Least Shocking News: Orange coward pulls out of debate

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He’s “negotiating”. Wants special rules to let him to his bs.

lol Biden couldn’t even debate in front of an audience or the free press. And the moderator needed to use a protective buzzer. Those were Biden’s special rules.

I’m, Biden’s not running for president.

Yes, we know that. When he was running for president, he had the no no buzzer to protect him from Trump. He banned the press and audience, so if he had a complete melt down and shat himself onstage and started writing democracy dies in darkness in his own feces, the element of plausible deniability could be brought into play. We have established this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s the point of debating Harris if Gavin Newsom becomes the Democratic nominee?

That’s all this states.

I know that is tough to grasp, but only one party here hasn’t selected a nominee for president yet.

I could understand not wanting to do the actual *debate* until Democrats have an official nominee. That would make sense because, theoretically, they could change their nominee again if things went bad. [I mean, that would be suicidal, but I guess it’s theoretically possible.] But that’s not what’s happening here. The debate currently on the schedule is set for September, well *after* Democrats will have locked in their candidate. Democrats have no chance of changing candidates after the next scheduled debate, so what’s the problem with just keeping it as is? Wouldn’t it be better for Trump if he just said, “No problem. I’ll debate whoever the Democrats put up on stage. Doesn’t matter to me.” Instead he’s kind of flailing here, which makes him look weak and flaky.

He’s already done the dems a huge favor by having the earliest presidential debate in mordern history and allowing them to reset the race and dump their INCUMBENT President.

I probably wouldn’t put out that provocative of a statement but there’s no way, if I were him, I’d agree to ANOTHER debate before my opponent is locked-in.

Not getting bait-and-switched twice. Why waste resources on debating someone you’re not sure will end up being the nominee. They ditched their own incumbent president for goodness sakes.

But literally no one is talking about picking anyone else but here. She’s had an insane groundswell of support from the base!

And not just the base. A number of GOP former elected officials have endorsed her as well as the Nikki Haley PAC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s the point of debating Harris if Gavin Newsom becomes the Democratic nominee?

That’s all this states.

I know that is tough to grasp, but only one party here hasn’t selected a nominee for president yet.

I could understand not wanting to do the actual *debate* until Democrats have an official nominee. That would make sense because, theoretically, they could change their nominee again if things went bad. [I mean, that would be suicidal, but I guess it’s theoretically possible.] But that’s not what’s happening here. The debate currently on the schedule is set for September, well *after* Democrats will have locked in their candidate. Democrats have no chance of changing candidates after the next scheduled debate, so what’s the problem with just keeping it as is? Wouldn’t it be better for Trump if he just said, “No problem. I’ll debate whoever the Democrats put up on stage. Doesn’t matter to me.” Instead he’s kind of flailing here, which makes him look weak and flaky.

He’s already done the dems a huge favor by having the earliest presidential debate in mordern history and allowing them to reset the race and dump their INCUMBENT President.

I probably wouldn’t put out that provocative of a statement but there’s no way, if I were him, I’d agree to ANOTHER debate before my opponent is locked-in.

Not getting bait-and-switched twice. Why waste resources on debating someone you’re not sure will end up being the nominee. They ditched their own incumbent president for goodness sakes.

Agreed! His statement highlights the disarray behind the Biden/ Harris catastrophe. The media is fickle and acting like it never happened.

There was no disarray. This transition could not have been executed any more smoothly and effectively.

[Anonymous]

Now that she has the nod from the Obamas, what will the Whac-A-Mole say now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s the point of debating Harris if Gavin Newsom becomes the Democratic nominee?

That’s all this states.

I know that is tough to grasp, but only one party here hasn’t selected a nominee for president yet.

I could understand not wanting to do the actual *debate* until Democrats have an official nominee. That would make sense because, theoretically, they could change their nominee again if things went bad. [I mean, that would be suicidal, but I guess it’s theoretically possible.] But that’s not what’s happening here. The debate currently on the schedule is set for September, well *after* Democrats will have locked in their candidate. Democrats have no chance of changing candidates after the next scheduled debate, so what’s the problem with just keeping it as is? Wouldn’t it be better for Trump if he just said, “No problem. I’ll debate whoever the Democrats put up on stage. Doesn’t matter to me.” Instead he’s kind of flailing here, which makes him look weak and flaky.

