body. and that is why in every state where this issue has been on the ballot, in red and blue states both, the people of america have voted for freedom. linsey davis: vice president harris    former president donald trump: excuse me, i have to respond. another lie. it's another lie. i have been a leader on ivf which is fertilization. the ivf    i have been a leader. in fact, when they got a very negative decision on ivf from the alabama courts, i saw the people of alabama and the legislature two days later voted it in. i've been a leader on it. they know that and everybody else knows it. i have been a leader on fertilization, ivf. and the other thing, they    you should ask, will she allow abortion in the eighth month, ninth month, seventh month? vice president kamala harris: come on. former president donald trump: would you do that? why don't you ask her that question    vice president kamala harris: why don't you answer the question would you veto   former president donald trump: that's the problem. because under roe v. wade. vice president kamala harris: answer the question, would you veto   former president donald trump: you could do abortions in the seventh month, the eighth month, the ninth month   vice president kamala harris: that's not true. former president donald trump: and probably after birth. just look at the governor, former governor of virginia. the governor of virginia said we put the baby aside and then we determine what we want to do with the baby. linsey davis: president trump, thank you. david muir: we're going to turn now to immigration and border security. we know it's an issue that's important to republicans, democrats, voters across the board in this country. vice president harris, you were tasked by president biden with getting to the root causes of migration from central america. we know that illegal border crossings reached a record high in the biden administration. this past june, president biden imposed tough new asylum restrictions. we know the numbers since then have dropped significantly. but my question to you tonight is why did the administration wait until six months before the election to act and would you have done anything differently from president biden on this? vice president kamala harris: so i'm the only person on this stage who has prosecuted transnational criminal organizations for the trafficking of guns, drugs, and human beings. and let me say that the united states congress, including some of the most conservative members of the united states senate, came up with a border security bill which i supported. and that bill would have put 1,500 more border agents on the border to help those folks who are working there right now over time trying to do their job. it would have allowed us to stem the flow of fentanyl coming into the united states. i know there are so many families watching tonight who have been personally affected by the surge of fentanyl in our country. that bill would have put more resources to allow us to prosecute transnational criminal organizations for trafficking in guns, drugs and human beings. but you know what happened to that bill? donald trump got on the phone, called up some folks in congress, and said kill the bill. and you know why? because he preferred to run on a problem instead of fixing a problem. and understand, this comes at a time where the people of our country actually need a leader who engages in solutions, who actually addresses the problems at hand. but what we have in the former president is someone who would prefer to run on a problem instead of fixing a problem. and i'll tell you something, he's going to talk about immigration a lot tonight even when it's not the subject that is being raised. and i'm going to actually do something really unusual and i'm going to invite you to attend one of donald trump's rallies because it's a really interesting thing to watch. you will see during the course of his rallies he talks about fictional characters like hannibal lecter. he will talk about windmills cause cancer. and what you will also notice is that people start leaving his rallies early out of exhaustion and boredom. and i will tell you the one thing you will not hear him talk about is you. you will not hear him talk about your needs, your dreams, and your, your desires. and i'll tell you, i believe you deserve a president who actually puts you first. and i pledge to you that i will. david muir: vice president harris, thank you. president trump, on that point i want to get your response. former president donald trump: well, i would like to respond. david muir: let me just ask, though, why did you try to kill that bill and successfully so? that would have put thousands of additional agents and officers on the border. former president donald trump: first let me respond as to the rallies. she said people start leaving. people don't go to her rallies. there's no reason to go. and the people that do go, she's busing them in and paying them to be there. and then showing them in a different light. so, she can't talk about that. people don't leave my rallies. we have the biggest rallies, the most incredible rallies in the history of politics. that's because people want to take their country back. our country is being lost. we're a failing nation. and it happened three and a half years ago. and what, what's going on here, you're going to end up in world war 3, just to go into another subject. what they have done to our country by allowing these millions and millions of people to come into our country. and look at what's happening to the towns all over the united states. and a lot of towns don't want to talk    not going to be aurora or springfield. a lot of towns don't want to talk about it because they're so embarrassed by it. in springfield, they're eating the dogs. the people that came in. they're eating the cats. they're eating    they're eating the pets of the people that live there. and this is what's happening in our country. and it's a shame. as far as rallies are concerned, as far    the reason they go is they like what i say. they want to bring our country back. they want to make america great again. it's a very simple phrase. make america great again. she's destroying this country. and if she becomes president, this country doesn't have a chance of success. not only success. we'll end up being venezuela on steroids. david muir: i just want to clarify here, you bring up springfield, ohio. and abc news did reach out to the city manager there. he told us there have been no credible reports of specific claims of pets being harmed, injured or abused by individuals within the immigrant community    former president donald trump: well, i've seen people on television david muir: let me just say here this ... former president donald trump: the people on television say my dog was taken and used for food. so maybe he said that and maybe that's a good thing to say for a city manager. david muir: i'm not taking this from television. i'm taking it from the city manager. former president donald trump: but the people on television say their dog was eaten by the people that went there. david muir: again, the springfield city manager says there's no evidence of that. former president donald trump: we'll find out david muir: vice president harris, i'll let you respond to the rest of what you heard. vice president kamala harris: talk about extreme. um, you know, this is i think one of the reasons why in this election i actually have the endorsement of 200 republicans who have formally worked with president bush, mitt romney, and john mccain including the endorsement of former vice president dick cheney and congressmember liz cheney. and if you want to really know the inside track on who the former president is, if he didn't make it clear already, just ask people who have worked with him. his former chief of staff, a four star general, has said he has contempt for the constitution of the united states. his former national security adviser has said he is dangerous and unfit. his former secretary of defense has said the nation, the republic would never survive another trump term. and when we listen to this kind of rhetoric, when the issues that affect the american people are not being addressed, i think the choice is clear in this election. david muir: president trump, i'll give you a quick minute to respond. former president donald trump: yeah. thank you. because when i hear that    see, i'm a different kind of a person. i fired most of those people. not so graciously. they did bad things or a bad job. i fired them. they never fired one person. they didn't fire anybody having to do with afghanistan and the taliban and the 13 people whose, whose, were just killed viciously and violently killed and i got to know the parents and the family. they should have fired all those generals, all those top people because that was one of the most incompetently handled situations anybody has ever seen. so when somebody does a bad job i fire them. and you take a guy like esper. he was no good, i fired him. so he writes a book. another one writes a book. because with me they can write books. with nobody else can they. but they have done such a poor job. and they never fire anybody. look at the economy. look at the inflation. they didn't fire any of their economists. they have the same people. that's a good way not to have books written about you. but just to finish, i got more votes than any republican in history by far. in fact, i got more votes than any president, sitting president in history by far. david muir: let me continue on immigration. it was what you wanted to talk about earlier. so let's get back to your deportation proposal that the vice president has reacted to as well. president trump, you called this the largest domestic deportation operation in the history of our country. you say you would use the national guard. you say if things get out of control you'd have no problem using the u.s. military. former president donald trump: with local police. david muir: you also said you would use local police. how would you deport 11 million undocumented immigrants? i know you believe that number is much higher. take us through this. what does this look like? will authorities be going door to door in this country? former president donald trump: yeah. it is much higher because of them. they allowed criminals. many, many, millions of criminals. they allowed terrorists. they allowed common street criminals. they allowed people to come in, drug dealers, to come into our country, and they're now in the united states. and told by their countries like venezuela don't ever come back or we're going to kill you. do you know that crime in venezuela and crime in countries all over the world is way down? you know why? because they've taken their criminals off the street and they've given them to her to put into our country. and this will be one of the greatest mistakes in history for them to allow    and i think they probably did it because they think they're going to get votes. but it's not worth it. because they're destroying the fabric of our country by what they've done. there's never been anything done like this at all. they've destroyed the fabric of our country. millions of people let in. and all over the world crime is down. all over the world except here. crime here is up and through the roof. despite their fraudulent statements that they made. crime in this country is through the roof. and we have a new form of crime. it's called migrant crime. and it's happening at levels that nobody thought possible. david muir: president trump, as you know, the fbi says overall violent crime is coming down in this country, but vice president the... former president donald trump: use me, the fbi    they were defrauding statements. they didn't include the worst cities. they didn't include the cities with the worst crime. it was a fraud. just like their number of 818,000 jobs that they said they created turned out to be a fraud. david muir: president trump, thank you. i'll let you respond, vice president harris. vice president kamala harris: well, i think this is so rich. coming from someone who has been prosecuted for national security crimes, economic crimes, election interference, has been found liable for sexual assault and his next big court appearance is in november at his own criminal sentencing. and let's be clear where each person stands on the issue of what is important about respect for the rule of law and respect for law enforcement. the former vice president called for defunding, federal law enforcement, 45,000 agents, get this, on the day after he was arraigned on 34 felony counts. so let's talk about what is important in this race. it is important that we move forward, that we turn the page on this same old tired rhetoric. and address the needs of the american people, address what we need to do about the housing shortage, which i have a plan for. address what we must do to support our small businesses. address bringing down the price of groceries. but frankly, the american people are exhausted with the same old tired playbook. david muir: vice president harris, thank you. former president donald trump: excuse me. every one of those cases was started by them against their political opponent. and i'm winning most of them and i'll win the rest on appeal. and you saw that with the decision that came down just recently from the supreme court. i'm winning most of them. but those are cases, it's called weaponization. never happened in this country. they weaponized the justice department. every one of those cases was involved with the doj, from atlanta and fani willis    to the attorney general of new york and the d.a. in new york. every one of those cases. and then they say oh, he was    he's a criminal. they're the ones that made them go after me. by the way, joe biden was found essentially guilty on the documents case. and what happened in my documents case? they said oh, that's the toughest of them all. a complete and total victory. two months ago it was thrown out. it's weaponization. and they used it. and it's never happened in this country. they used it to try and win an election. they're fake cases. david muir: president trump, thank you. a really quick response here, vice president harris, on this notion of weaponization of the justice department. vice president kamala harris: well let's talk about extreme. and understand the context in which this election in 2024 is taking place. the united states supreme court recently ruled that the former president would essentially be immune from any misconduct if he were to enter the white house again. understand, this is someone who has openly said he would terminate, i'm quoting, terminate the constitution of the united states. that he would weaponize the department of justice against his political enemies. someone who has openly expressed disdain for members of our military. understand what it would mean if donald trump were back in the white house with no guardrails. because certainly, we know now the court won't stop him. we know jd vance is not going to stop him. it's up to the american people to stop him. david muir: vice president harris, thank you. linsey? lindsey davis: vice president harris, in your last run for president... former president donald trump: this is the one that weaponized. not me. she weaponized. i probably took a bullet to the head because of the things that they say about me. they talk about democracy. i'm a threat to democracy. they're the threat to democracy   with the fake russia russia russia investigation that went nowhere. david muir: we have a lot to get to. linsey? linsey davis: vice president harris, in your last run for president you said you wanted to ban fracking. now you don't. you wanted mandatory government buyback programs for assault weapons. now your campaign says you don't. you supported decriminalizing border crossings. now you're taking a harder line. i know you say that your values have not changed. so then why have so many of your policy positions changed? vice president kamala harris: so my values have not changed. and i'm going to discuss every one    at least every point that you've made. but in particular, let's talk about fracking because we're here in pennsylvania. i made that very clear in 2020. i will not ban fracking. i have not banned fracking as vice president of the united states. and, in fact, i was the tie breaking vote on the inflation reduction act, which opened new leases for fracking. my position is that we have got to invest in diverse sources of energy so we reduce our reliance on foreign oil. we have had the largest increase in domestic oil production in history because of an approach that recognizes that we cannot over rely on foreign oil. as it relates to my values, let me tell you, i grew up a middle class kid raised by a hard working mother who worked and saved and was able to buy our first home when i was a teenager. the values i bring to the importance of home ownership knowing not everybody got handed $400 million on a silver platter and then filed bankruptcy six times, is a value that i bring to my work to say we are going to work with the private sector and home builders to increase 3 million homes, increase by 3 million homes by the end of my first term. my work that is related to having a friend when i was in high school who was sexually assaulted by her stepfather. and my focus then, on protecting women and children from violent crime, is based on a value that is deeply grounded in the importance of standing up for those who are most vulnerable. my work that is about protecting social security and medicare is based on long standing work that i have done. protecting seniors from scams. my values have not changed. and what is important is that there is a president who actually brings values and a perspective that is about lifting people up and not beating people down and name calling. the true measure of the leader is the leader who actually understands that strength is not in beating people down, it's in lifting people up. i intend to be that president. linsey davis: president trump, your response. former president donald trump: well, first of all, i wasn't given $400 million. i wish i was. my father was a brooklyn builder. brooklyn, queens. and a great father and i learned a lot from him. but i was given a fraction of that, a tiny fraction, and i built it into many, many billions of dollars. many, many billions. and when people see it, they are even surprised. so, we don't have to talk about that. fracking? she's been against it for 12 years. uh, defund the police. she's been against that forever. she gave all that stuff up, very wrongly, very horribly. and everybody's laughing at it, okay? they're all laughing at it. she gave up at least 12 and probably 14 or 15 different policies. like, she was big on defund the police. vice president kamala harris: that's not true. [mouthed, not audible] former president donald trump: in minnesota, she went out    wait a minute. i'm talking now. if you don't mind. please. does that sound familiar? vice president kamala harris: don't lie. [lie is audible] former president donald trump: she went out    she went out in minnesota and wanted to let criminals that killed people, that burned down minneapolis, she went out and raised money to get them out of jail. she did things that nobody would ever think of. now she wants to do transgender operations on illegal aliens that are in prison. this is a radical left liberal that would do this. she wants to confiscate your guns and she will never allow fracking in pennsylvania. if she won the election, fracking in pennsylvania will end on day one. just to finish one thing, so important in my opinion, so, i got the oil business going like nobody has ever done before. they took, when they took over, they got rid of it, started getting rid of it, and the prices were going up the roof. they immediately let these guys go to where they were. i would have been five times, four times, five times higher because you're talking about 3 1/2 years ago. they got it up to where i was because they had no choice. because the prices of energy were quadrupling and doubling. you saw what happened to gasoline. so, they said let's go back to trump. but if she won the election, the day after that election, they'll go back to destroying our country and oil will be dead, fossil fuel will be dead. we'll go back to windmills and we'll go back to solar, where they need a whole desert to get some energy to come out. you ever see a solar plant? by the way, i'm a big fan of solar. but they take 400, 500 acres of desert soil   linsey davis: president trump   former president donald trump: these are not good things for the environment that she understands. linsey davis: president trump, we have a lot of issues that we have to get to. we're out of time. thank you. david muir: linsey, thank you. we have an election in just 56 days. i want to talk about the peaceful transfer of power, which of course we all know was a cornerstone of our democracy and the role of a president in a moment of crisis. mr. president, on january 6th you told your supporters to march to the capitol. you said you would be right there with them. the country and the world saw what played out at the capitol that day. the officers coming under attack. aides in the west wing say you watched it unfold on television off the oval office. you did send out tweets, but it was more than two hours before you sent out that video message telling your supporters to go home. is there anything you regret about what you did on that day? former president donald trump: you just said a thing that isn't covered. peacefully and patriotically, i said during my speech. not later on. peacefully and patriotically. and nobody on the other side was killed. ashli babbitt was shot by an out of control police officer that should have never, ever shot her. it's a disgrace. but we didn't do    this group of people that have been treated so badly. i ask, what about all the people that are pouring into our country and killing people? that she allowed to pour in. she was the border czar. remember that. she was the border czar. she doesn't want to be called the border czar because she's embarrassed by the border. in fact, she said at the beginning, i'm surprised you're not talking about the border yet. that's because she knows what a bad job they've done. what about those people? what's, when are they going to be prosecuted    when are these people from countries all over the world, not just south america, they're coming in from all over the world, david, all over the world. and crime rates are down all over the world because of it    david muir: but let me just ask you   former president donald trump: but when are those, david, when are those people going to be prosecuted? when are the people that burned down minneapolis going to be prosecuted or in seattle? they went into seattle, they took over a big percentage of the city of seattle. when are those people going to be prosecuted? david muir: but let me just ask you   former president donald trump: you might ask her that question. david muir: you were the president. you were watching it unfold on television. it's a very simple question as we move forward toward another election. is there anything you regret about what you did on that day? yes or no. former president donald trump: i had nothing to do with that other than they asked me to make a speech. i showed up for a speech. i said, i think it's going to be big. i went to nancy pelosi and the mayor of washington, d.c. and the mayor put it back in writing, as you know. i said, you know, this is going to be a very big rally or whatever you want to call it. and again, it wasn't done by me. it was done by others. i said i'd like to give you 10,000 national guard or soldiers. they rejected me. nancy pelosi rejected me. it was just two weeks ago, her daughter has a tape of her saying she is fully responsible for what happened. they want to get rid of that tape. it would have never happened if nancy pelosi and the mayor of washington did their jobs. i wasn't responsible for security. nancy pelosi was responsible. she didn't do her job. david muir: the question was about you as president, not about former speaker pelosi. but i do want vice president harris to respond here. vice president kamala harris: i was at the capitol on january 6th. i was the vice president elect. i was also an acting senator. i was there. and on that day, the president of the united states incited a violent mob to attack our nation's capitol, to desecrate our nation's capitol. on that day, 140 law enforcement officers were injured. and some died. and understand, the former president has been indicted and impeached for exactly that reason. but this is not an isolated situation. let's remember charlottesville, where there was a mob of people carrying tiki torches, spewing antisemitic hate, and what did the president then at the time say? there were fine people on each side. let's remember that when it came to the proud boys, a militia, the president said, the former president said, "stand back and stand by." so for everyone watching who remembers what january 6th was, i say we don't have to go back. let's not go back. we're not going back. it's time to turn the page. and if that was a bridge too far for you, well, there is a place in our campaign for you. to stand for country. to stand for our democracy. to stand for rule of law. and to end the chaos. and to end the approach that is about attacking the foundations of our democracy 'cause you don't like the outcome. and be clear on that point. donald trump the candidate has said in this election there will be a bloodbath, if this    and the outcome of this election is not to his liking. let's turn the page on this. let's not go back. let's chart a course for the future and not go backwards to the past. david muir: let me just follow up here   former president donald trump: i have said blood bash, bath. it was a different term, and it was a term that related to energy, because they have destroyed our energy business. that was where bloodbath was. also, on charlottesville, that story has been as you would say, debunked. laura ingraham, sean hannity, jesse    all of these people, they covered it. if they go an extra sentence, they will see it was perfect. it was debunked in almost every newspaper. but they still bring it up just like they bring 2025 up. they bring all of this stuff up. i ask you this. you talk about the capitol. why are we allowing these millions of people to come through on the southern border? how come she's not doing    and i'll tell you what i would do. and i would be very proud to do it. i would say we would both leave this debate right now, i'd like to see her go down to washington, d.c. during this debate 'cause we're wasting a lot of time. go down to    because she's been so bad, it's so ridiculous. go down to washington, d.c. and let her sign a bill to close up the border. because they have the right to do it. they don't need bills. they have the right to do it. the president of the united states, you'll get him out of bed. you'll wake him up at 4:00 in the afternoon, you'll say come on. come on down to the office, let's sign a bill. if he ... if he signs a bill that the border is closed, all he has to do is say it to the border patrol, who are phenomenal. if they do that, the border is closed. david muir: mr. president    former president donald trump: those people are killing many people, unlike j 6. david muir: we talked immigration here tonight. i do want to focus on this next issue to both of you. because it really brings us, this into focus. truth in these times that we're living in. mr. president, for 3 and a half years after you lost the 2020 election you repeatedly falsely claimed that you won, many times saying you won in a landslide. in the past couple of weeks leading up to this debate, you have said, quote, you lost by a whisker, that