Why didn't Kamala Harris want to debate Donald Trump?

[mikkel_the_dane]

Wrong; are you intentionally trying to be dishonest? I never stated that it had been agreed to & in fact the OP is about the notion that Harris did not want to debate on that day.

Do you have any statement from her as to why?
And please nobody else, just her.

 

[Pogo]

Wrong; are you intentionally trying to be dishonest? I never stated that it had been agreed to & in fact the OP is about the notion that Harris did not want to debate on that day.

Once you understood that the only reason that the date was even mooted was entirely a construction in Trumps mind with his party it should have been obvious that there was no reason for Harris to even consider it. The whole idea was a power play on Trump's part to see if he could con Harris into doing what he wanted and demonstrating that he had power over her. It is not about Harris not wanting anything but about her being an adult and not just accepting Trump's changes.

It is about not doing what the schoolyard bully says just because he says it.

 

[anotherneil]

Trump and Biden agreed to two debates, the one that led to his dropping out, and a second one on September 10th on ABC.

The terms of the debate(s) need to be mutually agreeable to the two candidates. Trump tried to change them and so did Harris. After Biden dropped out, Trump suggested different dates and venues for additional debates including a September 4th debate on Fox, but Harris declined. Harris would only agree to the previously agreed upon date and venue, although Trump agreed to that when he thought he'd be debating Biden.

I can see why Trump wanted to debate on September 4th, or at least one (on Sept. 10th) before what would've been a 2nd debate between him and Biden. Trump's opponent, which he had debated, was changed to another individual, and it would make sense that he perhaps he wanted to make up for the fact that there hasn't been a 1st debate with Harris.

Maybe Trump had some sort of debate plan for September 10th with Biden that would've been a sequel or follow-up to the 1st debate he had with Biden, but will longer apply since it's not going to be with Biden. He basically has to start over with Harris.

By having a 1st debate with Harris before September 10th, it would've kept the September 10th debate as a "2nd" debate instead of a "1st" with Harris. I'm just guessing here that this is what the situation is with Trump, and I could be wrong, but it doesn't explain Harris's side of the story for why she did not want to debate him on the 4th, especially since she is supposedly willing to debate him on the "10th".

That just makes things even more perplexing; at least if she had said that she didn't want to debate him at all, there would be some consistency from Harris.

Harris preferred that the mics be kept live at all times but didn't get that concession.

The rules were then and still are now: no live audience, the mic of the person not speaking be muted, no opening statement but closing statements are permitted, no props or notes, and the candidates will not be permitted to interact with campaign staff during the two two-minute commercial breaks.

*******

Yes, she wanted the mics to be kept on at all times, and despite not getting that concession, she's still willing to participate in the debate anyways; this means that keeping the mics on at all times wouldn't have been the reason for not wanting to debate on September 4th, so this is not relevant to the thread topic.

Your claim that Harris doesn't want to debate Trump is contradicted by the facts. It's the reverse that is more likely correct.

I never claimed that Harris does not want to debate Trump; where did you get this idea?

Trump would probably prefer to not debate Harris at all.

Given that Trump wanted to debate Harris on September 4th, there is no probably at all that he prefers not to debate Harris at all.

The contrast will be extreme - an older candidate who lies incessantly, slurs words, and rambles against a stronger, younger, more articulate, better informed, and more intelligent opponent.

It sounds like you're describing Biden and Trump.

Harris and Trump haven't held a debate with each other - at least not yet, anyways.

We saw Trump making noises about not attending the September 10th ABC debate, which was understood as him being afraid to face her,

No, it cannot be understood to be him being afraid to face her, since he had wanted to debate her back on September 4th, and the reason for not wanting to debate on CBS has to do with him suing them and nothing to do with Harris.

but he has agreed to be there now. He's hard to predict, so we'll see if he does, but being a no-show will probably hurt him as much or more than debating her.

