Trump Is Pissed at Harris for Trapping Him in Two Debates
1y 10mon ago by lemmy.world/u/Theprogressivist in politics from newrepublic.com
Is Donald Trump really trying to get out of debating Kamala Harris again? Or is it the opposite?
On Thursday, it seemed like the dust had finally settled. “The debate about debates is over,” said Michael Tyler, the Harris campaign communications director, in a statement. “Donald Trump’s campaign accepted our proposal for three debates—two presidential and a vice presidential debate.”
“Assuming Donald Trump actually shows up on September 10 to debate Vice President Harris, then Governor Walz will see JD Vance on October 1 and the American people will have another opportunity to see the vice president and Donald Trump on the debate stage in October,” the Harris campaign continued.
But now, Trump’s team claims that the Democrat lied when she said the two sides reached a debate agreement. At the moment, there is only one confirmed debate between the presidential nominees, to be held September 10 by ABC News.
Nevertheless, the Trump campaign’s press secretary Karoline Leavitt told the Daily Caller Friday that Trump will be doing three debates and Vance will be doing two.
That Trump campaign sounds like a well oiled machine.
Well they vetted JD Vance so... maybe they should keep on truckin?
I encourage them to keep that truck on that path. It may appear to be swerving like it's being driven by a duck on heroin, but that's just a cunning strategy, I'm sure.
See, when it starts to fall apart
Man, it really falls apart
Like boots or hearts, oh, when they start
They really fall apart
I love this, what is it from?
After the Biden debate they just stopped talking essentially and it made it all look polished. Now that Harris is in they suddenly have to actively campaign again and against someone competent, so they're crumbling.
Does the machine spin like a laundry agitator?
Oil? ..... I think the liquid they are covered in came from a golden shower.
Trickle down in a nutshell.
They spent all of the money on lawyers to defend his crimes.
It's in of those machines that break down with the addition of oil
Nevertheless, the Trump campaign’s press secretary Karoline Leavitt told the Daily Caller Friday that Trump will be doing three debates and Vance will be doing two.
I'd have sympathy for the people having to deal with trump's bullshit working for his campaign, but they're working for trump. Fully deserved.
Wait, hold up, why is Vance doing two?
I think they are getting riled by the "Trump/Vance are cowards" argument and this is there pathetic attempt to counter it: "Nuh uh, we actually wanted more debates!"
These people are such weird losers.
Not quite an answer, but:
Vance, confusingly, proposed two vice presidential debates as opposed to the traditional one. One of his proposed dates is the same day Trump is due to be sentenced for his hush-money trial.
If they're going to ultimately back out of the debates, it makes sense to bluster first about wanting even more debates and then claim that Harris and Walz refused their debate schedule.
Im sure that debate will have the proud boys on call for when sentencing doesn’t go their way.
No, that’s not what they said. They said Trump’s publicist told Daily Caller he’d be doing two.
Based on history, there is no way to predict reality from that statement.
He's trying to pull a power move by not just simply accepting the invitation to the one debate. They feel like they need to one-up the offer by offering ANOTHER debate, on their terms this time!! It's childish
When they referenced the VP doing a second debate, they were referring to Harris.
I'm pissed that we're trapped with Trump for three fucking election cycles.
It's like one of those shits where you keep wiping and it just doesn't go away
It’s like I’m wiping a marker
Still poop. Still poop.
Eraser
Hot snakes
For the love of God, just buy a bidet.
Kids these days.
Coincidentally i just installed one last weekend. But the trauma of endless wipes will always be there unfortunately
I've been trapped with Trump since the fucking '80s. For young people today, it would be the equivalent of 40 years of Logan Paul, with him being President at the end of it.
It was funny when he complained that his campaign wasn't doing well here in New York City where he's from. Dude, we've been over your shit since before the TV shows when you were just another one of the scummy rich landlords none of us have ever liked.
So much worse than Logan Paul though.
Logan Paul, so far!
Yeah, Trump wasn't this bad in the '80s and '90s. In fact one time in the '80s he even offered to pay for the funeral of a child killed by a bear (although there's no evidence that he ever actually did it).
