By Andrea Hargraves 
On TVI's “Global” program, Paulo Portas highlights that Mario Draghi's report warns of an economic downturn in Europe, compares European GDP growth and productivity with that of the United States, as well as highlighting the dominance of the United States and China in the field of technology and artificial intelligence. Regarding the presidential debate in the United States, the commentator praised Kamala Harris' strategy that approached the voters, while Trump, with a “disjointed” speech, failed to focus on the economy and raised concerns about his position on the war in Ukraine.
TVI commentator Paolo Portas highlights that Mario Draghi's report on a new EU economic and industrial policy is “certainly the most important report on the state of Europe written by a respected authority in Europe”. He stresses that this is because “it uses a word that terrifies Europeans, but which Europeans know to be true: decline”. “If we do nothing, we will go into decline”.
He also says some basic data, and Paulo Portas highlights what he considers the most important: “If we compare GDP at constant prices between the United States and Europe, the difference was 17% in favor of the Americans a few decades ago and now it is 30% in favor of the Americans.”
On the other hand, Paulo Portas says there is another issue that Europeans do not want to talk about: “Americans are 20% more productive per hour than Europeans.” He adds: “To increase income, it is also necessary to agree on productivity gains.”
Draghi also touched on the wound of the future economy and artificial intelligence, noting that in this spectrum the industry is “completely dominated by Americans and Chinese.” “Of the 50 largest technology companies in the world, only four are European.” “In the top ten, there are no Europeans.”
If people look at Draghi’s report carefully, as the TVI commentator pointed out, they will realise that “everything in Europe is over-regulated”. “There is no doubt that Mario Draghi has touched the wound.”
Paulo Portas and behind the scenes of Trump's viral phrase: The lady watched the debate and the neighbor said to her: 'I heard that, I don't know, it wasn't my dog'
In the global program, Paulo Portas also highlighted American politics, noting that Kamala Harris scored an important victory in the debate against former President Donald Trump. However, the TVI commentator is cautious when making predictions: “The difference between the two is 0.2% in the seven North American states that will decide everything.”
Kamala Harris, he says, used a simple but effective strategy: her “smile.” It served as a kind of “open microphone,” allowing him to get closer to the viewer, especially when Trump made more “outlandish” arguments. That approach, along with her debate performance, may have been the vice president’s best this week.
“Kamala wanted Americans to see her as a potential president and Trump wanted to reassure some voters and focus the discussion on the economy. Objectively, Kamala Harris came closer to her goal, and she seemed more presidential,” Portas says, reiterating that Trump was unable to do the same, “because he said very disjointed things, and he fell into the trap of going after Trump.” The things Kamala told him.
The sequence of events also played to her advantage. Shortly after the debate, Harris won the popular support of Taylor Swift, and inflation figures dropped to 2.5%, boosting her image among voters. Harris, in Paulo Portas’s view, was able to take important steps “to position herself as a viable presidential alternative.”
Instead, Donald Trump seemed more distracted and ended up falling into the “trap” of responding to Kamala’s provocations. According to Portas, Trump delivered a disjointed speech, unable to maintain focus on the economy, which was one of his main debate goals. The contrast was clear: On the one hand, Kamala came across as a friendly, centered candidate; on the other, Trump appeared “angry, confrontational, and divisive.”
One of the “awful” moments of the debate was Trump’s stance on Ukraine. “When Trump was asked, he couldn’t say that he wanted Ukraine to win the conflict with Russia,” he added. For Portas, this is a worrying point, because he has never seen “any American candidate who has even the slightest suspicion that he is being manipulated by Russia.”
In fact, it ensures that Trump's peace plan is in line with guidelines set out months ago by Vladimir Putin himself, raising concerns about his foreign policy.
Portas also criticized the way Trump based some of his statements on unfounded rumors. Specifically, when he warned that immigrants were eating pets in Springfield. “How can a candidate for president of the United States make a statement like that based on a post by a lady who said, ‘I heard from my neighbor that her dog disappeared and was being eaten by immigrants?’” Portas said. “The lady saw the discussion — she went to talk to her neighbor — and the neighbor said, ‘I heard that, I don’t know, it wasn’t my dog.’ It was a series of, ‘I don’t know, it wasn’t like that.’”