He’ll do a debate if it’s in his safe space. Snowflake.
I think this is bad news tbh. Harris can be as capable as she wants, but if the broadcaster doesnt stop Trump from a endless ramble or cut off his mic if he escalates to intolerable levels of behaviour, then this could end badly.
Don't give Fox News respect. Start talking shit about it right now. Call this what it is, a scared old weird man who will only debate Harris on a "news" network currently paying billions for lying to everyone about the last election. Harris will treat Trump and the "journalists" playing moderators like children which is how we should've been treating them for years. Talking to them like adults validates their lies and bullshit.
Harris should call them out. “I said a debate on a news source, not some weird entertainment channel. Might as well have the weather channel moderate the debate!”
While entertaining for us, I don't think that'd be a wise reaction. If she wants to win, she probably also needs to sway some people that are lifetime FOX junkies. Such a reaction could have a 'basket of deplorables' effect (being the stone cold truth, but hardly effective)
Being nice to idiots has proven to be hardly effective. Kamala needs to read word for word the arguments the Fox News lawyers made when they were in court for the dominion case. Fox News isn't news it's entertainment and they don't employ journalists they employ entertainers. This is what Fox News said.
No, what she needs to do is win this election. That's her job, everything else (like taking entertainment corpos to task for their shady tactics) comes secondary right now.
I fail to see how one impedes the other, in fact I would argue it would help her win. If she's running on doing just that why wouldn't she take a shot. Why hide? You think any Fox News fanboys would be swayed by anything Kamala says? Her time would be better spent attracting unregistered voters and she could do that by saying the quiet part out loud.
I fail to see how one impedes the other, in fact I would argue it would help her win
Okay, give me an argument why setting Fox straight will help her win the election, because just saying so isn't an argument. I'd argue that time spent bickering 'with Fox about Fox' isn't time spent getting people that wouldn't otherwise vote for her, to vote for her. (and that, by the way, is how one impedes the other)
Why hide?
Nobody said she should hide.
You think any Fox News fanboys would be swayed by anything Kamala says?
And this is the main point: Yes actually. If she makes salient points about matters that are dear to them, something is going to gnaw eventually. Have you seen Bernie Sanders' appearances on the network? The audience definitely seems to be on his hand some of the time, just because he points out that what they have been told on the network isn't making sense. It can be done. A bunch of them are a lost cause for sure, but certainly she ought to be able to get some of them to vote for her, she running against Trump (for fox sake!).
Her time would be better spent attracting unregistered voters
Agreed 100%, those also watch Fox though. And Trump spouting his garbage freely on that channel without opposing voices will not make them vote for Harris.
You really think it's not ridiculous to point out how ridiculous it all is? There is value in calling out the elephant in the room however there's no value in validating Fox News and giving into the grift. That only benefits Fox News and Trump.
Pretty sure Fox is run by a scared old weird man.
Hopefully it’s outside.
Underhanded. I like it.
This is a weird way to say “Trump backs out of debating Harris on ABC”.
NYT are fools for using that headline. Their journalists, or editor, obscured the facts with that one. "Updated" headline (not joking):
Trump Cancels a Debate With Harris on ABC News and Pitches One With Fox News Instead
Haha I see that new headline. ‘tegrity.
The biggest issue is many people will have only seen the first headline and not the update. They got inaccurate information and it won't be corrected, and the NYT is to blame.
"Cancels" is the wrong verb again. ABC can cancel it, Trump can only decide not to show. ABC and Kamala can go ahead and have a debate with the audience or even put a cardboard cut out in his place and play random quotes he's made and let Kamala disagree with them. ABC would get views and advertising revenue.
The right neutral verb phrase there is "backs out of". The one I would pick is "shirks" or "fears"
In what sense has he agreed something if no one else involved knows about it? I think the right verb here is 'suggests'.
He made a post saying that's the "deal". In a way it's a brave brazen way to try and get a venue change. Harris would have to basically insult Fox News and their entire viewership to avoid looking like she's walking away.