He’s already done the dems a huge favor by having the earliest presidential debate in mordern history and allowing them to reset the race and dump their INCUMBENT President.

I probably wouldn’t put out that provocative of a statement but there’s no way, if I were him, I’d agree to ANOTHER debate before my opponent is locked-in.

Not getting bait-and-switched twice. Why waste resources on debating someone you’re not sure will end up being the nominee. They ditched their own incumbent president for goodness sakes.

Are you not able to read?
It has been posted numbers times on this thread:
The debate he is backing out of, is AFTER DEMOCRATS HAVE LOCKED IN THEIR NOMINEE.
So what if it isn’t Kamala? Whoever takes the stage, in the debate we are discussing , will be the nominee.

Because it takes time and resources to prepare. Why waste a week or two of time and resources preparing to debate someone who might not end up being the nominee. But still being locked in to the debate date with someone new.

Especially when you already debated and figuratively destroyed the incumbent President you’d assume you’d be going up against?

Wait, Biden got vilified last time because he took some time to prepare and all the Trump supporters said there is no reason to do anything extra since all of the knowledge should be in the very smart brains.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s the point of debating Harris if Gavin Newsom becomes the Democratic nominee?

That’s all this states.

I know that is tough to grasp, but only one party here hasn’t selected a nominee for president yet.

I could understand not wanting to do the actual *debate* until Democrats have an official nominee. That would make sense because, theoretically, they could change their nominee again if things went bad. [I mean, that would be suicidal, but I guess it’s theoretically possible.] But that’s not what’s happening here. The debate currently on the schedule is set for September, well *after* Democrats will have locked in their candidate. Democrats have no chance of changing candidates after the next scheduled debate, so what’s the problem with just keeping it as is? Wouldn’t it be better for Trump if he just said, “No problem. I’ll debate whoever the Democrats put up on stage. Doesn’t matter to me.” Instead he’s kind of flailing here, which makes him look weak and flaky.

He’s already done the dems a huge favor by having the earliest presidential debate in mordern history and allowing them to reset the race and dump their INCUMBENT President.

I probably wouldn’t put out that provocative of a statement but there’s no way, if I were him, I’d agree to ANOTHER debate before my opponent is locked-in.

Not getting bait-and-switched twice. Why waste resources on debating someone you’re not sure will end up being the nominee. They ditched their own incumbent president for goodness sakes.

But literally no one is talking about picking anyone else but here. She’s had an insane groundswell of support from the base!

And not just the base. A number of GOP former elected officials have endorsed her as well as the Nikki Haley PAC.

Which is why dems had a total hard on for Nikki- until she showed up at the convention. Then she was a nazi, again. Just like that.

[Anonymous]

So...Trump was willing to debate Biden before he was the official nominee, but not Harris before she is the official nominee?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s the point of debating Harris if Gavin Newsom becomes the Democratic nominee?

That’s all this states.

I know that is tough to grasp, but only one party here hasn’t selected a nominee for president yet.

I could understand not wanting to do the actual *debate* until Democrats have an official nominee. That would make sense because, theoretically, they could change their nominee again if things went bad. [I mean, that would be suicidal, but I guess it’s theoretically possible.] But that’s not what’s happening here. The debate currently on the schedule is set for September, well *after* Democrats will have locked in their candidate. Democrats have no chance of changing candidates after the next scheduled debate, so what’s the problem with just keeping it as is? Wouldn’t it be better for Trump if he just said, “No problem. I’ll debate whoever the Democrats put up on stage. Doesn’t matter to me.” Instead he’s kind of flailing here, which makes him look weak and flaky.

He’s already done the dems a huge favor by having the earliest presidential debate in mordern history and allowing them to reset the race and dump their INCUMBENT President.

I probably wouldn’t put out that provocative of a statement but there’s no way, if I were him, I’d agree to ANOTHER debate before my opponent is locked-in.

Not getting bait-and-switched twice. Why waste resources on debating someone you’re not sure will end up being the nominee. They ditched their own incumbent president for goodness sakes.

