Trump says he's agreed to Fox debate while Harris sticks with ABC plan

[Anonymous]

Why does Trump get to dictate the terms of the debate? Trump already agreed to terms with Biden, so since he wants to change those terms, I think it’s because he’s afraid of Kamala. I can’t see what the difference is in the previous agreement with Biden versus Kamala.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why does Trump get to dictate the terms of the debate? Trump already agreed to terms with Biden, so since he wants to change those terms, I think it’s because he’s afraid of Kamala. I can’t see what the difference is in the previous agreement with Biden versus Kamala.

Kamala will crush trump. She will not suffer his foolish non stop lying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does Trump get to dictate the terms of the debate? Trump already agreed to terms with Biden, so since he wants to change those terms, I think it’s because he’s afraid of Kamala. I can’t see what the difference is in the previous agreement with Biden versus Kamala.

Kamala will crush trump. She will not suffer his foolish non stop lying.

Yes, let’s see that tough prosecutor in action!?!?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Harris can receive guarantees that the moderators will stick to rules both candidates agree on, why not have the second debate on Fox?

But I think that the first debate should be held on the previously agreed-upon network, because it has precedence. First dibs, if you will. To spurn them would be rude and burning some bridges. I also reject Trump's claim that because it's a different debate opponent, the deal is off. That's just a coward's excuse and we all know it.

No dibs. There have been too many debates on leftward media stations in the last 30 years. Time to balance that out. The softball questions to one side have become ridiculous to the point of everyone rolling their eyes when PBS or NPR host it.

Sorry buddy, Trump agreed to it. Going back on his word is not Presidential.

If he hadn't agreed to it, I agree with you that Fox would be a good first debate network. It can still be a second.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Harris can receive guarantees that the moderators will stick to rules both candidates agree on, why not have the second debate on Fox?

But I think that the first debate should be held on the previously agreed-upon network, because it has precedence. First dibs, if you will. To spurn them would be rude and burning some bridges. I also reject Trump's claim that because it's a different debate opponent, the deal is off. That's just a coward's excuse and we all know it.

No dibs. There have been too many debates on leftward media stations in the last 30 years. Time to balance that out. The softball questions to one side have become ridiculous to the point of everyone rolling their eyes when PBS or NPR host it.

Sorry buddy, Trump agreed to it. Going back on his word is not Presidential.

If he hadn't agreed to it, I agree with you that Fox would be a good first debate network. It can still be a second.

So did Biden. He needs to show up if he agreed to it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Harris can receive guarantees that the moderators will stick to rules both candidates agree on, why not have the second debate on Fox?

But I think that the first debate should be held on the previously agreed-upon network, because it has precedence. First dibs, if you will. To spurn them would be rude and burning some bridges. I also reject Trump's claim that because it's a different debate opponent, the deal is off. That's just a coward's excuse and we all know it.

No dibs. There have been too many debates on leftward media stations in the last 30 years. Time to balance that out. The softball questions to one side have become ridiculous to the point of everyone rolling their eyes when PBS or NPR host it.

Sorry buddy, Trump agreed to it. Going back on his word is not Presidential.

If he hadn't agreed to it, I agree with you that Fox would be a good first debate network. It can still be a second.

He agreed to debate Joe Biden.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Harris can receive guarantees that the moderators will stick to rules both candidates agree on, why not have the second debate on Fox?

But I think that the first debate should be held on the previously agreed-upon network, because it has precedence. First dibs, if you will. To spurn them would be rude and burning some bridges. I also reject Trump's claim that because it's a different debate opponent, the deal is off. That's just a coward's excuse and we all know it.

No dibs. There have been too many debates on leftward media stations in the last 30 years. Time to balance that out. The softball questions to one side have become ridiculous to the point of everyone rolling their eyes when PBS or NPR host it.

Sorry buddy, Trump agreed to it. Going back on his word is not Presidential.

If he hadn't agreed to it, I agree with you that Fox would be a good first debate network. It can still be a second.

He agreed to debate Joe Biden.

And he can't handle Kamala Harris apparently. But he can handle the presidency. Ok, sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Harris can receive guarantees that the moderators will stick to rules both candidates agree on, why not have the second debate on Fox?

But I think that the first debate should be held on the previously agreed-upon network, because it has precedence. First dibs, if you will. To spurn them would be rude and burning some bridges. I also reject Trump's claim that because it's a different debate opponent, the deal is off. That's just a coward's excuse and we all know it.

No dibs. There have been too many debates on leftward media stations in the last 30 years. Time to balance that out. The softball questions to one side have become ridiculous to the point of everyone rolling their eyes when PBS or NPR host it.

That is absurd. There are no leftward media stations. MSNBC is a retirement home for the pre 2016 Republican Party.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Harris can receive guarantees that the moderators will stick to rules both candidates agree on, why not have the second debate on Fox?

But I think that the first debate should be held on the previously agreed-upon network, because it has precedence. First dibs, if you will. To spurn them would be rude and burning some bridges. I also reject Trump's claim that because it's a different debate opponent, the deal is off. That's just a coward's excuse and we all know it.

No dibs. There have been too many debates on leftward media stations in the last 30 years. Time to balance that out. The softball questions to one side have become ridiculous to the point of everyone rolling their eyes when PBS or NPR host it.

But Trump already agreed to the second debate. What difference does it make that it’s against Biden or Kamala? I’m trying to understand Trump’s reasoning. By moving it to Fox, it looks like he was afraid of Kamala and now wants to engineer a more favorable outcome because he is afraid of Kamala!

[Anonymous]

I don't understand the point of another debate. If you don't know who you are voting for by now then you probably shouldn't vote

[Anonymous]

Not sure if you can actually see this video But this moderator is amazing

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C9NOwYkuwGS/?igsh=MXRxZDNyYTBsY2FvbA==

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harris is a coward. She needs to show up
and answer questions from people who don’t kiss her a$$.

She has no need to debate on fox news of all places. Find a network that did not traffic in lies about the last election.

She is just scared. Cannot even unburden what has been burdened.

The burden comes in the morning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why does Trump get to dictate the terms of the debate? Trump already agreed to terms with Biden, so since he wants to change those terms, I think it’s because he’s afraid of Kamala. I can’t see what the difference is in the previous agreement with Biden versus Kamala.

Because Biden fully dictated terms of the first debate. It would be fair to allow the other candidate to dictate the terms of the second debate. What kind of democracy is it when one party dictates the terms for all debate?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand the point of another debate. If you don't know who you are voting for by now then you probably shouldn't vote

A lot of democrats did not vote for Harris and they would like to hear more of unscripted answers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Harris can receive guarantees that the moderators will stick to rules both candidates agree on, why not have the second debate on Fox?

But I think that the first debate should be held on the previously agreed-upon network, because it has precedence. First dibs, if you will. To spurn them would be rude and burning some bridges. I also reject Trump's claim that because it's a different debate opponent, the deal is off. That's just a coward's excuse and we all know it.

No dibs. There have been too many debates on leftward media stations in the last 30 years. Time to balance that out. The softball questions to one side have become ridiculous to the point of everyone rolling their eyes when PBS or NPR host it.

But Trump already agreed to the second debate. What difference does it make that it’s against Biden or Kamala? I’m trying to understand Trump’s reasoning. By moving it to Fox, it looks like he was afraid of Kamala and now wants to engineer a more favorable outcome because he is afraid of Kamala!

If he afraid of her, then she should come on the Fox and crush him. What does she scared of? Orange turd?