Which (insulting fox and their viewers) she should do regardless, tbh
If she can go on Fox News and score a couple points against him it'll go very well for her though; going into the proverbial lions den and coming out the other side
No (current) Harris voters are watching Fox News right now, she only stands to gain votes if she handles herself.
It won’t. There is nothing to gain in debating baby Donnie on Fox News.
Yeah putting this on Fox seems like a super risky move on the Trump campaign's part, for not that much gain.
They're scared. Nobody get complacent.
Gov Newsom destroyed when he was on Fox. I don't think that Fox will repeat their mistake.
That's a quick way to lose an election. Almost like calling people deplorable. That worked great didn't it?
That was one of the very few good things she did. Hilary is just a deeply unlikable person.
Insulting voters is never a good move in an election.
Brave isn't the right word. Brazen is.
Yeah I can't always with the words.
Again, it's not a deal if you don't have agreement. That's not a deal, it's an offer.
I know that and you know that. But do the people who just watch Sinclair News know that?
That's what Trump is doing to ABC right now
And she's calling him out in a way I couldn't see happening before. I'm glad to see it.
only if harris somehow sneaks a bullhorn/megaphone onto the stage so she can still make sure those fuckers hear her when her mic "malfunctions".
fox deserves no respect.
You know how fascists are always projecting; the way he treats normal news agencies tells us all we need to know - it's exactly how we SHOULD be treating his pet agencies.
Fox Moderator: "Vice President Harris, how would you respond to the accusation that your administration was responsible for the supply-chain crisis, grocery price inflation, massive corporate layoffs, Texas power outages, the summer heat wave, and the border apocalypse?"
Harris: "What? Now wait..."
Fox Moderator: "President Trump. They say you have the best golf record of any president in history. How did you accomplish this historic feat?"
...
They'd probably just cut her off 2 words into her responses then play it off as she doesn't have an answer
You know he'd completely fuck up the answer and go on ranting about migrants crossing the border, inflation, how smart he is and other rants. In previous interviews on Fox News they have handed him simple questions on a platter which were written to make him look like a good guy...and he completely screws it up and makes him self look like an idiot. It's actually pretty hilarious.
Did you see that Fox News one recently where Laura Ingraham repeatedly tried to help Trump's public image by giving him numerous opportunities (repeating the same soft ball question 4 or 5 times in a row) to walk back or tone down some of his controversial comments? He could not take the hint at all, just kept rambling about completely irrelevant stuff while she desperately tried to feed him the answer. It was pretty funny.
Haha nope, I gotta look that one up now. I need a good laugh, my computer is pissing me off at the moment.
Edit: wow the projection is so strong in that video
I'm done laughing at this fucking clown. I'm just sad.
This was the obvious move - attempt to change the venue to Fox, Newsmax or worse. I'm surprised Tucker isn't a proposed moderator.
Harris should counter with a live fact check requirement regardless of venue, which Trump and Fox could never accept.
Even with a live fact check requirement, would you trust Fox News to fact check? They'd probably use "alternative facts".
The problem is that I let it play even after I saw what it was...
Her statement should make clear that she is only interested in debates hosted by news networks, citing Fox News' own lawyers who say that they aren't journalists, but rather "entertainers".
Maybe also make a point of refusing to work with an organization that was found liable for defaming voting machine manufacturers and poll workers during the last election.
There are endless valid reasons for saying no to this debate, and holding Trump to the original debate schedule he already agreed to.
I want the debate to happen AFTER Trump is sentenced in DC. Depending on what happens there, the debates topics are vastly different.
Making a president into a king with literal life or death powers is a power that Trump will misuse.
"Trump agrees with himself"
...say, is it perhaps weird to make meetings with yourself?
Trump: "I am chickening out of the debate with Harris, and trying to force it onto a right-wing propaganda network that won't let me lose."
New York Times: "Trump has accepted the invitation to debate Harris."
