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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this the Trump campaign’s debate strategy? Make up dates on their own and then whine that the other party didn’t “agree”?

Obviously that is it. Why would Harris participate in that? It just makes her look easily manipulated.

If Harris unilaterally arranged a a debate and then scolded trump for not participating, he would tell her to get lost.

So she’s refusing to participate and claiming she’s being manipulated?

How will her campaign ever arrange another debate if she won’t propose any and won’t work with the Trump campaign or the networks?

Or is the September debate it? One and done?

How would I know? What I do know as an average suburban mom voter is that it appears that trump set up a debate in Fox on his own and then seems to think he can just bully her into to agreeing to show up. That is how it looks to me and I would not be impressed if she fell for that.

Ok, how do you think debates are arranged? What do you think happens? At a minimum, both sides need to be willing to talk. Harris doesn’t even want to discuss further debates until after September 11th. Even if you don’t like Trump, you have to agree he is trying to engage his opponent.

Nobody at this level is being trapped into a debate that is set up without their campaign negotiating and agreeing to rules. Are you stating that Kamala and her campaign are unable to do as every campaign before this election was able to do? Why is her campaign singularly at a disadvantage and unable to participate in arranging debates? You think she isn’t politically astute enough to set up a debate and her team is likewise deficient?

So when Trump refused to show up at any of the primary debates, that meant he wasn’t politically astute? Or did it mean he was a coward?

President Joe Biden has successfully fended off calls from his opponents for him to participate in primary debates, a move that would be unprecedented in recent memory.

Democrats have so far opted to tune out the primary challenges levied against him, with the Democratic National Committee throwing its support behind Biden. And while some in the party have criticized the organization and Biden as "un-democratic" for presuming he’s the de facto nominee, there’s precedent in sitting it out: No incumbent president has participated in a primary debate since the first modern debate was held in 1948, even when presented with high-profile primary challengers.
https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/incumbent-president-participated-primary-debate-ford-democrats/story?id=99773858

Biden didn’t need to debate his primary challengers either.

Seems quite politically astute of Biden and Trump to not give free airtime to opponents when they were getting all the attention. Wonder if Harris making a similar calculation?

So Harris is going to one and done the debates to keep Trump from getting free airtime? Would she not be getting free airtime in the debates as well?

Sure, but about as many people as showed up at his Montana rally will actually tune in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this the Trump campaign’s debate strategy? Make up dates on their own and then whine that the other party didn’t “agree”?

Obviously that is it. Why would Harris participate in that? It just makes her look easily manipulated.

If Harris unilaterally arranged a a debate and then scolded trump for not participating, he would tell her to get lost.

So she’s refusing to participate and claiming she’s being manipulated?

How will her campaign ever arrange another debate if she won’t propose any and won’t work with the Trump campaign or the networks?

Or is the September debate it? One and done?

How would I know? What I do know as an average suburban mom voter is that it appears that trump set up a debate in Fox on his own and then seems to think he can just bully her into to agreeing to show up. That is how it looks to me and I would not be impressed if she fell for that.

Ok, how do you think debates are arranged? What do you think happens? At a minimum, both sides need to be willing to talk. Harris doesn’t even want to discuss further debates until after September 11th. Even if you don’t like Trump, you have to agree he is trying to engage his opponent.

Nobody at this level is being trapped into a debate that is set up without their campaign negotiating and agreeing to rules. Are you stating that Kamala and her campaign are unable to do as every campaign before this election was able to do? Why is her campaign singularly at a disadvantage and unable to participate in arranging debates? You think she isn’t politically astute enough to set up a debate and her team is likewise deficient?

So when Trump refused to show up at any of the primary debates, that meant he wasn’t politically astute? Or did it mean he was a coward?

President Joe Biden has successfully fended off calls from his opponents for him to participate in primary debates, a move that would be unprecedented in recent memory.