But literally no one is talking about picking anyone else but here. She’s had an insane groundswell of support from the base!

And not just the base. A number of GOP former elected officials have endorsed her as well as the Nikki Haley PAC.

Remember the Women’s March back in 2017? Womenlargely do not like Trump. He doubled down with the anti-women message when he announced Vance as his VP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s the point of debating Harris if Gavin Newsom becomes the Democratic nominee?

That’s all this states.

I know that is tough to grasp, but only one party here hasn’t selected a nominee for president yet.

I could understand not wanting to do the actual *debate* until Democrats have an official nominee. That would make sense because, theoretically, they could change their nominee again if things went bad. [I mean, that would be suicidal, but I guess it’s theoretically possible.] But that’s not what’s happening here. The debate currently on the schedule is set for September, well *after* Democrats will have locked in their candidate. Democrats have no chance of changing candidates after the next scheduled debate, so what’s the problem with just keeping it as is? Wouldn’t it be better for Trump if he just said, “No problem. I’ll debate whoever the Democrats put up on stage. Doesn’t matter to me.” Instead he’s kind of flailing here, which makes him look weak and flaky.

He’s already done the dems a huge favor by having the earliest presidential debate in mordern history and allowing them to reset the race and dump their INCUMBENT President.

I probably wouldn’t put out that provocative of a statement but there’s no way, if I were him, I’d agree to ANOTHER debate before my opponent is locked-in.

Not getting bait-and-switched twice. Why waste resources on debating someone you’re not sure will end up being the nominee. They ditched their own incumbent president for goodness sakes.

Agreed! His statement highlights the disarray behind the Biden/ Harris catastrophe. The media is fickle and acting like it never happened.

There was no disarray. This transition could not have been executed any more smoothly and effectively.

The one minute warning to his staff was smooth af. Then they found out via tweet. Perf.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s the point of debating Harris if Gavin Newsom becomes the Democratic nominee?

That’s all this states.

I know that is tough to grasp, but only one party here hasn’t selected a nominee for president yet.

I could understand not wanting to do the actual *debate* until Democrats have an official nominee. That would make sense because, theoretically, they could change their nominee again if things went bad. [I mean, that would be suicidal, but I guess it’s theoretically possible.] But that’s not what’s happening here. The debate currently on the schedule is set for September, well *after* Democrats will have locked in their candidate. Democrats have no chance of changing candidates after the next scheduled debate, so what’s the problem with just keeping it as is? Wouldn’t it be better for Trump if he just said, “No problem. I’ll debate whoever the Democrats put up on stage. Doesn’t matter to me.” Instead he’s kind of flailing here, which makes him look weak and flaky.

He’s already done the dems a huge favor by having the earliest presidential debate in mordern history and allowing them to reset the race and dump their INCUMBENT President.

I probably wouldn’t put out that provocative of a statement but there’s no way, if I were him, I’d agree to ANOTHER debate before my opponent is locked-in.

Not getting bait-and-switched twice. Why waste resources on debating someone you’re not sure will end up being the nominee. They ditched their own incumbent president for goodness sakes.

But literally no one is talking about picking anyone else but here. She’s had an insane groundswell of support from the base!

And not just the base. A number of GOP former elected officials have endorsed her as well as the Nikki Haley PAC.

Remember the Women’s March back in 2017? Womenlargely do not like Trump. He doubled down with the anti-women message when he announced Vance as his VP.

Women don’t like women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:His handlers are being smart in pulling out of the debate. He did terribly in the first one and just got lucky that Biden did even worse, which took the attention off Trump. His handlers know that’s not going to happen against Harris so they need to keep him off the stage with her.

He got lucky that on the first 10 minutes, the script was written. As the debate went on, Biden got much better and Trump got much worse. And the media focused on Biden and totally ignored Trump's hundreds of lies.

It’s true. If you read the transcript of that debate, Biden actually comes off better than Trump. And if you fact check it, the difference is even more apparent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s the point of debating Harris if Gavin Newsom becomes the Democratic nominee?

That’s all this states.

I know that is tough to grasp, but only one party here hasn’t selected a nominee for president yet.