No he didn't, you fucking hacks. How the fuck does one accept their own invitation? He wasn't invited to shit, he burned his invitation and is demanding Harris play a new game.
Fuck Trump for being a cowardly weasel, and fuck the New York Times for this bullshit narrative.
Did the headline change or something? I don't think NYT said it's an acceptance
It says "Trump agrees". I clicked on it thinking it was a done deal but it's very much not. It's misleading.
Edit- they changed it on the site. But damage is already done to people who just see the original headline and don't read into it.
I asked my question because the NYT headline that I personally saw didn’t say "Trump agrees," and I wanted to verify whether that was the actual headline or an interpretation of it.
Yes, the network that had to pay nearly a billion dollars for pushing a false narrative in order to get Trump elected the last time around is the perfect venue. Oh, and a live Fox News audience? What could be bad about that?
What a joke.
They’re probably hoping someone in the audience brings a gun.
What, do we need another Republican to shoot Trump's other ear?
I was thinking Kamala. Never know with those idiots though. lol
Side note: Did you happen to see the close ups of Trump’s ear at the ABJ convention? Shit was on FULL DISPLAY and didn’t look shot at all. 🤔
Ask anyone who wears earrings, ears heal fast. (That said, I expect he only had a scratch.)
Not from a bullet wound, they don't.
I still maintain that he got a scratch from a shard of the teleprompter at worst, and has been milking it for all it's worth.
It was reported that it was a 2cm wound. That's not insignificant.
A 2cm graze wound is different from a 2 cm penetrating wound. Even that fact can be misleading.
Because it wasn't. That blood was the spatter from an actual victim behind him. He has been pretending to have been shot, without any actual injury of any kind.
How could the blood have been from the other victim? They were no where near that close to Trump. They would have had to have been on the stage with him lol
Blood spatter can travel quite a long distance. The shooting victim was in the crowd immediately behind Trump at what looks to be about 15-20 feet away. If he was that close, a high velocity projectile could create spatter that could reach the podium.
Apply Occam's razor here. Of course he's milking it for all its worth, but he got hit by something. Bullet graze, shrapnel graze, shattered glass graze, whatever it was it did hit him.
I'm not completely convinced. There is no visible evidence of an injury. There has been no public release of info regarding the specific nature of the injury or the injury's exact size or location. The next day, he appeared in public with a bizarre, fake-looking bandage. And the day after that there was no visible mark at all.
He is world-famous for lying and it is physically possible that it's not his blood. Without some solid evidence, I'm just not convinced he was actually injured. He is absolutely the kind of person who would pretend a real victim's blood is his own if it will bring him some media attention.
I absolutely agree that it is something he would do. I just think the likelihood of him getting hit with blood spatter so perfectly from twenty feet away is quite low. And there seems to be no other blood on the stage area. Nobody else looked bloody that I could see.
Ears bleed a lot from a minor scrape. They also heal very fast. His doctor is a fraud so I do not put any stock in his 2cm wound assessment. This is the same doctor that says Trump was the healthiest person to ever be president while lying about his height and weight.
If Trump is afraid he can’t find the ABC venue can’t his son or someone drive him there and help him get to the stage?
She didn't though. This is blatant misinformation.
Apparently, it is news to Fox, too.
Delete this post for using the word Agrees in the title.
Yes. This is blatant misinformation. Nobody "agreed" to anything. The actual nyt article doesn't even use this word. This post needs to be deleted.
Article headline got edited after backlash
Headline so insanely misleading they had to change it lol. NYTimes is such a joke these days
I cannot stand his voice; I always end up muting the TV and reading the closed captioning. Those poor people that have to do the live captioning though..
Imagine having to stand on that stage and smell that soiled old man. If he stank I would bring that up before answering every question
"I'm sorry can I get a fan up here? I need to be down wind of his diaper. "
upwind*
Fuck.
UPWIND UPWIND!
Whoops, replied to wrong comment.