Democrats have so far opted to tune out the primary challenges levied against him, with the Democratic National Committee throwing its support behind Biden. And while some in the party have criticized the organization and Biden as "un-democratic" for presuming he’s the de facto nominee, there’s precedent in sitting it out: No incumbent president has participated in a primary debate since the first modern debate was held in 1948, even when presented with high-profile primary challengers.
https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/incumbent-president-participated-primary-debate-ford-democrats/story?id=99773858

Biden didn’t need to debate his primary challengers either.

Seems quite politically astute of Biden and Trump to not give free airtime to opponents when they were getting all the attention. Wonder if Harris making a similar calculation?

So Harris is going to one and done the debates to keep Trump from getting free airtime? Would she not be getting free airtime in the debates as well?

Sure, but about as many people as showed up at his Montana rally will actually tune in.

Still, the (Biden-Trump) debate was the highest-rated program in the network’s history, CNN said, as well as its most livestreamed. It’s also the most-watched nonsports program of the year so far, the network said.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna159413

The previous debate did well for CNN.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this the Trump campaign’s debate strategy? Make up dates on their own and then whine that the other party didn’t “agree”?

Trump has worked with the networks to set up and facilitate the process to get debates tenable to both campaigns scheduled.

Is it the Harris debate strategy to talk a big game and be tough on tv but refuse to get in the ring but a single debate arranged by her boss?

It really makes her look weak as water and makes Hillary truly look like a strong candidate and a strong woman. Harris is letting women down and it’s a damn shame she’s dependent on the “brat” vote. This is not the droid women are looking for. *waves fingers through air subtly*

Trump is just trying to get a favorable stage for himself. The campaigns have to work together. One doesn’t get to decide all the terms and then whine that the other won’t show up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this the Trump campaign’s debate strategy? Make up dates on their own and then whine that the other party didn’t “agree”?

Obviously that is it. Why would Harris participate in that? It just makes her look easily manipulated.

If Harris unilaterally arranged a a debate and then scolded trump for not participating, he would tell her to get lost.

So she’s refusing to participate and claiming she’s being manipulated?

How will her campaign ever arrange another debate if she won’t propose any and won’t work with the Trump campaign or the networks?

Or is the September debate it? One and done?

How would I know? What I do know as an average suburban mom voter is that it appears that trump set up a debate in Fox on his own and then seems to think he can just bully her into to agreeing to show up. That is how it looks to me and I would not be impressed if she fell for that.

Ok, how do you think debates are arranged? What do you think happens? At a minimum, both sides need to be willing to talk. Harris doesn’t even want to discuss further debates until after September 11th. Even if you don’t like Trump, you have to agree he is trying to engage his opponent.

Nobody at this level is being trapped into a debate that is set up without their campaign negotiating and agreeing to rules. Are you stating that Kamala and her campaign are unable to do as every campaign before this election was able to do? Why is her campaign singularly at a disadvantage and unable to participate in arranging debates? You think she isn’t politically astute enough to set up a debate and her team is likewise deficient?

So when Trump refused to show up at any of the primary debates, that meant he wasn’t politically astute? Or did it mean he was a coward?

President Joe Biden has successfully fended off calls from his opponents for him to participate in primary debates, a move that would be unprecedented in recent memory.

Democrats have so far opted to tune out the primary challenges levied against him, with the Democratic National Committee throwing its support behind Biden. And while some in the party have criticized the organization and Biden as "un-democratic" for presuming he’s the de facto nominee, there’s precedent in sitting it out: No incumbent president has participated in a primary debate since the first modern debate was held in 1948, even when presented with high-profile primary challengers.
https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/incumbent-president-participated-primary-debate-ford-democrats/story?id=99773858

Biden didn’t need to debate his primary challengers either.

Seems quite politically astute of Biden and Trump to not give free airtime to opponents when they were getting all the attention. Wonder if Harris making a similar calculation?

So Harris is going to one and done the debates to keep Trump from getting free airtime? Would she not be getting free airtime in the debates as well?

Sure, but about as many people as showed up at his Montana rally will actually tune in.

