• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Trump May Skip Debates, or Seek New Host, if Process Isn't 'Fair'

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,389
3,035
126
Of course we all knew that Trump would find a way and a reason to not debate!!
Yet I would bet that Trumps definition of the word FAIR has no semblance of the actual meaning!
Donny`s definition of the word fair is actually questions that are one sided and in favor of Donny!!

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s campaign is considering only participating in general election debates if an outside firm serves as the host, and his advisers recently sat down with the nonprofit Commission on Presidential Debates to complain about the debates it hosted in 2016.

The Dec. 19 meeting between Frank Fahrenkopf, a prominent Republican and co-chairman of the commission; Brad Parscale, campaign manager for Trump’s reelection effort; and another political adviser, Michael Glassner, came soon after Trump posted on Twitter that the 2016 debates had been “biased.”

Fahrenkopf said the meeting was cordial but that Parscale essentially reiterated Trump’s complaints.

Parscale said “that the president wanted to debate, but they had concerns about whether or not to do it with the commission,” Fahrenkopf said, including worries about “whether or not the commission would be fair.”

Trump’s advisers asserted that the debate commission included “anti-Trumpers.” They also complained about previous moderators, Fahrenkopf said.

Fahrenkopf, in turn, insisted that the debate commission did not include any anti-Trump bias, and he said he walked Parscale through the guidelines for commission board members that require their neutrality.

He also said that with one exception, the commission did not think any of the moderators chosen over several decades had exhibited concerning behavior during the debates.

The one moderator he agreed was problematic was Candy Crowley, who was at CNN in 2012 when she moderated a debate between Mitt Romney, the Republican nominee, and President Barack Obama.

Crowley fact-checked Romney when he wrongly claimed it took Obama 14 days to call an attack in Benghazi, Libya, an “act of terror.”

The meeting between Parscale and Fahrenkopf ended after 45 minutes with no resolution.

Since then, Parscale has told people that he was investigating other options for hosting the debates. It is not clear which outside firms he or other officials are talking to, and the campaign declined to provide any details.

“We want to have debates that are fair and are more geared toward informing the American people than to boosting the careers of the moderators,” Tim Murtaugh, a spokesman for Trump’s campaign, said of the meeting.

The commission has scheduled three presidential debates, to be held on college campuses in late September and October, as well as one vice-presidential debate.

Trump has been discussing the possibility of sitting out the general election debates for months. He has harbored bad feelings about the debate commission since the 2016 election, when he accused them of putting him at a disadvantage “on purpose” by giving him a “defective mic” at the first debate. (Trump was clearly audible to television viewers, but the commission said a technical malfunction affected the volume of his voice in the debate hall.)

After The New York Times reported that Trump had discussed the possibility of sitting the debates out, he wrote on Twitter that he wanted to face off against his eventual Democratic opponent. But he said that “the problem is that the so-called Commission on Presidential Debates is stacked with Trump Haters & Never Trumpers.”

He added that “there are many options, including doing them directly & avoiding the nasty politics of this very biased Commission. I will make a decision at an appropriate time but in the meantime, the Commission on Presidential Debates is NOT authorized to speak for me (or R’s)!”

Most people close to the president said his advisers are likely using a debate around debates to work with the commission, which was established in 1987 and has attempted to maintain its independence through every presidential cycle since then.

Representatives from both major presidential campaigns typically begin to approach the commission well before the party conventions, as Parscale did, and the commission spends months working with advisers and campaign lawyers to hammer out the specifics.

People close to the president also believe he has a slim window to try to affect who the moderators are, since there may be a presumptive Democratic nominee as soon as mid-March, and that person might push back against Trump’s attempts to influence the choice.

This article originally appeared in The New York Times.
 

TheVrolok

Lifer
Dec 11, 2000
23,395
2,663
136
agreed! but he does stand to lose a lot....
Do you think? His base isn't going anywhere and I imagine the number of "undecided independents" is practically zero. Playing the victim will continue to galvinize and excite his base on his way to another big popular vote loss and EC win.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
17,203
7,293
136
Shocking. Trump only wants twitter, where he can spew and not have to take questions.