When Trump was in office foreign translators got a ton of shit for doing thier job. So many non English speaking people thought the translators were drunk. That made more sense at the time than The President of the United States of America actually saying the things he said. There was also the time he got laughed at by the entire United Nations.
I can't either. On the other hand, I'll take it because he's going up against a very seasoned prosecuting attorney.
That debate with Biden. Holy shit. I turned it off after 5 minutes. I'm just so embarrassed by my country.
Trump when Biden is running: "Any time, any place"
Trump when Harris is running: "One specific time, one specific place"
Harris is going to wipe the floor with this guy.
Only if the venue rules are fairly done.
That is not what Fox's history shows Fox doing as a news an entertainment channel. They will put any BS up to garner attention. For example, DEI hire.
If Fox applied the same benchmarks on Trump's past 'accomplishments' and Trump isn't fit for employment, period.
I agree to NYT giving me 85% of their revenue forever. I agree to that.
gonna look real bad on the NYT if they don't follow through!
Fucking hell I'm actually excited. If you had asked me literally a month ago I wouldn't have given a shit and would have laughed if you had told me I'd be interested. Don't get me wrong I was going to vote either way, but man I cannot wait for Harris to slam the shit out of this dirt bag and make a national embarrassment of him. The shit that worked with Biden sure as hell isn't going to fly with Harris.
Don't underestimate the ratfuckery Fox Entertainment Channel can get up to.
I agree to Trump withdrawing from the election.
It’s definitely a risk for Harris but it’s the only place anyone watching only Fox will see her debate Trump. Not that it’ll change their minds of course, they’re so heavily brainwashed it’s insane.
Why it should never happen. Trump could go there, shit his pants, and call Harris all the words, and all republicans will lap it up like the mewling little weird cowards they are.
There was no scenario that wasn't going to happen anyway
Buttigieg has been appearing on Fox News recently and he's been doing a good job dismissing their dishonest narratives and avoiding their traps.
But this isn't Buttigieg, and this isn't a one-on-one interview, so we can only hope if she agrees to this for some reason that she's as prepared as he is.
People who watch Fox make up a pretty significant portion of every debate's viewership. They don't care what channel it's on, they're going to watch.
I agree to receive $150,000 from the Trump campaign.
OP, you should edit the post to reflect the headline change.
I don't see why she should accept to be on fox.
Can't spell slaughter without laughter
Yeah... agrees with HIMSELF lmao
The title is the original title that NYT published. They updated it after backlash (rightfully so). Please don't report this post again.
Can you not update the title? I can update my title on posts to different communities... Why preserve the old/pre-change title?
they can, but the title doesn't violate any rules.
Okay Trump, you're playing the cards you wish you had, rather than the ones in your hand. A clear sign of denial.
I sincerely hope Harris never meets to debate Trump at Fox. Fox will just ambush Harris and edit the footage to make Harris look dumb or insincere. The whole exercise will be pointless because Americans will not get a fair representation of both candidates.
It's not an agreement if one party doesn't know about it.
How long until he throws a fit and stomps off like an angry toddler? I give him 25 minutes (not counting commercial breaks).
I see a need for a debate, we know where they stand. We really need to stop treating politics like sporting events.
::: spoiler New York Times Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: [High] (Click to view Full Report)
Check the bias and credibility of this article on Ground.News
:::
Thanks to Media Bias Fact Check for their access to the API.
Please consider supporting them by donating.
::: spoiler Footer
Beep boop. This action was performed automatically. If you dont like me then please block me.💔
If you have any questions or comments about me, you can make a post to LW Support lemmy community.
:::
The Fox News event is a week earlier than the originally scheduled ABC debate. Won't Harris look bad if she doesn't go?
Why is it on Harris to attend a debate she didn't agree to, and not on Trump to attend the debate he did agree to?
He RSVP'd to the ABC debate, and now he's chickening out and trying to hide behind his propagandist friends to avoid engaging in an actual debate.
It only looks bad for Harris if you consider Trump someone with integrity, Fox News an honest platform, or ignore how many debates Trump has backed out of in the past purely out of cowardice.