Does Harris's refusal to debate Trump on September 4th not have the same or similar sort of impact on her?

If he is a no-show, he'll appear weak - something he can't afford right now. When he was ahead in the primaries, skipping debates didn't hurt him. It was seen as confidence and a correct understanding that he didn't need to participate in them to win the nomination.

But this is different. He's now trailing in the polls, and he's already agreed to debate Biden any time, any place. Can he really afford to say effectively that he would debate that other old man but not this younger woman?

It seems like you're basing this question on your dubious premise that Trump is hesitant to debate Harris, which would make it a loaded question.

If he doesn't show up, Harris will.

If Harris doesn't show up and Trump does, then this statement is false.

It's an "if P then Q" (sometimes written as P -> Q) statement, and P is "he doesn't show up", and Q is "Harris will".

Here's the truth table for it:

Let's analyze the 4 cases:

Case 1: Trump doesn't show up (P is true) and Harris does (Q is true)
Case 2: Trump doesn't show up (P is true) and Harris does not (Q is false)
Case 3: Trump shows up (P is false) and Harris does (Q is true)
Case 4: Trump shows up (P is false) and Harris does not (Q is false)

As you can see, from Case 2, P is true and Q is false, which means that in this case, P->Q is false, thus your statement is false.

That will be a terrible look for Trump, as she taunts him on TV before a huge television audience for his cowardice.

Sure, but doesn't explain her apparent unwillingness to debate him on September 4th.

The best evidence that he plans to debate is that he's doing the groundwork to claim that the debate was rigged and he was cheated.

Ok, I'll try to remember this to see if you're right; will you eat your words if you're wrong?

As you know, in his mind, he never loses.

No, I actually don't; I don't have the ability to read minds.

If he loses an election or a trial, he was cheated.

Perhaps.

There is no reason why this should be different. He's already complaining about ABC being hostile and unfair to him: Trump slams ABC ahead of pivotal network-hosted debate: 'They’re the worst, they’re the nastiest'

It also mentions that he's suing ABC, which is the reason things are very different.

Yes. That's when Trump was busy trying to wiggle out of the debate. Harris began taunting him (source):

"When Trump suggested he might back out of the forthcoming ABC presidential debate, Harris' camp "posted sound effects of squawking, whining chickens" to accompany a video of Trump talking. That's part of a "saucier, more ruthless" approach than President Joe Biden took to Trump."

Given that Trump is suing ABC, as you pointed out by virtue of your own citation, this strikes me as misleading & dishonesty from the Harris camp.

This and Trump falling behind by 4 points now in the polls makes not participating in Tuesday's debate a bad choice for Trump.

Maybe you're right; it's another thing he can refute, which would make such dishonesty from the Harris camp a bad choice for her.

Yes, that's the public perception.

Then there's a problem with public perception.

(More to come - I had to split up my reply).

 

[anotherneil]

(Continued)

Harris does not have to agree to any of Trump's terms that Biden didn't agree to,

Would Harris have to agree to any of Trump's terms that Biden did agree to? I don't think so; I don't think Harris is under any obligation to adhere to anything that Biden agreed to, regardless of whether or not they're from Trump. That's why, as you yourself pointed out, Harris wanted to keep the mics on in contrast to Biden accepting muted mics.

So, if you think she does have to agree to the terms that Biden agreed to, and Trump's terms are nothing different or additional to the debate terms in general, then you'd be contradicting yourself here.

and Trump must abide by his commitment to debate on September 10th or he appears cowardly.

The September 10th debate hasn't happened, yet; let's wait until afterwards to discuss the notion that he appeared cowardly if he doesn't.

True, he didn't agree to debate Harris when that date was set, but he can't back out now without appearing cowardly.

The debate is mainly for undecided voters; I'm sure that Harris voters and supporters would spend an endless amount of time saying that he appeared cowardly for not showing up, if he does back out & doesn't show up. Do you have any information showing that he must show up to debate Harris in order to not appear cowardly to undecided voters, or are you just trying to pitch and push a narrative as a Harris voter/supporter?