Still, the (Biden-Trump) debate was the highest-rated program in the network’s history, CNN said, as well as its most livestreamed. It’s also the most-watched nonsports program of the year so far, the network said.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna159413

The previous debate did well for CNN.

Not sure how that’s relevant. You’re talking about a “debate” that just has Trump. No one is going to care about that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this the Trump campaign’s debate strategy? Make up dates on their own and then whine that the other party didn’t “agree”?

Trump has worked with the networks to set up and facilitate the process to get debates tenable to both campaigns scheduled.

Is it the Harris debate strategy to talk a big game and be tough on tv but refuse to get in the ring but a single debate arranged by her boss?

It really makes her look weak as water and makes Hillary truly look like a strong candidate and a strong woman. Harris is letting women down and it’s a damn shame she’s dependent on the “brat” vote. This is not the droid women are looking for. *waves fingers through air subtly*

Trump is just trying to get a favorable stage for himself. The campaigns have to work together. One doesn’t get to decide all the terms and then whine that the other won’t show up.

We’ve established that. The problem is Kamala won’t engage.

Nobody is whining; it’s time to debate. If Kamala refuses to debate, Trump can
do his part and let Kamala explain her reasons for not participating beyond the single debate Biden’s campaign agreed to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this the Trump campaign’s debate strategy? Make up dates on their own and then whine that the other party didn’t “agree”?

Obviously that is it. Why would Harris participate in that? It just makes her look easily manipulated.

If Harris unilaterally arranged a a debate and then scolded trump for not participating, he would tell her to get lost.

So she’s refusing to participate and claiming she’s being manipulated?

How will her campaign ever arrange another debate if she won’t propose any and won’t work with the Trump campaign or the networks?

Or is the September debate it? One and done?

How would I know? What I do know as an average suburban mom voter is that it appears that trump set up a debate in Fox on his own and then seems to think he can just bully her into to agreeing to show up. That is how it looks to me and I would not be impressed if she fell for that.

Ok, how do you think debates are arranged? What do you think happens? At a minimum, both sides need to be willing to talk. Harris doesn’t even want to discuss further debates until after September 11th. Even if you don’t like Trump, you have to agree he is trying to engage his opponent.

Nobody at this level is being trapped into a debate that is set up without their campaign negotiating and agreeing to rules. Are you stating that Kamala and her campaign are unable to do as every campaign before this election was able to do? Why is her campaign singularly at a disadvantage and unable to participate in arranging debates? You think she isn’t politically astute enough to set up a debate and her team is likewise deficient?

So when Trump refused to show up at any of the primary debates, that meant he wasn’t politically astute? Or did it mean he was a coward?

President Joe Biden has successfully fended off calls from his opponents for him to participate in primary debates, a move that would be unprecedented in recent memory.

Democrats have so far opted to tune out the primary challenges levied against him, with the Democratic National Committee throwing its support behind Biden. And while some in the party have criticized the organization and Biden as "un-democratic" for presuming he’s the de facto nominee, there’s precedent in sitting it out: No incumbent president has participated in a primary debate since the first modern debate was held in 1948, even when presented with high-profile primary challengers.
https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/incumbent-president-participated-primary-debate-ford-democrats/story?id=99773858

Biden didn’t need to debate his primary challengers either.

Seems quite politically astute of Biden and Trump to not give free airtime to opponents when they were getting all the attention. Wonder if Harris making a similar calculation?

So Harris is going to one and done the debates to keep Trump from getting free airtime? Would she not be getting free airtime in the debates as well?

Sure, but about as many people as showed up at his Montana rally will actually tune in.

Still, the (Biden-Trump) debate was the highest-rated program in the network’s history, CNN said, as well as its most livestreamed. It’s also the most-watched nonsports program of the year so far, the network said.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna159413

The previous debate did well for CNN.

Not sure how that’s relevant. You’re talking about a “debate” that just has Trump. No one is going to care about that.

It’s not a debate if both candidates don’t attend and participate.

