Current Events > Trump says no to more debates ahead of U.S. election

(+) Yeah! (+)

First sensible move he's made in a lifetime.

In other news, water is wet

Trump knows he was humiliated.

It probably cost him the election so I'm not surprised he doesn't want another one.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/1/1926bbfa.png

He is a coward.

After that debate with Biden he wanted more debatea. He knows wanting more is a sign of victory.

Low energy Don

It'safraid.jpg

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/2/2d016482.png

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/d/d365fe0b.jpg

He said before he wanted three debates against Harris. Now all of a sudden he doesn't even want to do a second debate.

Fox News just had a Republican strategist on that said this was a good thing, since a second disaster would absolutely cost him the election.

To play the devils advocate why would he want to debate when he already just won, quit while youre ahead and go out on top, also does he really want more biased moderators constantly questioning him but not his opponent

He's probably doing it in hopes that people will forget about it by the election.

DeputyDong posted...

To play the devils advocate why would he want to debate when he already just won, quit while youre ahead and go out on top, also does he really want more biased moderators constantly questioning him but not his opponent

I find it completely offensive that you would assume the devil is so stupid as to believe that. The devil is smart.

DeputyDong posted...

To play the devils advocate why would he want to debate when he already just won,

which debate were you watching?

DeputyDong posted...

To play the devils advocate why would he want to debate when he already just won, quit while youre ahead and go out on top, also does he really want more biased moderators constantly questioning him but not his opponent

Because if he so easily stomps her in a debate format it only makes him look good to keep doing them. He wasn't saying "ez win no more debates" when Biden performed horribly

DeputyDong posted...

To play the devils advocate why would he want to debate when he already just won, quit while youre ahead and go out on top, also does he really want more biased moderators constantly questioning him but not his opponent

Two active posts account.

DeputyDong posted...

To play the devils advocate why would he want to debate when he already just won, quit while youre ahead and go out on top, also does he really want more biased moderators constantly questioning him but not his opponent

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/b/bcd0cb09.jpg

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/7/7fd2e75c.png

Being completely fair, I think Deputy was using Trump's words and mindset in this devil's advocate scenario, not that he actually believes Trump won the debate.

Having said that though, someone else pointed out that when Trump came out on top on the debate with Biden, he wanted more debates with him, pulling the same thing that Harris is doing. So this totally is just Trump running with his tail between his legs and desperately trying to save face. If people call Trump a coward for this move I'm sure he'll reconsider.

Isnt that....admitting defeat?

Whelp, hope the harris/waltz campaign understands what needs to be done now, they need to get Harris doing town halls, keep her fresh in people's minds. After seeing this JD Vance if he were smart would immediately follow suit and cancel his debate against Waltz too but he's such an arrogant little gnome with no sense of awareness that he's not even entertaining the concept of Waltz just destroying him.

DeputyDong posted...

To play the devils advocate why would he want to debate when he already just won, quit while youre ahead and go out on top, also does he really want more biased moderators constantly questioning him but not his opponent

Everybody just tag the chud alt and move on.

I don't think he should've did the first debate, but after doing the first one running away from more is bad optics.

He should at least keep pushing for the Fox News debate, and when Harris obviously says no try to use that against her. Claim he debated on the Harris-friendly ABC but that she's afraid of unfavorable territory herself. Maybe someone would believe him.

But really he needs a 2nd debate to try to turn things around. You can't just pretend it didn't happen. And while I get that he's not capable of improving and reversing the trend... He still needs to try, or else he's guaranteed to lose (instead of just likely to).

lol what a coward

His ass still bright red eh?

tremain07 posted...

Whelp, hope the harris/waltz campaign understands what needs to be done now, they need to get Harris doing town halls, keep her fresh in people's minds. After seeing this JD Vance if he were smart would immediately follow suit and cancel his debate against Waltz too but he's such an arrogant little gnome with no sense of awareness that he's not even entertaining the concept of Waltz just destroying him.

