Least Shocking News: Orange coward pulls out of debate

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good grief—he hasn’t declined the debate. Just waiting for Harris to complete the steps to be confirmed as the Democratic candidate. That’s what conventions are for.

Nothing to see here.

Read the statement. It’s completely unhinged!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That’s a real campaign statement? Wtf?

+1

Wut?

I still feel (8 years later) like we are all being punked.

Plus, both Obamas just endorsed Harris :lol:

Omg it’s AMAZING how for the last two weeks Trump keeps getting worked over by the Dem.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

+1. There is no reason at all for trump to be talking about this right now unless he is laying the ground work to back out of the debate.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Trump is scared.
This statement makes him sound very weak.
I’m surprised by it.

[Anonymous]

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.

+1. There is no reason at all for trump to be talking about this right now unless he is laying the ground work to back out of the debate.

It was gaslighting. He was desperately trying to convince Dems that they aren’t sure about Harris and all he got in response was mockery and Obama endorsing her.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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!

[Anonymous]

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.

Did you not read the pp you’re responding to? The debate is not set till September so opponent will be locked-in by then.

[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.

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.

Why would anyone think it’s not going to be Kamala?

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That is actually how they worded their statement? OMG

That’s one of the wackier press releases they’ve ever done and that’s saying something.

It's astonishing that this is the work of a supposed professional for one of the two major political parties in the country that's supposed to be a world leader.

[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.

Why would anyone think it’s not going to be Kamala?

Not the point.
The point is he’s a pussy backing out of the debate that has been scheduled after the convention. The locked in candidate will be debating and he’s afraid to face whoever it may be.
And yes it will be Harris, because she’s fantastic.