I think it's worth reposting the exact text of the statement given by the Trump campaign regarding this move, especially since it is quoted but not reproduced in full in the linked article: Bill...
I think it's worth reposting the exact text of the statement given by the Trump campaign regarding this move, especially since it is quoted but not reproduced in full in the linked article:
“President Trump won the first debate despite a terrible and biased moderator in Chris Wallace, and everybody knows it. For the swamp creatures at the Presidential Debate Commission to now rush to Joe Biden’s defense by unilaterally canceling an in-person debate is pathetic. That’s not what debates are about or how they’re done. Here are the facts: President Trump will have posted multiple negative tests prior to the debate, so there is no need for this unilateral declaration. The safety of all involved can easily be achieved without canceling a chance for voters to see both candidates go head to head. We’ll pass on this sad excuse to bail out Joe Biden and do a rally instead.”
What the actual fuck? The Trump campaign literally just called the people who run the non profit, non partisan Commission on Presidential Debates “swamp creatures”. And they didn’t even get the...
For the swamp creatures at the Presidential Debate Commission to now rush to Joe Biden’s defense by unilaterally canceling an in-person debate is pathetic [...]
What the actual fuck? The Trump campaign literally just called the people who run the non profit, non partisan Commission on Presidential Debates “swamp creatures”. And they didn’t even get the name of the commission right.
Yep. And nobody even bats an eye. This is "par for the course." Even the BBC in the linked article when selectively quoting this statement completely left that part out. And for me, this type of...
Yep. And nobody even bats an eye. This is "par for the course." Even the BBC in the linked article when selectively quoting this statement completely left that part out. And for me, this type of language as an official statement from the presidential office is simply abhorrent. Slandering one's political opponents is one thing, but this is either slandering a neutral body or declaring the entire political election system as their enemy. Any guesses as to which?
I mean, he has months of negative tests he can point at. Not since he got it, but those earlier tests are still negative. It's totally irrelevant, but it's technically true.
I mean, he has months of negative tests he can point at. Not since he got it, but those earlier tests are still negative. It's totally irrelevant, but it's technically true.
Not to mention there's millions of people he could pay to provide him with negative test results. He didn't specify it would be Trump's test results specifically, only that he will have "posted...
Not to mention there's millions of people he could pay to provide him with negative test results. He didn't specify it would be Trump's test results specifically, only that he will have "posted some," whatever that actually means. Presumably to Twitter?
That's assuming he's ever been regularly tested. The test is uncomfortable. It's quite conceivable he's never been regularly tested and instead relied on the testing of those around him.
That's assuming he's ever been regularly tested. The test is uncomfortable. It's quite conceivable he's never been regularly tested and instead relied on the testing of those around him.
Even if he's negative, considering how his folks handled the last debate, I have little hope that this would be a hygienic debate. He'll arrive with an entourage of people from the White House. We...
Even if he's negative, considering how his folks handled the last debate, I have little hope that this would be a hygienic debate. He'll arrive with an entourage of people from the White House. We can't know or even reasonably assume that they'll all be negative unless we know that his entire entourage has had and overcome the disease. And don't bother mandating masks, we did that last time and it didn't work.
I guess it simultaneously makes more and less sense. Trump is incredibly far behind now, so strategically, even though the last debate didn't go well for him, you need to aim for the 1% chance...
I guess it simultaneously makes more and less sense. Trump is incredibly far behind now, so strategically, even though the last debate didn't go well for him, you need to aim for the 1% chance Biden says something absolutely idiotic. And in-person debates are going to have a larger audience, and Trump can have more shenanigans. At the same time, though, if the debate commission doesn't budge, this is bad for him for the same reason. He might 180 and come back if so. Wouldn't be the first time.
Nah it doesn't make any political sense. Trump needs a good debate far more than biden; biden will immensely benefit from this move. IMO what's happening is Trump simply is too sick and doesn't...
Nah it doesn't make any political sense. Trump needs a good debate far more than biden; biden will immensely benefit from this move. IMO what's happening is Trump simply is too sick and doesn't have the strength to do a 90 min debate and would come off horribly especially since his only weapon is hard tied to his "energy".
I think he's just bluffing to try and twist the commission's arm and get an in-person debate. At this point, doing a 180 on this can't possibly hurt his reputation any more than the other bajilion...
I think he's just bluffing to try and twist the commission's arm and get an in-person debate. At this point, doing a 180 on this can't possibly hurt his reputation any more than the other bajilion things he's went back on.