you, quote, didn't quite make it, that you came up a little bit short. former president donald trump: i said that? david muir: are you now acknowledging that you lost in 2020? former president donald trump: no, i don't acknowledge that at all. david muir: but you did say that. former president donald trump: i said that sarcastically. you know that. it was said, oh we lost by a whisker. that was said sarcastically. look, there's so much proof. all you have to do is look at it. and they should have sent it back to the legislatures for approval. i got almost 75 million votes. the most votes any sitting president has ever gotten. i was told if i got 63, which was what i got in 2016, you can't be beaten. the election, people should never be thinking about an election as fraudulent. we need two things. we need walls. we need    and we have to have it. we have to have borders. and we have to have good elections. former president donald trump: our elections are bad. and a lot of these illegal immigrants coming in, they're trying to get them to vote. they can't even speak english. they don't even know what country they're in practically. and these people are trying to get them to vote. and that's why they're allowing them to come into our country. david muir: i did watch all of these pieces of video. i didn't detect the sarcasm, lost by a whisker, we didn't quite make it, and we should just point out as clarification, and you know this, you and your allies, 60 cases in front of many judges. many of them    former president donald trump: no judge looked at it. david muir: and said there was no widespread fraud. former president donald trump: they said we didn't have standing. that's the other thing. they said we didn't have standing. a technicality. can you imagine a system where a person in an election doesn't have standing, the president of the united states doesn't have standing? that's how we lost. if you look at the facts, and i'd love to have you    you'll do a special on it. i'll show you georgia and i'll show you wisconsin and i'll show you pennsylvania and i'll show you    we have so many facts and statistics. but you know what? that doesn't matter. because we have to solve the problem that we have right now. that's old news. and the problem that we have right now is we have a nation in decline and they have put it into decline. we have a nation that is dying, david. david muir: mr. president, thank you. vice president harris, you heard the president there tonight. he said he didn't say that he lost by a whisker. so he still believes he did not lose the election. that was won by president biden and yourself. but i do want to ask you about something that's come up in the last couple of days. this was a post from president trump about this upcoming election just weeks away. he said, "when i win, those people who cheated," and then he lists donors, voters, election officials, he says "will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, which will include long term prison sentences." one of your campaign's top lawyers responded saying, "we won't let donald trump intimidate us. we won't let him suppress the vote." is that what you believe he's trying to do here? vice president kamala harris: donald trump was fired by 81 million people. so, let's be clear about that. and clearly, he is having a very difficult time processing that. but we cannot afford to have a president of the united states who attempts as he did in the past to upend the will of the voters in a free and fair election. and i'm going to tell you that i have traveled the world as vice president of the united states. and world leaders are laughing at donald trump. i have talked with military leaders, some of whom worked with you. and they say you're a disgrace. and when you then talk in this way in a presidential debate and deny what over and over again are court cases you have lost, because you did in fact lose that election, it leads one to believe that perhaps we do not have in the candidate to my right the temperament or the ability to not be confused about fact. that's deeply troubling. and the american people deserve better. david muir: i'll give you one minute to respond, mr. president. former president donald trump: let me just tell you about world leaders. viktor orban, one of the most respected men    they call him a strong man. he's a tough person. smart. prime minister of hungary. they said why is the whole world blowing up? three years ago it wasn't. why is it blowing up? he said because you need trump back as president. they were afraid of him. china was afraid. and i don't like to use the word afraid but i'm just quoting him. china was afraid of him. north korea was afraid of him. look at what's going on with north korea, by the way. he said russia was afraid of him. i ended the nord stream 2 pipeline and biden put it back on day one but he ended the xl pipeline. the xl pipeline in our country. he ended that. but he let the russians build a pipeline going all over europe and heading into germany. the biggest pipeline in the world. look, viktor orban said it. he said the most respected, most feared person is donald trump. we had no problems when trump was president. but when this weak pathetic man that you saw at a debate just a few months ago that if he weren't in that debate he'd be running instead of her, she got no votes, he got 14 million votes, what you did, you talk about a threat to democracy. he got 14 million votes and they threw him out of office. and you know what? i'll give you a little secret. he hates her. he can't stand her. david muir: mr. president    former president donald trump: but he had 14 million votes. they threw them out. she got zero votes. and when she ran, she was the first one to leave because she failed. and now she's running. i don't understand it but i'm okay with it   because i think we're going to do pretty well. david muir: mr. president, your time is up. we've got a lot more to get to. linsey davis: turning now to the israel hamas war and the hostages who are still being held, americans among them. vice president harris, in december you said, "israel has a right to defend itself" but you added, "it matters how." saying international humanitarian law must be respected, israel must do more to protect innocent civilians. you said that nine months ago. now an estimated 40,000 palestinians are dead. nearly 100 hostages remain. just last week prime minister benjamin netanyahu said there's not a deal in the making. president biden has not been able to break through the stalemate. how would you do it? vice president kamala harris: well, let's understand how we got here. on oct. 7, hamas, a terrorist organization, slaughtered 1,200 israelis. many of them young people who were simply attending a concert. women were horribly raped. and so absolutely, i said then, i say now, israel has a right to defend itself. we would. and how it does so matters. because it is also true far too many innocent palestinians have been killed. children, mothers. what we know is that this war must end. it must when, end immediately, and the way it will end is we need a cease fire deal and we need the hostages out. and so we will continue to work around the clock on that. work around the clock also understanding that we must chart a course for a two state solution. and in that solution, there must be security for the israeli people and israel and in equal measure for the palestinians. but the one thing i will assure you always, i will always give israel the ability to defend itself, in particular as it relates to iran and any threat that iran and its proxies pose to israel. but we must have a two state solution where we can rebuild gaza, where the palestinians have security, self determination and the dignity they so rightly deserve. linsey davis: president trump, how would you negotiate with netanyahu and also hamas in order to get the hostages out and prevent the killing of more innocent civilians in gaza? former president donald trump: if i were president it would have never started. if i were president russia would have never, ever    i know putin very well. he would have never    and there was no threat of it either, by the way, for four years. have gone into ukraine and killed millions of people when you add it up. far worse than people understand what's going on over there. but when she mentions about israel all of a sudden    she hates israel. she wouldn't even meet with netanyahu when he went to congress to make a very important speech. she refused to be there because she was at a sorority party of hers. she wanted to go to the sorority party. she hates israel. if she's president, i believe that israel will not exist within two years from now. and i've been pretty good at predictions. and i hope i'm wrong about that one. she hates israel. at the same time in her own way she hates the arab population because the whole place is going to get blown up, arabs, jewish people, israel. israel will be gone. it would have never happened. iran was broke under donald trump. now iran has $300 billion because they took off all the sanctions that i had. iran had no money for hamas or hezbollah or any of the 28 different spheres of terror. and they are spheres of terror. horrible terror. they had no money. it was a big story, and you know it. you covered it. very well, actually. they had no money for terror. they were broke. now they're a rich nation. and now what they're doing is spreading that money around. look at what's happening with the houthis and yemen. look at what's going on in the middle east. this would have never happened. i will get that settled and fast. and i'll get the war with ukraine and russia ended. if i'm president elect, i'll get it done before even becoming president. linsey davis: vice president harris, he says you hate israel. vice president kamala harris: that's absolutely not true. i have my entire career and life supported israel and the israeli people. he knows that. he's trying to again divide and distract from the reality, which is it is very well known that donald trump is weak and wrong on national security and foreign policy. it is well known that he admires dictators, wants to be a dictator on day one according to himself. it is well known that he said of putin that he can do whatever the hell he wants and go into ukraine. it is well known when that he said when russia went into ukraine it was brilliant. it is well known he exchanged love letters with kim jong un. and it is absolutely well known that these dictators and autocrats are rooting for you to be president again because they're so clear, they can manipulate you with flattery and favors. and that is why so many military leaders who you have worked with have told me you are a disgrace. that is why we understand that we have to have a president who is not consistently weak and wrong on national security including the importance of upholding and respecting in highest regard our military. linsey davis: vice president harris, thank you. former president donald trump: they're the ones    and she's the one that caused it, that's weak on national security by allowing every nation last month for the year, 168 different countries sending people into our country. their crime rates are way down. putin endorsed her last week. said i hope she wins. and i think he meant it. because what he's gotten away with is absolutely incredible. it wouldn't have happened with me. the leaders of other countries think that they're weak and incompetent. and they are. they're grossly incompetent. and i just ask one question. why does biden go in and kill the keystone pipeline and approve the single biggest deal that russia's ever made, nordstream 2, the biggest pipeline anywhere in the world going to germany and all over europe? because they're weak and they're ineffective. and biden, by the way    linsey davis: president trump... former president donald trump: gets paid a lot of money    linsey davis: thank you. we have a lot of issues to get to. david muir: we'll be right back with much more of this historic abc news presidential debate from the national constitution center right here in philadelphia. back in a moment. david muir: and i want to turn to the war in ukraine. we're now 2 1/2 years into this conflict. mr. president, it has been the position of the biden administration that we must defend ukraine from russia, from vladimir putin, to defend their sovereignty, their democracy, that it's in america's best interest to do so, arguing that if putin wins he may be emboldened to move even further into other countries. you have said you would solve this war in 24 hours. you said so just before the break tonight. how exactly would you do that? and i want to ask you a very simple question tonight. do you want ukraine to win this war? former president donald trump: i want the war to stop. i want to save lives that are being uselessly    people being killed by the millions. it's the millions. it's so much worse than the numbers that you're getting, which are fake numbers. look, we're in for 250 billion or more because they don't ask europe, which is a much bigger beneficiary to getting this thing done than we are. they're in for $150 billion less because biden and you don't have the courage to ask europe like i did with nato. they paid billions and billions, hundreds of billions of dollars when i said either you pay up or we're not going to protect you anymore. so that may be one of the reasons they don't like me as much as they like weak people. but you take a look at what's happening. we're in for 250 to 275 billion. they're into 100 to 150. they should be forced to equalize. with that being said, i want to get the war settled. i know zelenskyy very well and i know putin very well. i have a good relationship. and they respect your president. okay? they respect me. they don't respect biden. how would you respect him? why? for what reason? he hasn't even made a phone call in two years to putin. hasn't spoken to anybody. they don't even try and get it. that is a war that's dying to be settled. i will get it settled before i even become president. if i win, when i'm president elect, and what i'll do is i'll speak to one, i'll speak to the other, i'll get them together. that war would have never happened. and in fact when i saw putin after i left, unfortunately left because our country has gone to hell, but after i left when i saw him building up soldiers, he did it after i left, i said oh, he must be negotiating. it must be a good strong point of negotiation. well, it wasn't because biden had no idea how to talk to him. he had no idea how to stop it. and now you have millions of people dead and it's only getting worse and it could lead to world war 3. don't kid yourself, david. we're playing with world war 3. and we have a president that we don't even know if he's    where is our president? we don't even know if he's a president. david muir: and just to clarify here. former president donald trump: they threw him out of a campaign like a dog. we don't even know, is he our president? but we have a president... david muir: mr. president, former president donald trump: ...that doesn't know he's alive. david muir: your time is up. just to clarify the question, do you believe it's in the u.s. best interests for ukraine to win this war? yes or no? former president donald trump: i think it's in the u.s. best interest to get this war finished and just get it done. all right. negotiate a deal. because we have to stop all of these human lives from being destroyed. david muir: i want to take this to vice president harris. i want to get your thoughts on support for ukraine in this moment. but also as commander in chief if elected how would you deal with vladimir putin and would it be any different from what we're seeing from president biden? vice president kamala harris: well, first of all, it's important to remind the former president you're not running against joe biden, you're running against me. i believe the reason that donald trump says that this war would be over within 24 hours is because he would just give it up. and that's not who we are as americans. let's understand what happened here. i actually met with zelenskyy a few days before russia invaded, tried through force to change territorial boundaries to defy one of the most important international rules and norms, which is the importance of sovereignty and territorial integrity. and i met with president zelenskyy. i shared with him american intelligence about how he could defend himself. days later i went to nato's eastern flank, to poland and romania. and through the work that i and others did we brought 50 countries together to support ukraine in its righteous defense. and because of our support, because of the air defense, the ammunition, the artillery, the javelins, the abrams tanks that we have provided, ukraine stands as an independent and free country. if donald trump were president, putin would be sitting in kyiv right now. and understand what that would mean. because putin's agenda is not just about ukraine. understand why the european allies and our nato allies are so thankful that you are no longer president and that we understand the importance of the greatest military alliance the world has ever known, which is nato. and what we have done to preserve the ability of zelenskyy and the ukrainians to fight for their independence. otherwise, putin would be sitting in kyiv with his eyes on the rest of europe. starting with poland. and why don't you tell the 800,000 polish americans right here in pennsylvania how quickly you would give up for the sake of favor and what you think is a friendship with what is known to be a dictator who would eat you for lunch. david muir: vice president harris thank you. we heard from both of you on ukraine tonight. afghanistan came up in the last hour    i wanted her to respond to something you said earlier. former president donald trump: i have to respond. david muir: please i'll give you a minute here. former president donald trump: putin would be sitting in moscow and he wouldn't have lost 300,000 men and women. but he would have been sitting in moscow vice president kamala harris: (inaudible) former president donald trump: quiet, please. he would have been sitting in moscow much happier than he is right now. but eventually, you know, he's got a thing that other people don't have. he's got nuclear weapons. they don't ever talk about that. he's got nuclear weapons. nobody ever thinks about that. and eventually uh maybe he'll use them. maybe he hasn't been that threatening. but he does have that. something we don't even like to talk about. nobody likes to talk about it. but just so you understand, they sent her to negotiate peace before this war started. three days later he went in and he started the war because everything they said was weak and stupid. they said the wrong things. that war should have never started. she was the emissary. they sent her in to negotiate with zelenskyy and putin. and she did and the war started three days later. david muir: vice president... former president donald trump: and that's the kind of talent we have with her. she's worse than biden. in my opinion, i think he's the worst president in the history of our country. she goes down as the worst vice president in the history of our country. but let me tell you something. she is a horrible negotiator. they sent her in to negotiate. as soon as they left putin did the invasion. david muir: president trump, thank you. you did bring up something, you said she went to negotiate with vladimir putin. vice president harris, have you ever met vladimir putin, can you clarify tonight? vice president kamala harris: yet again, i said it at the beginning of this debate, you're going to hear a bunch of lies coming from this fella. and that is another one. when i went to meet with president zelenskyy, i've now met with him over five times. the reality is, it has been about standing as america always should, as a leader upholding international rules and norms. as a leader who shows strength, understanding that the alliances we have around the world are dependent on our ability to look out for our friends and not favor our enemies because you adore strongmen instead of caring about democracy. and that is very much what is at stake here. the president of the united states is commander in chief. and the american people have a right to rely on a president who understands the significance of america's role and responsibility in terms of ensuring that there is stability and ensuring we stand up for our principles and not sell them for the benefit of personal flattery. david muir: we've talked about ukraine and vladimir putin. i do want to talk about afghanistan. it came up in the first hour of this debate. former president donald trump: david, one thing. david muir: i want to move on to afghanistan. former president donald trump: secretary general stoltenberg said trump did the most amazing thing i've ever seen, he got these countries, the 28 countries at the time, to pay up. he said i've never seen    he's the head of nato. he said i've never seen    for years we were paying almost all of nato. we were being ripped off by european nations both on trade and on nato. i got them to pay up by saying one of the statements you made before, if you don't pay we're not going to protect you. david muir: president trump   former president donald trump: otherwise we would've never gotten it. he said it was one of the most incredible jobs that he's ever seen done. david muir: thank you. i want to turn to afghanistan. we witnessed a poignant moment today on capitol hill honoring the soldiers who died in the chaotic withdrawal from afghanistan. i do want to ask the vice president, do you believe you bear any responsibility in the way that withdrawal played out? vice president kamala harris: well, i will tell you, i agreed with president biden's decision to pull out of afghanistan. four presidents said they would, and joe biden did. and as a result, america's taxpayers are not paying the $300 million a day we were paying for that endless war. and as of today, there is not one member of the united states military who is in active duty in a combat zone in any war zone around the world, the first time this century. but let's understand how we got to where we are. donald trump when he was president negotiated one of the weakest deals you can imagine. he calls himself a dealmaker. even his national security adviser said it was a weak, terrible deal. and here's how it went down. he bypassed the afghan government. he negotiated directly with a terrorist organization called the taliban. the negotiation involved the taliban getting 5,000 terrorists, taliban terrorists released. vice president kamala harris: and get this    no, get this. and the president at the time invited the taliban to camp david. a place of storied significance for us as americans, a place where we honor the importance of american diplomacy, where we invite and receive respected world leaders. and this former president as president invited them to camp david because he does not again appreciate the role and responsibility of the president of the united states to be commander in chief with a level of respect. and this gets back to the point of how he has consistently disparaged and demeaned members of our military, fallen soldiers, and the work that we must do to uphold the strength and the respect of the united states of america around the world. david muir: vice president harris, thank you. president trump, your response to her saying that you began the negotiations with the taliban. former president donald trump: yeah, thank you. so if you take a look at that period of time, the taliban was killing our soldiers, a lot of them, with snipers. and i got involved with the taliban because the taliban was doing the killing. that's the fighting force within afghanistan. they don't bother doing that because you know, they deal with the wrong people all the time. but i got involved. and abdul is the head of the taliban. he is still the head of the taliban. and i told abdul don't do it anymore, you do it anymore you're going to have problems. and he said why do you send me a picture of my house? i said you're going to have to figure that out, abdul. and for 18 months we had nobody killed. we did have an agreement negotiated by mike pompeo. it was a very good agreement. the reason it was good, it was    we were getting out. we would have been out faster than them, but we wouldn't have lost the soldiers. we wouldn't have left many americans behind. and we wouldn't have left    we wouldn't have left $85 billion worth of brand new beautiful military equipment behind. and just to finish, they blew it. the agreement said you have to do this, this, this, this, this, and they didn't do it. they didn't do it. the agreement was, was terminated by us because they didn't do what they were supposed to do. david muir: i want to move on. former president donald trump: and these people did the worst withdrawal and in my opinion the most embarrassing moment in the history of our country. and by the way, that's why russia attacked ukraine. because they saw how incompetent she and her boss are. david muir: president trump, thank you. i want to move on now to race and politics in this country. mr. president, you recently said of vice president harris, "i didn't know she was black until a number of years ago when she happened to turn black, and now she wants to be known as black." i want to ask a bigger picture question here tonight. why do you believe it's appropriate to weigh in on the racial identity of your opponent? former president donald trump: i don't. and i don't care. i don't care what she is. i don't care. you make a big deal out of something. i couldn't care less. whatever she wants to be is okay with me. david muir: but those were your words. so, i'm asking    former president donald trump: i don't know. i don't know. all i can say is i read where she was not black, that she put out. and, i'll say that. and then i read that she was black. and that's okay. either one was okay with me. that's up to her. that's up to her. david muir: vice president harris, your thoughts on this? vice president kamala harris: i think it's   i mean honestly, i think it's a tragedy that we have someone who wants to be president who has consistently over the course of his career attempted to use race to divide the american people. you know, i do believe that the vast majority of us know that we have so much more in common than what separates us. and we don't want this kind of approach that is just constantly trying to divide us, and especially by race. and let's remember how donald trump started. he was a, a, a land, he owned land, he owned buildings, and he was investigated because he refused to rent property to black families. let's remember, this is the same individual who took out a full page ad in the new york times calling for the execution of five young black and latino boys who were innocent, the central park five. took out a full page ad calling for their execution. this is the same individual who spread birther lies about the first black president of the united states. and i think the american people want better than that. want better than this. want someone who understands as i do, i travel our country, we see in each other a friend. we see in each other a neighbor. we don't want a leader who is constantly trying to have americans point their fingers at each other. i meet with people all the time who tell me "can we please just have discourse about how we're going to invest in the aspirations and the ambitions and the dreams of the american people?" knowing that regardless of people's color or the language their grandmother speaks we all have the same dreams and aspirations and want a president who invests in those, not in hate and division. david muir: vice president harris thank you. linsey? linsey davis: president trump, this is