She's said she'll be at ABC on Sep 10, and looks forward to debating Trump in the time and place he previously agreed to. She's holding his feet to the fire on this, I don't expect there to be any agreement on any other debate until this one is over.
Explains why he was so antagonistic toward the ABC reporter at the National Association of Black Journalists. As bad as that makes him look outside of the MAGA bubble, it lets him make the pathetic argument that ABC was mean to him so he won't go debate there. His fragile little ego is more important to him than winning the election. Good news for democracy lovers.
They and any other network that wants to be considered "journalism/news" should NOT be allowed to have their opinion entertainment shows on the same network/channel as their journalistic programs.
It's absolute bullshit that they're allowed to get away with this crap where working hours when no one is home to watch is when we have our journalists on, then primetime is when we lie with impunity on our opinion shows because It'S EnTeRtAiNmEnT NoT NeWs!
I'm really sick of the fact that Fox has had this decade long run of "The Days of our Trump's" drama...
“It's interesting how 'any time, any place' becomes 'one specific time, one specific safe space,'" she wrote on social media platform X. "I'll be there on Sept. 10, like he agreed to. I hope to see him there."
She’s definitely signaling that she’s going to give him a spanking at the debate. I really hope it happens, and he gets into his defensive mode where he really scrambles.
He was counting on the audience to yell over Kamala when she talked, and Faux to have mysterious technical issues when it came time for his mike to be muted.
Maybe jussssst maybe we don't need to hand piece of shit billionare owned media exclusivity? Like mayyyyybe we use a college campus and have the signal aired and all so-called "media" can broadcast it to their audiences? The moderators are more than likely the issue they'll argue about, but all they did last time was read off a card and hit a mute button (sometimes)... A janitor and the weekend maintenance person could handle that shit.
Nahhh... That's like commusocialvezuelaism or something.
I mean, it's not like they've really used fact-checkers in any of the debates before, maybe after the debate is over, but they rarely fact-check them on the spot. I wish they'd have a running tally in front of the candidates that was updated throughout the debate with a general "truthiness" indicator. Just a dial gauge that gave an indication of how many statements the person had made vs how many were lies. It could be a way to attach a quantifiable "score" to a person's debate performance outside of just quips and one-liners.
She could turn it around though by mentioning all the campaign promises he didn't do like put Hillary in prison, building the wall was mostly done by Biden, drain the swamp when he just cut taxes for the rich...
Like really hammer home the promises he made to Fox viewers that he broke.
If she says "You didn't 'lock her up' like you promised" he'll just turn it around on her and claim that she should be locked up. Chats of "lock her up!" will begin as they completely ignore anything negative said about him.
I hope they are doing a ton of debate prep with her. He'll be hopped on drugs to keep him going. He may be a liar but he is also a bully and very bombastic. He doesn't have to beat her on the issues he just has to overwhelm her.
Seems reasonable. There is already an agreed upon time and place, anything other than that is back tracking by Trump. Even if they try to spin it to say he "agreed" to do it on Fox, to try and put the ball in Harris' court. The reality is he already agreed to the ABC debate and any change is him backing out of that and pivoting.
I may have missed something, and I don't think it should really matter, but did he agree to debate Biden, Harris, or just generally "his opponent"? He still needs to do it, but I wonder if there was a specific agreement.
Biden was the presumptive nominee at the time he originally agreed to it, and you're right, it shouldn't and doesn't matter.
It is especially odd that his counter-proposed date ia before the previously agreed on date, which completely undermines the already weak claim that the change in candidate somehow inconveniences the Trump campaign.
I mean, it does, but only in the sense that the new crew are running circles around Trump and Co.
This. We couldn't get a neutral debate on CNN. They didn't enforce any time limits on Trump, let him ramble on as long as he liked and never shut him up when he went over it. And this happened on that so-called "liberal news media" that conservatives keep yammering on about.
David Plouffe, an adviser to former President Barack Obama who recently joined the Harris campaign, posted on social media: "Now, he seems only comfortable in a cocoon, asking his happy place Fox to host a Trump rally and call it a debate. Maybe he can only handle debating someone his own age.
Exactly. Can you imagine trying to conduct a debate with him at one of his rallies?
Moderator: Would you choose the shark or electrocution?
If gaming has taught me anything over the years, it's that you should never fight a boss in its own lair. Kite that thing out where it no longer has home field advantage.
I’ve been trying to think of a good response if he starts following Harris around like he did Hillary. Something along the lines of stopping, looking him in the eye and…
“What are you doing?”
“I’m just walking.”
“Well walk over there. You following me around like this is creepy.” Looks to moderator, “Can we do something about this? This is weird, right?”
On paper, pretty mild. But in the middle of a Presidential debate, I think it would be great.
Better to just say, "You're so weird" and then ignore him and continue with her debate points, not ask moderator for help. If he keeps doing it work it into a response like "I will work to earn the respect of people, not try to intimidate them like this weirdo here."
First world countries pay less per capita for universal healthcare than the US does to cover a minority and in the US the majority has to also pay for private coverage as well as the share of their taxes that goes to public healthcare coverage THAT THEY DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO. Implemented the right way, 100% public healthcare would actually save the US government money, implemented wrong it would still save people money because right now it's for profit companies that cover them, the government isn't a for profit business, it only needs to collect enough taxes to pay for the service.
That was pretty good! But it didn't get disseminated into the right wing news ecosystem. I don't thing Harris being in a debate on Fox news will, either.
Faux News is first, foremost, and exclusively the conservative right's propaganda arm. Can't wait until Rupert Murdoch dies and his heirs tear the network apart fighting over the money.
It's not at all. They are a huge corporation owned by other corporations, there's no liberal mainstream media, there's sensible center right news, and reactionary hard right news, there are ZERO leftists news stations. Because it costs a ton of money to be a news station and rich people aren't even a little bit leftist.
They're fairly even keeled but they do still have all the failings of other main stream media. If 1 is left and ten is right (under US focused understanding) I'd probably say they're a 3.5-4.5.
Not talking about any local affiliates. IMO local affiliates tend to be better than national.