Trump

SamSpade

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
I've now heard a handful of "theories" for the sudden about face on debates

Vivek says, it's to open the possibility of REPLACING him before the convention - that if he really tanks, it gives them plausible deniability for why they can find a way to get him OUT. He's already unpopular among Democrats and NO ONE wants a President Harris.

Tyrus says, they've already determined he will be convicted, and they will use the timing of the trial outcome to drive that point home. Even if convicted, he will absolutely succeed in having it overturned, but not until after November, which is the idea. Of course, if he is NOT convicted, they're up sht's creek.

A couple others have said what certainly seems obvious, even to die-hards like Carville - he's falling behind, and they need this extremely early debate to boost him. Technically, neither one is the official candidate even though both have a lock on the delegate count. They are hoping for a surge for Biden - which means, they have SOMETHING planned for the debate.

The last one makes the most sense, but - just not seeing how it will work.
 
Kinnakeet

Kinnakeet

Well-Known Member
StmarysCity79 said:
Because he knows everyone thinks he's a coward if he doesnt agree. He was too sacred to debate any of the Republicans in the primaries.

Everyone hears what that idiot has to say. He never shuts up or stops posting and whining and crying about everyone is so mean to him and unfair.

He's the worlds biggest Karen
Click to expand...
What was he scared of HE WON everything and did not need to show up.
 
Kinnakeet

Kinnakeet

Well-Known Member
limblips said:
OK so Biden really had to debate and his handlers have known this for a long time. They finally came up with a plan. Make Joe look like it is his idea to challenge Trump but make the rules and "moderators" so completely one-sided that Trump would not agree to them. That would then let Joe and his puppeteers claim Trump refused to debate. In the event Trump agreed (as he has) they still have all the rules on their side. When faced with the inevitable they made it a no lose for Joe. The only problem they couldn't solve is Joe's dementia. They will feed him drugs and the answers.
Click to expand...
Absolutely correct,
 
Kinnakeet

Kinnakeet

Well-Known Member
SamSpade said:
I've now heard a handful of "theories" for the sudden about face on debates

Vivek says, it's to open the possibility of REPLACING him before the convention - that if he really tanks, it gives them plausible deniability for why they can find a way to get him OUT. He's already unpopular among Democrats and NO ONE wants a President Harris.

Tyrus says, they've already determined he will be convicted, and they will use the timing of the trial outcome to drive that point home. Even if convicted, he will absolutely succeed in having it overturned, but not until after November, which is the idea. Of course, if he is NOT convicted, they're up sht's creek.

A couple others have said what certainly seems obvious, even to die-hards like Carville - he's falling behind, and they need this extremely early debate to boost him. Technically, neither one is the official candidate even though both have a lock on the delegate count. They are hoping for a surge for Biden - which means, they have SOMETHING planned for the debate.

The last one makes the most sense, but - just not seeing how it will work.
Click to expand...
They cheated in 2020 they will do it again.
 
vraiblonde

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Perhaps they didn't plan on Trump accepting the debate demands. They were fairly ridiculous and skewed hard toward Biden. That alone makes you wonder because any debate moderated by anyone except Brett Baier and Martha McCallum was going to be favorable to Biden anyway.

The "no audience" part only hurts the Democrat because he can't pack the auditorium with supporters who will cheer on cue. Biden will have to rely on his words alone and no reaction prompt to influence the viewing audience. I'm guessing they were thinking how Trump works best in front of an audience, and not how Biden's incoherent mumbling will have to stand alone in deafening silence. The "moderators" will have to be alert to that so they can jump in real quick and replace the audience plants by creating a distraction.

I've never heard of a presidential debate where one of the candidates gets to decide who can and cannot participate.
 
H

HemiHauler

Well-Known Member
vraiblonde said:
I've never heard of a presidential debate where one of the candidates gets to decide who can and cannot participate.
Click to expand...

It’s been that way ever since the debates were taken away from the League of Women Voters and given to a private corporation - the Commission on Presidential Debates, which is no different than what you described as “one of the candidates deciding…”
 
S

StmarysCity79

Well-Known Member
limblips said:
Where did I say anybody changed any rule? FFS try to read what is written not what your addled mind wants to see. Damn you are stupid.
Click to expand...

"challenge Trump but make the rules and "moderators" so completely one-sided that Trump would not agree to them."

How do you make the rules one sided if you don't change them to be that way?

Dummy
 
S

StmarysCity79

Well-Known Member
Ken King said:
Fact checking by whom? Its a one on one debate, the moderators ask the questions, control the clock, and disable the mic of the person not designated to speak. They aren't there to "rule" on the accuracy of any response or tip the scale one way or the other.
Click to expand...


So you just want Trump to continue lying to you?

Facts are Facts. If one person says something not true time should be paused and the truth and the source should be explained.

Pretty simple.
 
S

StmarysCity79

Well-Known Member
SamSpade said:
You remember that scene in "My Cousin Vinny" where Vinny Gambini tries to test the witnesses eyesight and asks from a distance of 50 feet how many fingers he is holding up -

And the judge butts in and says "Let the record show that counsel is holding up two fingers" - helping the prosecution, hurting the defense and answering for the witness.

That's exactly what these "moderators" do, for Biden. Throw him softballs, interrupt Trump, "correct" Trump (sometimes with clearly false "corrections") in a ridiculous dog and pony show of a debate.

A real debate would cut the mikes of ANYONE whose turn it isn't, to speak. BOTH debaters - and the moderators, until the debater has concluded.

I was in formal debate every year of high school - and the judges almost ALWAYS - *never* said a thing, besides directing the debate - like call time or call for breaks. If I did nothing but tell barefaced lies, it was up to my OPPONENT and ONLY my opponent - to correct me.

And I told some whoppers. And got away with it. THAT is how it works.
Click to expand...


Wow. You really missed the point there.

He was putting in the record that Vinny was showing two fingers since trial transcripts are not a visual medium.

That is not biasing anyone or helping either party. It's recording a fact.
 
L

limblips

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
StmarysCity79 said:
"challenge Trump but make the rules and "moderators" so completely one-sided that Trump would not agree to them."

How do you make the rules one sided if you don't change them to be that way?

Dummy
Click to expand...
The DUMMY DEMMIES made up the rules you idiot. You are so incredibly stupid. Pleaase seek help.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top