Trump Is Pissed at Harris for Trapping Him in Two Debates

theprogressivist @lemmy.world to politics @lemmy.world – 479 points –
Trump Is Pissed at Harris for Trapping Him in Two Debates
newrepublic.com

Is Donald Trump really trying to get out of debating Kamala Harris again? Or is it the opposite?

On Thursday, it seemed like the dust had finally settled. “The debate about debates is over,” said Michael Tyler, the Harris campaign communications director, in a statement. “Donald Trump’s campaign accepted our proposal for three debates—two presidential and a vice presidential debate.”

“Assuming Donald Trump actually shows up on September 10 to debate Vice President Harris, then Governor Walz will see JD Vance on October 1 and the American people will have another opportunity to see the vice president and Donald Trump on the debate stage in October,” the Harris campaign continued.

But now, Trump’s team claims that the Democrat lied when she said the two sides reached a debate agreement. At the moment, there is only one confirmed debate between the presidential nominees, to be held September 10 by ABC News.

Nevertheless, the Trump campaign’s press secretary Karoline Leavitt told the Daily Caller Friday that Trump will be doing three debates and Vance will be doing two.

110

You are viewing a single comment

I'm pissed that we're trapped with Trump for three fucking election cycles.

It's like one of those shits where you keep wiping and it just doesn't go away

For the love of God, just buy a bidet.

Kids these days.

Coincidentally i just installed one last weekend. But the trauma of endless wipes will always be there unfortunately

I've been trapped with Trump since the fucking '80s. For young people today, it would be the equivalent of 40 years of Logan Paul, with him being President at the end of it.

It was funny when he complained that his campaign wasn't doing well here in New York City where he's from. Dude, we've been over your shit since before the TV shows when you were just another one of the scummy rich landlords none of us have ever liked.

So much worse than Logan Paul though.

Logan Paul, so far!

Yeah, Trump wasn't this bad in the '80s and '90s. In fact one time in the '80s he even offered to pay for the funeral of a child killed by a bear (although there's no evidence that he ever actually did it).

Hopefully they come out with an anti aging vaccine and that mother fucker refuses to take it and we don't have to see him ever again. Who am I kidding, he would be the first in line.

He needs a better doctor.

One who knows that an "anti aging vaccine" doesn't go through the earlobe.

My fear is that Trump actually died during COVID and what we've been watching since is an AI-driven hologram. We'd be getting this shit for eternity if so.

He's proving himself about as capable of critical thinking as ChatGPT, so that part tracks.

Well maybe you should have voted for him last time.

The solution to Bad is not Worse

I thought their logic was humorous.

No joke! All serious! And gloom!

Apparently. Jesus Christ.

At least we know Donald exists.

Are you seriously taking a common expression of exasperation to push some very specious theories about whether that man actually existed? The cult leader 2000 years ago most definitely fucking did, any other conjecture is Elvis Presley is alive conspiracy horseshit people like you pretend to abhore.

You really trying to advocate that Jesus Christ existed? Despite no proof at all? Might as well try to advocate that Deadpool is real.

What would you accept as proof?

https://www.history.com/news/was-jesus-real-historical-evidence

“These are all Christian and are obviously and understandably biased in what they report, and have to be evaluated very critically indeed to establish any historically reliable information,” Ehrman says. “But their central claims about Jesus as a historical figure—a Jew, with followers, executed on orders of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, during the reign of the Emperor Tiberius—are borne out by later sources with a completely different set of biases.

Or are you arguing there is no proof anyone existed prior to the 1800s? Oh sure there are documents, but that's not proof.

There's documents saying that Medusa existed as well. There's documents saying Santa claus existed. Hell, in today's world, there's documents saying Indiana Jones existed. And you accept documents as proof 1800 years after the motherfucker supposedly existed?

Genius here can't tell the difference between documents created by historians and documents created to be fictional stories.

There's documents saying Santa claus existed

Saint Nicholas did in fact exist. He had no magic powers, was just a generally nice guy, and folklore was created around him after he died.

Not the point and you know it. Saint Nicholas wasn't flying around in a magic sleigh. And that's before questioning the "saint" part. Do you really think some dude that turned water to wine would be mad about jagerbombs?

19 more...
19 more...
19 more...
19 more...

No proof? I can't be bothered with this idiocy. Read a fucking book about ancient Rome around 33 AD.

19 more...
19 more...
19 more...
19 more...
19 more...
19 more...
19 more...
19 more...
19 more...