The situations are different.

The situation is different now, but that's not the question.

Harris is not trying to get out of debating with Trump.

She succeeded in getting out or not participating in a debate with Trump on September 4th.

She'll be there for the only scheduled debate.

How do you know? It hasn't happened, yet. Let's stick to facts rather than speculation.

Trump was trying to get out of it.

Regardless of whether or not he agreed to a Sept. 10th debate with Biden, that's not an agreement to a debate with Harris. Biden and Harris are 2 different individuals, or are you having trouble making the distinction? To reiterate, the reason he had reservations about having the debate on ABC has to do with him suing ABC, not Harris.

That's the public perception.

Why, because of LW propaganda, bias, deception, dishonesty, and misleading narrative?

Agreeing to debate Harris was implicit when he didn't immediately say that he wouldn't debate her.

No it wasn't, unless he's the one who told Biden to drop out and for Harris to take Biden's place. As far as I'm aware, Trump didn't want Biden to drop out.

When he began making noises about getting out of it or changing the rules several days after Biden dropping out, that was understood as him being afraid of her, hence the taunting.

I don't think so; that's just a LW propaganda narrative.

Your original question was, "I wonder why Kamala Harris wouldn't want to debate Donald Trump for POTUS 2024?" @Daemon Sophic gave you the definitive response - the claim is incorrect.

What claim? That's a question (note the "?" at the end), not a claim.

So why not agree to September 4th as well or instead? You'd have to ask her.

And she'll answer my question? Ok, how do I do that?

I think the media could ask her this question. That's why they exist. If they don't, that's telling. Has the media asked her?

My guess is that the date wasn't a factor. She probably didn't want to debate on Fox.

Why wouldn't she want to debate on Fox?

Even if that's the problem, she could've stipulated that she would debate on September 4th, but not on Fox.

Also, she might view giving in to his concessions as empowering him.

Ok, that's an interesting possibility, but still - she could've asked why he wants to have a debate on that day before turning it down (maybe she did in a private meeting, etc.).

Or maybe she feels that one debate is enough this close to the election and would rather be on the campaign trail than preparing for another debate.

But this September 4th debate could've been the one debate.

I also asked ChatGPT if the September 10th debate is the only one - there may be another one on September 17th on Fox.

If she shows up to debate Trump on Fox, I think that would be a positive look for her. It's not difficult for someone to debate someone in friendly territory, especially when their opponent is in such a bitter relationship with the venue. An appearance on Fox for Harris would make her look brave to a conservative audience and probably undecided voters.

Whatever her reason, it's probably not a fear of debating Trump.

If only being willing to debate on friendly territory is a factor, then it could be.

If it were, she's have agreed with him when he was trying to get out of the September 10th debate.

LOL

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Only dates and terms agreed and confirmed by both off them are valid.
Anything else is game playing.
May be there will be no debates.
Trump will only make personal attacks anyway,
and lie about his accomplishments.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Maybe Trump had some sort of debate plan for September 10th with Biden that would've been a sequel or follow-up to the 1st debate he had with Biden, but will longer apply since it's not going to be with Biden. He basically has to start over with Harris.

Agreed.

By having a 1st debate with Harris before September 10th, it would've kept the September 10th debate as a "2nd" debate instead of a "1st" with Harris.

Agree again.

it doesn't explain Harris's side of the story for why she did not want to debate him on the 4th

Still agree.

Regardless of whether or not he agreed to a Sept. 10th debate with Biden, that's not an agreement to a debate with Harris.

Agreed yet again.

at least if she had said that she didn't want to debate him at all, there would be some consistency from Harris.

Harris has been consistent. She will debate on September 10th, but apparently, just that once.

I never claimed that Harris does not want to debate Trump; where did you get this idea?