Vance absolutely needs to debate and try to look coherent and knowledgeable to compensate for Trump's performance. He needs to actually sell the MAGA agenda in technical terms and skillfully quell fears about it. He also needs to drop enough memorable lines to drown out the alienating soundbytes that he's currently known for (like the childless cat ladies comment he's failing to live down).

While I get that he's probably not capable of this and Walz is probably an extremely tough debate opponent, when you're in the losing position you still have to go for hail marys.

Ivynn posted...

lol what a coward

he has always been a coward. even that one time he had to go to that bunker and the lead up to January 6 insurrection.

riled up the crowd then ran away.

If I got absolutely fucking steamrolled live for everyone to see, I'd probably fold too. Poor Bunker Boy Donnie, he couldn't handle it and ran back to the bunker.

Give it a couple weeks with Trump watching his poll numbers sink, and he'll reverse course on his past decision and do another debate with Kamala, as well as more press conferences. His political gut instinct, when he's down in the polls, is always "I have to grab the national spotlight and headlines 24/7," even though that will continue to backfire for him, and he's stupid and demented enough to think the next debate will be go better for him than the last.

Just keep calling Trump a coward and hell have to do another debate.

DeputyDong posted...

To play the devils advocate why would he want to debate when he already just won, quit while youre ahead and go out on top, also does he really want more biased moderators constantly questioning him but not his opponent

This isn't playing devil's advocate, it's saying the dumbest shit imaginable. Which, to be fair, is Trump to a T. But no, even Trump doesn't actually think he won that debate. He's running scared.

Diceheist posted...

Vance absolutely needs to debate and try to look coherent and knowledgeable to compensate for Trump's performance. He needs to actually sell the MAGA agenda in technical terms and skillfully quell fears about it. He also needs to drop enough memorable lines to drown out the alienating soundbytes that he's currently known for (like the childless cat ladies comment he's failing to live down).

While I get that he's probably not capable of this and Walz is probably an extremely tough debate opponent, when you're in the losing position you still have to go for hail marys.

In other words, the wheels are coming off the GOP clown car and you're very unhappy with that.

But here's something to look forward to -- it's likely that the Vance-Walz debate will be even more of a disaster for the GOP than the Trump-Harris debate. Vance doesn't have the media plot armor that Trump has, and is probably even more of a psychopath than Trump. I expect the main strategy for Walz will be to get Vance to display his gross breeding fetish on live TV.

Good luck with that shit show.

EPR-radar posted...

In other words, the wheels are coming off the GOP clown car and you're very unhappy with that.

But here's something to look forward to -- it's likely that the Vance-Walz debate will be even more of a disaster for the GOP than the Trump-Harris debate. Vance doesn't have the media plot armor that Trump has, and is probably even more of a psychopath than Trump. I expect the main strategy for Walz will be to get Vance to display his gross breeding fetish on live TV.

Good luck with that shit show.

I actually don't know much about Vance. but his position on abortion, creepy obsession with women's reproductive choice (uses 'childless' as an insult), and amplifying this conspiracy about eating pets are bad cards that he dealt to himself.

He's going to have to play that hand in any debate, and it won't be pretty.

A Vance vs Walz debate would be a disaster. The most disliked VP candidate vs the most beloved. It would be horrible for Vance. Walz would destroy him with both kindness and insults

It won't happen.

creativerealms posted...

A Vance vs Walz debate would be a disaster. The most disliked VP candidate vs the most beloved. It would be horrible for Vance. Walz would destroy him with both kindness and insults

It won't happen.

IIRC, it is already scheduled for Oct 1. So Vance has the choice to go or chicken out.

creativerealms posted...

A Vance vs Walz debate would be a disaster. The most disliked VP candidate vs the most beloved. It would be horrible for Vance. Walz would destroy him with both kindness and insults

It won't happen.

A VP debate might take some of the spotlight off Dump's disaster and push it onto Vance.