He’ll do a debate if it’s in his safe space. Snowflake.
I think this is bad news tbh. Harris can be as capable as she wants, but if the broadcaster doesnt stop Trump from a endless ramble or cut off his mic if he escalates to intolerable levels of behaviour, then this could end badly.
Don't give Fox News respect. Start talking shit about it right now. Call this what it is, a scared old weird man who will only debate Harris on a "news" network currently paying billions for lying to everyone about the last election. Harris will treat Trump and the "journalists" playing moderators like children which is how we should've been treating them for years. Talking to them like adults validates their lies and bullshit.
Harris should call them out. “I said a debate on a news source, not some weird entertainment channel. Might as well have the weather channel moderate the debate!”
While entertaining for us, I don't think that'd be a wise reaction. If she wants to win, she probably also needs to sway some people that are lifetime FOX junkies. Such a reaction could have a 'basket of deplorables' effect (being the stone cold truth, but hardly effective)
Being nice to idiots has proven to be hardly effective. Kamala needs to read word for word the arguments the Fox News lawyers made when they were in court for the dominion case. Fox News isn't news it's entertainment and they don't employ journalists they employ entertainers. This is what Fox News said.
No, what she needs to do is win this election. That's her job, everything else (like taking entertainment corpos to task for their shady tactics) comes secondary right now.
I fail to see how one impedes the other, in fact I would argue it would help her win. If she's running on doing just that why wouldn't she take a shot. Why hide? You think any Fox News fanboys would be swayed by anything Kamala says? Her time would be better spent attracting unregistered voters and she could do that by saying the quiet part out loud.
Okay, give me an argument why setting Fox straight will help her win the election, because just saying so isn't an argument. I'd argue that time spent bickering 'with Fox about Fox' isn't time spent getting people that wouldn't otherwise vote for her, to vote for her. (and that, by the way, is how one impedes the other)
Nobody said she should hide.
And this is the main point: Yes actually. If she makes salient points about matters that are dear to them, something is going to gnaw eventually. Have you seen Bernie Sanders' appearances on the network? The audience definitely seems to be on his hand some of the time, just because he points out that what they have been told on the network isn't making sense. It can be done. A bunch of them are a lost cause for sure, but certainly she ought to be able to get some of them to vote for her, she running against Trump (for fox sake!).
Agreed 100%, those also watch Fox though. And Trump spouting his garbage freely on that channel without opposing voices will not make them vote for Harris.
You really think it's not ridiculous to point out how ridiculous it all is? There is value in calling out the elephant in the room however there's no value in validating Fox News and giving into the grift. That only benefits Fox News and Trump.
Pretty sure Fox is run by a scared old weird man.
Hopefully it’s outside.
Underhanded. I like it.
This is a weird way to say “Trump backs out of debating Harris on ABC”.
NYT are fools for using that headline. Their journalists, or editor, obscured the facts with that one. "Updated" headline (not joking):
Haha I see that new headline. ‘tegrity.
The biggest issue is many people will have only seen the first headline and not the update. They got inaccurate information and it won't be corrected, and the NYT is to blame.
"Cancels" is the wrong verb again. ABC can cancel it, Trump can only decide not to show. ABC and Kamala can go ahead and have a debate with the audience or even put a cardboard cut out in his place and play random quotes he's made and let Kamala disagree with them. ABC would get views and advertising revenue.
The right neutral verb phrase there is "backs out of". The one I would pick is "shirks" or "fears"
In what sense has he agreed something if no one else involved knows about it? I think the right verb here is 'suggests'.
He made a post saying that's the "deal". In a way it's a
bravebrazen way to try and get a venue change. Harris would have to basically insult Fox News and their entire viewership to avoid looking like she's walking away.Which (insulting fox and their viewers) she should do regardless, tbh
If she can go on Fox News and score a couple points against him it'll go very well for her though; going into the proverbial lions den and coming out the other side
No (current) Harris voters are watching Fox News right now, she only stands to gain votes if she handles herself.