From this comment: "I wonder why Kamala Harris wouldn't want to debate Donald Trump for POTUS 2024?" Are you implying that does not and wouldn't make these different sentiments?

No, it cannot be understood to be him being afraid to face her, since he had wanted to debate her back on September 4th, and the reason for not wanting to debate on CBS has to do with him suing them and nothing to do with Harris.

But it is perceived that way by many. It doesn't matter if one finds that perception unjustified. Trump has to deal with whatever public perception is.

Does Harris's refusal to debate Trump on September 4th not have the same or similar sort of impact on her?

It seems not.

Case 1: Trump doesn't show up (P is true) and Harris does (Q is true)
Case 2: Trump doesn't show up (P is true) and Harris does not (Q is false)
Case 3: Trump shows up (P is false) and Harris does (Q is true)
Case 4: Trump shows up (P is false) and Harris does not (Q is false)

I think 2 and 4 are very unlikely. Harris benefits by appearing whether Trump does or not.

I'll try to remember this to see if you're right; will you eat your words if you're wrong?

I wrote, "The best evidence that he plans to debate is that he's doing the groundwork to claim that the debate was rigged and he was cheated."

I'm not sure I said anything there that can be wrong. I offered a prediction and my reason for making it, but I understand that Trump might not show. I don't think there's much chance of Trump not calling the debate rigged if he fares poorly, but maybe he'll surprise us and accept blame for his failing if he is widely perceived as having been bested by Harris.

No, I actually don't; I don't have the ability to read minds.

I wrote, "As you know, in his mind, he never loses." OK. Maybe you DON'T know that yet.

Trump is a very broken man, but simple. He has just a few impulses and a handful of psychiatric diagnoses (malignant narcissism, antisocial disorder, Machiavellianism, pathological liar, and more recently, progressive dementia). His impulses are greed, seeking power and wealth, seeking adulation, and seeking revenge, and he really hates disrespect and disloyalty. Once one knows these things about him, he's quite predictable and his actions easily explained.

Given that Trump is suing ABC, as you pointed out by virtue of your own citation, this strikes me as misleading & dishonesty from the Harris camp.

You place more stock in Trump's words than I do. But I can stipulate to your claim that the Harris campaign is dishonest, because even though I disagree, as with so many claims from Trump and MAGA Republicans, it wouldn't matter to me if you were correct. Even if I agreed with you, I'd be fine with that, just as even if I agreed with Trump that the election was stolen from him, I'd be fine with that. My values for people like Trump are not the same as for people that are trying to be fair and honest.

Would Harris have to agree to any of Trump's terms that Biden did agree to?

No. She did, but didn't have to legally speaking. From a tactical perspective, she did have to and wanted to.

I'm sure that Harris voters and supporters would spend an endless amount of time saying that he appeared cowardly for not showing up, if he does back out & doesn't show up.

I think you're right. But what's more relevant is whether swing voters think that way.

Do you have any information showing that he must show up to debate Harris in order to not appear cowardly to undecided voters

None that you don't have access to as well. He plans to walk into what he likely considers the lion's den Tuesday night, although with Trump, he might actually feel that he can best her. His world is a fantasy of what he wishes were the case - one in which when Harris' crowd sizes are bigger, he calls it AI and fake.

How do you know? It hasn't happened, yet. Let's stick to facts rather than speculation.

That's new from you. You've been asking me and others to guess what Harris' reasons were for some of the actions she's taken.

the reason he had reservations about having the debate on ABC has to do with him suing ABC, not Harris.

Once again, you believe Trump and his words much more than I do.

Why wouldn't she want to debate on Fox?

You said that you didn't like speculation. Nevertheless, I suggested a few possibilities.

doesn't explain her apparent unwillingness to debate him on September 4th.

OK, but you seem to be calling for speculation here. I don't know why she declined Trump's September 4th invitation, but it isn't difficult to come up with a few possible reasons.