I think yesterday's VP debate showed clearly that not just Trump, but the whole campaign strategy is to interrupt and yell since they don't have arguments to contradict more than just soundbites....
I think yesterday's VP debate showed clearly that not just Trump, but the whole campaign strategy is to interrupt and yell since they don't have arguments to contradict more than just soundbites.
That would be so much harder in an online event, like it's so much harder on live tv when you're not in the studio.
I'd be a huge problem for that strategy if the rules the two parties agreed on for the debates were actually followed, and the moderators moderated by them.
The debates will change very, very few votes in this specific election. But I wonder what things would look like if the mics were cut and if candidates interrupted or didn't at least start their response on topic to the asked question.
So ABC announced it will hold a town hall instead. Out of pure curiosity, if say, Fox news decides to do the same for Trump, does that constitute illegal contribution? EDIT: I'm kinda referring to...
So ABC announced it will hold a town hall instead.
Out of pure curiosity, if say, Fox news decides to do the same for Trump, does that constitute illegal contribution?
EDIT: I'm kinda referring to this but perhaps there's a more applicable rule. I vaguely remember Reagan getting into it with the FEC at the time.
I think it's worth reposting the exact text of the statement given by the Trump campaign regarding this move, especially since it is quoted but not reproduced in full in the linked article:
I leave it to you to draw your own conclusions from that text.
What the actual fuck? The Trump campaign literally just called the people who run the non profit, non partisan Commission on Presidential Debates “swamp creatures”. And they didn’t even get the name of the commission right.
Yep. And nobody even bats an eye. This is "par for the course." Even the BBC in the linked article when selectively quoting this statement completely left that part out. And for me, this type of language as an official statement from the presidential office is simply abhorrent. Slandering one's political opponents is one thing, but this is either slandering a neutral body or declaring the entire political election system as their enemy. Any guesses as to which?
One of them thar alternative facts, I reckon.
I mean, he has months of negative tests he can point at. Not since he got it, but those earlier tests are still negative. It's totally irrelevant, but it's technically true.
Not to mention there's millions of people he could pay to provide him with negative test results. He didn't specify it would be Trump's test results specifically, only that he will have "posted some," whatever that actually means. Presumably to Twitter?
That's assuming he's ever been regularly tested. The test is uncomfortable. It's quite conceivable he's never been regularly tested and instead relied on the testing of those around him.
Even if he's negative, considering how his folks handled the last debate, I have little hope that this would be a hygienic debate. He'll arrive with an entourage of people from the White House. We can't know or even reasonably assume that they'll all be negative unless we know that his entire entourage has had and overcome the disease. And don't bother mandating masks, we did that last time and it didn't work.
Trump wasn’t going to do any more debates no matter what. The man loves a rally doe
I guess it simultaneously makes more and less sense. Trump is incredibly far behind now, so strategically, even though the last debate didn't go well for him, you need to aim for the 1% chance Biden says something absolutely idiotic. And in-person debates are going to have a larger audience, and Trump can have more shenanigans. At the same time, though, if the debate commission doesn't budge, this is bad for him for the same reason. He might 180 and come back if so. Wouldn't be the first time.
Nah it doesn't make any political sense. Trump needs a good debate far more than biden; biden will immensely benefit from this move. IMO what's happening is Trump simply is too sick and doesn't have the strength to do a 90 min debate and would come off horribly especially since his only weapon is hard tied to his "energy".
I think he's just bluffing to try and twist the commission's arm and get an in-person debate. At this point, doing a 180 on this can't possibly hurt his reputation any more than the other bajilion things he's went back on.
I think yesterday's VP debate showed clearly that not just Trump, but the whole campaign strategy is to interrupt and yell since they don't have arguments to contradict more than just soundbites.
That would be so much harder in an online event, like it's so much harder on live tv when you're not in the studio.
I'd be a huge problem for that strategy if the rules the two parties agreed on for the debates were actually followed, and the moderators moderated by them.
The debates will change very, very few votes in this specific election. But I wonder what things would look like if the mics were cut and if candidates interrupted or didn't at least start their response on topic to the asked question.
So ABC announced it will hold a town hall instead.
Out of pure curiosity, if say, Fox news decides to do the same for Trump, does that constitute illegal contribution?
EDIT: I'm kinda referring to this but perhaps there's a more applicable rule. I vaguely remember Reagan getting into it with the FEC at the time.