It won’t. There is nothing to gain in debating baby Donnie on Fox News.
Yeah putting this on Fox seems like a super risky move on the Trump campaign's part, for not that much gain.
They're scared. Nobody get complacent.
Gov Newsom destroyed when he was on Fox. I don't think that Fox will repeat their mistake.
That's a quick way to lose an election. Almost like calling people deplorable. That worked great didn't it?
That was one of the very few good things she did. Hilary is just a deeply unlikable person.
Insulting voters is never a good move in an election.
Brave isn't the right word. Brazen is.
Yeah I can't always with the words.
Again, it's not a deal if you don't have agreement. That's not a deal, it's an offer.
I know that and you know that. But do the people who just watch Sinclair News know that?
That's what Trump is doing to ABC right now
And she's calling him out in a way I couldn't see happening before. I'm glad to see it.
only if harris somehow sneaks a bullhorn/megaphone onto the stage so she can still make sure those fuckers hear her when her mic "malfunctions".
fox deserves no respect.
You know how fascists are always projecting; the way he treats normal news agencies tells us all we need to know - it's exactly how we SHOULD be treating his pet agencies.
Fox Moderator: "Vice President Harris, how would you respond to the accusation that your administration was responsible for the supply-chain crisis, grocery price inflation, massive corporate layoffs, Texas power outages, the summer heat wave, and the border apocalypse?"
Harris: "What? Now wait..."
Fox Moderator: "President Trump. They say you have the best golf record of any president in history. How did you accomplish this historic feat?"
...
They'd probably just cut her off 2 words into her responses then play it off as she doesn't have an answer
You know he'd completely fuck up the answer and go on ranting about migrants crossing the border, inflation, how smart he is and other rants. In previous interviews on Fox News they have handed him simple questions on a platter which were written to make him look like a good guy...and he completely screws it up and makes him self look like an idiot. It's actually pretty hilarious.
Did you see that Fox News one recently where Laura Ingraham repeatedly tried to help Trump's public image by giving him numerous opportunities (repeating the same soft ball question 4 or 5 times in a row) to walk back or tone down some of his controversial comments? He could not take the hint at all, just kept rambling about completely irrelevant stuff while she desperately tried to feed him the answer. It was pretty funny.
Haha nope, I gotta look that one up now. I need a good laugh, my computer is pissing me off at the moment.
Edit: wow the projection is so strong in that video
I'm done laughing at this fucking clown. I'm just sad.
This was the obvious move - attempt to change the venue to Fox, Newsmax or worse. I'm surprised Tucker isn't a proposed moderator.
Harris should counter with a live fact check requirement regardless of venue, which Trump and Fox could never accept.
Even with a live fact check requirement, would you trust Fox News to fact check? They'd probably use "alternative facts".
Fox's lie. Who'd ever believe their news?
I mean foxes do say a lot of things... https://youtu.be/jofNR_WkoCE?si=wmu99UDKpDg5OQk9
The problem is that I let it play even after I saw what it was...
Her statement should make clear that she is only interested in debates hosted by news networks, citing Fox News' own lawyers who say that they aren't journalists, but rather "entertainers".
Maybe also make a point of refusing to work with an organization that was found liable for defaming voting machine manufacturers and poll workers during the last election.
There are endless valid reasons for saying no to this debate, and holding Trump to the original debate schedule he already agreed to.
I want the debate to happen AFTER Trump is sentenced in DC. Depending on what happens there, the debates topics are vastly different. Making a president into a king with literal life or death powers is a power that Trump will misuse.
...say, is it perhaps weird to make meetings with yourself?
Trump: "I am chickening out of the debate with Harris, and trying to force it onto a right-wing propaganda network that won't let me lose."
New York Times: "Trump has accepted the invitation to debate Harris."
No he didn't, you fucking hacks. How the fuck does one accept their own invitation? He wasn't invited to shit, he burned his invitation and is demanding Harris play a new game.