 

[Pogo]

(Continued)


Would Harris have to agree to any of Trump's terms that Biden did agree to? I don't think so; I don't think Harris is under any obligation to adhere to anything that Biden agreed to, regardless of whether or not they're from Trump. That's why, as you yourself pointed out, Harris wanted to keep the mics on in contrast to Biden accepting muted mics.

So, if you think she does have to agree to the terms that Biden agreed to, and Trump's terms are nothing different or additional to the debate terms in general, then you'd be contradicting yourself here.


The September 10th debate hasn't happened, yet; let's wait until afterwards to discuss the notion that he appeared cowardly if he doesn't.


The debate is mainly for undecided voters; I'm sure that Harris voters and supporters would spend an endless amount of time saying that he appeared cowardly for not showing up, if he does back out & doesn't show up. Do you have any information showing that he must show up to debate Harris in order to not appear cowardly to undecided voters, or are you just trying to pitch and push a narrative as a Harris voter/supporter?


The situation is different now, but that's not the question.


She succeeded in getting out or not participating in a debate with Trump on September 4th.


How do you know? It hasn't happened, yet. Let's stick to facts rather than speculation.


Regardless of whether or not he agreed to a Sept. 10th debate with Biden, that's not an agreement to a debate with Harris. Biden and Harris are 2 different individuals, or are you having trouble making the distinction? To reiterate, the reason he had reservations about having the debate on ABC has to do with him suing ABC, not Harris.


Why, because of LW propaganda, bias, deception, dishonesty, and misleading narrative?


No it wasn't, unless he's the one who told Biden to drop out and for Harris to take Biden's place. As far as I'm aware, Trump didn't want Biden to drop out.


I don't think so; that's just a LW propaganda narrative.


What claim? That's a question (note the "?" at the end), not a claim.


And she'll answer my question? Ok, how do I do that?

I think the media could ask her this question. That's why they exist. If they don't, that's telling. Has the media asked her?


Why wouldn't she want to debate on Fox?

Even if that's the problem, she could've stipulated that she would debate on September 4th, but not on Fox.


Ok, that's an interesting possibility, but still - she could've asked why he wants to have a debate on that day before turning it down (maybe she did in a private meeting, etc.).


But this September 4th debate could've been the one debate.

I also asked ChatGPT if the September 10th debate is the only one - there may be another one on September 17th on Fox.

If she shows up to debate Trump on Fox, I think that would be a positive look for her. It's not difficult for someone to debate someone in friendly territory, especially when their opponent is in such a bitter relationship with the venue. An appearance on Fox for Harris would make her look brave to a conservative audience and probably undecided voters.


If only being willing to debate on friendly territory is a factor, then it could be.


LOL

Wow, someone rejects the offer to be mugged before a scheduled match and you have spent how much time and energy questioning why their immediate dismissal of this offer is to be questioned regarding their logic?

What variety of accountant are you?

 

[Pogo]

Agreed.

Agree again.

Still agree.

Agreed yet again.

Harris has been consistent. She will debate on September 10th, but apparently, just that once.

From this comment: "I wonder why Kamala Harris wouldn't want to debate Donald Trump for POTUS 2024?" Are you implying that does not and wouldn't make these different sentiments?

But it is perceived that way by many. It doesn't matter if one finds that perception unjustified. Trump has to deal with whatever public perception is.

It seems not.

I think 2 and 4 are very unlikely. Harris benefits by appearing whether Trump does or not.

I wrote, "The best evidence that he plans to debate is that he's doing the groundwork to claim that the debate was rigged and he was cheated."

I'm not sure I said anything there that can be wrong. I offered a prediction and my reason for making it, but I understand that Trump might not show. I don't think there's much chance of Trump not calling the debate rigged if he fares poorly, but maybe he'll surprise us and accept blame for his failing if he is widely perceived as having been bested by Harris.

I wrote, "As you know, in his mind, he never loses." OK. Maybe you DON'T know that yet.