now your third time    former president donald trump: this is the most divisive presidency in the history of our country. there's never been anything like it. they're destroying our country. and they come up with things like what she just said going back many, many years when a lot of people including mayor bloomberg agreed with me on the central park five. they admitted    they said, they pled guilty. and i said, well, if they pled guilty they badly hurt a person, killed a person ultimately. and if they pled guilty    then they pled we're not guilty. but this is a person that has to stretch back years, 40, 50 years ago because there's nothing now. i built one of the greatest economies in the history of the world and i'm going to build it again. it's going to be bigger, better and stronger. but they're destroying our economy. they have no idea what a good economy is. their oil policies    every single policy    and remember this. she is biden. she's trying to get away from biden. i don't know the gentleman, she says. she is biden. the worst inflation we've ever had. a horrible economy because inflation has made it so bad and she can't get away with that. david muir: mr. president, thank you, your time is up. linsey    vice president kamala harris: i want to respond to that, though. i want to just respond briefly. clearly, i am not joe biden, and i am certainly not donald trump. and what i do offer is a new generation of leadership for our country. one who believes in what is possible, one who brings a sense of optimism about what we can do instead of always disparaging the american people. i believe in what we can do to strengthen our small businesses, which is why i have a plan. let's talk about our plans. and, and let's compare the plans. i have a plan to give startup businesses $50,000 tax deduction, to pursue their ambitions, their innovation, their ideas, their hard work. i have a plan. $6,000 for young families for the first year of your child's life. to help you in that most critical stage of your child's development. i have a plan that is about allowing people to be able to pursue what has been fleeting in terms of the american dream by offering help with down payment of $25,000, down payment assistance for first time home buyers. that's the kind of conversation i believe, david, that people really want tonight as opposed to a conversation that is constantly about belittling and name calling. let's turn the page and move forward. david muir: vice president harris, thank you. linsey davis: we have to move on. president trump    president trump: she is destroying our country. she has a plan to defund the police. she has a plan to confiscate everybody's gun. she has a plan to not allow fracking in pennsylvania or anywhere else. that's what her plan is until just recently. linsey davis: president trump, president trump. vice president harris: the former president has said something twice and i need to respond too. i just need to respond one time to what he has said multiple times. linsey davis: i'm sorry, we're going to move on, vice president harris. this is now your third time running for president. you have long vowed to repeal and replace the affordable care act, also known as obamacare. you have failed to accomplish that. you now say you're going to keep obamacare. quote, unless we can do something much better. last month you said, quote, we're working on it. so tonight, nine years after you first started running, do you have a plan and can you tell us what it is? former president donald trump: obamacare was lousy health care. always was. it's not very good today. and what i said, that if we come up with something, we are working on things, we're going to do it and we're going to replace it. but remember this. i inherited obamacare because democrats wouldn't change it. they wouldn't vote for it. they were unanimous. they wouldn't vote to change it. if they would have done that, we would have had a much better plan than obamacare. but the democrats came up, they wouldn't vote for it. i had a choice to make when i was president, do i save it and make it as good as it can be? never going to be great. or do i let it rot? and i felt i had an obligation, even though politically it would have been good to just let it rot and let it go away. i decided    and i told my people, the top people, and they're very good people    i have a lot of good people in this    that administration. we read about the bad ones. we had some real bad ones too. and so do they. they have really bad ones. the difference is they don't get rid of them. but let me just explain. i had a choice to make do i save it and make it as good as it can be or let it rot? and i saved it. i did the right thing. but it's still never going to be great. and it's too expensive for people. and what we will do is we're looking at different plans. if we can come up with a plan that's going to cost our people, our population less money and be better health care than obamacare, then i would absolutely do it. but until then i'd run it as good as it can be run. linsey davis: so just a yes or no, you still do not have a plan? former president donald trump: i have concepts of a plan. i'm not president right now. but if we come up with something i would only change it if we come up with something better and less expensive. and there are concepts and options we have to do that. and you'll be hearing about it in the not too distant future. linsey davis: vice president harris, in 2017 you supported bernie sanders' proposal to do away with private insurance and create a government run health care system. two years later you proposed a plan that included a private insurance option. what is your plan today? vice president kamala harris: well, first of all, i absolutely support and over the last four years as vice president private health care options. but what we need to do is maintain and grow the affordable care act. but i, i'll get to that, linsey. i just need to respond to a previous point that the former president has made. i've made very clear my position on fracking. and then this business about taking everyone's guns away. tim walz and i are both gun owners. we're not taking anybody's guns away. so stop with the continuous lying about this stuff. as it relates to the affordable care act, understand, just look at the history to know where people stand. when donald trump was president, 60 times he tried to get rid of the affordable care act. 60 times. i was a senator at the time. when, i will never forget the early morning hours when it was up for a vote in the united states senate and the late great john mccain, who you have disparaged as being   uh, you don't like him, you said at the time because he got caught, he was an american hero. the late great john mccain, i will never forget that night. walked onto the senate floor and said no, you don't. no, you don't. no, you don't get rid of the affordable care act. you have no plan. and what the affordable care act has done is eliminate the ability of insurance companies to deny people with pre existing conditions. i don't have to tell the people watching tonight, you remember what that was like? remember when an insurance company could deny if a child had asthma, if someone was a breast cancer survivor, if a grandparent had diabetes? and thankfully, as i've been vice president and we over the last four years have strengthened the affordable care act, we have allowed for the first time medicare to negotiate drug prices on behalf of you the american people. donald trump said he was going to allow medicare to negotiate dr, drug prices. he never did. we did. and now we have capped the cost of insulin at $35 a month. since i've been vice president we have capped the cost of prescription medication for seniors at $2,000 a year. and when i am president we will do that for all people understanding that the value i bring to this is that access to health care should be a right and not just a privilege of those who can afford it. and the plan has to be to strengthen the affordable care act, not get rid of it, (in audible) in terms of where donald trump stands on that. linsey davis: i want to move to an issue that's important    former president donald trump: she made a mistake. number one, john mccain fought obamacare for ten years. but it wasn't only him. it was, all of the democrats that kept it going. and you know what? we could do much better than obamacare. much less money. but she won't improve private insurance for people. private, medical insurance. that's another thing she doesn't want linsey davis: president trump. former president donald trump: people are paying privately for insurance that have worked hard and made money and they want to have private. she wants everybody to be on government insurance where you wait six months for an operation that you need immediately. linsey davis: president trump, thank you. we have another issue that we'd like to get to that's important for a number of americans, in particular younger voters, and that's climate change. president trump, with regard to the environment, you say that we have to have clean air and clean water. vice president harris, you call climate change an existential threat. the question to you both tonight is what would you do to fight climate change? and vice president harris, we'll start with you. one minute for you each. vice president kamala harris: well, the former president had said that climate change is a hoax. and what we know is that it is very real. you ask anyone who lives in a state who has experienced these extreme weather occurrences who now is either being denied home insurance or is being jacked up. you ask anybody who has been the victim of what that means in terms of losing their home, having nowhere to go. we know that we can actually deal with this issue. the young people of america care deeply about this issue. and i am proud that as vice president over the last four years, we have invested a trillion dollars in a clean energy economy while we have also increased domestic gas production to historic levels. we have created over 800,000 new manufacturing jobs while i have been vice president. we have invested in clean energy to the point that we are opening up factories around the world. donald trump said he was going to create manufacturing jobs. he lost manufacturing jobs. and i'm also proud to have the endorsement of the united auto workers and shawn fain, who also know that part of building a clean energy economy includes investing in american made products, american automobiles. it includes growing what we can do around american manufacturing and opening up auto plants, not closing them like what happened under donald trump. linsey davis: vice president harris, thank you. former president donald trump: that didn't happen under donald trump. let me just tell you, they lost 10,000 manufacturing jobs this last month. it's going    they're all leaving. they're building big auto plants in mexico. in many cases owned by china. they're building these massive plants, and they think they're going to sell their cars into the united states because of these people. what they have given to china is unbelievable. but we're not going to let that. we'll put tariffs on those cars so they can't come into our country. because they will kill the united auto workers and any auto worker, whether it's in detroit or south carolina or any other place. what they've done to business and manufacturing in this country is horrible. we have nothing because they refuse    you know, biden doesn't go after people because supposedly china paid him millions of dollars. he's afraid to do it. between him and his son. they get all this money from ukraine. they get all this money from all of these different countries. and then you wonder why is he so loyal to this one, that one ukraine, china? why is he? why did he get 3 1/2 million dollars from the mayor of moscow's wife? why did he get    why did she pay him 3 1/2 million dollars? this is a crooked administration, and they're selling our country down the tubes. linsey davis: president trump, thank you. former president donald trump: thank you. david muir: we'll be right back with closing statements from both of our candidates. a historic night, this abc news presidential debate from philadelphia. back in a moment. david muir: the time has come for closing statements. and vice president harris, we begin with you. vice president kamala harris: so i think you've heard tonight two very different visions for our country. one that is focused on the future and the other that is focused on the past. and an attempt to take us backward. but we're not going back. and i do believe that the american people know we all have so much more in common than what separates us and we can chart a new way forward. and a vision of that includes having a plan, understanding the aspirations, the dreams, the hopes, the ambition of the american people, which is why i intend to create an opportunity economy, investing in small businesses, in new families, in what we can do around protecting seniors, what we can do that is about giving hard working folks a break in bringing down the cost of living. i believe in what we can do together that is about sustaining america's standing in the world and ensuring we have the respect that we so rightly deserve including respecting our military and ensuring we have the most lethal fighting force in the world. i will be a president that will protect our fundamental rights and freedoms including the right of a woman to make decisions about her own body and not have her government tell her what to do. i'll tell you, i started my career as a prosecutor. i was a d.a. i was an attorney general. a united states senator. and now vice president. i've only had one client. the people. and i'll tell you, as a prosecutor i never asked a victim or a witness are you a republican or a democrat. the only thing i ever asked them, are you okay? and that's the kind of president we need right now. someone who cares about you and is not putting themselves first. i intend to be a president for all americans and focus on what we can do over the next 10 and 20 years to build back up our country by investing right now in you the american people. linsey davis: vice president harris, thank you. president trump? former president donald trump: so, she just started by saying she's going to do this, she's going to do that, she's going to do all these wonderful things. why hasn't she done it? she's been there for 3 1/2 years. they've had 3 1/2 years to fix the border. they've had 3 1/2 years to create jobs and all the things we talked about. why hasn't she done it? she should leave right now, go down to that beautiful white house, go to the capitol, get everyone together and do the things you want to do. but you haven't done it. and you won't do it. because you believe in things that the american people don't believe in. you believe in things like we're not going to frack. we're not going to take fossil fuel. we're not going to do, things that are going to make this country strong, whether you like it or not. germany tried that and within one year they were back to building normal energy plants. we're not ready for it. we can't sacrifice our country for the sake of bad vision. but i just ask one simple question. why didn't she do it? we're a failing nation. we're a nation that's in serious decline. we're being laughed at all over the world. all over the world, they laugh, i know the leaders very well. they're coming to see me. they call me. we're laughed at all over the world. they don't understand what happened to us as a nation. we're not a leader. we don't have any idea what's going on. we have wars going on in the middle east. we have wars going on with russia and ukraine. we're going to end up in a third world war. and it will be a war like no other because of nuclear weapons, the power of weaponry. i rebuilt our entire military. she gave a lot of it away to the taliban. she gave it to afghanistan. what these people have done to our country, and maybe toughest of all is allowing millions of people to come into our country, many of them are criminals, and they're destroying our country. the worst president, the worst vice president in the history of our country. linsey davis: president trump thank you. and that is our abc news presidential debate from here in philadelphia at the national constitution center. i'm linsey davis. david muir: and i'm david muir. thank you for watching here in the u.s. and all over the world. and from all of us here at abc news, good night. 24/7 coverage of breaking news and live events

museum hoursmon   sun 10am   5 pm research room hoursmon   fri 9am   5pmby appointment only admissions & discounts *active military/veterans need to purchase tickets at the front desk to receive discount. discounts apply to military member only. **audio tour contains dialogue for reagan exhibit galleries only all veterans (with a valid military id) receive $3 off admission when purchased in person at the library. mrs. hinderfeld. good evening. i'm ruth hinerfeld of the league of women voters education fund. next tuesday is election day. before going to the polls, voters want to understand the issues and know the candidates' positions. tonight, voters will have an opportunity to see and hear the major party candidates for the presidency state their views on issues that affect us all. the league of women voters is proud to present this presidential debate. our moderator is howard k. smith. mr. smith. thank you, mrs. hinderfeld. the league of women voters is pleased to welcome to the cleveland, ohio, convention center music hall president jimmy carter, the democratic party's candidate for reelection to the presidency, and governor ronald reagan of california, the republican party's candidate for the presidency. the candidates will debate questions on domestic, economic, foreign policy, and national security issues. the questions are going to be posed by a panel of distinguished journalists who are here with me. they are: marvin stone, the editor of u.s. news and world report; harry ellis, national correspondent of the christian science monitor; william hilliard, assistant managing editor of the portland oregonian; barbara walters, correspondent, abc news. the ground rules for this, as agreed by you gentlemen, are these: each panelist down here will ask a question, the same question, to each of the two candidates. after the two candidates have answered, a panelist will ask followup questions to try to sharpen the answers. the candidates will then have an opportunity each to make a rebuttal. that will constitute the first half of the debate, and i will state the rules for the second half later on. some other rules: the candidates are not permitted to bring prepared notes to the podium, but are permitted to make notes during the debate. if the candidates exceed the allotted time agreed on, i will reluctantly but certainly interrupt. we ask the convention center audience here to abide by one ground rule: please do not applaud or express approval or disapproval during the debate. now, based on a toss of the coin, governor reagan will respond to the first question from marvin stone. questions u.s. armed forces mr. stone. governor, as you're well aware, the question of war and peace has emerged as a central issue in this campaign in the give and take of recent weeks. president carter's been criticized for responding late to aggressive soviet impulses, for insufficient buildup of our armed forces, and a paralysis in dealing with afghanistan and iran. you have been criticized for being all too quick to advocate the use of lots of muscle, military action, to deal with foreign crises. specifically, what are the differences between the two of you on the uses of american military power? governor reagan. i don't know what the differences might be, because i don't know what mr. carter's policies are. i do know what he has said about mine. and i'm only here to tell you that i believe with all my heart that our first priority must be world peace, and that use of force is always and only a last resort, when everything else has failed, and then only with regard to our national security. now, i believe, also that this meeting, this mission, this responsibility for preserving the peace, which i believe is a responsibility peculiar to our country, that we cannot shirk our responsibility as the leader of the free world, because we're the only one that can do it. and therefore, the burden of maintaining the peace falls on us. and to maintain that peace requires strength. america has never gotten in a war because we were too strong. we can get into a war by letting events get out of hand, as they have in the last 3 years under the foreign policies of this administration of mr. carter's, until we're faced each time with a crisis. and good management in preserving the peace requires that we control the events and try to intercept before they become a crisis. but i have seen four wars in my lifetime. i'm a father of sons; i have a grandson. i don't ever want to see another generation of young americans bleed their lives into sandy beachheads in the pacific, or rice paddies and jungles in asia, or the muddy, bloody battlefields of europe. mr. smith. mr. stone, do you have a followup question for the governor? mr. stone. yes. governor, we've been hearing that the defense buildup that you would associate yourself with would cost tens of billions of dollars more than is now contemplated. in assuming that the american people are ready to bear this cost, they nevertheless keep asking the following question: how do you reconcile huge increases in military outlays with your promise of substantial tax cuts and of balancing the budget, which in this fiscal year, the one that just ended, ran more than $60 billion in the red? governor reagan. mr. stone, i have submitted an economic plan that i've worked out in concert with a number of fine economists in this country, all of whom approve it, and believe that over a 5 year projection, this plan can permit the extra spending for needed refurbishing of our defensive posture, that it can provide for a balanced budget by 1983, if not earlier, and that we can afford along with the cuts that i have proposed in government spending  we can afford the tax cuts i have proposed  and probably, mainly because mr. carter's economic policy has built into the next 5 years, and on beyond that, a tax increase that will be taking $86 billion more next year out of the people's pockets than was taken this year. and my tax cut does not come close to eliminating that $86 billion increase. i'm only reducing the amount of the increase. in other words, what i'm talking about is not putting government back to getting less money than government's been getting, but simply cutting the increase in spending. mr. smith. the same question now goes to president carter. president carter, would you like to have the question repeated? the president. yes. mr. stone. yes, president carter, the question of war and peace, a central issue in this campaign. you've been criticized in the give and take for responding late to aggressive soviet impulses, for an insufficient buildup of our armed forces, and a paralysis in dealing with afghanistan and iran. governor reagan, on the other hand, has been criticized for being all too quick to advocate the use of lots of muscle, military action, to deal with foreign crises such as i mentioned. specifically, what are the differences between the two of you on the uses of american military power? the president. mr. stone, i've had to make thousands of decisions since i've been president, serving in the oval office. and with each one of those decisions that affect the future of my country, i have learned in the process. i think i'm a much wiser and more experienced man than i was when i debated 4 years ago against president ford. i've also learned that there are no simple answers to complicated questions. h. l. mencken said that for every problem there's a simple answer. it would be neat and plausible  and wrong. the fact is that this nation, in the 8 years before i became president, had its own military strength decreased. seven out of eight years, the budget commitments for defense went down, 37 percent, in all. since i've been in office, we've had a steady, carefully planned, methodical but very effective increase in our commitment for defense. but what we've done is to use that enormous power and prestige and military strength of the united states to preserve the peace. we've not only kept peace for our own country, but we've been able to extend the benefits of peace to others. in the middle east, we've worked for a peace treaty between israel and egypt, successfully, and have tied ourselves together with israel and egypt in a common defense capability. this is a very good step forward for our nation's security, and we'll continue to do as we've done in the past. i might also add that there are decisions that are made in the oval office by every president which are profound in nature. there are always troublespots in the world, and how those troubled areas are addressed by a president, alone in that oval office, affects our nation directly, the involvement of the united states and also our american interests. that is a basic decision that has to be made so frequently by every president who serves. that's what i've tried to do, successfully, by keeping our country at peace. mr. smith. mr. stone, do you have a followup on    mr. stone. yes. i would like to be a little more specific on the use of military power, and let's talk about one area for a moment. under what circumstances would you use military forces to deal with, for example, a shutoff of persian oil gulf, if that should occur, or to counter russian expansion beyond afghanistan into either iran or pakistan? i ask this question in view of charges that we are woefully unprepared to project sustained  and i emphasize the word "sustained"  power in that part of the world. the president. mr. stone, in my state of the union address earlier this year, i pointed out that any threat to the stability or security of the persian gulf would be a threat to the security of our own country. in the past, we've not had an adequate military presence in that region. now we have two major carrier task forces. we have access to facilities in five different areas of that region. and we've made it clear that working with our allies and others, that we are prepared to address any foreseeable eventuality which might interrupt commerce with that crucial area of the world. but in doing this, we have made sure that we address this question peacefully, not injecting american military forces into combat, but letting the strength of our nation be felt in a beneficial way. this, i believe, has assured that our interests will be protected in the persian gulf region, as we've done in the middle east and throughout the world. mr. smith. governor reagan, you have a minute to comment or rebut. governor reagan. well, yes, i question the figure about the decline in defense spending under the two previous administrations, in the preceding 8 years to this administration. i would call to your attention that we were in a war that wound down during those 8 years, which of course made a change in military spending because of turning from war to peace. i also would like to point out that republican presidents in those years, faced with a democratic majority in both houses of the congress, found that their requests for defense budgets were very often cut. now, gerald ford left a 5 year projected plan for a military buildup to restore our defenses, and president carter's administration reduced that by 38 percent, cut 60 ships out of the navy building program that had been proposed, and stopped the b 1, delayed the cruise missile, stopped the production line for the minuteman missiles, delayed the trident submarine, and now is planning a