Both Kamala and Trump get free airtime during a debate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So far from the responses here, it seems like Kamala is at a disadvantage debating anyone, not just Trump. She is not good at taking questions or thinking on her feet and her laugh is used as a cover. Her further resistance to scheduling debates bears that out.

That is just manipulative drivel. She looks like a winner right now. The originally scheduled debate in September helps her win and she will participate.

Presidential candidates are not manipulated into debating their opponents, they are eager to do so and to promote themselves and their plans and policies to American voters.

Only agreeing to a single debate your male boss previously made does not say “I am a winner.”

But winning that debate does say "I am a winner" so stay tuned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this the Trump campaign’s debate strategy? Make up dates on their own and then whine that the other party didn’t “agree”?

Trump has worked with the networks to set up and facilitate the process to get debates tenable to both campaigns scheduled.

Is it the Harris debate strategy to talk a big game and be tough on tv but refuse to get in the ring but a single debate arranged by her boss?

It really makes her look weak as water and makes Hillary truly look like a strong candidate and a strong woman. Harris is letting women down and it’s a damn shame she’s dependent on the “brat” vote. This is not the droid women are looking for. *waves fingers through air subtly*

Trump is just trying to get a favorable stage for himself. The campaigns have to work together. One doesn’t get to decide all the terms and then whine that the other won’t show up.

We’ve established that. The problem is Kamala won’t engage.

Nobody is whining; it’s time to debate. If Kamala refuses to debate, Trump can
do his part and let Kamala explain her reasons for not participating beyond the single debate Biden’s campaign agreed to do.

Both have agreed to debate on Sept 10. We don’t need more than 1 debate, they have zero impact on how people voted. Zero.

[Anonymous]

The candidate behind always wants more debates, the candidate ahead doesn’t want to give the one behind the opportunity to catch up.

We all can do the math here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anyone know did Kamala agree to this yet?

He’s doing his usual nonsense. Harris has said she’ll consider more after he shows up for the first debate.

He already showed up for the first debate.

He posted lies about the fox debate. That one is trump debating himself. It has nothing to do with Harris

Trump showed up to the Biden debate that you said he wouldn’t show up to- the result was Biden being exposed, the DNC being exposed, etc.

I guess dem strategy is to say Trump isn’t going to show up? Meanwhile Trump has proposed three debates that Kamala won’t commit to doing.

Donald can propose whatever he wants. Doesn’t mean Harris has to agree to it. Same as if she declared a debate unilaterally and expected him to show up for it. Harris has said she’ll consider other debates after he shows up for the first one.

She’s scared to debate.

We’ll see. 😁

We’ve already seen. Harris has refused to show up at a debate Trump proposed and won’t comment on or commit to the other debates Trump has proposed. What’s stopping her? She’s so fearless and tough but ducking even addressing debates?

Why would she show up? Ignore the bully. That is the best way to deal with trump.

A fearless and tough former prosecutor who has stated repeatedly she is well equipped to deal with her opponent would do more than talk about it. She’d actually walk the talk.

She is but why bother giving that weirdo a platform to tell more of his lies.

Because the American people deserve to hear directly from presidential candidates in the historically accepted debate format. It’s not about what the candidates want, it’s their obligation to the American voter in the election process.

Historically accepted? Obligation to voters? Trump blew up electoral norms years ago. He will look like a moron if he talks about historically accepted formats and obligations to voters.

Trump showed up to the previously scheduled Biden debate and has proposed more debates with Harris. She is the candidate who has decided to not engage with her opponent and schedule more debates in front of American voters. She will not allow her campaign to schedule any further debates. She hasn’t given any interviews either. That’s got nothing to do with Trump.

He seems to have unilaterally arranged a debate on Fox and tries to act as if she is obligated to show up. She is not an idiot and is not interested in his bull crap and neither are her supporters.

Have trump debate the empty chair on fox if you think that will be great for him.

He does that all the time. It makes no difference what questions he is asked. He just drones on with a pack of lies.