Fuck Trump for being a cowardly weasel, and fuck the New York Times for this bullshit narrative.
Did the headline change or something? I don't think NYT said it's an acceptance
It says "Trump agrees". I clicked on it thinking it was a done deal but it's very much not. It's misleading.
Edit- they changed it on the site. But damage is already done to people who just see the original headline and don't read into it.
I asked my question because the NYT headline that I personally saw didn’t say "Trump agrees," and I wanted to verify whether that was the actual headline or an interpretation of it.
Yes, the network that had to pay nearly a billion dollars for pushing a false narrative in order to get Trump elected the last time around is the perfect venue. Oh, and a live Fox News audience? What could be bad about that?
What a joke.
They’re probably hoping someone in the audience brings a gun.
What, do we need another Republican to shoot Trump's other ear?
I was thinking Kamala. Never know with those idiots though. lol
Side note: Did you happen to see the close ups of Trump’s ear at the ABJ convention? Shit was on FULL DISPLAY and didn’t look shot at all. 🤔
Ask anyone who wears earrings, ears heal fast. (That said, I expect he only had a scratch.)
Not from a bullet wound, they don't.
I still maintain that he got a scratch from a shard of the teleprompter at worst, and has been milking it for all it's worth.
It was reported that it was a 2cm wound. That's not insignificant.
A 2cm graze wound is different from a 2 cm penetrating wound. Even that fact can be misleading.
Because it wasn't. That blood was the spatter from an actual victim behind him. He has been pretending to have been shot, without any actual injury of any kind.
How could the blood have been from the other victim? They were no where near that close to Trump. They would have had to have been on the stage with him lol
Blood spatter can travel quite a long distance. The shooting victim was in the crowd immediately behind Trump at what looks to be about 15-20 feet away. If he was that close, a high velocity projectile could create spatter that could reach the podium.
Apply Occam's razor here. Of course he's milking it for all its worth, but he got hit by something. Bullet graze, shrapnel graze, shattered glass graze, whatever it was it did hit him.
I'm not completely convinced. There is no visible evidence of an injury. There has been no public release of info regarding the specific nature of the injury or the injury's exact size or location. The next day, he appeared in public with a bizarre, fake-looking bandage. And the day after that there was no visible mark at all.
He is world-famous for lying and it is physically possible that it's not his blood. Without some solid evidence, I'm just not convinced he was actually injured. He is absolutely the kind of person who would pretend a real victim's blood is his own if it will bring him some media attention.
I absolutely agree that it is something he would do. I just think the likelihood of him getting hit with blood spatter so perfectly from twenty feet away is quite low. And there seems to be no other blood on the stage area. Nobody else looked bloody that I could see.
Ears bleed a lot from a minor scrape. They also heal very fast. His doctor is a fraud so I do not put any stock in his 2cm wound assessment. This is the same doctor that says Trump was the healthiest person to ever be president while lying about his height and weight.
If Trump is afraid he can’t find the ABC venue can’t his son or someone drive him there and help him get to the stage?
She didn't though. This is blatant misinformation.
Apparently, it is news to Fox, too.
Delete this post for using the word Agrees in the title.
Yes. This is blatant misinformation. Nobody "agreed" to anything. The actual nyt article doesn't even use this word. This post needs to be deleted.
Article headline got edited after backlash
Headline so insanely misleading they had to change it lol. NYTimes is such a joke these days
I cannot stand his voice; I always end up muting the TV and reading the closed captioning. Those poor people that have to do the live captioning though..
Imagine having to stand on that stage and smell that soiled old man. If he stank I would bring that up before answering every question
"I'm sorry can I get a fan up here? I need to be down wind of his diaper. "
upwind*
Fuck.
UPWIND UPWIND!
Whoops, replied to wrong comment.
When Trump was in office foreign translators got a ton of shit for doing thier job. So many non English speaking people thought the translators were drunk. That made more sense at the time than The President of the United States of America actually saying the things he said. There was also the time he got laughed at by the entire United Nations.