mobile military force that can be delivered to various spots in the world  which does make me question his assaults on whether i am the one that is quick to look for use of force. mr. smith. president carter, you have the last word on this question. the president. well, there are various elements of defense. one is to control nuclear weapons, which i hope we'll get to later on, because that's the most important single issue in this campaign. another one is how to address troubled areas of the world. i think, habitually, governor reagan has advocated the injection of military forces into troubled areas, when i and my predecessors both democrats and republicans  have advocated resolving those troubles and those difficult areas of the world peacefully, diplomatically, and through negotiation. in addition to that, the buildup of military forces is good for our country, because we've got to have military strength in order to preserve the peace. but i'll always remember that the best weapons are the ones that are never fired in combat, and the best soldier is one who never has to lay his life down on the field of battle. strength is imperative for peace, but the two must go hand in hand. mr. smith. thank you, gentlemen. the next question is from harry ellis to president carter. the nation's economy mr. ellis. mr. president, when you were elected in 1976, the consumer price index stood at 4.8 percent. it now stands at more than 12 percent. perhaps more significantly, the nation's broader, underlying inflation rate has gone up from 7 to 9 percent. now, a part of that was due to external factors beyond u.s. control, notably the more than doubling of oil prices by opec last year. because the united states remains vulnerable to such external shocks, can inflation in fact be controlled? if so, what measures would you pursue in a second term? the president. again, it's important to put the situation into perspective. in 1974 we had a so called oil shock, wherein the price of opec oil was raised to an extraordinary degree. we had an even worse oil shock in 1979. in 1974 we had the worst recession, the deepest and most penetrating recession since the second world war. the recession that resulted this time was the briefest we've had since the second world war. in addition, we've brought down inflation. earlier this year, the first quarter, we did have a very severe inflation pressure, brought about by the opec price increase. it averaged about 18 percent the first quarter of this year. the second quarter, we had dropped it down to about 13 percent. the most recent figures, the last 3 months, or the third quarter of this year, the inflation rate is 7 percent  still too high, but it illustrates very vividly that in addition to providing an enormous number of jobs  9 million new jobs in the last 3 1/2 years  that the inflationary threat is still urgent on us. i noticed that governor reagan recently mentioned the reagan kemp roth proposal, which his own running mate, george bush, described as voodoo economics, and said that it would result in a 30 percent inflation rate. and business week, which is not a democratic publication, said that this reagan kemp roth proposal  and i quote them, i think was completely irresponsible and would result in inflationary pressures which would destroy this nation. so, our proposals are very sound and very carefully considered to stimulate jobs, to improve the industrial complex of this country, to create tools for american workers, and at the same time would be anti inflationary in nature. so, to add 9 million new jobs, to control inflation, and to plan for the future with the energy policy now intact as a foundation is our plan for the years ahead. mr. smith. mr. ellis, do you have a followup question for mr. carter? mr. ellis. yes, mr. president. you have mentioned the creation of 9 million new jobs. the president. yes. mr. ellis. at the same time, the unemployment rate still hangs high, as does the inflation rate. now, i wonder, can you tell us what additional policies you would pursue in a second administration in order to try to bring down that inflation rate? and would it be an act of leadership to tell the american people they're going to have to sacrifice to adopt a leaner lifestyle for some time to come? the president. yes. we have demanded that the american people sacrifice, and they've done very well. as a matter of fact, we're importing today about one third less oil from overseas than we did just a year ago. we've had a 25 percent reduction since the first year i was in office. at the same time, as i said earlier, we have added about 9 million net new jobs in that period of time  a record never before achieved. also, the new energy policy has been predicated on two factors: one, conservation, which requires sacrifice, and the other one, increase in production of american energy, which is going along very well  more coal this year than ever before in history, more oil and gas wells drilled this year than ever before in history. the new economic revitalization program that we have in mind, which will be implemented next year, would result in tax credits which would let business invest in new tools and new factories to create even more new jobs  about a million in the next 2 years. and we also have planned a youth employment program which would encompass 600,000 jobs for young people. this has already passed the house; now has an excellent prospect to pass the senate. mr. smith. now, the same question goes to governor reagan. governor reagan, would you like to have the question repeated? governor reagan. yes, please. mr. ellis. governor reagan, during the past 4 years, the consumer price index has risen from 4.8 percent to currently over 12 percent. and perhaps more significantly, the nation's broader, underlying rate of inflation has gone up from 7 to 9 percent. now, a part of that has been due to external factors beyond u.s. control, and notably, the more than doubling of opec oil prices last year, which leads me to ask you whether, since the united states remains vulnerable to such external shocks, can inflation in fact be controlled? if so, specifically what measures would you pursue? governor reagan. mr. ellis, i think this idea that has been spawned here in our country, that inflation somehow came upon us like a plague and therefore it's uncontrollable and no one can do anything about it, is entirely spurious, and it's dangerous to say this to the people. when mr. carter became president, inflation was 4.8 percent, as you said. it had been cut in two by president gerald ford. it is now running at 12.7 percent. president carter also has spoken of the new jobs created. well, we always, with the normal growth in our country and increase in population, increase the number of jobs. but that can't hide the fact that there are 8 million men and women out of work in america today, and 2 million of those lost their jobs in just the last few months. mr. carter had also promised that he would not use unemployment as a tool to fight against inflation. and yet, his 1980 economic message stated that we would reduce productivity and gross national product and increase unemployment in order to get a handle on inflation, because in january, at the beginning of the year, it was more than 18 percent. since then, he has blamed to the people for inflation, opec, he's blamed the federal reserve system, he has blamed the lack of productivity of the american people, he has then accused the people of living too well and that we must share in scarcity, we must sacrifice and get used to doing with less. we don't have inflation because the people are living too well. we have inflation because the government is living too well. and the last statement, just a few days ago, was a speech to the effect that we have inflation because government revenues have not kept pace with government spending. i see my time is running out here. i'll have to get this down very fast. yes, you can lick inflation by increasing productivity and by decreasing the cost of government to the place that we have balanced budgets and are no longer grinding out printing press money, flooding the market with it because the government is spending more than it takes in. and my economic plan calls for that. the president's economic plan calls for increasing the taxes to the point that we finally take so much money away from the people that we can balance the budget in that way. but we'll have a very poor nation and a very unsound economy if we follow that path. mr. smith. a follow up, mr. ellis? mr. ellis. yes, you have centered on cutting government spending in what you have just said about your own policies. you have also said that you would increase defense spending. specifically, where would you cut government spending if you were to increase defense spending and also cut taxes, so that, presumably, federal revenues would shrink? governor reagan. well, most people, when they think about cutting government spending, they think in terms of eliminating necessary programs or wiping out something, some service that government is supposed to perform. i believe that there is enough extravagance and fat in government. as a matter of fact, one of the secretaries of hew under mr. carter testified that he thought there was $7 billion worth of fraud and waste in welfare and in the medical programs associated with it. we've had the general accounting office estimate that there is probably tens of billions of dollars that is lost in fraud alone, and they have added that waste adds even more to that. we have a program for a gradual reduction of government spending based on these theories, and i have a task force now that has been working on where those cuts could be made. i'm confident that it can be done and that it will reduce inflation, because i did it in california. and inflation went down below the national average in california when we returned money to the people and reduced government spending. mr. smith. president carter. the president. governor reagan's proposal, the reagan kemp roth proposal, is one of the most highly inflationary ideas that ever has been presented to the american public. he would actually have to cut government spending by at least $130 billion in order to balance the budget under this ridiculous proposal. i noticed that his task force that's working for his future plans had some of their ideas revealed in the wall street journal this week. one of those ideas was to repeal the minimum wage, and several times this year, governor reagan has said that the major cause of unemployment is the minimum wage. this is a heartless kind of approach to the working families of our country which is typical of many republican leaders in the past, but i think has been accentuated under governor reagan. in california  i'm surprised governor reagan brought this up  he had the three largest tax increases in the history of that state under his administration. he more than doubled state spending while he was governor  122 percent increase  and had between a 20  and 30 percent increase in the number of employees    mr. smith. sorry to interrupt    the president.   in california. mr. smith.   mr. carter. the president. thank you, sir. mr. smith. governor reagan has the last word on this question. governor reagan. yes. the figures that the president has just used about california is a distortion of the situation there, because while i was governor of california, our spending in california increased less per capita than the spending in georgia while mr. carter was governor of georgia in the same 4 years. the size of government increased only one sixth in california of what it increased in proportion to population in georgia. and the idea that my tax cut proposal is inflationary: i would like to ask the president, why is it inflationary to let the people keep more of their money and spend it the way they'd like, and it isn't inflationary to let him take that money and spend it the way he wants? mr. smith. i wish that question need not be rhetorical, but it must be because we've run out of time on that. [laughter] now, the third question to governor reagan from william hilliard. urban policies mr. hilliard. yes, governor reagan, the decline of our cities has been hastened by the continual rise in crime, strained race relations, the fall in the quality of public education, the persistence of abnormal poverty in a rich nation, and a decline in the services to the public. the signs seem to point toward a deterioration that could lead to the establishment of a permanent underclass in the cities. what, specifically, would you do in the next 4 years to reverse this trend? governor reagan. i have been talking to a number of congressmen who have much the same idea that i have, and that is that in the inner city areas, that in cooperation with local government and with national government, and using tax incentives and with cooperation with the private sector, that we have development zones. let the local entity, the city, declare this particular area, based on the standards of the percentage of people on welfare, unemployed, and so forth, in that area. and then, through tax incentives, induce the creation of businesses providing jobs and so forth in those areas. the elements of government through these tax incentives for example, a business that would not have, for a period of time, an increase in the property tax reflecting its development of the unused property that it was making wouldn't be any loss to the city, because the city isn't getting any tax from that now. and there would simply be a delay, and on the other hand, many of the people that would then be given jobs are presently wards of the government, and it wouldn't hurt to give them a tax incentive, because that wouldn't be costing government anything either. i think there are things to do in this regard. i stood in the south bronx on the exact spot that president carter stood on in 1977. you have to see it to believe it. it looks like a bombed out city  great, gaunt skeletons of buildings, windows smashed out, painted on one of them "unkept promises," on another, "despair." and this was the spot at which president carter had promised that he was going to bring in a vast program to rebuild this area. there are whole blocks of land that are left bare, just bulldozed down flat, and nothing has been done. and they are now charging to take tourists through there to see this terrible desolation. i talked to a man just briefly there who asked me one simple question: "do i have reason to hope that i can someday take care of my family again? nothing has been done." mr. smith. follow up, mr. hilliard? mr. hilliard. yes, governor reagan. blacks and other nonwhites are increasing in numbers in our cities. many of them feel that they are facing a hostility from whites that prevents them from joining the economic mainstream of our society. there is racial confrontation in the schools, on jobs, and in housing, as nonwhites seek to reap the benefits of a free society. what do you think is the nation's future as a multiracial society? governor reagan. i believe in it. i am eternally optimistic, and i happen to believe that we've made great progress from the days when i was young and when this country didn't even know it had a racial problem. i know those things can grow out of despair in an inner city, when there's hopelessness at home, lack of work, and so forth. but i believe that all of us together  and i believe the presidency is what teddy roosevelt said it was; it's a bully pulpit  and i think that something can be done from there, because the goal for all of us should be that one day, things will be done neither because of nor in spite of any of the differences between us  ethnic differences or racial differences, whatever they may be  that we will have total equal opportunity for all people. and i would do everything i could in my power to bring that about. mr. smith. mr. hilliard, would you repeat your question for president carter? mr. hilliard. president carter, the decline of our cities has been hastened by the continual rise in crime, strained race relations, the fall in the quality of public education, the persistence of abnormal poverty in a rich nation, and a decline in services to the public. the signs seem to point toward a deterioration that could lead to the establishment of a permanent underclass in the cities. what, specifically, would you do in the next 4 years to reverse this trend? the president. thank you, mr. hilliard. when i was campaigning in 1976, everywhere i went the mayors and local officials were in despair about the rapidly deteriorating central cities of our nation. we initiated a very fine urban renewal program, working with the mayors, the governors, and other interested officials. this has been a very successful effort. that's one of the main reasons that we've had such an increase in the number of people employed. of the 9 million people put to work in new jobs since i've been in office, 1.3 million of those has been among black americans and another million among those who speak spanish. we now are planning to continue the revitalization program with increased commitments of rapid transit, mass transit. under the windfall profits tax, we expect to spend about $43 billion in the next 10 years to rebuild the transportation systems of our country. we also are pursuing housing programs. we've had a 73 percent increase in the allotment of federal funds for improved education. these are the kinds of efforts worked on a joint basis with community leaders, particularly in the minority areas of the central cities that had been deteriorating so rapidly in the past. it's very important to us that this be done with the full involvement of minority citizens. i've brought into the top levels of government  into the white house, into administrative offices of the executive branch, into the judicial system  highly qualified black and spanish citizens and women who in the past had been excluded. i noticed that governor reagan said that when he was a younger man that there was no knowledge of a racial problem in this country. those who suffered from discrimination because of race or sex certainly knew we had a racial problem. we have gone a long way toward correcting these problems, but we still have a long way to go. mr. smith. a follow up question? mr. hilliard. yes, president carter, i'd like to repeat the same follow up to you. blacks and other nonwhites are increasing in numbers in our cities. many of them feel that they are facing a hostility from whites that prevents them from joining the economic mainstream of our society. there is racial confrontation in the schools, on jobs, and in housing, as nonwhites seek to reap the benefits of a free society. what is your assessment of the nation's future in a multiracial society? the president. ours is a nation of refugees, a nation of immigrants. almost all of our citizens came here from other lands and now have hopes, which are being realized, for a better life, preserving their ethnic commitments, their family structures, their religious beliefs, preserving their relationships with their relatives in foreign countries, but still forming themselves together in a very coherent society, which gives our nation its strength. in the past, those minority groups have often been excluded from participation in the affairs of government. since i've been president, i've appointed, for instance, more than twice as many black federal judges as all previous presidents in the history of this country. i've done the same thing in the appointment of women, and also spanish speaking americans. to involve them in administration of government and a feeling that they belong to the societal structure that makes decisions in the judiciary and in executive branch is a very important commitment which i am trying to realize and will continue to do so in the future. mr. smith. governor reagan, you have a minute for rebuttal. governor reagan. yes. the president talks of government programs, and they have their place. but as governor, when i was at that end of the line and receiving some of these grants for government programs, i saw that so many of them were dead end. they were public employment for these people who really want to get out into the private job market, where there are jobs with a future. now, the president spoke a moment ago about  that i was against the minimum wage. i wish he could have been with me when i sat with a group of teenagers who were black and who were telling me about their unemployment problems, and that it was the minimum wage that had done away with the jobs that they once could get. and indeed, every time it has increased you will find there is an increase in minority unemployment among young people. and therefore, i have been in favor of a separate minimum for them. with regard to the great progress that has been made with this government spending, the rate of black unemployment in detroit, michigan, is 56 percent. mr. smith. president carter, you have the last word on this question. the president. well, it's obvious that we still have a long way to go in fully incorporating the minority groups into the mainstream of american life. we have made good progress, and there's no doubt in my mind that the commitment to unemployment compensation, the minimum wage, welfare, national health insurance, those kinds of commitments that have typified the democratic party since ancient history in this country's political life are a very important element of the future. in all those elements, governor reagan has repeatedly spoken out against them, which, to me, shows a very great insensitivity to giving deprived families a better chance in life. this, to me, is a very important difference between him and me in this election, and i believe the american people will judge accordingly. there is no doubt in my mind that in the downtown, central cities, with the new commitment on an energy policy, with a chance to revitalize homes and to make them more fuel efficient, with a chance for a synthetic fuels program, solar power, this will give us an additional opportunity for jobs which will pay rich dividends. mr. smith. thank you, gentlemen. now for the fourth question, to president carter from barbara walters. international terrorism ms. walters. mr. president, the eyes of the country tonight are on the hostages in iran. i realize this is a sensitive area, but the question of how we respond to acts of terrorism goes beyond this current crisis. other countries have policies that determine how they will respond. israel, for example, considers hostages like soldiers and will not negotiate with terrorists. for the future, mr. president, the country has the right to know, do you have a policy for dealing with terrorism wherever it might happen, and what have we learned from this experience in iran that might cause us to do things differently if this or something similar happens again? the president. barbara, one of the blights on this world is the threat and the activities of terrorists. at one of the recent economic summit conferences between myself and the other leaders of the we. stern world, we committed ourselves to take strong action against terrorism. airplane hijacking was one of the elements of that commitment. there is no doubt that we have seen in recent years, in recent months, additional acts of violence against jews in france and, of course, against those who live in israel by the plo and other terrorist organizations. ultimately, the most serious terrorist threat is if one of those radical nations, who believe in terrorism as a policy, should have atomic weapons. both i and all my predecessors have had a deep commitment to controlling the proliferation of nuclear weapons in countries like libya or iraq. we have even alienated some of our closest trade partners, because we have insisted upon the control of the spread of nuclear weapons to those potentially terrorist countries. when governor reagan has been asked about that, he makes a very disturbing comment that nonproliferation, or the control of the spread of nuclear weapons, is none of our business. and when he was asked specifically, recently, about iraq, he said there's nothing we can do about it. this ultimate terrorist threat is the most fearsome of all, and it's part of a pattern where our country must stand firm to control terrorism of all kinds. mr. smith. ms. walters, a follow up? ms. walters. yes. while we are discussing policy, had iran not taken american hostages, i assume that, in order to preserve our neutrality, we would have stopped the flow of spare parts and vital war materials once war broke out between iraq and iran. now, we're offering to lift the ban on such goods if they let our people come home. doesn't this reward terrorism, compromise our neutrality, and possibly antagonize nations now friendly to us in the middle east? the president. we will maintain our position of neutrality in the iran and iraq war. we have no plans to sell additional materiel or goods to iran that might be of a warlike nature. when i made my decision to stop all trade with iran as a result of the taking of our hostages, i announced then and have consistently maintained since then that if the hostages are released safely, that we would make delivery on those items which iran owns, which they have bought and paid for also, that the frozen iranian assets would be released. that's been a consistent policy, one i intend to carry out. mr. smith. would you repeat the question now for governor reagan, please, ms. walters? ms. walters. yes. governor, the eyes of the country tonight remain on the hostages in iran, but the question of how we respond to acts of terrorism goes beyond this current crisis. there are other countries that have policies that determine how they will respond. israel, for example, considers hostages like soldiers and will not negotiate with terrorists. for the future, the country has the right to know, do you have a policy for dealing with terrorism wherever it might happen, and what have we learned from this experience in iran that might cause us to do things differently if this, or something similar, should happen again? governor reagan. well, barbara, you've asked that question twice. i think you ought to have at least one answer to it. [laughter] i have been accused lately of having a secret plan with regard to the hostages. now, this comes from an answer that i've made at least 50 times during this campaign to the press. the question would be, "have you any ideas of what you would do if you were there?" and i said, well, yes. and i think that anyone that's seeking this position, as well as other people, probably, have thought to themselves, "what about this, what about that?" these are just ideas of what i would think of if i were in that position and had access to the information, in which i would know all the options that were open to me. i have never answered the question, however. second  the one that says, "well, tell me, what are some of those ideas?" first of all, i would be fearful that i might say something that was presently under way or in negotiations, and thus expose it and endanger the hostages. and sometimes, i think some of my ideas might involve quiet diplomacy, where you don't say in advance or say to anyone what it is you're thinking of doing. your question is difficult to answer, because, in the situation right now, no one wants to say anything that would inadvertently delay, in any way, the return of those hostages if there is a chance of their coming home soon, or that might cause them harm. what i do think should be done, once they are safely here with their families and that tragedy is over  and we've endured this humiliation for just lacking 1 week of a year now  then, i think, it is time for us to have a complete investigation as to the diplomatic efforts that were made in the beginning, why they have been there so long, and when they come home, what did we have to do in order