President Logan Paul
Three so far!
Hopefully they come out with an anti aging vaccine and that mother fucker refuses to take it and we don't have to see him ever again. Who am I kidding, he would be the first in line.
He needs a better doctor.
One who knows that an "anti aging vaccine" doesn't go through the earlobe.
My fear is that Trump actually died during COVID and what we've been watching since is an AI-driven hologram. We'd be getting this shit for eternity if so.
He's proving himself about as capable of critical thinking as ChatGPT, so that part tracks.
Well maybe you should have voted for him last time.
The solution to Bad is not Worse
I thought their logic was humorous.
No joke! All serious! And gloom!
Apparently. Jesus Christ.
At least we know Donald exists.
Are you seriously taking a common expression of exasperation to push some very specious theories about whether that man actually existed? The cult leader 2000 years ago most definitely fucking did, any other conjecture is Elvis Presley is alive conspiracy horseshit people like you pretend to abhore.
You really trying to advocate that Jesus Christ existed? Despite no proof at all? Might as well try to advocate that Deadpool is real.
What would you accept as proof?
https://www.history.com/news/was-jesus-real-historical-evidence
“These are all Christian and are obviously and understandably biased in what they report, and have to be evaluated very critically indeed to establish any historically reliable information,” Ehrman says. “But their central claims about Jesus as a historical figure—a Jew, with followers, executed on orders of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, during the reign of the Emperor Tiberius—are borne out by later sources with a completely different set of biases.”
Or are you arguing there is no proof anyone existed prior to the 1800s? Oh sure there are documents, but that's not proof.
There's documents saying that Medusa existed as well. There's documents saying Santa claus existed. Hell, in today's world, there's documents saying Indiana Jones existed. And you accept documents as proof 1800 years after the motherfucker supposedly existed?
Genius here can't tell the difference between documents created by historians and documents created to be fictional stories.
There's documents saying Santa claus existed
Saint Nicholas did in fact exist. He had no magic powers, was just a generally nice guy, and folklore was created around him after he died.
Not the point and you know it. Saint Nicholas wasn't flying around in a magic sleigh. And that's before questioning the "saint" part. Do you really think some dude that turned water to wine would be mad about jagerbombs?
And that’s before questioning the “saint” part.
Well, he was a nice guy at least. He snuck into people's houses and left bags of gold so they wouldn't have to sell their daughters into slavery.
Saint Nicholas wasn't flying around in a magic sleigh.
Agreed. And nobody here is arguing that Jesus was turning water into wine. If you read my post it specifically said: a Jew, with followers, executed on orders of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, during the reign of the Emperor Tiberius
When you're so anti-religion you loop around to sticking firmly to your personal beliefs and ignoring any evidence that disagrees with them...
Because outside of those religious texts, there's 0 evidence to him existing at all. None.
Again, if you actually read my post, it specifically mentioned that religious texts are biased and therefore not credible, and the link mentions other historical documents that mention him existing.
But you saw a post disagreeing with your religious beliefs so you plugged your ears and tuned it out rather than risk hearing something that might challenge your (for some reason) deeply held beliefs.
We can agree Saint Nicholas was just some guy and a mythology was built up around him. We have a direct example of that happening. I don't know why the idea that a similar thing could happen to some other guy is so dangerous to your world view.
Saint Nicholas was a real, documented person, and by all accounts a good one at that. But there isn't a single bit of credible, contemporary evidence that Jesus existed at all. There are inscriptions mentioning Jesus and where he came from but they were hundreds of years after the time when he would have existed.
Saint Nicholas was a real, documented person
According to you there's no "proof" of that, it's just things people wrote down, and that's not proof.
There are inscriptions mentioning Jesus and where he came from but they were hundreds of years after the time when he would have existed.
At least your admitting you bother to look at any evidence that disagrees with your religious beliefs. From my link earlier:
In chronicling the burning of Rome in A.D. 64, Tacitus mentions that Emperor Nero falsely blamed “the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius.”
But you saw a post disagreeing with your religious beliefs so you plugged your ears
No, it's more that I've come across a truly obnoxious person, so I block them on Lemmy. Bye.