I might be in the minority of Harris supporters here, I don't know that I want her to give him another debate. He just had a historically terrible performance. He effectively self immolated in front of millions of voters and it's irrefutable. Why give him a second chance to make up for it?

Sure she would likely own him again, and the chance that he'll get his shit together is small, but why risk a potential off night? It might be better strategy to just take the Win and all of the disastrous and damning soundbytes he gift wrapped and use them to bury him. Now you've got him saying no more debates so you can present that as him wimping out, which he is. Take the win and run with it.

I just have concerns that they might walk into a trap and agree to a debate on Fox where the deck is stacked against her and it ends up helping undo some of the self owning he did.

Nunyobidness posted...

I might be in the minority of Harris supporters here, I don't know that I want her to give him another debate. He just had a historically terrible performance. He effectively self immolated in front of millions of voters and it's irrefutable. Why give him a second chance to make up for it?

Sure she would likely own him again, and the chance that he'll get his shit together is small, but why risk a potential off night? It might be better strategy to just take the Win and all of the disastrous and damning soundbytes he gift wrapped and use them to bury him. Now you've got him saying no more debates so you can present that as him wimping out, which he is. Take the win and run with it.

I just have concerns that they might walk into a trap and agree to a debate on Fox where the deck is stacked against her and it ends up helping undo some of the self owning he did.

Yeah, I don't think there should be another, either. Him repeating that terrible performance would be amazing, but if he managed to rectify even a small part of that disaster, it would be a disaster for everyone. I think we have enough right now to carry the win home, even without a guarantee.

If I were on the Harris campaign, a second debate with Trump wouldn't even be in my vocabulary. You just cleaned his clock in front of tens of millions of registered voters. Quit while you're ahead.

His performance last time was a concept of a debate anyways, he lost and showed he doesn't have the temperament of a leader.

GrandConjuraton posted...

Yeah, I don't think there should be another, either. Him repeating that terrible performance would be amazing, but if he managed to rectify even a small part of that disaster, it would be a disaster for everyone. I think we have enough right now to carry the win home, even without a guarantee.

True, but not granting Trump another debate now makes it seem like she's the one hiding, and would support the (made up) narrative of the moderators and her ganging up on Trump.

Especially because Trump didn't just have an off night. Kamala didn't do anything special, This is exactly what happens every time a cool breeze brushes against Trump's fragile ego, its almost a crime its taken like 7 debates to properly show it.

She definitely doesn't need to do another debate, but if Trump tries to say he's the one willing to do another debate, she does need to call his bluff.

GG no RE

Nunyobidness posted...

I might be in the minority of Harris supporters here, I don't know that I want her to give him another debate. He just had a historically terrible performance. He effectively self immolated in front of millions of voters and it's irrefutable. Why give him a second chance to make up for it?

Sure she would likely own him again, and the chance that he'll get his shit together is small, but why risk a potential off night? It might be better strategy to just take the Win and all of the disastrous and damning soundbytes he gift wrapped and use them to bury him. Now you've got him saying no more debates so you can present that as him wimping out, which he is. Take the win and run with it.

I just have concerns that they might walk into a trap and agree to a debate on Fox where the deck is stacked against her and it ends up helping undo some of the self owning he did.

The issue is most swing voters will have largely forgotten about and moved on from this by the time the election happens. The swing voters tend to be less informed and less interested in politics. Their voting decisions are more based on vibes at the moment they decide to or not to vote.

DeputyDong posted...

To play the devils advocate why would he want to debate when he already just won, quit while youre ahead and go out on top, also does he really want more biased moderators constantly questioning him but not his opponent

Nobody actually thinks he won but Trump himself.

ssjevot posted...

The issue is most swing voters will have largely forgotten about and moved on from this by the time the election happens. The swing voters tend to be less informed and less interested in politics. Their voting decisions are more based on vibes at the moment they decide to or not to vote.

This is true, and the mainstream media will make damned sure to downplay Trump's many, many shitty qualities while criticizing Kamala.