to bring that about, what arrangements were made? and i would suggest that congress should hold such an investigation. in the meantime, i'm going to continue praying that they'll come home. mr. smith. follow up question. ms. walters. well, i would like to say that neither candidate answered specifically the question of a specific policy for dealing with terrorism, but i will ask governor reagan a different follow up question. you have suggested that there would be no iranian crisis had you been president, because we would have given firmer support to the shah. but iran is a country of 37 million people who were resisting a government they regarded as dictatorial. my question is not whether the shah's regime was preferable to the ayatollah's, but whether the united states has the power or the right to try to determine what form of government any country will have, and do we back unpopular regimes whose major merit is that they are friendly to the united states? governor reagan. the degree of unpopularity of a regime when the choice is total authoritarianism  totalitarianism, i should say, in the alternative government, makes one wonder whether you are being helpful to the people. and we've been guilty of that. because someone didn't meet exactly our standards of human rights, even though they were an ally of ours, instead of trying patiently to persuade them to change their ways, we have, in a number of instances, aided a revolutionary overthrow which results in complete totalitarianism, instead, for those people. and i think that this is a kind of a hypocritical policy when, at the same time, we're maintaining a detente with the one nation in the world where there are no human rights at all  the soviet union. now, there was a second phase in the iranian affair in which we had something to do with that. and that was, we had adequate warning that there was a threat to our embassy, and we could have done what other embassies did  either strengthen our security there or remove our personnel before the kidnap and the takeover took place. mr. smith. governor, i'm sorry, i must interrupt. president carter, you have a minute for rebuttal. the president. i didn't hear any comment from governor reagan about what he would do to stop or to reduce terrorism in the future. what the western allies did decide to do is to stop all air flights commercial air flights  to any nation involved in terrorism or the hijacking of airplanes, or the harboring of hijackers. secondly, we all committed ourselves, as have all my predecessors in the oval office, not to permit the spread of nuclear weapons to a terrorist nation or to any other nation that does not presently have those weapons or capabilities for explosives. third, not to make any sales of materiel or weapons to a nation which is involved in terrorist activities. and, lastly, not to deal with the plo until and unless the plo recognizes israel's right to exist and recognizes u.n. resolution 242 as a basis for a middle east peace. these are a few of the things to which our nation is committed, and we will continue with these commitments. mr. smith. governor reagan, you have the last word on that question. governor reagan. yes. i have no quarrel whatsoever with the things that have been done, because i believe it is high time that the civilized countries of the world made it plain that there is no room worldwide for terrorism; there will be no negotiation with terrorists of any kind. and while i have a last word here, i would like to correct a misstatement of fact by the president. i have never made the statement that he suggested about nuclear proliferation, and nuclear proliferation, or the trying to halt it, would be a major part of a foreign policy of mine. mr. smith. thank you, gentlemen. that is the first half of the debate. now, the rules for the second half, quite simple. they're only complicated when i explain them. [laughter] in the second half, the panelists with me will have no follow up questions. instead, after the panelists have asked a question the candidates have answered, each of the candidates will have two opportunities to follow up, to question, to rebut, or just to comment on his opponent's statement. governor reagan will respond, in this section, to the first question from marvin stone. strategic arms limitation mr. stone. governor reagan, arms control: the president said it was the single most important issue, both of you have expressed the desire to end the nuclear arms race with russia, but by methods that are vastly different. you suggest that we scrap the salt ii treaty, already negotiated, and intensify the buildup of american power to induce the soviets to sign a new treaty, one more favorable to us. governor reagan. yes. mr. stone. president carter, on the other hand, says he will again try to convince a reluctant congress to ratify the present treaty on the grounds it's the best we can hope to get. now, both of you cannot be right. will you tell us why you think you are? governor reagan. yes. i think i'm right, because i believe that we must have a consistent foreign policy, a strong america, and a strong economy. and then, as we build up our national security, to restore our margin of safety, we at the same time try to restrain the soviet buildup, which has been going forward at a rapid pace and for quite some time. the salt ii treaty was the result of negotiations that mr. carter's team entered into after he had asked the soviet union for a discussion of actual reduction of nuclear strategic weapons, and his emissary, i think, came home in 12 hours having heard a very definite yet. but taking that one no from the soviet union, we then went back into negotiations on their terms, because mr. carter had canceled the b 1 bomber, delayed the mx, delayed the trident submarine, delayed the cruise missile, shut down the minuteman missile production line, and whatever other things that might have been done. the soviet union sat at the table knowing that we had gone forward with unilateral concessions without any reciprocation from them whatsoever. now, i have not blocked the salt ii treaty, as mr. carter and mr. mondale suggest that i have. it has been blocked by a senate in which there is a democratic majority. indeed, the senate armed services committee voted 10 to 0, with 7 abstentions, against the salt ii treaty, and declared that it was not in the national security interests of the united states besides which, it is illegal, because the law of the land, passed by congress, says we cannot accept a treaty in which we are not equal. and we're not equal in this treaty for one reason alone: our b 52 bombers are considered to be strategic weapons; their backfire bombers are not. mr. smith. governor, i have to interrupt you at that point. the time is up for that. but the same question now to president carter. mr. stone. yes, president carter. both of you have expressed the desire to end the nuclear arms race with russia, but through vastly different methods. the governor suggests we scrap the salt ii treaty, which you signed in vienna  intensify the buildup of american power to induce the soviets to sign a new treaty, one more favorable to us. you, on the other hand, say you will again try to convince a reluctant congress to ratify the present treaty on the grounds it is the best we can hope to get from the russians. you cannot both be right. will you tell us why you think you are? the president. yes, i'd be glad to. inflation, unemployment, the cities all very important issues, but they pale into insignificance in the life and duties of a president when compared with the control of nuclear weapons. every president who has served in the oval office since harry truman has been dedicated to the proposition of controlling nuclear weapons, to negotiate with the soviet union  balanced, controlled, observable, and then reducing levels of atomic weaponry. there is a disturbing pattern in the attitude of governor reagan. he has never supported any of those arms control agreements  the limited test ban, salt i, nor the antiballistic missile treaty, nor the vladivostok treaty negotiated with the soviet union by president ford  and now he wants to throw into the wastebasket a treaty to control nuclear weapons on a balanced and equal basis between ourselves and the soviet union, negotiated over a 7 year period, by myself and my two republican predecessors. the senate has not voted yet on the strategic arms limitation treaty. there have been preliminary skirmishings in the committees of the senate, but the treaty has never come to the floor of the senate for either a debate or a vote. it's understandable that a senator in the preliminary debates can make an irresponsible statement, or, maybe, an ill advised statement. you've got 99 other senators to correct that mistake, if it is a mistake. but when a man who hopes to be president says, "take this treaty, discard it, do not vote, do not debate, do not explore the issues, do not finally capitalize on this long negotiation"  that is a very dangerous and disturbing thing. mr. smith. governor reagan, you have an opportunity to rebut that. governor reagan. yes, i'd like to respond very much. first of all, the soviet union  if i have been critical of some of the previous agreements, it's because we've been out negotiated for quite a long time. and they have managed, in spite of all of our attempts at arms limitation, to go forward with the biggest military buildup in the history of man. now, to suggest that because two republican presidents tried to pass the salt treaty  that puts them on its side  i would like to say that president ford, who was within 90 percent of a treaty that we could be in agreement with when he left office, is emphatically against this salt treaty. i would like to point out also that senators like henry jackson and hollings of south carolina  they are taking the lead in the fight against this particular treaty. i am not talking of scrapping; i am talking of taking the treaty back and going back into negotiations. and i would say to the soviet union, we will sit and negotiate with you as long as it takes, to have not only legitimate arms limitation but to have a reduction of these nuclear weapons to the point that neither one of us represents a threat to the other. that is hardly throwing away a treaty and being opposed to arms limitation. mr. smith. president carter? the president. yes. governor reagan is making some very misleading and disturbing statements. he not only advocates the scrapping of this treaty  and i don't know that these men that he quotes are against the treaty in its final form  but he also advocates the possibility he said it's been a missing element of playing a trump card against the soviet union of a nuclear arms race and insisting upon nuclear superiority by our own nation as a predication for negotiation in the future with the soviet union. if president brezhnev said, "we will scrap this treaty, negotiated under three american presidents over a 7 year period of time; we insist upon nuclear superiority as a basis for future negotiations; and we believe that the launching of a nuclear arms race is a good basis for future negotiations," it's obvious that i, as president, and all americans would reject such a proposition. this would mean the resumption of a very dangerous nuclear arms race. it would be very disturbing to american people. it would change the basic tone and commitment that our nation has experienced ever since the second world war, with all presidents, democratic and republican, and would also be very disturbing to our allies, all of whom support this nuclear arms treaty. in addition to that, the adversarial relationship between ourselves and the soviet union would undoubtedly deteriorate very rapidly. this attitude is extremely dangerous and belligerent in its tone, although it's said with a quiet voice. mr. smith. governor reagan? governor reagan. i know the president's supposed to be replying to me, but sometimes, i have a hard time in connecting what he's saying with what i have said or what my positions are. i sometimes think he's like the witch doctor that gets mad when a good doctor comes along with a cure that'll work. my point i have made already, mr. president, with regard to negotiating. it does not call for nuclear superiority on the part of the united states; it calls for a mutual reduction of these weapons, as i say, that neither of us can represent a threat to the other. and to suggest that the salt ii treaty that your negotiators negotiated was just a continuation, and based on all of the preceding efforts by two previous presidents, is just not true. it was a new negotiation, because, as i say, president ford was within about 10 percent of having a solution that could be acceptable. and i think our allies would be very happy to go along with a fair and verifiable salt agreement. mr. smith. president carter, you have the last word on this question. the president. i think, to close out this discussion, it would be better to put into perspective what we're talking about. i had a discussion with my daughter, amy, the other day, before i came here, to ask her what the most important issue was. she said she thought nuclear weaponry and the control of nuclear arms. this is a formidable force. some of these weapons have 10 megatons of explosion. if you put 50 tons of tnt in each one of railroad cars, you would have a trainload of tnt stretching across this nation. that's one major war explosion in a warhead. we have thousands, equivalent of megaton, or million tons, of tnt warheads. the control of these weapons is the single major responsibility of a president, and to cast out this commitment of all presidents, because of some slight technicalities that can be corrected, is a very dangerous approach. mr. smith. we have to go to another question now, from harry ellis to president carter. energy mr. ellis. mr. president, as you have said, americans, through conservation, are importing much less oil today than we were even a year ago. yet u.s. dependence on arab oil as a percentage of total imports is today much higher than it was at the time of the 1973 arab oil embargo. and for some time to come, the loss of substantial amounts of arab oil could plunge the u.s. into depression. now, this means that a bridge must be built out of this dependence. can the united states develop synthetic fuels and other alternative energy sources without damage to the environment, and will this process mean steadily higher fuel bills for american families? the president. i don't think there's any doubt that, in the future, the cost of oil is going to go up. what i've had as a basic commitment since i've been president is to reduce our dependence on foreign oil: it can only be done in two ways: one, to conserve energy, to stop the waste of energy, and secondly, to produce more american energy. we've been very successful in both cases. we've now reduced the importing of foreign oil in the last year alone by one third. we imported today 2 million barrels of oil less than we did the same day just a year ago. this commitment has been opening up a very bright vista for our nation in the future, because with the windfall profits tax as a base, we now have an opportunity to use american technology and american ability and american natural resources to expand rapidly the production of synthetic fuels, yes; to expand rapidly the production of solar energy, yes; and also to produce the conventional kinds of american energy. we will drill more oil and gas wells this year than any year in history. we'll produce more coal this year than any year in history. we're exporting more coal this year than any year in history. and we have an opportunity now, with improved transportation systems and improved loading facilities in our ports, to see a very good opportunity on the world international market, to replace opec oil with american coal as a basic energy source. this exciting future will not only give us more energy security but will also open up vast opportunities for americans to live a better life and to have millions of new jobs associated with this new and very dynamic industry now in prospect because of the new energy policy that we've put into effect. mr. smith. would you repeat the question now for governor reagan? mr. ellis. governor reagan, americans, through conservation, are importing much less oil today than we were even a year ago. and yet, u.s. reliance on arab oil as a percentage of total imports is much higher today than it was during the 1973 arab oil embargo. and the substantial loss of arab oil could plunge the united states into depression. the question is whether the development of alternative energy sources, in order to reduce this dependence, can be done without damaging the environment, and will it mean for american families steadily higher fuel bills? governor reagan. i'm not sure that it means steadily higher fuel costs, but i do believe that this nation has been portrayed for too long a time to the people as being energy poor when it is energy rich. the coal that the president mentioned: yes, we have it, and yet one eighth of our total coal resources is not being utilized at all right now. the mines are closed down; there are 22,000 miners out of work. most of this is due to regulations which either interfere with the mining of it or prevent the burning of it. with our modern technology, yes, we can burn our coal within the limits of the clean air act. i think, as technology improves, we'll be able to do even better with that. the other thing is that we have only leased out and begun to explore 2 percent of our outer continental shelf for oil, where it is believed by everyone familiar with that fuel and that source of energy that there are vast supplies yet to be found. our government has, in the last year or so, taken out of multiple use millions of acres of public lands that once were  well, they were public lands subject to multiple use exploration for minerals and so forth. it is believed that probably 70 percent of the potential oil in the united states is probably hidden in those lands, and no one is allowed to even go and explore to find out if it is there. this is particularly true of the recent efforts to shut down part of alaska. nuclear power: there were 36 powerplants planned in this country  and let me add the word "safety"; it must be done with the utmost of safety. but 32 of those have given up and canceled their plans to build, and again, because government regulations and permits and so forth make it take more than twice as long to build a nuclear plant in the united states as it does to build one in japan or in western europe. we have the sources here. we are energy rich, and coal is one of the great potentials we have. mr. smith. president carter, your comment? the president. yes, sir. to repeat myself, we have this year the opportunity, which we'll realize, to produce 800 million tons of coal  an unequaled record in the history of our country. governor reagan says that this is not a good achievement, and he blames restraints on coal production on regulations  regulations that affect the life and the health and safety of miners and also regulations that protect the purity of our air and the quality of our water and our land. we cannot cast aside those regulations. we have a chance in the next 15 years, insisting upon the health and safety of workers in the mines, and also preserving the same high air and water pollution standards, to triple the amount of coal we produce. governor reagan's approach to our energy policy, which has already proven its effectiveness, is to repeal or to change substantially the windfall profits tax, to return a major portion of $227 billion back to the oil companies, to do away with the department of energy, to shortcircuit our synthetic fuels program, to put a minimal emphasis on solar power, to emphasize strongly nuclear powerplants as a major source of energy in the future. he wants to put all our eggs in one basket and give that basket to the major oil companies. mr. smith. governor reagan. governor reagan. that is a misstatement, of course, of my position. i just happen to believe that free enterprise can do a better job of producing the things that people need than government can. the department of energy has a multibillion dollar budget, in excess of $10 billion. it hasn't produced a quart of oil or a lump of coal or anything else in the line of energy. and for mr. carter to suggest that i want to do away with the safety laws and with the laws that pertain to clean water and clean air, and so forth as governor of california, i took charge of passing the strictest air pollution laws in the united states  the strictest air quality law that has ever been adopted in the united states. and we created an osha, an occupational safety and health agency, for the protection of employees before the federal government had one in place. and to this day, not one of its decisions or rulings has ever been challenged. so, i think some of those charges are missing the point. i am suggesting that there are literally thousands of unnecessary regulations that invade every facet of business, and indeed, very much of our personal lives, that are unnecessary; that government can do without; that have added $130 billion to the cost of production in this country; and that are contributing their part to inflation. and i would like to see us a little more free, as we once were. mr. smith. president carter, another crack at that? the president. sure. as a matter of fact, the air pollution standard laws that were passed in california were passed over the objections of governor reagan, and this is a very well known fact. also, recently, when someone suggested that the occupational safety and health act should be abolished, governor reagan responded, "amen." the offshore drilling rights is a question that governor reagan raises often. as a matter of fact, in the proposal for the alaska lands legislation, 100 percent of all the offshore lands would be open for exploration, and 95 percent of all the alaska lands where it is suspected or believed that minerals might exist. we have, with our 5 year plan for the leasing of offshore lands, proposed more land to be drilled than has been opened up for drilling since this program first started in 1954. so, we're not putting restraints on american exploration; we're encouraging it in every way we can. mr. smith. governor reagan, you have the last word on this question. governor reagan. yes. if it is a well known fact that i opposed air pollution laws in california, the only thing i can possibly think of is that the president must be suggesting the law that the federal government tried to impose on the state of california  not a law, regulations that would have made it impossible to drive an automobile within the city limits of any california city, or have a place to put it if you did drive it against their regulations. it would have destroyed the economy of california, and, i must say, we had the support of congress when pointed out how ridiculous this attempt was by the environmental protection agency. we still have the strictest air control or air pollution laws in the country. as for offshore oiling, only 2 percent now is so leased and is producing oil. the rest, as to whether the lands are going to be opened in the next 5 years or so  we're already 5 years behind in what we should be doing. there is more oil now in the wells that have been drilled than has been taken out in the 121 years that they've been drilled. mr. smith. thank you, governor. thank you, mr. president. the next question goes to governor reagan from william hilliard. social security mr. hilliard. governor reagan, wage earners in this country  especially the young  are supporting a social security system that continues to affect their income drastically. the system is fostering a struggle between the young and the old, and is drifting the country toward a polarization of these two groups. how much longer can the young wage earner expect to bear the ever increasing burden of the social security system? governor reagan. the social security system was based on a false premise, with regard to how fast the number of workers would increase and how fast the number of retirees would increase. it is actuarially out of balance, and this first became evident about 16 years ago, and some of us were voicing warnings then. now, it is trillions of dollars out of balance, and the only answer that has come so far is the biggest single tax increase in our nation's history, the payroll tax increase for social security, which will only put a band aid on this and postpone the day of reckoning by a few years at most. what is needed is a study that i have proposed by a task force of experts to look into this entire problem as to how it can be reformed and made actuarially sound, but with the premise that no one presently dependent on social security is going to have the rug pulled out from under them and not get their check. we cannot frighten, as we have with the threats and the campaign rhetoric that has gone on in this campaign, our senior citizens, leave them thinking that in some way they're endangered and they would have no place to turn. they must continue to get those checks, and i believe that the system can be put on a sound actuarial basis. but it's going to take some study and some work, and not just passing a tax increase to let the roof fall in on the next administration. mr. smith. would you repeat that question for president carter? mr. hilliard. yes, president carter. wage earners in this country, especially the young, are supporting a social security system that continues to affect their income drastically. the system is fostering a struggle between young and old and is drifting the country toward a polarization of these two groups. how much longer can the young wage earner expect to bear the ever increasing burden of the social security system the president. as long as there's a democratic president in the white house, we will have a strong and viable social security system, free of the threat of bankruptcy. although governor reagan has changed his position lately, on four different occasions he has advocated making social security a voluntary system, which would, in effect, very quickly bankrupt it. i noticed also in the wall street journal earlier this week that a preliminary report of his task force advocates making social security more sound by reducing the adjustments in social security for the retired people to compensate for the impact of inflation. these kinds of approaches are very dangerous to the security and the well being, and the peace of mind of the retired people of this country and those approaching retirement age. but no matter what it takes in the future to keep social security sound, it must be kept that way. and although there was a serious threat to the social security system and its integrity during the 1976 campaign and when i became president, the action of the democratic congress, working with me, has been to put social security back on a sound financial basis. that's the way it will stay mr. smith. governor reagan. governor reagan. well, that just isn't true. it has, as i said, delayed the actuarial imbalance falling on us for just a few years with that increase in taxes. and i don't believe we can go on increasing the tax, because the problem for the young people today is that they're paying in far more than they can ever expect to get out. now, again this statement that somehow i wanted to destroy it, and i just changed my tune, that i am for voluntary social security, which would mean the ruin of it. mr. president, the voluntary thing that i suggested many years ago was that a young man, orphaned and raised by an aunt who died, his aunt was ineligible for social security insurance, because she was not his mother. and i suggested that if this is an insurance program, certainly the person who's paying in should be able to name his