Trump said his campaign has agreed to three debates, to be hosted by Fox News, ABC News and NBC News.

Those aren’t lies, those are proposed debate venues. He has agreed to those debates. Harris won’t allow her team to respond and she herself won’t respond.

How do you think the campaigns should arrange debates? Trump is trying to get Harris to debate. She is refusing to negotiate and schedule debates. If she isn’t willing to schedule debates that Trump is proposing, why isn’t her team doing the work to arrange a debate venue that she is willing to participate in? She can do more than just say no.

Fox news may be the issue. That network was sued and lost hundreds of millions for lying about the 2020 election outcome. Why should any candidate or viewer watch a debate from such a dishonest company?

Exactly. Harris would be an idiot to go on FOX news. FIX paid close to a billion dollars for lying about false election results in favor of the orange man. FOX is owned and operated by Trump News basically. If you’re not an trump acolyte, you cannot be a FOX reporter

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this the Trump campaign’s debate strategy? Make up dates on their own and then whine that the other party didn’t “agree”?

Trump has worked with the networks to set up and facilitate the process to get debates tenable to both campaigns scheduled.

Is it the Harris debate strategy to talk a big game and be tough on tv but refuse to get in the ring but a single debate arranged by her boss?

It really makes her look weak as water and makes Hillary truly look like a strong candidate and a strong woman. Harris is letting women down and it’s a damn shame she’s dependent on the “brat” vote. This is not the droid women are looking for. *waves fingers through air subtly*

Trump is just trying to get a favorable stage for himself. The campaigns have to work together. One doesn’t get to decide all the terms and then whine that the other won’t show up.

We’ve established that. The problem is Kamala won’t engage.

Nobody is whining; it’s time to debate. If Kamala refuses to debate, Trump can
do his part and let Kamala explain her reasons for not participating beyond the single debate Biden’s campaign agreed to do.

Both have agreed to debate on Sept 10. We don’t need more than 1 debate, they have zero impact on how people voted. Zero.

Kamala is going to turn down the chance to beat Trump in multiple televised debates? Ans show the world how awful he is and amazing she is?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anyone know did Kamala agree to this yet?

He’s doing his usual nonsense. Harris has said she’ll consider more after he shows up for the first debate.

He already showed up for the first debate.

He posted lies about the fox debate. That one is trump debating himself. It has nothing to do with Harris

Trump showed up to the Biden debate that you said he wouldn’t show up to- the result was Biden being exposed, the DNC being exposed, etc.

I guess dem strategy is to say Trump isn’t going to show up? Meanwhile Trump has proposed three debates that Kamala won’t commit to doing.

Donald can propose whatever he wants. Doesn’t mean Harris has to agree to it. Same as if she declared a debate unilaterally and expected him to show up for it. Harris has said she’ll consider other debates after he shows up for the first one.

She’s scared to debate.

We’ll see. 😁

We’ve already seen. Harris has refused to show up at a debate Trump proposed and won’t comment on or commit to the other debates Trump has proposed. What’s stopping her? She’s so fearless and tough but ducking even addressing debates?

Why would she show up? Ignore the bully. That is the best way to deal with trump.

A fearless and tough former prosecutor who has stated repeatedly she is well equipped to deal with her opponent would do more than talk about it. She’d actually walk the talk.

She is but why bother giving that weirdo a platform to tell more of his lies.

Because the American people deserve to hear directly from presidential candidates in the historically accepted debate format. It’s not about what the candidates want, it’s their obligation to the American voter in the election process.

Historically accepted? Obligation to voters? Trump blew up electoral norms years ago. He will look like a moron if he talks about historically accepted formats and obligations to voters.

Trump showed up to the previously scheduled Biden debate and has proposed more debates with Harris. She is the candidate who has decided to not engage with her opponent and schedule more debates in front of American voters. She will not allow her campaign to schedule any further debates. She hasn’t given any interviews either. That’s got nothing to do with Trump.

