Will Donald Trump try to weasel out of the presidential debates?

[Chieftain]

She did very well against Bernie, in every debate.

Don't buy into Hannity's bullshit about Hillary being sick. It's a diversion from Trump's ineptitude.

Take this to the bank: Hannity's BS is the last thing I would buy into.  I base my comments on the fact that the speeches we do have video of show her seated in an easy chair onstage to deliver her remarks.

My point is that the Hildebeest is arrogant enough to believe she could waltz into the White House like FDR, using the press to ignore her obvious disability.  Something is going on with her and nobody knows for sure just what it is.  Until she releases her actual medical records, any opinion by a "doctor" who has never examined her is meaningless.

And a "debate" with Bernie Sanders in front of a friendly audience is one thing, a face to face all-out brawl with Donald Trump is quite another.  Different stresses that she may well be incapable of controlling.  What if she has another coughing fit live on stage??  What if she faints, or has some kind of seizure live and in color?? 

The Hildebeest has a lot more reasons to duck a debate than The Donald does.  He's far quicker on his feet than she ever will be.

[starstruck]

LOL!!  The only people who thought Trump did "well" in primary debates were those who answered those phony Drudge polls.   He showed a profound ignorance and he will show even more ignorance if he has to give more than a one or two sentence response to a question without 16 other people on the stage.

As for negotiating the rules, no he doesn't get a say. The rules are the rules, nobody's objected since 1996, and he will accept the rules or not debate, which will sink him even further in the polls.

Trump is in serious trouble. Quibbling about debate rules and thundering over "rigged" results is just flop sweat from Big Orange.

Yeah amazing how he won every debate and his negatives continued to skyrocket.

[Bigun]

All of this hysteria and self-congratulation by the pro-Hillary posters is a little amusing to me, but it is all unnecessary. I think your 'Hillary for President' campaign is going just fine. No need to worry.

There is not a single pro Hillary poster on this board that I am aware of! Not a single one but they lie continues to be repeated regardless!

[musiclady]

There is not a single pro Hillary poster on this board that I am aware of! Not a single one but they lie continues to be repeated regardless!

They have all been warned about this lie, and yet they keep repeating it.

So I'll repeat what you said louder....

THERE ARE NO PRO-HILLARY POSTERS ON THIS BOARD AND SAYING THERE ARE IS A DELIBERATE LIE.

[sinkspur]

Take this to the bank: Hannity's BS is the last thing I would buy into.  I base my comments on the fact that the speeches we do have video of show her seated in an easy chair onstage to deliver her remarks.

My point is that the Hildebeest is arrogant enough to believe she could waltz into the White House like FDR, using the press to ignore her obvious disability.  Something is going on with her and nobody knows for sure just what it is.  Until she releases her actual medical records, any opinion by a "doctor" who has never examined her is meaningless.

And a "debate" with Bernie Sanders in front of a friendly audience is one thing, a face to face all-out brawl with Donald Trump is quite another.  Different stresses that she may well be incapable of controlling.  What if she has another coughing fit live on stage??  What if she faints, or has some kind of seizure live and in color?? 

The Hildebeest has a lot more reasons to duck a debate than The Donald does.  He's far quicker on his feet than she ever will be.

Yeah.  Quicker with lies and bullshit.  Trump is IGNORANT!!!  He doesn't have a context in which to place facts, so he quickly veers off into nonsense (like his complete unawareness that Russia was already in Ukraine).

Hillary is a policy wonk and will mop the floor with Trump and his advisors know it, thought I doubt he does.

A "brawl" is exactly what Hillary wants the debates to turn into.  The more Trump is Trump, the more detrimental to him.  She will look cool, he'll look crazy.

Cool beats crazy.

[Cripplecreek]

There is not a single pro Hillary poster on this board that I am aware of! Not a single one but they lie continues to be repeated regardless!

You have to question the intelligence of people who keep peddling that "Pro Hillary" and "Pro Democrat" crap election after election after election with zero results. Its just impotent ranting amidst personal failure.

[240B]

I think, and this is only MY single opinion, that it is ridiculous to say that there are No Hillary supporters! Just by plain mathematical odds, there must be at least a few. But, nonetheless, what is the correct term for people who vote against one candidate, with full knowledge that the result will be the other candidate will win?