own beneficiaries. and that's the closest i've ever come to anything voluntary with social security. i, too, am pledged to a social security program that will reassure these senior citizens of ours they're going to continue to get their money. them are some changes i'd like to make. i would like to make a change that discriminates in the regulations against a wife who works and finds that she then is faced with a choice between her husband's benefits, if he dies first, or what she has paid in; but it does not recognize that she has also been paying in herself, and she is entitled to more than she presently can get. i'd like to change that. mr. smith. president carter's rebuttal now. the president. fine. these constant suggestions that the basic social security system should be changed does cause concern and consternation among the aged of our country. it's obvious that we should have a commitment to them, that social security benefits should not be taxed, and that there would be no peremptory change in the standards by which social security payments are made to the retired people. we also need to continue to index the social security payments so that if inflation rises, the social security payments would rise a commensurate degree to let the buying power of the social security check continue intact. in the past, the relationship between social security and medicare has been very important to provide some modicum of aid for senior citizens in the retention of health benefits. governor reagan, as a matter of fact, began his political career campaigning around this nation against medicare. now we have an opportunity to move toward national health insurance, with an emphasis on the prevention of disease; an emphasis on outpatient care, not inpatient care; an emphasis on hospital cost containment to hold down the cost of hospital care for those who are ill; an emphasis on catastrophic health insurance, so that if a family is threatened with being wiped out economically because of a very high medical bill, then the insurance would help pay for it. these are the kind of elements of a national health insurance, important to the american people. governor reagan, again, typically is against such a proposal. mr. smith. governor. governor reagan. there you go again. [laughter] when i opposed medicare, there was another piece of legislation meeting the same problem before the congress. i happened to favor the other piece of legislation and thought that it would be better for the senior citizens and provide better care than the one that was finally passed. i was not opposing the principle of providing care for them. i was opposing one piece of legislation as versus another. there is something else about social security  of course, that doesn't come out of the payroll tax; it comes out of the general fund  that something should be done about. i think it's disgraceful that the disability insurance fund in social security finds checks going every month to tens of thousands of people who are locked up in our institutions for crime or for mental illness, and they are receiving disability checks from social security every month while a state institution provides for all of their needs and their care. mr. smith. president carter, you have the last word on this question. the president. i think this debate on social security, medicare, national health insurance typifies as vividly as any other subject tonight the basic historical differences between the democratic party and the republican party. the allusions to basic changes in the minimum wage is another, and the deleterious comments that governor reagan has made about unemployment compensation. these commitments that the democratic party has historically made to the working families of this nation have been extremely important to the growth in their stature and in a better quality of life for them. i noticed recently that governor reagan frequently quotes democratic presidents, in his acceptance address and otherwise. i have never heard a candidate for president, who is a republican, quote a republican president, but when they get in office, they try to govern like republicans. so, its good for the american people to remember there is a sharp basic historical difference between governor reagan and me on these crucial issues also, between the two parties that we represent. mr. smith. thank you, mr. president, governor reagan. we now go to another question, a question to president carter by barbara walters. assessments of opponent ms. walters. thank you. you have addressed some of the major issues tonight, but the biggest issue in the minds of american voters is yourselves, your ability to lead this country. when many voters go into that booth just a week from today, they will be voting their gut instinct about you men. you've already given us your reasons why people should vote for you. now would you please tell us for this your final question, why they should not vote for your opponent, why his presidency could be harmful to the nation and, having examined both your opponent's record and the man himself, tell us his greatest weakness. the president. barbara, reluctant as i am to say anything critical about governor reagan, i will try to answer your question. [laughter] first of all, there's the historical perspective that i just described. this is a contest between a democrat in the mainstream of my party, as exemplified by the actions that i've taken in the oval office the last 4 years, as contrasted with governor reagan, who in most cases does typify his party, but in some cases, there is a radical departure by him from the heritage of eisenhower and others. the most important crucial difference in this election campaign, in my judgment, is the approach to the control of nuclear weaponry and the inclination to control or not to control the spread of atomic weapons to other nations that don't presently have it, particularly the terrorist nations. the inclination that governor reagan has exemplified in many troubled times since he's been running for president  i think since 1968  to inject american military forces in places like north korea, to put a blockade around cuba this year, or in some instances, to project american forces into a fishing dispute against the small nation of ecuador on the west coast of south america  this is typical of his longstanding inclination, on the use of american power, not to resolve disputes diplomatically and peacefully, but to show that the exercise of military power is best proven by the actual use of it. obviously, no president wants war, and i certainly do not believe that governor reagan, if he were president, would want war. but a president in the oval office has to make a judgment on almost a daily basis about how to exercise the enormous power of our country for peace, through diplomacy, or in a careless way, in a belligerent attitude which has exemplified his attitudes in the past. mr. smith. barbara, would you repeat the question for governor reagan? ms. walters. yes, thank you. realizing that you may be equally reluctant to speak ill of your opponent, may i ask why people should not vote for your opponent, why his presidency could be harmful to the nation? and having examined both your opponent's record and the man himself, could you tell us his greatest weakness? governor reagan. well, barbara, i believe that there is a fundamental difference and i think it has been evident in most of the answers that mr. carter has given tonight  that he seeks the solution to anything as another opportunity for a federal government program. i happen to believe that the federal government has usurped powers and autonomy and authority that belongs back at the state and local level  it has imposed on the individual freedoms of the people  and that there are more of these things that could be solved by the people themselves, if they were given a chance, or by the levels of government that were closer to them. now, as to why i should be and he shouldn't be, when he was a candidate in 1976, president carter invented a thing he called the misery index. he added the rate of unemployment and the rate of inflation, and it came, at that time, to 12.5 under president ford. and he said that no man with that size misery index had a right to seek reelection to the presidency. today, by his own decision, the misery index is in excess of 20 percent, and i think this must suggest something. but when i have quoted a democrat president, as the president says, i was a democrat. i said many foolish things back in those days. [laughter] but the president that i quoted had made a promise, a democrat promise, and i quoted him because it was never kept. and today, you would find that that promise is at the very heart of what republicanism represents in this country today. and that's why i believe there are going to be millions of democrats that are going to vote with us this time around, because they too want that promise kept. it was a promise for less government and less taxes and more freedom for the people. mr. smith. president carter. the president. yes. i mentioned the radical departure of governor reagan from the principles or ideals or historical perspective of his own party. i don't think this can be better illustrated than in the case with guaranteeing women equal rights under the constitution of our nation. for 40 years, the republican party platforms called for guaranteeing women equal rights with a constitutional amendment. six predecessors of mine who served in the oval office called for this guarantee of women's rights. governor reagan and the new republican party has departed from this commitment  a very severe blow to the opportunity for women finally to correct discrimination under which they have suffered. when a man and a woman do the same amount of work, a man gets paid a dollar; a woman only gets paid 59 cents. and the equal rights amendment only says that equality of rights shall not be abridged for women by the federal government or by the state governments. that's all it says  a simple guarantee of equality of opportunity which typifies the democratic party and which is a very important commitment of mine, as contrasted with governor reagan's radical departure from the longstanding policy of his own party. mr. smith. governor reagan. governor reagan. yes. mr. president, once again, i happen to be against the amendment, because i think the amendment will take this problem out of the hands of elected legislators and put it in the hands of unelected judges. i am for equal rights, and while you have been in office for 4 years, and not one single state  and most of them have a majority of democratic legislators has added to the ratification or voted to ratify the equal rights amendment. while i was governor, more than 8 years ago, i found 14 separate instances where women were discriminated against in the body of california law, and i had passed and signed into law 14 statutes that eliminated those discriminations, including the economic ones that you have just mentioned, equal pay and so forth. i believe that if in all these years that we've spent trying to get the amendment, that we'd spent as much time correcting these laws, as we did in california  and we were the first to do it. if i were president, i would also now take a look at the hundreds of federal regulations which discriminate against women and which go right on while everyone is looking for an amendment. i would have someone ride herd on those regulations, and we'd start eliminating those discriminations in the federal government against women. mr. smith. president carter. the president. yes. howard, i'm a southerner, and i share the basic beliefs of my region about an excessive government intrusion into the private affairs of american citizens and also into the private affairs of the free enterprise system. one of the commitments that i made was to deregulate the major industries of this country. we've been remarkably successful, with the help of the democratic congress. we've deregulated the air industry, the rail industry, the trucking industry, financial institutions; now working on the communications industry. in addition to that, i believe this element of discrimination is something that the south has seen so vividly as a blight on our region of the country which has now been corrected  not only racial discrimination but discrimination against people that have to work for a living  because we have been trying to pick ourselves up by our bootstraps since the long depression years and lead a full and useful life in the affairs of this country. we've made remarkable success. it's part of my consciousness and of my commitment to continue this progress. so, my heritage as a southerner, my experience in the oval office, convinces me that what i've just described is a proper course for the future. mr. smith. governor reagan, yours is the last word. governor reagan. well, my last word is again to say that we were talking about this very simple amendment and women's rights. and i make it plain again: i am for women's rights. but i would like to call the attention of the people to the fact that so called simple amendment could be used by mischievous men to destroy discriminations that properly belong, by law, to women, respecting the physical differences between the two sexes, labor laws that protect them against doing things that would be physically harmful to them. those could all be challenged by men. and the same would be true with regard to combat service in the military and so forth. i thought that was the subject we were supposed to be on. but, if we're talking about how much we think about the working people and so forth, i'm the only fellow that ever ran for this job who was six times president of his own union and still has a lifetime membership in that union. mr. smith. gentlemen, each of you now have 3 minutes for a closing statement. president carter, you're first. closing statements the president. first of all, i'd like to thank the league of women voters for making this debate possible. i think it's been a very constructive debate, and i hope it's helped to acquaint the american people with the sharp differences between myself and governor reagan. also, i want to thank the people of cleveland and ohio for being such hospitable hosts during this last few hours in my life. i've been president now for almost 4 years. i've had to make thousands of decisions, and each one of those decisions has been a learning process. i've seen the strength of my nation, and i've seen the crises that it approached in a tentative way. and i've had to deal with those crises as best i could. as i've studied the record between myself and governor reagan, i've been impressed with the stark differences that exist between us. i think the results of this debate indicate that that fact is true. i consider myself in the mainstream of my party. i consider myself in the mainstream even of the bipartisan list of presidents who've served before me. the united states must be a nation strong; the united states must be a nation secure. we must have a society that's just and fair. and we must extend the benefits of our own commitment to peace, to create a peaceful world. i believe that since i've been in office, there've been six or eight areas of combat evolve in other parts of the world. in each case, i alone have had to determine the interests of my country and the degree of involvement of my country. i've done that with moderation, with care, with thoughtfulness; sometimes consulting experts. but i've learned in this last 3 1/2 years that when an issue is extremely difficult, when the call is very close, the chances are the experts will be divided almost 50 50. and the final judgment about the future of our nation  war, peace, involvement, reticence, thoughtfulness, care, consideration, concern  has to be made by the man in the oval office. it's a lonely job, but with the involvement of the american people in the process, with an open government, the job is a very gratifying one. the american people now are facing, next tuesday, a lonely decision. those listening to my voice will have to make a judgment about the future of this country. and i think they ought to remember that one vote can make a lot of difference. if one vote per precinct had changed in 1960, john kennedy would never have been president of this nation. and if a few more people had gone to the polls and voted in 1968, hubert humphrey would have been president; richard nixon would not. there is a partnership involved. and our nation, to stay strong, to stay at peace, to raise high the banner of human rights, to set an example for the rest of the world, to let our deep beliefs and commitments be felt by others in all other nations is my plan for the future. i ask the american people to join me in this partnership. mr. smith. governor reagan. governor reagan. yes, i would like to add my words of thanks, too, to the ladies of the league of women voters for making these debates possible. i'm sorry that we couldn't persuade the bringing in of the third candidate, so that he could have been seen also in these debates. but still, it's good that at least once, all three of us were heard by the people of this country. next tuesday is election day. next tuesday all of you will go to the polls; you'll stand there in the polling place and make a decision. i think when you make that decision, it might be well if you would ask yourself, are you better off than you were 4 years ago? is it easier for you to go and buy things in the stores than it was 4 years ago? is there more or less unemployment in the country than there was 4 years ago? is america as respected throughout the world as it was? do you feel that our security is as safe, that we're as strong as we were 4 years ago? and if you answer all of those questions yes, why then, i think your choice is very obvious as to who you'll vote for. if you don't agree, if you don't think that this course that we've been on for the last 4 years is what you would like to see us follow for the next 4, then i could suggest another choice that you have. this country doesn't have to be in the shape that it is in. we do not have to go on sharing in scarcity, with the country getting worse off, with unemployment growing. we talk about the unemployment lines. if all of the unemployed today were in a single line allowing 2 feet for each one of them, that line would reach from new york city to los angeles, california. all of this can be cured, and all of it can be solved. i have not had the experience the president has had in holding that office, but i think in being governor of california, the most populous state in the union if it were a nation, it would be the seventh ranking economic power in the world i, too, had some lonely moments and decisions to make. i know that the economic program that i have proposed for this nation in the next few years can resolve many of the problems that trouble us today. i know because we did it there. we cut the cost  the increased cost of government the increase in half over the 8 years. we returned $5.7 billion in tax rebates, credits, and cuts to our people. we, as i've said earlier, fell below the national average in inflation when we did that. and i know that we did give back authority and autonomy to the people. i would like to have a crusade today, and i would like to lead that crusade with your help. and it would be one to take government off the backs of the great people of this country and turn you loose again to do those things that i know you can do so well, because you did them and made this country great. thank you. mr. smith. gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, for 60 years the league of women voters has been committed to citizen education and effective participation of americans in governmental and political affairs. the most critical element of all in that process is an informed citizen who goes to the polls and who votes. on behalf of the league of women voters, now, i would like to thank president carter and governor reagan for being with us in cleveland tonight. and, ladies and gentlemen, thank you and good night. note: the debate began at 9:30 p.m. in the cleveland convention center music hall. it was broadcast live on radio and television. ruth j. hinerfeld is chair of the league of women voters education fund, and howard k. smith is a correspondent with abc news. 40 presidential drive simi valley, ca 93065 800 410 8354 reagan.library@nara.gov museum hours mon sun 10am 5pm research room hours mon fri 9am 5pm appointments are required holiday and special event hoursclosed thanksgiving day,christmas day, and new year's day

sign up sign in sign up sign in the obama white house follow the obama white house    21 listen share the president: hello, chicago! (applause.) it’s good to be home! (applause.) thank you, everybody. thank you. (applause.) thank you so much. thank you. (applause.) all right, everybody sit down. (applause.) we’re on live tv here. i’ve got to move. (applause.) you can tell that i’m a lame duck because nobody is following instructions. (laughter.) everybody have a seat. (applause.) my fellow americans   (applause)   michelle and i have been so touched by all the well wishes that we’ve received over the past few weeks. but tonight, it’s my turn to say thanks. (applause.) whether we have seen eye to eye or rarely agreed at all, my conversations with you, the american people, in living rooms and in schools, at farms, on factory floors, at diners and on distant military outposts    those conversations are what have kept me honest, and kept me inspired, and kept me going. and every day, i have learned from you. you made me a better president, and you made me a better man. (applause.) so i first came to chicago when i was in my early 20s. and i was still trying to figure out who i was, still searching for a purpose in my life. and it was a neighborhood not far from here where i began working with church groups in the shadows of closed steel mills. it was on these streets where i witnessed the power of faith, and the quiet dignity of working people in the face of struggle and loss. audience: four more years! four more years! four more years! the president: i can’t do that. audience: four more years! four more years! four more years! the president: this is where i learned that change only happens when ordinary people get involved and they get engaged, and they come together to demand it. after eight years as your president, i still believe that. and it’s not just my belief. it’s the beating heart of our american idea    our bold experiment in self government. it’s the conviction that we are all created equal, endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights, among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. it’s the insistence that these rights, while self evident, have never been self executing; that we, the people, through the instrument of our democracy, can form a more perfect union. what a radical idea. a great gift that our founders gave to us: the freedom to chase our individual dreams through our sweat and toil and imagination, and the imperative to strive together, as well, to achieve a common good, a greater good. for 240 years, our nation’s call to citizenship has given work and purpose to each new generation. it’s what led patriots to choose republic over tyranny, pioneers to trek west, slaves to brave that makeshift railroad to freedom. it’s what pulled immigrants and refugees across oceans and the rio grande. (applause.) it’s what pushed women to reach for the ballot. it’s what powered workers to organize. it’s why gis gave their lives at omaha beach and iwo jima, iraq and afghanistan. and why men and women from selma to stonewall were prepared to give theirs, as well. (applause.) so that’s what we mean when we say america is exceptional   not that our nation has been flawless from the start, but that we have shown the capacity to change and make life better for those who follow. yes, our progress has been uneven. the work of democracy has always been hard. it’s always been contentious. sometimes it’s been bloody. for every two steps forward, it often feels we take one step back. but the long sweep of america has been defined by forward motion, a constant widening of our founding creed to embrace all and not just some. (applause.) if i had told you eight years ago that america would reverse a great recession, reboot our auto industry, and unleash the longest stretch of job creation in our history   (applause)   if i had told you that we would open up a new chapter with the cuban people, shut down iran’s nuclear weapons program without firing a shot, take out the mastermind of 9/11   (applause)   if i had told you that we would win marriage equality, and secure the right to health insurance for another 20 million of our fellow citizens    (applause)   if i had told you all that, you might have said our sights were set a little too high. but that’s what we did. (applause.) that’s what you did. you were the change. you answered people’s hopes, and because of you, by almost every measure, america is a better, stronger place than it was when we started. (applause.) in 10 days, the world will witness a hallmark of our democracy. audience: nooo   the president: no, no, no, no, no   the peaceful transfer of power from one freely elected president to the next. (applause.) i committed to president elect trump that my administration would ensure the smoothest possible transition, just as president bush did for me. (applause.) because it’s up to all of us to make sure our government can help us meet the many challenges we still face. we have what we need to do so. we have everything we need to meet those challenges. after all, we remain the wealthiest, most powerful, and most respected nation on earth. our youth, our drive, our diversity and openness, our boundless capacity for risk and reinvention means that the future should be ours. but that potential will only be realized if our democracy works. only if our politics better reflects the decency of our people. (applause.) only if all of us, regardless of party affiliation or particular interests, help restore the sense of common purpose that we so badly need right now. that’s what i want to focus on tonight: the state of our democracy. understand, democracy does not require uniformity. our founders argued. they quarreled. eventually they compromised. they expected us to do the same. but they knew that democracy does require a basic sense of solidarity    the idea that for all our outward differences, we’re all in this together; that we rise or fall as one. (applause.) there have been moments throughout our history that threatens that solidarity. and the beginning of this century has been one of those times. a shrinking world, growing inequality; demographic change and the specter of terrorism    these forces haven’t just tested our security and our prosperity, but are testing our democracy, as well. and how we meet these challenges to our democracy will determine our ability to educate our kids, and create good jobs, and protect our homeland. in other words, it will determine our future. to begin with, our democracy won’t work without a sense that everyone has economic opportunity. and the good news is that today the economy is growing again. wages, incomes, home values, and retirement accounts are all rising again. poverty is falling again. (applause.) the wealthy are paying a fairer share of taxes even as the stock market shatters records. the unemployment rate is near a 10 year low. the uninsured rate has never, ever been lower. (applause.) health care costs are rising at the slowest rate in 50 years. and i’ve said and i mean it   if anyone can put together a plan that is demonstrably better than the improvements we’ve made to our health care system and that covers as many people at less cost, i will publicly support it. (applause.) because that, after all, is why we serve. not to score