He seems to have unilaterally arranged a debate on Fox and tries to act as if she is obligated to show up. She is not an idiot and is not interested in his bull crap and neither are her supporters.

Have trump debate the empty chair on fox if you think that will be great for him.

He does that all the time. It makes no difference what questions he is asked. He just drones on with a pack of lies.

Trump said his campaign has agreed to three debates, to be hosted by Fox News, ABC News and NBC News.

Those aren’t lies, those are proposed debate venues. He has agreed to those debates. Harris won’t allow her team to respond and she herself won’t respond.

How do you think the campaigns should arrange debates? Trump is trying to get Harris to debate. She is refusing to negotiate and schedule debates. If she isn’t willing to schedule debates that Trump is proposing, why isn’t her team doing the work to arrange a debate venue that she is willing to participate in? She can do more than just say no.

Fox news may be the issue. That network was sued and lost hundreds of millions for lying about the 2020 election outcome. Why should any candidate or viewer watch a debate from such a dishonest company?

Exactly. Harris would be an idiot to go on FOX news. FIX paid close to a billion dollars for lying about false election results in favor of the orange man. FOX is owned and operated by Trump News basically. If you’re not an trump acolyte, you cannot be a FOX reporter

Agreed. Chris Wallace learned this the hard way after moderating that trainwreck in 2020 and works for CNN now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this the Trump campaign’s debate strategy? Make up dates on their own and then whine that the other party didn’t “agree”?

Trump has worked with the networks to set up and facilitate the process to get debates tenable to both campaigns scheduled.

Is it the Harris debate strategy to talk a big game and be tough on tv but refuse to get in the ring but a single debate arranged by her boss?

It really makes her look weak as water and makes Hillary truly look like a strong candidate and a strong woman. Harris is letting women down and it’s a damn shame she’s dependent on the “brat” vote. This is not the droid women are looking for. *waves fingers through air subtly*

Trump is just trying to get a favorable stage for himself. The campaigns have to work together. One doesn’t get to decide all the terms and then whine that the other won’t show up.

We’ve established that. The problem is Kamala won’t engage.

Nobody is whining; it’s time to debate. If Kamala refuses to debate, Trump can
do his part and let Kamala explain her reasons for not participating beyond the single debate Biden’s campaign agreed to do.

Both have agreed to debate on Sept 10. We don’t need more than 1 debate, they have zero impact on how people voted. Zero.

The debate between Trump and Biden had quite an impact. I don't think 3 debates are necessary but the 9/10 debate and one closer to the election should happen A lot will change/develop in both campaigns in those intervening weeks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The candidate behind always wants more debates, the candidate ahead doesn’t want to give the one behind the opportunity to catch up.

We all can do the math here.

Bingo. Trump is desperate for attention. He's old news. No one is paying attention to him anymore. His rallies are empty. He's tried his old trick of making racist and misogynist comments and the Harris campaign has smartly just brushed them off. Meanwhile, Harris is the topic of all the headlines, drawing huge crowds and surging in the polls. Everyone wants to hear what she has to say. If she spends all of September in debates with Trump, then he'll get lots of free audiences that he wouldn't otherwise get because of all the people tuning in to watch Harris. She can just drown him out by ignoring him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The candidate behind always wants more debates, the candidate ahead doesn’t want to give the one behind the opportunity to catch up.

We all can do the math here.

Bingo. Trump is desperate for attention. He's old news. No one is paying attention to him anymore. His rallies are empty. He's tried his old trick of making racist and misogynist comments and the Harris campaign has smartly just brushed them off. Meanwhile, Harris is the topic of all the headlines, drawing huge crowds and surging in the polls. Everyone wants to hear what she has to say. If she spends all of September in debates with Trump, then he'll get lots of free audiences that he wouldn't otherwise get because of all the people tuning in to watch Harris. She can just drown him out by ignoring him.

Presidential debates are not done for attention.

Kamala should relish the chance to beat Trump like a rented mule in front of a live audience and America as a whole.

She’s scared.