It's weird how it's always the religious fundamentalists that feel the need to tell you they are blocking you instead of just leaving the conversation.
"I'm an open minded intellectual, so I'm not listening to you anymore." Okay then.
It's weird how it's always the religious fundamentalists...
Yes, keep talking about yourself, dear.
There's more evidence that Jesus existed than there is that I am a religious fundamentalist.
so I block them on Lemmy. Bye.
How did I know this was a lie?
There's more evidence that Jesus existed
Go on.
Having a real hard time understanding Jesus of Nazareth existed but Jesus God Incarnate didn't, huh?
Historical evidence of a Jesus of Nazareth acting in ways that resemble a non-magical version of the New Testament is extremely underwhelming, to me. I don't have a pro-Christian or pro-Abrahamic bias.
I don't think any such figure existed, and was a wholesale invention.
I don't have a pro-Christian or pro-Abrahamic bias.
True, you have an anti-Christian, anti-Abrahamic balance. Why else would you be so offended by the idea that a Jew, with followers, executed on orders of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, during the reign of the Emperor Tiberius, existed?
I don't think any such figure existed, and was a wholesale invention.
I don't think you exist and are a wholesale invention. There's no proof to the contrary.
Why else would you be so offended
I don't think the horror film character Candyman exists, either, but that's not because I'm offended by a horrifically murdered black man becoming a personification of vengeance.
Therefore I question whether it is necessary that not thinking something always exists denotes being offended. How many gods and religions do you not believe in? Do you find those offensive? If yes, that's your problem, not mine - do not hold me to your standards in this regard.
I don't think you exist and are a wholesale invention. There's no proof to the contrary.
Seek psychiatric help, you're being rude to people that don't exist. Also, you (for some reason) invent figments of your imagination that are more rational than you, which is messed up.
How many gods and religions do you not believe in?
If anyone told me "Zeus was actually based on some guy from early Greece that we have historical evidence for" my reaction to that would be more along the line of "Oh, that's interesting" instead of "Your evidence better be pretty overwhelming!" Knowing Saint Nicholas was a real person doesn't mean I'm mailing Christmas lists to the north pole. The origins of things are interesting, and I'm not going to argue with experts in the field (historians), that's how you get Flat Earthers.
Seek psychiatric help, you’re being rude to people that don’t exist.
Ya right, like I'm going to take advice from a figment of my imagination. That's something a crazy person would do!
If anyone told me "Zeus was actually based on some guy from early Greece that we have historical evidence for" my reaction to that would be more along the line of "Oh, that's interesting" instead of "Your evidence better be pretty overwhelming!"
You might react to tomatoes with an intense dislike, this does not stop them from being food. Your psychological preferences have no sway on facts.
In a similar way, do not assume your own excessive open-mindedness to statements made with a lack of evidence means that this is 'correct'. Your preferences are not moral laws.
I'm autistic and logical. I don't identify as a human. I don't care what the majority thinks. I'm not going to go along with something because of the status quo. The status quo doesn't feed children, it creates and exploits an underclass, it victim-blames for structural inequality. I distrust the status quo.
Every historian in the world could say we accept that "Jesus existed as a real man." I don't believe that without evidence.
Open-mindedness means being receptive to evidence, not being receptive to belief in the face of a lack of it.
I'm autistic and logical.
How logical is it to tell someone you're blocking them and then continue to reply to them? You don't sound very logical to me.
I don't identify as a human.
JFC, you're an idiot. There were other responses to make but I'm talking to someone who can't even be convinced that they are human, "historians know more than you" is so far down the list of priorities of things you need to come to grips with. Find yourself a therapist you can talk to.
No proof? I can't be bothered with this idiocy. Read a fucking book about ancient Rome around 33 AD.
Elvis is everywhere.
You seem fun.
You seem dim
You seem dim
You are a truly terrible troll.
three debates—two presidential and a vice presidential debate.
Trump will be doing three debates and Vance will be doing two.
One of the VP debates is between Vance and Trump
Whiny little bitch.