points or take credit, but to make people’s lives better. (applause.) but for all the real progress that we’ve made, we know it’s not enough. our economy doesn’t work as well or grow as fast when a few prosper at the expense of a growing middle class and ladders for folks who want to get into the middle class. (applause.) that’s the economic argument. but stark inequality is also corrosive to our democratic ideal. while the top one percent has amassed a bigger share of wealth and income, too many families, in inner cities and in rural counties, have been left behind   the laid off factory worker; the waitress or health care worker who’s just barely getting by and struggling to pay the bills   convinced that the game is fixed against them, that their government only serves the interests of the powerful   that’s a recipe for more cynicism and polarization in our politics. but there are no quick fixes to this long term trend. i agree, our trade should be fair and not just free. but the next wave of economic dislocations won’t come from overseas. it will come from the relentless pace of automation that makes a lot of good, middle class jobs obsolete. and so we’re going to have to forge a new social compact to guarantee all our kids the education they need   (applause)   to give workers the power to unionize for better wages; to update the social safety net to reflect the way we live now, and make more reforms to the tax code so corporations and individuals who reap the most from this new economy don’t avoid their obligations to the country that’s made their very success possible. (applause.) we can argue about how to best achieve these goals. but we can’t be complacent about the goals themselves. for if we don’t create opportunity for all people, the disaffection and division that has stalled our progress will only sharpen in years to come. there’s a second threat to our democracy   and this one is as old as our nation itself. after my election, there was talk of a post racial america. and such a vision, however well intended, was never realistic. race remains a potent and often divisive force in our society. now, i’ve lived long enough to know that race relations are better than they were 10, or 20, or 30 years ago, no matter what some folks say. (applause.) you can see it not just in statistics, you see it in the attitudes of young americans across the political spectrum. but we’re not where we need to be. and all of us have more work to do. (applause.) if every economic issue is framed as a struggle between a hardworking white middle class and an undeserving minority, then workers of all shades are going to be left fighting for scraps while the wealthy withdraw further into their private enclaves. (applause.) if we’re unwilling to invest in the children of immigrants, just because they don’t look like us, we will diminish the prospects of our own children   because those brown kids will represent a larger and larger share of america’s workforce. (applause.) and we have shown that our economy doesn’t have to be a zero sum game. last year, incomes rose for all races, all age groups, for men and for women. so if we’re going to be serious about race going forward, we need to uphold laws against discrimination   in hiring, and in housing, and in education, and in the criminal justice system. (applause.) that is what our constitution and our highest ideals require. (applause.) but laws alone won’t be enough. hearts must change. it won’t change overnight. social attitudes oftentimes take generations to change. but if our democracy is to work in this increasingly diverse nation, then each one of us need to try to heed the advice of a great character in american fiction   atticus finch   (applause)   who said “you never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view…until you climb into his skin and walk around in it.” for blacks and other minority groups, it means tying our own very real struggles for justice to the challenges that a lot of people in this country face   not only the refugee, or the immigrant, or the rural poor, or the transgender american, but also the middle aged white guy who, from the outside, may seem like he’s got advantages, but has seen his world upended by economic and cultural and technological change. we have to pay attention, and listen. (applause.) for white americans, it means acknowledging that the effects of slavery and jim crow didn’t suddenly vanish in the ’60s   (applause)   that when minority groups voice discontent, they’re not just engaging in reverse racism or practicing political correctness. when they wage peaceful protest, they’re not demanding special treatment but the equal treatment that our founders promised. (applause.) for native born americans, it means reminding ourselves that the stereotypes about immigrants today were said, almost word for word, about the irish, and italians, and poles   who it was said we’re going to destroy the fundamental character of america. and as it turned out, america wasn’t weakened by the presence of these newcomers; these newcomers embraced this nation’s creed, and this nation was strengthened. (applause.) so regardless of the station that we occupy, we all have to try harder. we all have to start with the premise that each of our fellow citizens loves this country just as much as we do; that they value hard work and family just like we do; that their children are just as curious and hopeful and worthy of love as our own. (applause.) and that’s not easy to do. for too many of us, it’s become safer to retreat into our own bubbles, whether in our neighborhoods or on college campuses, or places of worship, or especially our social media feeds, surrounded by people who look like us and share the same political outlook and never challenge our assumptions. the rise of naked partisanship, and increasing economic and regional stratification, the splintering of our media into a channel for every taste   all this makes this great sorting seem natural, even inevitable. and increasingly, we become so secure in our bubbles that we start accepting only information, whether it’s true or not, that fits our opinions, instead of basing our opinions on the evidence that is out there. (applause.) and this trend represents a third threat to our democracy. but politics is a battle of ideas. that’s how our democracy was designed. in the course of a healthy debate, we prioritize different goals, and the different means of reaching them. but without some common baseline of facts, without a willingness to admit new information, and concede that your opponent might be making a fair point, and that science and reason matter   (applause)   then we’re going to keep talking past each other, and we’ll make common ground and compromise impossible. (applause.) and isn’t that part of what so often makes politics dispiriting? how can elected officials rage about deficits when we propose to spend money on preschool for kids, but not when we’re cutting taxes for corporations? (applause.) how do we excuse ethical lapses in our own party, but pounce when the other party does the same thing? it’s not just dishonest, this selective sorting of the facts; it’s self defeating. because, as my mother used to tell me, reality has a way of catching up with you. (applause.) take the challenge of climate change. in just eight years, we’ve halved our dependence on foreign oil; we’ve doubled our renewable energy; we’ve led the world to an agreement that has the promise to save this planet. (applause.) but without bolder action, our children won’t have time to debate the existence of climate change. they’ll be busy dealing with its effects: more environmental disasters, more economic disruptions, waves of climate refugees seeking sanctuary. now, we can and should argue about the best approach to solve the problem. but to simply deny the problem not only betrays future generations, it betrays the essential spirit of this country   the essential spirit of innovation and practical problem solving that guided our founders. (applause.) it is that spirit, born of the enlightenment, that made us an economic powerhouse   the spirit that took flight at kitty hawk and cape canaveral; the spirit that cures disease and put a computer in every pocket. it’s that spirit   a faith in reason, and enterprise, and the primacy of right over might   that allowed us to resist the lure of fascism and tyranny during the great depression; that allowed us to build a post world war ii order with other democracies, an order based not just on military power or national affiliations but built on principles   the rule of law, human rights, freedom of religion, and speech, and assembly, and an independent press. (applause.) that order is now being challenged   first by violent fanatics who claim to speak for islam; more recently by autocrats in foreign capitals who see free markets and open democracies and and civil society itself as a threat to their power. the peril each poses to our democracy is more far reaching than a car bomb or a missile. it represents the fear of change; the fear of people who look or speak or pray differently; a contempt for the rule of law that holds leaders accountable; an intolerance of dissent and free thought; a belief that the sword or the gun or the bomb or the propaganda machine is the ultimate arbiter of what’s true and what’s right. because of the extraordinary courage of our men and women in uniform, because of our intelligence officers, and law enforcement, and diplomats who support our troops   (applause)   no foreign terrorist organization has successfully planned and executed an attack on our homeland these past eight years. (applause.) and although boston and orlando and san bernardino and fort hood remind us of how dangerous radicalization can be, our law enforcement agencies are more effective and vigilant than ever. we have taken out tens of thousands of terrorists   including bin laden. (applause.) the global coalition we’re leading against isil has taken out their leaders, and taken away about half their territory. isil will be destroyed, and no one who threatens america will ever be safe. (applause.) and to all who serve or have served, it has been the honor of my lifetime to be your commander in chief. and we all owe you a deep debt of gratitude. (applause.) but protecting our way of life, that’s not just the job of our military. democracy can buckle when we give in to fear. so, just as we, as citizens, must remain vigilant against external aggression, we must guard against a weakening of the values that make us who we are. (applause.) and that’s why, for the past eight years, i’ve worked to put the fight against terrorism on a firmer legal footing. that’s why we’ve ended torture, worked to close gitmo, reformed our laws governing surveillance to protect privacy and civil liberties. (applause.) that’s why i reject discrimination against muslim americans, who are just as patriotic as we are. (applause.) that’s why we cannot withdraw from big global fights   to expand democracy, and human rights, and women’s rights, and lgbt rights. no matter how imperfect our efforts, no matter how expedient ignoring such values may seem, that’s part of defending america. for the fight against extremism and intolerance and sectarianism and chauvinism are of a piece with the fight against authoritarianism and nationalist aggression. if the scope of freedom and respect for the rule of law shrinks around the world, the likelihood of war within and between nations increases, and our own freedoms will eventually be threatened. so let’s be vigilant, but not afraid. (applause.) isil will try to kill innocent people. but they cannot defeat america unless we betray our constitution and our principles in the fight. (applause.) rivals like russia or china cannot match our influence around the world   unless we give up what we stand for   (applause)   and turn ourselves into just another big country that bullies smaller neighbors. which brings me to my final point: our democracy is threatened whenever we take it for granted. (applause.) all of us, regardless of party, should be throwing ourselves into the task of rebuilding our democratic institutions. (applause.) when voting rates in america are some of the lowest among advanced democracies, we should be making it easier, not harder, to vote. (applause.) when trust in our institutions is low, we should reduce the corrosive influence of money in our politics, and insist on the principles of transparency and ethics in public service. (applause.) when congress is dysfunctional, we should draw our congressional districts to encourage politicians to cater to common sense and not rigid extremes. (applause.) but remember, none of this happens on its own. all of this depends on our participation; on each of us accepting the responsibility of citizenship, regardless of which way the pendulum of power happens to be swinging. our constitution is a remarkable, beautiful gift. but it’s really just a piece of parchment. it has no power on its own. we, the people, give it power. (applause.) we, the people, give it meaning. with our participation, and with the choices that we make, and the alliances that we forge. (applause.) whether or not we stand up for our freedoms. whether or not we respect and enforce the rule of law. that’s up to us. america is no fragile thing. but the gains of our long journey to freedom are not assured. in his own farewell address, george washington wrote that self government is the underpinning of our safety, prosperity, and liberty, but “from different causes and from different quarters much pains will be taken…to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth.” and so we have to preserve this truth with “jealous anxiety;” that we should reject “the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest or to enfeeble the sacred ties” that make us one. (applause.) america, we weaken those ties when we allow our political dialogue to become so corrosive that people of good character aren’t even willing to enter into public service; so coarse with rancor that americans with whom we disagree are seen not just as misguided but as malevolent. we weaken those ties when we define some of us as more american than others; when we write off the whole system as inevitably corrupt, and when we sit back and blame the leaders we elect without examining our own role in electing them. (applause.) it falls to each of us to be those those anxious, jealous guardians of our democracy; to embrace the joyous task we’ve been given to continually try to improve this great nation of ours. because for all our outward differences, we, in fact, all share the same proud title, the most important office in a democracy: citizen. (applause.) citizen. so, you see, that’s what our democracy demands. it needs you. not just when there’s an election, not just when your own narrow interest is at stake, but over the full span of a lifetime. if you’re tired of arguing with strangers on the internet, try talking with one of them in real life. (applause.) if something needs fixing, then lace up your shoes and do some organizing. (applause.) if you’re disappointed by your elected officials, grab a clipboard, get some signatures, and run for office yourself. (applause.) show up. dive in. stay at it. sometimes you’ll win. sometimes you’ll lose. presuming a reservoir of goodness in other people, that can be a risk, and there will be times when the process will disappoint you. but for those of us fortunate enough to have been a part of this work, and to see it up close, let me tell you, it can energize and inspire. and more often than not, your faith in america   and in americans   will be confirmed. (applause.) mine sure has been. over the course of these eight years, i’ve seen the hopeful faces of young graduates and our newest military officers. i have mourned with grieving families searching for answers, and found grace in a charleston church. i’ve seen our scientists help a paralyzed man regain his sense of touch. i’ve seen wounded warriors who at points were given up for dead walk again. i’ve seen our doctors and volunteers rebuild after earthquakes and stop pandemics in their tracks. i’ve seen the youngest of children remind us through their actions and through their generosity of our obligations to care for refugees, or work for peace, and, above all, to look out for each other. (applause.) so that faith that i placed all those years ago, not far from here, in the power of ordinary americans to bring about change   that faith has been rewarded in ways i could not have possibly imagined. and i hope your faith has, too. some of you here tonight or watching at home, you were there with us in 2004, in 2008, 2012   (applause)   maybe you still can’t believe we pulled this whole thing off. let me tell you, you’re not the only ones. (laughter.) michelle   (applause)   michelle lavaughn robinson, girl of the south side   (applause)   for the past 25 years, you have not only been my wife and mother of my children, you have been my best friend. (applause.) you took on a role you didn’t ask for and you made it your own, with grace and with grit and with style and good humor. (applause.) you made the white house a place that belongs to everybody. (applause.) and the new generation sets its sights higher because it has you as a role model. (applause.) so you have made me proud. and you have made the country proud. (applause.) malia and sasha, under the strangest of circumstances, you have become two amazing young women. you are smart and you are beautiful, but more importantly, you are kind and you are thoughtful and you are full of passion. (applause.) you wore the burden of years in the spotlight so easily. of all that i’ve done in my life, i am most proud to be your dad. (applause.) to joe biden   (applause)   the scrappy kid from scranton who became delaware’s favorite son   you were the first decision i made as a nominee, and it was the best. (applause.) not just because you have been a great vice president, but because in the bargain, i gained a brother. and we love you and jill like family, and your friendship has been one of the great joys of our lives. (applause.) to my remarkable staff: for eight years   and for some of you, a whole lot more   i have drawn from your energy, and every day i tried to reflect back what you displayed   heart, and character, and idealism. i’ve watched you grow up, get married, have kids, start incredible new journeys of your own. even when times got tough and frustrating, you never let washington get the better of you. you guarded against cynicism. and the only thing that makes me prouder than all the good that we’ve done is the thought of all the amazing things that you’re going to achieve from here. (applause.) and to all of you out there   every organizer who moved to an unfamiliar town, every kind family who welcomed them in, every volunteer who knocked on doors, every young person who cast a ballot for the first time, every american who lived and breathed the hard work of change   you are the best supporters and organizers anybody could ever hope for, and i will be forever grateful. (applause.) because you did change the world. (applause.) you did. and that’s why i leave this stage tonight even more optimistic about this country than when we started. because i know our work has not only helped so many americans, it has inspired so many americans   especially so many young people out there   to believe that you can make a difference   (applause)   to hitch your wagon to something bigger than yourselves. let me tell you, this generation coming up   unselfish, altruistic, creative, patriotic   i’ve seen you in every corner of the country. you believe in a fair, and just, and inclusive america. (applause.) you know that constant change has been america’s hallmark; that it’s not something to fear but something to embrace. you are willing to carry this hard work of democracy forward. you’ll soon outnumber all of us, and i believe as a result the future is in good hands. (applause.) my fellow americans, it has been the honor of my life to serve you. (applause.) i won’t stop. in fact, i will be right there with you, as a citizen, for all my remaining days. but for now, whether you are young or whether you’re young at heart, i do have one final ask of you as your president   the same thing i asked when you took a chance on me eight years ago. i’m asking you to believe. not in my ability to bring about change   but in yours. i am asking you to hold fast to that faith written into our founding documents; that idea whispered by slaves and abolitionists; that spirit sung by immigrants and homesteaders and those who marched for justice; that creed reaffirmed by those who planted flags from foreign battlefields to the surface of the moon; a creed at the core of every american whose story is not yet written: yes, we can. (applause.) yes, we did. yes, we can. (applause.) thank you. god bless you. may god continue to bless the united states of america. (applause.) watch the full address:       21 archived medium publication for the obama administration this account will be maintained by the national archives and records administration (nara) and will serve as an archive of obama administration content. help status about careers press blog privacy terms text to speech teams

last sunday, at a spanish language mass at st. paul’s catholic church in pilsen, on the lower west side of chicago, father arturo pérez spoke of our moment. “nobody is more important than anyone else,” he said. “what happens to one happens to all of us. what one suffers we all suffer.” outside, ice raids had begun. they were hardly secret. the drug enforcement agency had announced on x that they were conducting raids in chicago in partnership with the department of justice and the department of homeland security. phil mcgraw, better known as dr. phil, was embedded with the border czar, tom homan, in a command center at an undisclosed location and in the neighborhoods where the raids were conducted, covering them live on merit tv, his new conservative media platform. in a segment called “behind closed borders” mcgraw displayed a map of chicago that showed where targets were thought to be situated, and read aloud the various crimes that they had been convicted of. to hear mcgraw and homan talk about it, ice was only after sex offenders, gang members, and murderers. in other media appearances, however, homan had seemed to allow for the possibility of wider sweeps. suggesting that anyone who had entered the country illegally could get arrested, he told abc news, “if you’re in the country illegally, you got a problem.” he has talked about the possibility of “collateral arrests,” which could happen if an undocumented immigrant was with one of ice’s targets at the time of arrest. and he has also stated that, over time, ice will “open the aperture” of their operations. the administration echoed homan. when the white house press secretary, karoline leavitt, was asked how many of the thirty five hundred undocumented immigrants arrested by ice in the past week have criminal records, she responded, “all of them, because they illegally broke our nation’s laws.” (entering the country without inspection or admission can be a misdemeanor or felony, but being undocumented in the u.s. is not by itself a crime. many undocumented immigrants enter the country legally but then violate the terms of their visas, and most immigration cases are heard in civil rather than criminal courts.) the ledereporting and commentary on what you need to know today. the raids in chicago were expected to begin the day after trump’s inauguration. in the outlying town of cicero and the southwest neighborhood of little village, businesses catering to the latino community were open restaurants, grocery stores, western unions but the streets were relatively empty. it was hard to say if this was more a result of ice or the subzero temperatures. some parents kept their kids home from school, or had friends who are u.s. citizens pick them up. some adults stayed home from work. for the sake of children who might return from school to find that their families had been taken, one undocumented parent told the chicago tribune, “all we can do is take all precautions and stay home as long as we can.” local news and social media lit up when federal agents attempted to enter a public elementary school in the back of the yards neighborhood, on chicago’s southwest side. school officials, believing that the agents were from ice, rebuffed them and put the school on lockdown. bogdana chkoumbova, chicago public schools’ chief education officer, invoked the illinois trust act and chicago’s welcoming city ordinance, saying that cps schools don’t inquire about a student’s immigration status, and wouldn’t coöperate with ice. later reports clarified that the agents were from the secret service, and that they were there to investigate an unspecified threat related to the government’s tiktok ban. in a letter sent to families on saturday, pedro martinez, the c.e.o. of chicago public schools, said, “while this incident was due to a misunderstanding, it reflects the fear and anxiety that is present in our city right now.” i talked with an undocumented woman from veracruz, mexico, who told me that she is “very afraid” that she’ll get deported. she crossed into texas three years ago, and travelled straight to chicago, where she had family. she found work washing dishes at an italian restaurant. she supplements her income by selling tamales, mole, and other traditional mexican dishes out of her apartment on weekends, and sometimes cleans houses. she met her husband, who is also undocumented and works in construction, on facebook. unlike her, he arrived in the u.s. about twenty years ago, and he believes that trump is right to want to rid chicago and other american cities of criminal immigrants. her husband tells her not to worry, because he doesn’t think anything will happen to her. “i do calm down,” she said, “but i always think about it.” i also spoke to the child of undocumented immigrants, who said that he had bought his parents airtags, so he could follow their movements in case they got picked up. he had them sign a power of attorney document, giving him control of their property for twenty years, which, he estimates, would cover the period his father might have to wait before reëntering the country if he is sent back to mexico. he also gave his father a week’s wages, so that he could stay home from work; the son told me that he had lied and said that he had received grant money to help the family. “i knew he wouldn’t take it if he knew it was coming from me,” he said. last december, homan told a republican group at a holiday party that the mass deportations trump promised during his campaign would “start right here in chicago.” but the fear felt by the city’s immigrants did not begin then. it is a more or less permanent condition. “the bad thing is that the anxiety has been there for a while,” ambassador reyna torres mendivil, the consul general of mexico in chicago, told me. “it consumes the emotional aspects and mental health of the community.” as undocumented immigrants build homes they’ll never be able to afford, prepare food, bus tables, clean office buildings, and care for kids both others’ and their own they live with the fact that they could, at least in theory, get deported at any moment. dana rusch, a professor of clinical psychiatry at the university of illinois chicago and the director of the university’s immigrant family mental health advocacy program, told me that, since trump was elected, and especially after his inauguration, her patients have come to their sessions, often in tears, and asked questions like: “what if my dad doesn’t come home? what if they pick me up on the street? what if ice comes to my school? what if my parents have to go back, and i’m all alone? what if something happens when we come to the clinic?” for years, rusch noted, there