279
submitted 3 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

The former president said there would be a debate on Fox News on September 4 in Pennsylvania, as well as the previously agreed to September 10 debate on ABC News in Pennsylvania, and a third debate on NBC News on September 25 in Michigan. "Details to follow. I look forward to seeing Kamala at all three Debates!" he wrote.

However, the Harris campaign suggested that this schedule was not agreed to from their side, except for the ABC debate.

"We're pleased Trump finally agreed to debate the Vice President on ABC after previously trying to back out. We are open to another debate, and we'll continue those conversations. But to be clear, any additional debate would be subject to Trump actually showing up on September 10. We're not playing his games," a Harris campaign aide told Newsweek in a Sunday morning email.

all 25 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Coelacanth@feddit.nu 175 points 3 months ago

Doing a debate on Fox is a terrible idea, no matter how good a debater you are.

[-] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 95 points 3 months ago

Especially if it’s before the other ones.

He’ll look good on Fox then not do any others.

Hopefully Harris is smart enough to see through this.

[-] neidu2@feddit.nl 38 points 3 months ago

My thoughts exactly. His bone spurs will suddenly come back after the fox debate so he can chicken out of the others, or some even lamer excuse.

[-] Nougat@fedia.io 15 points 3 months ago

He's still going to show up to the Fox "debate," even though nobody else has agreed to it, and act like Harris "failed to appear."

[-] foggy@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

"only if we can move the September 10th debate to September 4th"

[-] curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 25 points 3 months ago

Considering the campaigns response, I think they are smart enough to see it for what it is.

[-] 14th_cylon@lemm.ee 56 points 3 months ago

and it would be terrible idea actually doing it before the one orange cheeto is trying to chicken out from. glad to see that harris campaign is not buying it.

[-] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 points 3 months ago

Basically Harris needs to plan to have the Fox debate but hold off the decision until after Trump appears on ABC. That way she's still in the driver's seat.

If she agrees to the fox debate now, Trump would just not show up because of, um, let's see....bone spurs were acting up.

And then Trump can shit on Harris for not coming to the Fox debate she agreed to.

[-] ech@lemm.ee 27 points 3 months ago

From their statement ("any additional debate would be subject to Trump actually showing up on September 10"), it sounds like they're talking about the NBC debate only, as the proposed FOX debate is scheduled before the original one.

[-] bradinutah@thelemmy.club 10 points 3 months ago

The Faux Entertainment Network has a legitimate journalistic credibility problem. Don't people know that Fox has lost HUUUGE lawsuits that make them questionable? Wake up sleepy heads! DonOLD needs a skewed playing field to keep lying and grifting you and repulsing the solid message from the VP Harris. He IS a criminal, after all.

[-] Chewget@lemm.ee 2 points 3 months ago

It'll be the only way some people actually watch it. If it goes even halfway decent It'll be huge. Risky, but maybe worth it

[-] Coelacanth@feddit.nu 8 points 3 months ago

Bernie could do it, but I don't think Harris can. Maybe I underestimate her.

It will be tough to win over Fox viewers to begin with, and they will stack the deck to make her look terrible. Fill the room with diehard Trump cultists who will eat out of his hand and howl and cheer at his every jab. Prepare the most pointed questions for her and the most soft ball for him, and bring it home with unapologetically biased moderators who will let Trump run rampant.

Unless you have the authority and charisma to completely command the entire room, I only see it ending in disaster.

Fox has kinda started to turn on Trump, so it might not be the worst idea ever.

[-] anytimesoon@feddit.uk 3 points 3 months ago

Have they? Do you have any examples? I'd love to see them talk shit about him

[-] DancingBear@midwest.social -3 points 3 months ago

Bernie did great with the fox town halls

[-] snekerpimp@lemmy.world 74 points 3 months ago

Drumpf’s camp is trying to control the situation and act like they are calling the shots. This is making them look weak and inept. Not the message they want to send.

[-] snooggums@midwest.social 66 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Trump's campaign is relying on the Dems taking the high road and going along with it. Good to see the Harris campaign isn't falling for it, altthough they should have been more clear that they did not agree to the other two.

To get the message across to voters who don't read into everything they should have said:

"We have only agreed to the one debate on ABC on September 10th. We are open to another debate, and we’ll continue those conversations. But to be clear, any additional debates would be subject to Trump actually showing up on September 10."

Yes, people can infer that means the Fox News one is a no go since it is prior to Sept 10th, but a good chunk of the population needs that spelled out.

[-] APassenger@lemmy.world 27 points 3 months ago

I am so tired of this going high shit. Going high means you don't understand the urgency.

So happy to see Harris being scrappy and fighting for people. The need is (and was) bigger than any politicians' dignity.

[-] andrewth09@lemmy.world 24 points 3 months ago

Surely his own supporters know him well enough to know he would do the Fox debate and then skip the ABC debate, right,? It's just how he works.

[-] knobbysideup@sh.itjust.works 23 points 3 months ago

"You didn't come to my fox pep rally, that we never ran by you in the first place, so I decided not to do the abc debate that had already been negotiated"

[-] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago

Newsweek - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Newsweek:

MBFC: Right-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.Newshttps://www.newsweek.com/kamala-harris-campaign-responds-trumps-proposed-debate-schedule-1937561
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2024
279 points (97.9% liked)

politics

19126 readers
1592 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS