Net Net a good decision by Trump. Voters already know him. Very few people are up for grabs, and they can be reached by other formats: rallies, interviews, ads.

To give Kamala credit she came in super prepared and under any corporate media debate scenario she will be a better debater than him as its about preparation. This format doesn't suit Trump anymore and there are only things to loose from it.

NoahAg said:

---

Dumb Trump is dumb. GOP should take a page from the DNC playbook and sub in Vance or RFK as the candidate.

---

Speaking of dumb

Why on Earth would anyone at ABC put this in writing and send it to the Harris campaign??
Good grief, some of you should check out the bridge I've got for sale. I think it's exactly the one you'd want

You are right they have meddled. The issue is that was your first thought. Did you believe the 50 former intelligence officials when they said Russia? They were wrong. It's ok to disbelieve a source. Hell after what Time just pulled you should always question the problem is you immediately go to a Dem talking point.

normalhorn said:

---

Why on Earth would anyone at ABC put this in writing and send it to the Harris campaign??
Good grief, some of you should check out the bridge I've got for sale. I think it's exactly the one you'd want

---

Laughing emoticon was too subtle?

I wasn't singling you out. Yours was just the latest comment on the topic
But, in general, a Twitter handle with suspect history isn't really a good source to anchor one's hopes

But he was a "sworn affidavit" with the same blacked out! Doesn't get any more rock solid than that!


(For the record, everyone knows the Democrats collude with mainstream media. Then helping Harris beforehand would surprise no one. But this story is hilariously fake)

backintexas2013 said:

---

You are right they have meddled. The issue is that was your first thought. Did you believe the 50 former intelligence officials when they said Russia? They were wrong. It's ok to disbelieve a source. Hell after what Time just pulled you should always question the problem is you immediately go to a Dem talking point.

---

My first thought is that the twitter links were ridiculous and scream of being obviously fake and are intended to manipulate people. Whether Russia or just Trumpers.

Grapesoda2525 said:

---

Trump has body slammed the libs in 8 debates. Maybe he's just tired of it by now. Literally tired of winning.

---

You post the same thing in every thread

TxAgPreacher said:

---

He has nothing to gain from another rigged debate.

He slightly won this last one IMO. It was essentially a draw. Both sides will claim they won. At the very lest neither side can claim they destroyed the other side. Not honestly anyways.

No need for another debate.

---

He had a concept of a win.

Did you have the same questioning of time magazine before they retracted? How about Steele dossier? How about Hunter's laptop bending misinformation? How about ***** Forc? Rolling Stone rape article?

I am skeptic of all sides. Just want to know if you are consistent?

Univision ?? Let me guess Jorge Ramos will be a moderator

backintexas2013 said:

---

Did you have the same questioning of time magazine before they retracted? How about Steele dossier? How about Hunter's laptop bending misinformation? How about ***** Forc? Rolling Stone rape article?

I am skeptic of all sides. Just want to know if you are consistent?

---

Yeah - although I was skeptical of the hunter laptop at first, I will admit. It seemed too perfect. Now we know it was legit. The nice thing about not being behold to a party or person is you can view everything skeptically.

Captn_Ag05 said:

---

I would have just sat on this for a bit and not made an announcement one way or the other. This feeds into a "Harris won" and "Trump doesn't want to get embarrassed again narrative." Unforced error.

You want to know who won? Find out who refuses to do a 2nd debate.

— Rep. Mike Collins (@RepMikeCollins) September 11, 2024

---

Find out who needs a second debate.

But they won't say who the moderators will be, do they?

So that is an incomplete offer.

The man took a bullet to the head, came up bloody with his fist raised and has kept on doing public rallies, debates, appearances, podcasts, media events and interviews with hostile press all unscripted. And has had his life turned upside down by lawfare when he could have ridden off into the sunset with his millions.

Kamala did an interview with her support animal VP with a friendly network and host framing questions to help her, and had extremely biased moderators helping her in the only debate she agreed to.

Coward or "ducking" are hardly the words I'd use to describe Trump.

P.H. Dexippus said:

---

I think this is short sighted of Trump. He needs to accept a 3rd debate and set the terms.

---

It's all part of the game. Watch him agree to one if it's on Fox News.

Fox has had bad moderation towards Trump in the past. I wouldn't automatically assume it would be fair on Fox.

P.H. Dexippus said:

---

Ag13 said:

---

He would never be given a chance to set the terms.

---

His response to Kamala's offer of another debate should have proposed the terms. The WSJ reached out to his campaign, and they could have offered terms. What do you mean, he wouldn't be given a chance?

---

If you believe he would be given a fair and unbiased chance, I have some ocean front property in Arizona to sell you.

Is any moderator going to be "fair" when the news now is so corrupted?

Give me Rogan or Musk. Someone who you know where they are coming from.

Or give me a liberal questioning Trump and a conservative questioning Harris.

Or heck, throw a topic on a screen and let them discuss without moderation.