have been threats of raids and removals, and each one produces anxiety. but in recent weeks, she said her patients’ distress was striking. people “who had been doing well with their coping skills are now overwhelmed by a sense of fear.” what they’re experiencing, she said, is a compounded stress; the latest manifestation of years, if not decades, of fear. the illinois coalition for immigrant and refugee rights (i.c.i.r.r.) is one of several organizations that prepared for the raids. they’ve hosted informational “know your rights” workshops in immigrant dense neighborhoods, instructing community members about what they should do in the event of encounters with ice officers. (you have the right to remain silent. you have the right to refuse entry to your home.) with other area groups, i.c.i.r.r. filed a lawsuit against ice and the trump administration, claiming that the raids were retaliatory because of chicago’s status as a sanctuary city. organizing against the raids is also taking place within chicago’s latino and immigrant communities. neighborhood facebook pages have quickly become important sites for immigrants to share information. once the raids were announced, several community members posted about ice sightings. one asked community members if they knew of immigration lawyers or rapid response groups whom they could go to for help. another recommended barricading doors and installing home surveillance cameras. facebook also became a place for immigrants and their families to share their anxieties and to debate the new administration’s true intentions. echoing mcgraw and homan, some wrote that trump only sought to deport criminals. even after trump announced that schools, churches, and hospitals will no longer be off limits, some speculated that ice would only enter them to pursue a criminal immigrant seeking refuge inside. (so far, there aren’t any confirmed reports of ice making arrests in these “sensitive areas,” but homan and other administration officials have defended the policy shift.) some confident posters told people who were afraid that the arrests would be more sweeping to stop spreading mamadas, which in this context means something like “bullshit rumors.” one poster said that community members couldn’t live in fear. his recommendation was that they should “stay alert, but don’t enclose yourself in a bubble.” another tried to make light of the situation: “fake it til u make it 🤷🤣 #2025 #soylegal.” in the week after the raids began, community members expressed different ideas about what their response should be. when a national “day without immigrants” was announced for february 3rd parents wouldn’t send their kids to school, wouldn’t go to work, wouldn’t buy anything some were all in. but others didn’t think that it would work, and argued that it might even have a detrimental impact. someone wrote, “people need to work to pay bills and other expenses. this country is so big and only a small amount of the population are willing to do this.” another posted, “this will only make us look bad as latinos . . . let’s just obey the laws and do the right things.” we may not see sweeps like the ones in the nineteen thirties or nineteen fifties, which rounded up dozens or hundreds of immigrants in a single raid; many cities lost up to a third of their mexican population, including u.s. citizens who got caught up in the raids. it could be more piecemeal the turning away of migrants at the border and sustained internal enforcement operations from coast to coast but at some point many immigrants may decide that it’s no longer worth living in a constant state of fear. this is almost certainly what the trump administration hopes for. it’s what many republicans have wanted for a long time at least since 2012, when mitt romney, that year’s republican nominee for president, called on undocumented immigrants to self deport. when i sent a message to someone who had been participating in the facebook chats, she wrote back and told me that she and her sister were already back in mexico. “we don’t want problems with that devil running your country,” she said. torres mendivil told me that the consulate has been getting requests not many, but some for information about how mexicans in chicago can repatriate, and about what government services are available to help them if they decide to return. “ ‘i cannot deal with this,’ ” torres mendivil told me they say. “ ‘i’d rather go back to my community and i’m going to take my family with me, even if in my family there are american citizens.’ ” the person who bought his parents airtags told me that they were almost “numb,” or resigned, to the possibility that they would have to go, even though they wanted to stay for work, for school. when he described the tension between being resigned to go and wanting to stay, he reminded me of the song “la jaula de oro” “the cage of gold” by los tigres del norte: “what good is money / if i’m like a prisoner in this country?” his parents, he explained, are exhausted from decades of living in fear. like many immigrants, his family, when they crossed the border the first time, didn’t think that their stay in the united states would be permanent. also like other immigrant families, they used some of the money they earned here to build a home back in michoacán, where they hoped to retire someday. they’ve never been to it, because if they had visited they might not have been able to return. but what was once their retirement setup is now their insurance plan. ♦ searching for the cause of a catastrophic plane crash. the man who spent forty two years at the beverly hills hotel pool. gloria steinem’s life on the feminist frontier. where the amish go on vacation. how colonel sanders built his kentucky fried fortune. what does procrastination tell us about ourselves? fiction by patricia highsmith: “the trouble with mrs. blynn, the trouble with the world” sign up for our daily newsletter to receive the best stories from the new yorker. sections more © 2025 condé nast. all rights reserved. the new yorker may earn a portion of sales from products that are purchased through our site as part of our affiliate partnerships with retailers. the material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of condé nast. ad choices

the tool box needs your help to remain available. your contribution can help change lives. donate now. in community work, there's almost always someone opposed to whatever it is you're doing. even if your goal is something everyone can agree on, there will be those who disagree with your methods for achieving it. when your opposition starts fighting your efforts, it's best to be familiar with what tactics they might use to do so and how your group might most effectively respond. there are a variety of tactic specific ways to deal with each of these forms of attack. some strategies that apply no matter what tactic is being used include: if knowledge is power, ignorance is weakness. an opponent you understand is much weaker than an opponent whose every move baffles you. understand your foe's beliefs, background, and position. this will put you in a stronger position to respond to attacks. it can also increase your organization's image as an intelligent, rational group. what does your opponent believe and want? does your opponent come from a cultural or ethnic group different from your own; and if so how might this affect dealings with your organization? does your opponent have a history of acting (or reacting) in a certain way? you may be able to determine some of these things from your own history with the person or organization in question, from the experiences and personal knowledge of friends and colleagues, from newspaper articles, from corporate pr materials (if you're dealing with a company), or from campaign literature (if you're dealing with a candidate or elected official). as the saying goes, when the opposition gives you lemons, make lemonade. the ability to turn any negatives you are given into positive situations is a very powerful ability for your organization to have. for example, you might use the utility company's opposition to a program to provide heat subsidies to poor people as an excuse to set up a review of the company's records of utility shut offs to heighten awareness of the problem. if you are meeting with the opposition, your organization should establish or influence the agenda. this way, it will be your group that controls the meeting; you, and not the opposition, will have the chance to be on the offensive, which is always the stronger position to be coming from. further, if you allow the opposition to set the agenda, chances are good that some of the important points you wanted to discuss won't even be brought up.the opposition will naturally use their "home court advantage" to talk about their strengths, rather than points they may be weaker on. this makes the opposition's tactics seem clearer to all of the members in your group (and therefore easier to fight). it is also a great way to win sympathy and respect from the general public. this is particularly true if you are a relatively small group fighting a larger agency or corporation in a just cause. everyone wants to root for the underdog; giving your battle a "david and goliath" image can do a great deal to further your cause. some of the information you should consider making public: for example, a fair employment practices committee meets with directors of their company about the small number of minorities hired by the organization. however, in the meeting they find themselves sidetracked by a talk on the new "cultural competence" seminars being given. at the end of the meeting, the directors leave saying that by meeting with the committee, they have done their job   even though nothing was really accomplished. instead of dropping the matter, however, the members of the committee let the directors   and the press   know that the company was doing nothing to address the issue. be judicious when it comes to going public. you shouldn't do this every time; it can make your group look reactionary and whiny. don't rely on the same approaches all of the time. instead, constantly take the opposition by surprise. this can not only can help in your current battle, it will help your group avoid stagnation. if you tried to privately negotiate a solution last time you butted heads with the opposition, this time you might go public with the situation. or, you might ask for a third party to act as a facilitator. be creative, and don't be afraid to try something new. leaving your opponent in a cloud of uncertainty of what your tactics will be this time is a powerful strategy on it's own, and gives you an advantage over the opposition before you even start. if an organization has a history of responding in a certain manner, chances are that's how they will respond again. know the history including the preferred tactics of the people you are battling   and know how your organization has traditionally responded. that way, you'll be thoroughly prepared for what is likely to happen, and you'll be more likely to avoid any pitfalls you've fallen into in the past. for example, an organization was trying to reduce the number of billboards advertising beer in a low income area of the city. when advocates for the group did their research, they found that every time anyone had complained about the number of billboards in their community for any product (beer, hard liquor, tobacco, or anything else), the marketers invoked their right of free speech. knowing that in advance, the advocates were able to formulate a strong response to the beer company's free speech argument before they met the opposition, and were eventually successful in limiting the number of alcohol related billboards in the community. your opponents may be willing to work with you in good faith, particularly if you have run a good advocacy campaign. keep an eye open for situations that might turn into a chance to work together. be careful that by saying cooperation, your opponents don't really mean capitulation to their interests. but be careful, too, that you are open to any legitimate possibilities for making a deal that come your way. if an opposition leader states publicly that some of your ideas have merit, that could be the olive branch you've been waiting for to achieve peace, and also reach some of your goals. the ten d's of opposition tactics are: some of these tactics can be dealt with in similar ways; these are grouped together. deflection happens when your opponents try to shift the focus of the debate from the real problem to other issues, or when they try to "pass the buck" to a group with little or no authority. delays occur when the opposition says it is working on the problem, when the reality is that nothing has been done. sometimes they do this by claiming that they don't yet have enough information to move on the problem, when there is already plenty of information. often the opposition will form a committee or commission to study the problem, putting things off for as long as possible. your opponent is most likely hoping that the public will lose interest if the issue can be put off indefinitely. responding to deflection and delays be persistent! if you feel you must address whatever other issue your opponent may have thrown out, do so, but try not to spend too much time on it, and always bring the focus back to your primary issue. the consumer group in the above delay example provided the press with numerous studies and reports backing up their claims about the danger of flammable furniture upholstery. they also provided television stations with dramatic footage of safety tests in which an untreated sofa quickly burst completely into flames, while a treated one only smoldered. if your opponent is stalling, claiming that more information is needed, consider using some unusual publicity grabbing tactics. for example, something the consumer group in the above example could do is set up a mock cemetery in a public place, with fake gravestones representing the number of people who will die in fires caused by flammable furniture over the next year. when your opponents use denial tactics, they try to say either that the problem doesn't exist (e.g., "aids is not a problem in our community"), or that your proposed solution won't work. discounting is very similar to denial; the only difference is that the opponent isn't saying the problem doesn't exist   they're just saying it isn't important, or it isn't as big a problem as you know it really is. responding to denial and discounting when your opponent tries to say the problem isn't real or isn't that important, you'd better be prepared to prove to the public that it is indeed real and that it is indeed significant. your opponents may intentionally mislead or confuse your organization or the public by lying or by "forgetting" to tell the whole story. deception is low minded; it is also, unfortunately, an all too common occurrence in the lives of both people and organizations. for example, the national audabon society, which has long been battling logging companies, recently encountered a deception tactic from a congress member with ties to the logging industry who sponsored a bill. the bill, attempting to promote increased logging as a cure  all for insect and disease infestations in our national forests, would have allowed logging companies to cut big, healthy trees instead of the small, fire prone trees they are supposed to cut. the national audabon society countered by pointing out that insects, disease, and fire were at relatively normal levels, while logging and grazing cause the most damage to our forests. responding to deception respond immediately   don't wait until things have cooled down and people have forgotten what has happened, or accepted your opposition's deceit as truth. refute their statements quickly, clearly, and forcefully, and then get on with the rest of your work. know your opponents and understand their strategies. deception may be carried out in a variety of ways, and some of them are more difficult to discern than others. common types of deception to be on the lookout for include: let the public know what has occurred. there are two reasons for this: first, the deceit of the opposition may be better known than you think, and by going public, you are helping the public get a positive, clearer view of your organization as well as a negative view of your opposition. second, such a situation can only help your group and hurt your opposition in the eyes of the public. going back to the example of contraceptives for teenagers, an example of how you might want to publicly refute your opponent might be phrased in the following manner: "our opponents have stated that two thirds of those surveyed in our community were against allowing access to contraception for our youth. upon scrutiny of this survey, however, we have learned that it had only three respondents, and that they were all linked by very close ties to our opponents. however, a second survey of 2500 residents, conducted by the independent research group xyz, reports that in truth, over 80% of our community is actually in favor of increased contraceptive access for our youth. therefore, it must be realized that our opponent's views are not held by the majority of community members, and it should be remembered that they are only a very small, if vocal, voice in our area." if your group is working on a controversial issue, you may find your opponents try to split your group over such issues. for example, a community coalition in a predominantly african american neighborhood in los angeles has been battling manufacturers of malt beverages for some time. the manufacturers have decided to try a new approach   offering to build a youth center in the neighborhood. the offer effectively divides the group   some members feel that the offer should be accepted, and others feel that the group shouldn't accept any gift from a longtime foe. responding to dividing tactics to dulcify an organization is to try to appease or pacify members with small, meaningless concessions. for example, one of the goals of the new haven aids task force is teen hiv prevention, and they've been trying to get the school district to create an effective hiv prevention program in the high schools. the school district attempts to dulcify the task force by saying they do have an hiv prevention program. the school district's program, as it turns out, is largely meaningless   a voluntary, after school program that students get no class credit or extracurricular credit for taking part in. the task force counters by publicizing evidence of the ineffectiveness of such voluntary programs in similar communities and by publicizing a rise in teen hiv infection in the community. the community as a whole starts pressuring the school district for a more meaningful response, and a mandatory course during school hours. responding to dulcify tactics when the opposition tries to discredit an organization, they call your motives and methods into question to try to make your group look incompetent (unreasonable, unnecessary, dishonest, et cetera), to the community. this can get nasty   discrediting can even go so far as to include personal attacks. responding to discrediting handle this like you would handle deception. your opponent is trying to make you look bad. for example, let's go back to the consumer safety group working to require flame retardant upholstery in furniture again. the congress member who was opposed to their efforts also attempted to discredit the group by saying that they couldn't possibly speak to the potential harm of flame retardant chemicals because they don't have a toxicologist on staff. the consumer group countered by listing the credentials of the various scientists that they do have on staff and presenting the press with several reports and studies showing flame retardant chemicals to be harmless. if your opponents are trying to ruin your organization or initiative in any way possible   which can include using a combination of two or more of the other tactics   they are trying to destroy you. responding to destroy tactics your response should be swift and intensive. respond   and respond forcefully   as soon as you recognize your opponent's tactics. consider the following five steps as a possible strategy for defeating your opponent: occasionally, your opponent may offer to make a deal. positively speaking, to deal with an opponent means to negotiate an agreement that is acceptable to everyone involved. sometimes, however, deal tactics may be used negatively as a ploy to lure your organization away from your true goal. this may be done by offering your organization concessions that turn out to be almost meaningless in exchange for "give backs" on your part that bring you no closer to your ultimate goal (see the suggestions on dulcifying earlier in this section). if you play your cards carefully, a deal can work to your advantage. you might gain increased understanding of your opponent and his/her position, and vice versa. it can also show your organization to be a legitimate, powerful organization that's not afraid to "sit across the table"   especially important for small or new organizations trying to gain credibility in the community. finally, in a best case scenario, effective negotiation may bring about your goal in its entirety: you might just get exactly what you want! times when you might not want to deal include: for example, the teen pregnancy prevention coalition in the small, closely knit town somewhereville wanted to have all high school students fill out a survey regarding sexual activity. a parents' group, opposed to the survey because of its explicit nature, started organizing against the coalition. luckily, both sides were able to strike a satisfactory compromise when the teen pregnancy coalition agreed to use a different survey that still asked about sexuality issues but also asked questions about nutrition, drug and alcohol abuse, and other teen social issues. the parents' group was happy to have a survey that didn't focus only on sex, the coalition still got the information it needed, and information needed by other community groups was gathered at the same time. responding to deal tactics the above example could have turned out much differently   the teen pregnancy prevention coalition might not have been able to do a survey at all, or the parents group might have been rebuffed completely, making them resentful and unwilling to be helpful to the coalition. striking a compromise that is acceptable to all parties is crucial, and there are a variety of ways you can make sure you get the best possible compromise. know your opponents and understand their strategies. while you are negotiating, you should: after a deal has been agreed upon, be sure to: knowing how to handle counterattacks and preparing yourself for them as much as possible will greatly increase your confidence in dealing with the many skirmishes you're likely to experience in community organizing. keep in mind that you'll probably often find your opposition using a combination of two or more of the ten d's, so you may have to adapt some of these strategies somewhat to better fit your own situation. as activist and educator effie jones once said, "failing to plan is planning to fail." think about what you might expect from your opponents and how to best respond to them, and you'll be prepared and confident when counterattacks come. chris hampton jenette nagy eric wadud aimee whitman online resources identifying allies and opponents. this advocacy planning model provides information on how to establish a group or individual as an ally, opponent, or neutral/unknown group. allies and opponents matrix is a model targeted at understanding and responding successfully to opposition. basic advocacy skills is a guide that provides basic information to being a good advocate, including information on how to open lines of communication. countering opposition in issue campaigns is a blog post on the bolder advocacy website aimed at providing information for mapping out opposition messages and preparing to respond. gathering support and neutralizing opposition is a module on the world animal website with the intention of providing information for understanding the opposition’s weaknesses and neutralizing opposition. responding to opposition/criticism   advocates for youth is a resource provided by advocates for youth that offers information in list form with advice for responding to opposition. responding to opposition and criticism: dealing with disagreement   advocates for youth is an article with extensive information on sources of opposition and strategies for addressing opposition. target audiences: support and opposition   this pdf, provided by policy project, is dedicated to identifying support and opposition and responding to both groups. print resources altman, d., balcazar, f., fawcett, s., seekins, t., & young, j. (1994). public health advocacy: creating community change to improve health. palo alto, ca: stanford center for research in disease prevention. bisno, h. (1988). managing conflict. newbury park, ca: sage publications. brown, l. (1983). managing conflict at organizational interfaces. reading, ma: addison wesley. coover, v., et al. (1985). resource manual for a living revolution. philadelphia: new society. eisenberg, a., & ilardo, j.(1972). argument: an alternative to violence. englewood cliffs, nj: prentice hall. evarts, w., et al. (1983). winning through accommodation: the mediator's handbook. dubuque, ia: kendall/hunt. higbee, k., & jensen, l. (1978). influence: what it is and how to use it. provo, ut: brigham young university press. ilich, j. (1992). dealbreakers and breakthroughs: the ten most common negotiation mistakes and how to overcome them. new york, ny: john wiley & sons. ramundo, b. (1992). effective negotiation: a guide to dialogue management and control. new york: quorum books. schweitzer, s. (1979). winning with deception and bluff. englewood cliffs, nj: prentice hall. sun tzu (1988). the art of war. (t. cleary, trans.) boston: shambhala. (original work written 500 b.c.) weeks, d. (1992). the eight essential steps to conflict resolution: preserving relationships at work, at home, and in the community. los angeles, ca: tarcher, inc. windes, r., & hastings, a. (1965). argument and advocacy. new york, ny: random house.

something went wrong. wait a moment and try again.
newsletter i asked how you’re feeling about the debate. hundreds of you responded with worries and hopes. good evening. it’s debate week! the showdown in atlanta means the general election season is upon us, even if excitement isn’t exactly popping off the charts (more on that below). and that, dear reader, means on politics will now start showing up in your inbox every weekday evening, as my colleagues and i try to make sense of this weird and weighty election.    jess bidgood by jess bidgood i asked how you all were feeling about the debate. i read all of your responses. laurie lowe is a democrat from florida and a reader of this newsletter (hi, laurie!). she has a plan for thursday’s presidential debate between president biden and former president donald trump   and a plan b if things go south. “my democratic friends and i are all going to watch but are terrified that biden will have one of his ‘moments.’ to lighten our mood we have biden and trump bingo cards,” lowe wrote to me. “bingo might turn into a drinking game instead if things go badly.” last week, i asked you all how you were feeling about the first 2024 general election debate. i read your responses, more than 600 of them. and, as i wrote earlier today, i learned that many of you have come down with a case of deep debate distress   a feeling i described as less “rah rah” than “ruh roh.” some of you expressed nothing but excitement, and you’re confident you’ll see a strong showing by the president. but many of you, like lowe and her friends, want biden to do well but worry he will slip up.