I can't either. On the other hand, I'll take it because he's going up against a very seasoned prosecuting attorney.
That debate with Biden. Holy shit. I turned it off after 5 minutes. I'm just so embarrassed by my country.
Trump when Biden is running: "Any time, any place"
Trump when Harris is running: "One specific time, one specific place"
Harris is going to wipe the floor with this guy.
Only if the venue rules are fairly done.
That is not what Fox's history shows Fox doing as
a newsan entertainment channel. They will put any BS up to garner attention. For example, DEI hire.If Fox applied the same benchmarks on Trump's past 'accomplishments' and Trump isn't fit for employment, period.
I agree to NYT giving me 85% of their revenue forever. I agree to that.
gonna look real bad on the NYT if they don't follow through!
Fucking hell I'm actually excited. If you had asked me literally a month ago I wouldn't have given a shit and would have laughed if you had told me I'd be interested. Don't get me wrong I was going to vote either way, but man I cannot wait for Harris to slam the shit out of this dirt bag and make a national embarrassment of him. The shit that worked with Biden sure as hell isn't going to fly with Harris.
Don't underestimate the ratfuckery Fox Entertainment Channel can get up to.
I agree to Trump withdrawing from the election.
It’s definitely a risk for Harris but it’s the only place anyone watching only Fox will see her debate Trump. Not that it’ll change their minds of course, they’re so heavily brainwashed it’s insane.
Why it should never happen. Trump could go there, shit his pants, and call Harris all the words, and all republicans will lap it up like the mewling little weird cowards they are.
There was no scenario that wasn't going to happen anyway
Buttigieg has been appearing on Fox News recently and he's been doing a good job dismissing their dishonest narratives and avoiding their traps.
https://youtu.be/SXGpXWbVYSg?si=xBtDe8jWbMdXvmUF
But this isn't Buttigieg, and this isn't a one-on-one interview, so we can only hope if she agrees to this for some reason that she's as prepared as he is.
People who watch Fox make up a pretty significant portion of every debate's viewership. They don't care what channel it's on, they're going to watch.
I agree to receive $150,000 from the Trump campaign.
OP, you should edit the post to reflect the headline change.
I don't see why she should accept to be on fox.
Can't spell slaughter without laughter
Yeah... agrees with HIMSELF lmao
The title is the original title that NYT published. They updated it after backlash (rightfully so). Please don't report this post again.
Can you not update the title? I can update my title on posts to different communities... Why preserve the old/pre-change title?
they can, but the title doesn't violate any rules.
Okay Trump, you're playing the cards you wish you had, rather than the ones in your hand. A clear sign of denial.
I sincerely hope Harris never meets to debate Trump at Fox. Fox will just ambush Harris and edit the footage to make Harris look dumb or insincere. The whole exercise will be pointless because Americans will not get a fair representation of both candidates.
It's not an agreement if one party doesn't know about it.
How long until he throws a fit and stomps off like an angry toddler? I give him 25 minutes (not counting commercial breaks).
I see a need for a debate, we know where they stand. We really need to stop treating politics like sporting events.
::: spoiler New York Times Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: [High] (Click to view Full Report)
Check the bias and credibility of this article on Ground.News
:::
Thanks to Media Bias Fact Check for their access to the API.
Please consider supporting them by donating.
::: spoiler Footer
Beep boop. This action was performed automatically. If you dont like me then please block me.💔
If you have any questions or comments about me, you can make a post to LW Support lemmy community. :::
The Fox News event is a week earlier than the originally scheduled ABC debate. Won't Harris look bad if she doesn't go?
Why is it on Harris to attend a debate she didn't agree to, and not on Trump to attend the debate he did agree to?
He RSVP'd to the ABC debate, and now he's chickening out and trying to hide behind his propagandist friends to avoid engaging in an actual debate.
It only looks bad for Harris if you consider Trump someone with integrity, Fox News an honest platform, or ignore how many debates Trump has backed out of in the past purely out of cowardice.