I think most of you underestimate that Kamala will have to rally and campaign in front of video to get coverage if she knows there won't be a second debate.

Maybe that works for her, maybe not. Some think getting her off script is advantageous.

samurai_science said:

---

BREAKING: ABC whistleblower allegedly will release an affidavit claiming the Harris campaign was given sample questions that were “essentially the same questions that were given during the debate,” as well as assurances that Trump would be “fact-checked” and she would not.

— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) September 12, 2024

---

Alpha Kappa Alpha handing out those pearls.

Artorias said:

---

If true, this is a strategic error by Trump. Even if you don't intend to do another one, saying definitely not just gives Harris ammo, especially after the public consensus was she had the better performance.

He should set all the terms, hosted by Fox and force Harris to agree. He has done two hostile environment debates already.

---

He should say he won't agree to another rigged debate from a liberal leaning Network, but he will agree to a Townhall with both of them present to take questions, as long as neither candidate can have notes, earpieces, or questions before hand.

They have to each agree to take at least 5 random questions from the crowd made up of 35 % R, 35 % D, and 30 % Independent. The 5 questions have to come from 2 R's, 2 D's, and 1 Independent in the crowd for each candidate to answer. None of these people in the crowd can be affiliated with either candidate or any news network, just common voter citizens.

Once the crowd is done with their questions then each candidate can ask the other candidate 2 questions they want answered on any topic...

He does way better in settings where there are crowds...

The crowd can be picked from random people interviewed beforehand who came up with the toughest questions that they would ask a candidate
..

Zero upside for trump to debate. Preparation and clear answers are needed for presidential debates and that isn't his strong suit.

This offer from CBS News and WSJ is incomplete in that they are lacking critical conditions for the proposed rules of the debate, nor who the moderators will be.

IOW, cannot accept a partial offer.

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Fox has had bad moderation towards Trump in the past. I wouldn't automatically assume it would be fair on Fox.

---

This morning he told them no to Bret and Martha on Fox live. He's not doing Fox without picking the moderators.

TxAgPreacher said:

---

He has nothing to gain from another rigged debate.

He slightly won this last one IMO. It was essentially a draw. Both sides will claim they won. At the very lest neither side can claim they destroyed the other side. Not honestly anyways.

No need for another debate.

---

Rigged or not, he could have easily won that debate but **** the bed. It was there for the taking.

LOL- there is no sworn affidavit.

Who would that even go to? Not the Commission on Presidential Debates, since they've been taken out of the picture.

There is no place to "whistleblow" to on this with a sworn affidavit that has all the information on who it was from redacted that anyone would believe was legit.

Quote:

---

Doing anything less may get you some time off. Are you new here?

---

Shouldn't you be at the corner bar reliving your days of infiltrating Catholic spaghetti suppers with your old buddies?

20ag07 said:

---

LOL- there is no sworn affidavit.

Who would that even go to? Not the Commission on Presidential Debates, since they've been taken out of the picture.

There is no place to "whistleblow" to on this with a sworn affidavit that has all the information on who it was from redacted that anyone would believe was legit.

---

When I saw the "sworn affidavit," it reminded me of all the ones that were done when Trump was contesting his loss, and I don't recall those affidavits accomplishing anything. If they did, and they may have, I honestly don't recall.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

He has nothing to gain from another rigged debate.

He slightly won this last one IMO. It was essentially a draw. Both sides will claim they won. At the very lest neither side can claim they destroyed the other side. Not honestly anyways.

No need for another debate.

---

Rigged or not, he could have easily won that debate but **** the bed. It was there for the taking.

---

I feel like he won that debate in that we still have no clear answers on who Kamala is. What is her border/ immigration policy going to be? Do you know that after that debate? Are we getting 20 million more illegals we can't afford just because they are not criminals that she prosecuted in the past? I didn't hear a plan from her to close the border, just let the whole world come as long as they aren't criminals.

What will her economic policy be other than giving away free crap and tax breaks? Same old tired crap we've seen in the past.

When it comes down to it, the 3 big topics for this election are Immigration, Economy/ Inflation, and Abortion. Trump scores better on economy/Inflation and immigration, people will remember how much better the times were on those 2 when he was President when they go to the voting booth, and will be scratching their heads on what Kamala's plans are to fix those things?...They will also remember there weren't wars all over the world with him as President and prices for everyday goods were way cheaper...

The terms should be the top 2 issues to Americans. The economy and the border. Period.

If they want to discuss abortion and "saving our democracy", tell them to pound sand.

I mean, the only thing that could possibly happen with one would be for him to try and sue ABC in a ridiculous mockery of a lawsuit.

For what damages? He already went all around the country telling everybody he won and didn't have any damages.

Not saying he wouldn't be stupid enough to pull a stunt like that.

Tim foil hatters just see random stuff on Twitter and get all excited, without taking 15 seconds to think through how it's not a reality.