Trump is a very broken man, but simple. He has just a few impulses and a handful of psychiatric diagnoses (malignant narcissism, antisocial disorder, Machiavellianism, pathological liar, and more recently, progressive dementia). His impulses are greed, seeking power and wealth, seeking adulation, and seeking revenge, and he really hates disrespect and disloyalty. Once one knows these things about him, he's quite predictable and his actions easily explained.

You place more stock in Trump's words than I do. But I can stipulate to your claim that the Trump campaign I dishonest, because even though I disagree, as with so many claims from Trump and MAGA Republicans, it wouldn't matter to me if you were correct. Even if I agreed with you, I'd be fine with that, just as even if I agreed with Trump that the election was stolen from him, I'd be fine with that. My values for people like Trump are not the same as for people that are trying to be fair and honest.

No. She did, but didn't have to legally speaking. From a tactical perspective, she did have to and wanted to.

I think you're right. But what' more relevant is whether swing voters think that way.

None that you don't have access to as well. He plans to walk into what he likely considers the lion's den Tuesday night, although with Trump, he might actually feel that he can best her. His world is a fantasy of what he wishes were the case - one in which when Harris' crowd sizes are bigger, he calls it AI and fake.

That's new from you. You've been asking me and others to guess what Harris' reasons were for some of the actions she's taken.

Once again, you believe Trump and his words much more than I do.

You said that you didn't like speculation. Nevertheless, I suggested a few possibilities.

OK, but you seem to be calling for speculation here. I don't know why she declined Trump's September 4th invitation, but it isn't difficult to come up with a few possible reasons.

Way more patience than I have, Heck, I got pissed at my vascular specialist when he didn't know I had converted an appointment to telemed for him to tell me that the ABI that I had already read was normal after I had to call him to remind him that he had an appointment (his office was apoligetic) How do you doctors deal with us. Your writing is inspirational.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A quick rundown. Trump and Biden originally agreed to two debates. They had one and Biden did rather poorly, even though be formal debate rules Biden "won" the debate. He lied far far less and made better points as a result. But he came off very very tired and weak looking. You have to remember, Trump supporters do not care if Trump lies. All that they care about is which one looked better and Trump managed to do that.

As to the muted mikes. In Trump's first debates with Hillary Clinton he demonstrated that he could not follow the rules of debate. That is why the mikes were muted. To keep Trump from trying to talk over his opponent when it was not his turn to speak.

Kamala never agreed to any debates besides the the second one. She was late getting into the election and has a lot of work to do. They may work out another debate or two later, but Trump wanted a favorable venue which is why he wanted a right wing source rather than a neutral one. So he proposed a ridiculous debate on FOX where the moderator and possible audience would be biased. Audiences really should not be part of a Presidential debate. All that they can do is to distract at best.

Kamala Harris is a much much better debater than Trump is. Or at least rightfully she has more confidence and experience from her earlier law career. She was willing to let Trump make a fool of himself by unmuting his mic. She knows that Trump cannot bully her. Trump would have bit on that offer. He said in an interview that it sounded okay to him, but his handlers pounded some sense into his head and he did not fall for that trap.

If there are other debates it will depend upon how both people do in the September 10 debate.

There was no evasion of debates by Harris.

 

[Pogo]

A quick rundown. Trump and Biden originally agreed to two debates. They had one and Biden did rather poorly, even though be formal debate rules Biden "won" the debate. He lied far far less and made better points as a result. But he came off very very tired and weak looking. You have to remember, Trump supporters do not care if Trump lies. All that they care about is which one looked better and Trump managed to do that.

As to the muted mikes. In Trump's first debates with Hillary Clinton he demonstrated that he could not follow the rules of debate. That is why the mikes were muted. To keep Trump from trying to talk over his opponent when it was not his turn to speak.