This campaign has shown just how much of a little bitch that he is. Every time you turn around it's another example of him just whining like an entitled child instead of doing something about it like an adult. I know there's cognitive dissonance, but damn, it must be working overtime in a lot of Trump supporters.
Congratulations on an absolutely outstanding image
World's smallest cello
Trump mentioned the award after he was introduced by one of his top patrons, Miriam Adelson, a heavy-handed Republican donor who became the richest Israeli in the world after her husband, billionaire Sheldon Adelson, died in 2021. The couple earned Trump’s favor after they funneled $25 million to Trump’s super PACs in 2016 and donated $5 million to his inauguration. That earned them a spot on the dais, just a few rows behind Jared Kushner, as Trump was sworn in. In 2018, their contributions effectively bought Mrs. Adelson the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and in 2019 influenced Trump to recognize Israel’s sovereignty in Golan Heights, an Israeli-occupied portion of southwest Syria that the religious state captured in 1967.
Four years later, the Adelsons eclipsed their previous spending on the pro-Israel politico with a $90 million donation, and gave $300 million to Republican-focused Senate and congressional Leadership Funds, outspending the next three donors combined, according to Intelligencer.
Now I finally have info about who this lady is, after seeing a number of headlines about the comments. She's some shithead Israeli right-wing billionaire asshole. Fucking piece of shit. No surprise there.
When I see stuff like this all I can think is how crazy it is we'll look at "third world nations" and call them corrupt when we have stuff like this going on. This is just bribery but under a different name and with rules to only let the wealthy do it.
If you watch Veep, Sheldon Adelson was the “inspiration” for Sherman Tanz (read: is 100% a direct parody of).
Actually, it's worse for Harris. Debating against someone with marshmallows in the mouth is a nightmare.
It only sounded like he had marshmallows in his mouth because Twitt I mean X has shitty enough tech that they couldn't support things. /s
Also, you're 100% right. Debating against someone like Trump is hard because the will spit out lies faster than you can debunk them.
Aka gish gallop
motherfucker YOU WANTED THESE DEBATES IN THE FIRST PLACE
Against Biden, sure. Trump's scared of seeming less intelligent than a black woman on a public stage. He'll find excuses to never debate Harris.
Why does Harris even bother? Just do the one debate in September and be done with it, since the venue and format was already agreed on. Anything else, Trump is going to move to FOX and have it rigged. And it will just be Trump soundbites (more so that it already is.)
I really hope he doesn’t show up on Sep 10. Then Harris can have all the tv time for herself. And then she can refuse to do any other debates, simply stating Trump is unreliable and doesn’t show up therefore she won’t waste time scheduling any more.
I hear he is feeling more targeted these days ;)
I 'ear the same thing!
lol cry more
I didn't know there was more than one agreed-upon debate. Fox is kind of a non-starter, but I only knew about one other, and I've been trying to keep up!
I don't know if it would be better for Kamala to randomly show up to the Fox debate and catch them unprepared to attack her while maintaining the facade of legitimacy, because they were just expecting to let Trump ramble for an hour; or if it would be better to let people see the weird old man go on about nonsense for an hour, and possibly have Fox forced to cut away when he starts lying about 2020 again.
Trapped! He could just drop out.
New Republic - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for New Republic:
MBFC: Left - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source
Search topics on Ground.News
https://newrepublic.com/post/184962/donald-trump-pissed-kamala-harris-chicken-out-debate
Fuck Ground News
I honestly think Harris will lose. The Democrat base only comes out when there's a progressive candidate. Harris' record is more right wing than Biden's. When the press starts talking about it the base will stay home like they did with Hilary.
With Hillary everyone believed Trump couldn't possibly win so they were safe to not vote for Hillary in protest. They're not going to make that mistake a 2nd time.
Okay. So what's your solution? Or have you already decided Trump has won, and have chosen to give up?
Me when I'm immaculately stupid.
Harris' record is more right wing than Biden's.
Record of what?
I think most Dems are smart enough to settle for someone who at their worst is centrist versus the far-right extremist democracy ender
If it happens it won't be because of me.
Record of what, though?
So we can safely say you're spreading bullshit then?
Hey! Record of what?