Posted on 10/10/2024 6:58:46 AM PDT by Red Badger
Kamala Harris is desperately clinging to any opportunity to regain her political footing after a string of underwhelming performances.
CNN’s offer to host a second presidential debate on October 23 in Atlanta seemed like a lifeline for Harris, who quickly accepted the invitation, confident that the far-left network will shield her from tough scrutiny.
“CNN sent invitations on September 21 to both Vice President Harris and former President Trump’s campaigns to participate in a CNN debate this fall as we believe the American people would benefit from a second debate between the two candidates for President of the United States,” the far-left network said in a statement.
“With less than 30 days to Election Day, we are placing a deadline for a formal response from both campaigns for this Thursday, October 10 at 12 p.m. ET to participate,” the network added.
However, former President Donald Trump isn’t falling into CNN’s trap. He’s well aware of the network’s slanted coverage and refuses to participate in a rigged mainstream circus.
Trump’s rejection of the debate isn’t just a strategic move; it’s a stance against the very media machine that has propped up Harris and her failing campaign.
Harris, now left to fend for herself, tried to paint Trump as afraid of another face-off.
“Trump should have no problem agreeing since it is the same format and setup as the CNN debate he attended and said he won in June, when he praised CNN’s moderators, rules, and ratings,” according to Harris’ campaign.
His decision to decline isn’t just about the timing—it’s about refusing to engage with a network that has lost all credibility. CNN may have once been the gold standard of debate hosts, but under its current leadership, it’s little more than a PR firm for the Democrat Party.
Trump’s dominance in polls is growing by the day, particularly in key swing states. He simply doesn’t need to play CNN’s game.
In a fiery Truth Social post, Trump made it clear why he’s skipping the debate:
“I won the last two debates, one with Crooked Joe, the other with Lyin’ Kamala.
I accepted the Fox News invitation to debate Kamala on September 4th, but she turned it down.
JD Vance easily won his debate with ‘Tampon’ Tim Walz, who even called himself a knucklehead! I am also leading in the polls, with the lead getting bigger by the day—and leading in all swing states.
The first thing a prizefighter does when he loses a fight is say that he ‘demands a rematch.’
It is very late in the process; voting has already begun—there will be no rematch!
Besides, Kamala stated clearly yesterday that she would not do anything different than Joe Biden, so there is nothing to debate.”
Submit additional information.
>>None have treated him fairly, so which network should Trump choose? That’s the puzzler.
OANN, perhaps. RSBN?
Isn’t Sean Hannity an MMA fighter as well.
I remember constantly hearing about is martial arts prowess from him when I occasionally listened to him.
Why does it have to be networks hosting the debates? Why not independent agencies?
The desperation is palatable.
Harris is headed for an almost certain electoral defeat... And the Democrat knifes are out in force... Even CNN is starting to criticize her... A sure sign that the Democrat establishment has given up and is prepping for 2028... And a more sellable candidate like Newsom or Shapiro.
No democrat would ever agreed to a debate on even a neutral site. The networks you ask about have no chance of hosting.
Hannity couldn’t moderate a debate.
Before he finished asking the first question, the broadcast time would have expired. 🙄
Early voting has already started, it’s too late for a debate. They need to stop this early voting month. If they want early voting it should start the Saturday before the election and that will take care of those who can’t get off Election Day.
Trump had already done 2 debates. No reason for another at this point.
Winners cash out, losers cry DEAL!
AND more importantly, each candidate choosing their one moderator. A conservative moderator and a liberal moderator.
They are patriotic voters there. /s
They want the money and fame, they promote their hosts using debates to make a name for themselves at the expense of hosting an actual unbiased debate
Mark Levin, sure. Hannity, no way! I love the guy, but he’d spend the whole 90 minutes doing all the talking.
Polls are polls, who knows what’s true and what’s not but this indicates that the Harris campaign thinks they are not on a glide path to victory. The debates aren’t even debates, they are just talking points for the most part. At the end, after Trump gets them 60 million viewers they’ll spend an hour calling him racist and unfit to the 45 million who listen to the post debate sham show. I don’t see what’s to be gained if you’re President Donald J Trump. Let Comrade Harris figure out another way to pull in 60 million people.
Every debate should have two moderators and each candidate selects one.
I was glad to see the Mets eliminate the Phillies yesterday. New York City and Philadelphia both vote heavily Democrat, but New York state is going to go Democrat anyway, whereas Pennsylvania is winnable for Trump as long as the Democrats in Philadelphia don’t get away with enough cheating.
You can easily jam the RF signals in the venue making her earbuds unusable. The beauty of that is she would not know beforehand ... I would pay money to see the look on her face when she realizes she has no help.
There should be no moderators. Just let them sit down and interview each other. They can make their own rules.
The moderators shouldn’t be part of them “game”. It should be two people talking to each other with a Time Keeper to change topics after 15 minutes or so. The fact that we even know the names of the moderators tells you what you need to know about these phony debates.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.