He is usually completely lost on whatever the topic is, but his mental decline up to this point makes the normal bullshitting to cover it up all the more difficult. Being a coward doesn't help, and there really isn't much need to convince those already brainwashed by Team Treason.
 

Maxima1

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,276
641
126
Yeah, this is pretty obvious. He lost all 3 to Broom Hilda. Why bother with the risk when his base doesn't care about anything else he does.
 

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
17,774
1,868
126
Well it isn't like the networks aren't biased....

Yes, All of them including Fox.
 

Lanyap

Elite Member
Dec 23, 2000
7,015
828
126
‘I want to be in the debates but I’m being audited and I know secret stuff.’
 

JTsyo

Lifer
Nov 18, 2007
10,886
201
106
Do you think? His base isn't going anywhere and I imagine the number of "undecided independents" is practically zero. Playing the victim will continue to galvinize and excite his base on his way to another big popular vote loss and EC win.
There are many that don't get the full view of the news, especially Trump's faults. In a debate that's widely watched these people will be hearing the case the Democratic candidate is making against Trump. Most will consider it fake news but some might dig deeper.
 

GodisanAtheist

Platinum Member
Nov 16, 2006
2,791
1,289
136
There are many that don't get the full view of the news, especially Trump's faults. In a debate that's widely watched these people will be hearing the case the Democratic candidate is making against Trump. Most will consider it fake news but some might dig deeper.
-Agreed, debates are important. Most people are not nearly as tuned in as members of this board and have been getting bits and pieces here and there. A debate pushes the election in front of people's noses, along with handy editorialized headlines for the sidelines to gobble up.

Also agree that as such, it's more of a risk to Trump to debate, than it is to just try and ride the wave of ignorance + "the world isn't burning down outside my window" effect to ride into a second term.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,652
13,733
136
Do you think? His base isn't going anywhere and I imagine the number of "undecided independents" is practically zero. Playing the victim will continue to galvinize and excite his base on his way to another big popular vote loss and EC win.
I think not. A lot of Trump voters who took a chance voting for him realize it hasn't worked out well at all. A lot of people who didn't vote in 2016 likely will this time, just to throw the bum out. I mean, she was going to win anyway, right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: feralkid and Muse

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
12,293
6,945
136
It's a good decision from Trump's perspective not to debate. Morons tend not to debate well. There is no upside for him. That said, he should be mercilessly taunted, labelled a coward for refusing. His ego is so fragile it might just convince him to do it anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheVrolok

tweaker2

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
11,825
3,059
136
Trump would very much like his Pal Putin to host or even one of those liars extraordinaire over at FOX. This is his standard, his line in the sand as far as who he would like to have host his debates. Anything short of that he would consider biased against him.

And then there is the idea that he now has over three years of his incompetent leadership to defend whereas back in '16 he was a complete unknown political experience-wise. He is a known entity that's involved in many self-inflicted controversies due to his stubborn reliance on leading as any reckless tyrant would. There are multiple investigations dogging him along with his now well known ties to his Russian financiers and Putin, his most admired world leader.

Although his base doesn't care a bit about any of those crippling personality disorders of his that has him pegged as totally unfit for office, there are those folks who voted for him on a hunch and now realize what a mistake it was to put him up in the White House.

Let's hope the Dems can give them a good solid reason not to vote for him again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

TheVrolok

Lifer
Dec 11, 2000
23,395
2,663
136
I think not. A lot of Trump voters who took a chance voting for him realize it hasn't worked out well at all. A lot of people who didn't vote in 2016 likely will this time, just to throw the bum out. I mean, she was going to win anyway, right?
I hope you're right, but lack faith in the American electorate.
 
Feb 4, 2009
28,660
9,252
136
Such a privileged snowflake. Obvious the man has never felt pressure from work.

Hopefully the Clintons have these costumes in storage somewhere

18A187A5-1C09-46C0-9A25-271427E7527B.jpeg
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY