I watched ABC FAKE NEWS this morning, both lightweight reporter Jonathan Carl’s(K?) ridiculous and biased interview of Tom Cotton (who was fantastic!), and their so-called Panel of Trump Haters, and I ask, why would I do the Debate against Kamala Harris on that network?

Who’s surprised he’s trying to chicken out?

    • 4lan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      I’m so glad they don’t have any time to replace him. Almost every right leaning person I know is so irritable and volatile lately. They know what’s coming

      • chaogomu@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        3 months ago

        Republicans cannot replace Trump. He’s got the party by the balls. His daughter in law is the chair of the party.

        He’s also funneling all donations to the party into his own pocket.

        When Trump loses, the Republican party will implode under all the fraud. I’m all for it.

        • 4lan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          huh, so my original hopes are just taking longer than I thought. in 2016 I was saying that his term will be a waking-up moment for America, like a rock bottom.

          I keep encouraging republicans that talk about RFK. “write him in! do it!”

  • Lightor@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    3 months ago

    But he wants to debate on Fox. The station that was held legally liable for lying for him. The station that has to admit to being “entertainment” not news. Yeah, that’s a better choice.

  • Geek_King@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    If he does drop out of the debate again, I bet they could get him to recommit by going all Biff Tannen on his ass:

    “What’s the matter McTrump? Chicken?”

    He’ll bristle, and say he’s no chicken and agree to debate Kamala.

    In all seriousness, I was surprised agreed to debate her at all, given that he has nothing to gain. Best cash scenario, he tries the same approach he used with Biden, turning his mouth into a fire hose of lies, and Biden couldn’t keep up. With Kamala, she’d just laugh at his lies, and actually refute him with facts, he’d look just awful in comparison.

    At this point I doubt he’ll actually show up to the debate.

      • paddirn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        How would real-time fact checking even work? Would the moderators actually do their job for once and call it out, or would they just do little VH1/“Pop Up Video”-style graphics where they would highlight whether they would try to correct the record on certain things being said?

        • HomerianSymphony@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Would the moderators actually do their job for once and call it out

          That’s actually not the job of moderators. This idea that moderators should do fact-checking only came about in 2016 because of Trump.

          The network probably should have a team of fact-checkers. But fact checking in real time isn’t easy.

          • barsquid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 months ago

            I would like to have the moderators do anything at all, though, that would be nice. Like cut off a candidate who goes over time. Maybe force candidates to answer the question asked or forfeit their time.

        • ChocoboRocket@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Hopefully both, and there’s a Lie-O-Meter that determines how truthful a statement is as its being read, and then a counter of provably false statements made

          Not like a here is a one in a billion outlier so the truth is a lie. If crime is down, but up in a small, specific area, the statement “crime is down” would be true.

          • paddirn@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            It’d be nice if there was some sort of objective, quantitative “score” that could be attached to each candidate’s performance (or as objective as it can be). Something at the end of the night you could point to and be like, “Yeah, they’re a goddamn liar-mouth.” Something either candidate could point to as a “win” without resorting to just soundbites that get blasted the whole week after and people are like, “Oh snap, they said that!” Like, an actual way to tell how honest either candidate seemed during their “performance”. I’m sure Trump would lie his ass off and his base would be like, “Well of course ABC is going to say Trump lied, they’re owned by woke Disney!”, but at the very least we’d have some sort of tracking of how much they lied during a debate.

            • barsquid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              There is no objective measurement Repubs won’t ignore if it becomes an obstacle to white supremacist fascism and shoveling money into the yachts of the wealthy.

    • paddirn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      “I heard McDonalds has a new menu item now, they’re calling them Chicken McTrumplets… Bawk… bawk… bawk… bawk”

    • WoahWoah@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      When he was clearly winning against Biden, he had nothing to gain. As he loses pace in the polling, his need to do a debate increases.