Kamala never agreed to any debates besides the the second one. She was late getting into the election and has a lot of work to do. They may work out another debate or two later, but Trump wanted a favorable venue which is why he wanted a right wing source rather than a neutral one. So he proposed a ridiculous debate on FOX where the moderator and possible audience would be biased. Audiences really should not be part of a Presidential debate. All that they can do is to distract at best.

Kamala Harris is a much much better debater than Trump is. Or at least rightfully she has more confidence and experience from her earlier law career. She was willing to let Trump make a fool of himself by unmuting his mic. She knows that Trump cannot bully her. Trump would have bit on that offer. He said in an interview that it sounded okay to him, but his handlers pounded some sense into his head and he did not fall for that trap.

If there are other debates it will depend upon how both people do in the September 10 debate.

There was no evasion of debates by Harris.

Damn that demonstrable reality. Meanwhile in the background is LuLu, to sir with love, hopefully we have moved in that direction.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Damn that demonstrable reality. Meanwhile in the background is LuLu, to sir with love, hopefully we have moved in that direction.

That's a song that has always moved me:

"But how do you thank someone who has taken you from crayons to perfume?"

It still makes me weepy:

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There was no evasion of debates by Harris.

The OP was either a sloppy mistake or a stupid distortion. Rather than apologizing, he chooses to babble about truth tables.

 

[Spice]

This whole thread is the perfect example of how Trump plants a seed for the MAGAs to water and nourish until it chokes out all common sense in the GOP garden. Fortunately a few well established plants have deep, strong roots. Time for a gardener to show up and thin out the evasive runners.

 

[Pogo]

This whole thread is the perfect example of how Trump plants a seed for the MAGAs to water and nourish until it chokes out all common sense in the GOP garden. Fortunately a few well established plants have deep, strong roots. Time for a gardener to show up and thin out the evasive runners.

Be careful what you wish for, so far the most durable root stock seems to be the Cheneys.

 

[Pogo]

Ok, so according to you, is this article on CBS News website Trump propaganda, lies, whatever?

Trump is suing ABC News and George Stephanopoulos for defamation. Here's what to know about his claim.

Former President Donald Trump is suing ABC, ABC News and George Stephanopoulos, claiming defamation over comments by the ABC host during an interview.

www.cbsnews.com

Missed this one, what on earth did it have to do with the OP?

As to Trump's chance of success, considering it appears to be nothing more than another stunt of Trump's his chances are about the same as his other recent claims. Out right dismissal or adjudicated dismissal.

 

[Pogo]

I can see why Trump wanted to debate on September 4th, or at least one (on Sept. 10th) before what would've been a 2nd debate between him and Biden. Trump's opponent, which he had debated, was changed to another individual, and it would make sense that he perhaps he wanted to make up for the fact that there hasn't been a 1st debate with Harris.

No actually it was to get a debate in a friendly venue done before the sentencing in his felony accounting fraud case.

Maybe Trump had some sort of debate plan for September 10th with Biden that would've been a sequel or follow-up to the 1st debate he had with Biden, but will longer apply since it's not going to be with Biden. He basically has to start over with Harris.

By having a 1st debate with Harris before September 10th, it would've kept the September 10th debate as a "2nd" debate instead of a "1st" with Harris. I'm just guessing here that this is what the situation is with Trump, and I could be wrong, but it doesn't explain Harris's side of the story for why she did not want to debate him on the 4th, especially since she is supposedly willing to debate him on the "10th".

Pull the other one, maybe the moon is green cheese.

That just makes things even more perplexing; at least if she had said that she didn't want to debate him at all, there would be some consistency from Harris.


Yes, she wanted the mics to be kept on at all times, and despite not getting that concession, she's still willing to participate in the debate anyways; this means that keeping the mics on at all times wouldn't have been the reason for not wanting to debate on September 4th, so this is not relevant to the thread topic.

No it never was relevant to Trump's attempt to gaslight which has been phenomenally successful in your case.

I never claimed that Harris does not want to debate Trump; where did you get this idea?