I could understand not wanting to do the actual *debate* until Democrats have an official nominee. That would make sense because, theoretically, they could change their nominee again if things went bad. [I mean, that would be suicidal, but I guess it’s theoretically possible.] But that’s not what’s happening here. The debate currently on the schedule is set for September, well *after* Democrats will have locked in their candidate. Democrats have no chance of changing candidates after the next scheduled debate, so what’s the problem with just keeping it as is? Wouldn’t it be better for Trump if he just said, “No problem. I’ll debate whoever the Democrats put up on stage. Doesn’t matter to me.” Instead he’s kind of flailing here, which makes him look weak and flaky.

He’s already done the dems a huge favor by having the earliest presidential debate in mordern history and allowing them to reset the race and dump their INCUMBENT President.

I probably wouldn’t put out that provocative of a statement but there’s no way, if I were him, I’d agree to ANOTHER debate before my opponent is locked-in.

Not getting bait-and-switched twice. Why waste resources on debating someone you’re not sure will end up being the nominee. They ditched their own incumbent president for goodness sakes.

But literally no one is talking about picking anyone else but here. She’s had an insane groundswell of support from the base!

And not just the base. A number of GOP former elected officials have endorsed her as well as the Nikki Haley PAC.

Which is why dems had a total hard on for Nikki- until she showed up at the convention. Then she was a nazi, again. Just like that.

??? The point about Haley is that she demonstrated how weak of a candidate Trump is this year with the large bloc consistently and actively voting against Trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:His handlers are being smart in pulling out of the debate. He did terribly in the first one and just got lucky that Biden did even worse, which took the attention off Trump. His handlers know that’s not going to happen against Harris so they need to keep him off the stage with her.

He got lucky that on the first 10 minutes, the script was written. As the debate went on, Biden got much better and Trump got much worse. And the media focused on Biden and totally ignored Trump's hundreds of lies.

It’s true. If you read the transcript of that debate, Biden actually comes off better than Trump. And if you fact check it, the difference is even more apparent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As expected. He’s shaking in his boots.

He should be. Old man Trump is unfit, and unable to even answer a simple question without going off on his grievance tirade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s the point of debating Harris if Gavin Newsom becomes the Democratic nominee?

That’s all this states.

I know that is tough to grasp, but only one party here hasn’t selected a nominee for president yet.

I could understand not wanting to do the actual *debate* until Democrats have an official nominee. That would make sense because, theoretically, they could change their nominee again if things went bad. [I mean, that would be suicidal, but I guess it’s theoretically possible.] But that’s not what’s happening here. The debate currently on the schedule is set for September, well *after* Democrats will have locked in their candidate. Democrats have no chance of changing candidates after the next scheduled debate, so what’s the problem with just keeping it as is? Wouldn’t it be better for Trump if he just said, “No problem. I’ll debate whoever the Democrats put up on stage. Doesn’t matter to me.” Instead he’s kind of flailing here, which makes him look weak and flaky.

He’s already done the dems a huge favor by having the earliest presidential debate in mordern history and allowing them to reset the race and dump their INCUMBENT President.

I probably wouldn’t put out that provocative of a statement but there’s no way, if I were him, I’d agree to ANOTHER debate before my opponent is locked-in.

Not getting bait-and-switched twice. Why waste resources on debating someone you’re not sure will end up being the nominee. They ditched their own incumbent president for goodness sakes.

Are you not able to read?
It has been posted numbers times on this thread:
The debate he is backing out of, is AFTER DEMOCRATS HAVE LOCKED IN THEIR NOMINEE.
So what if it isn’t Kamala? Whoever takes the stage, in the debate we are discussing , will be the nominee.

Because it takes time and resources to prepare. Why waste a week or two of time and resources preparing to debate someone who might not end up being the nominee. But still being locked in to the debate date with someone new.

Especially when you already debated and figuratively destroyed the incumbent President you’d assume you’d be going up against?

It shouldn't matter who the nominee is. The only correct thing to do is to keep that September date open for a debate, no matter who it is. The fact that Trump is suddenly changing his tune shows that he is running scared. And, having "destroyed Biden in the last debate" is no longer relevant.