Given that Trump wanted to debate Harris on September 4th, there is no probably at all that he prefers not to debate Harris at all.


It sounds like you're describing Biden and Trump.

Harris and Trump haven't held a debate with each other - at least not yet, anyways.


No, it cannot be understood to be him being afraid to face her, since he had wanted to debate her back on September 4th, and the reason for not wanting to debate on CBS has to do with him suing them and nothing to do with Harris.

Do you really believe everything Trump says without question? It certainly appears so. Would you jump off a bridge? How much have you lost in your investment in Trump media?

Does Harris's refusal to debate Trump on September 4th not have the same or similar sort of impact on her?

No, refusing the stranger who asks you for all your money without reason is not abnormal, wondering why someone might have refused is.

It seems like you're basing this question on your dubious premise that Trump is hesitant to debate Harris, which would make it a loaded question.


If Harris doesn't show up and Trump does, then this statement is false.

It's an "if P then Q" (sometimes written as P -> Q) statement, and P is "he doesn't show up", and Q is "Harris will".

Here's the truth table for it:

Let's analyze the 4 cases:

Case 1: Trump doesn't show up (P is true) and Harris does (Q is true)
Case 2: Trump doesn't show up (P is true) and Harris does not (Q is false)
Case 3: Trump shows up (P is false) and Harris does (Q is true)
Case 4: Trump shows up (P is false) and Harris does not (Q is false)

As you can see, from Case 2, P is true and Q is false, which means that in this case, P->Q is false, thus your statement is false.


Sure, but doesn't explain her apparent unwillingness to debate him on September 4th.


Ok, I'll try to remember this to see if you're right; will you eat your words if you're wrong?


No, I actually don't; I don't have the ability to read minds.

You have no ability to construct logical truth tables let alone read minds. Where in whose mind did you even find these premises?

Perhaps.


It also mentions that he's suing ABC, which is the reason things are very different..

That He is suing everybody he can says nothing about the viability of his suits which if you remember the 60 plus suits over the 2020 election, he lost all of them. (well actually some were dismissed as being so worthless as not worth the time of even bringing them to a point where he could lose.)

Given that Trump is suing ABC, as you pointed out by virtue of your own citation, this strikes me as misleading & dishonesty from the Harris camp.


Maybe you're right; it's another thing he can refute, which would make such dishonesty from the Harris camp a bad choice for her.


Then there's a problem with public perception.

(More to come - I had to split up my reply)..

Enough, Yes there is a problem with public perception, there are far too many people like you who have no clue about what is going on beyond what they have been gaslighted with by Trump and Fox.


.

 

[Pogo]

Wrong; are you intentionally trying to be dishonest? I never stated that it had been agreed to & in fact the OP is about the notion that Harris did not want to debate on that day.

And as has been pointed out to you that is a disingenuous question like why didn't George bush shoot Osama Bin Laden on Sept. 11.
Her "want" is totally irrelevant to the situation.

Get it through your head, just because Trump wants something to happen is irrelevant to what other people may want to do.
He is not god as much as you seem to think so.

 

[Pogo]

If you think it is such a great question, enlighten us with your evaluation?
Why did Harris not want to accept Trump's dishonest offer?

 

[Twilight Hue]

This whole thread is the perfect example of how Trump plants a seed for the MAGAs to water and nourish until it chokes out all common sense in the GOP garden. Fortunately a few well established plants have deep, strong roots. Time for a gardener to show up and thin out the evasive runners.

This whole thread shows the pompus sanctimonious left-wing sense of superiority and self-aggrandizement coupled with delusions of grandeur.

Time for a prize fighter to show up and knock them down a few pegs.

 

[Augustus]

Speaking of me, I must be over a rather large and sensitive target to cause so many people to get triggered. LOL

Person X: *says something silly*

Other people: “That’s a bit silly”

Person X: “You’re triggered! Triggered! Have I triggered you? Triggered!”