Just give me the term to use, and I will go with it. If you don't support Trump, Hillary wins. And that, I don't support either one doesn't work.

[unknown]

http://trumpcardcain.com/

[Bigun]

I think, and this is only MY single opinion, that it is ridiculous to say that there are No Hillary supporters! Just by plain mathematical odds, there must be at least a few. But, nonetheless, what is the correct term for people who vote against one candidate, with full knowledge that the result will be the other candidate will win?

Just give me the term to use, and I will go with it. If you don't support Trump, Hillary wins. And that, I don't support either one doesn't work.

A total and complete logical fallacy!  If enough people vote for neither Trump or Hillary neither will be sworn in as president on Jan. 20, 2017 ! THAT is a fact!

[musiclady]

I think, and this is only MY single opinion, that it is ridiculous to say that there are No Hillary supporters! Just by plain mathematical odds, there must be at least a few. But, nonetheless, what is the correct term for people who vote against one candidate, with full knowledge that the result will be the other candidate will win?

Just give me the term to use, and I will go with it. If you don't support Trump, Hillary wins. And that, I don't support either one doesn't work.

I'll give you a term to use.

Principled, moral conservatives.

We don't want EITHER amoral, corrupt liberal in the WH.

But then, you knew that, didn't you, and keep repeating your false charge anyway.......

Disgusting.

[mystery-ak]

Please stay on topic and stop the personal attacks...

[flowers]

http://trumpcardcain.com/

[Bigun]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcUCLwWCihE&feature=youtu.be

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcUCLwWCihE&feature=youtu.be

[Silver Pines]

I think, and this is only MY single opinion, that it is ridiculous to say that there are No Hillary supporters! Just by plain mathematical odds, there must be at least a few. But, nonetheless, what is the correct term for people who vote against one candidate, with full knowledge that the result will be the other candidate will win?

Just give me the term to use, and I will go with it. If you don't support Trump, Hillary wins. And that, I don't support either one doesn't work.

@240B

This is what I don't understand, and maybe you can explain it to me.

After the convention, Trump supporters were crowing that #NeverTrump was dead, irrelevant. You all said that we were a small number and shrinking daily.

What changed?

If we're not that many, and if we couldn't even manage to get Cruz or Rubio to the nomination, how in the world can we keep Trump from the White House?

[HonestJohn]

They have all been warned about this lie, and yet they keep repeating it.

So I'll repeat what you said louder....

THERE ARE NO PRO-HILLARY POSTERS ON THIS BOARD AND SAYING THERE ARE IS A DELIBERATE LIE.

They are only saying it because they know it gets under your skin.  When the response becomes, "So what?" or "Who cares?" or "Okay"... then it gets under *THEIR* skin.

[flowers]

You are either obsessed with Hillary supporters, in which case I recommend you start posting at the Democrat Underground; or you are determined to smear those who refuse to vote for Trump with the "then you support Hilary" lie as a weapon of spite and retaliation.  Either way, it is your own psychological problem.  I'm sorry for you.

He is posting at the cousin site of the DUmp.

[Emjay]

He was a terrible debater, he brought it down to the gutter level and he even skipped one since he loves it so much.

We know Trump was a ghastly debater but Trump thinks he won every debate.  He did on the Drudge poll.  Hahahaha.

[Emjay]

"Breathe, Donald, breathe.

[240B]

@240B

This is what I don't understand, and maybe you can explain it to me.

After the convention, Trump supporters were crowing that #NeverTrump was dead, irrelevant. You all said that we were a small number and shrinking daily.

What changed?

If we're not that many, and if we couldn't even manage to get Cruz or Rubio to the nomination, how in the world can we keep Trump from the White House?

Finally. A normal level-headed question/response.

#NeverTrump as established by the GOPe was severely damaged by the Trump nomination. I doubt there are many people who would debate this.

However, the Hillary campaign seeing this smoldering volcano of self righteous indignation, jumped right in to fill the gap. And now, whether they know it or not, many of the original NeverTrumps, who started with the goal of denying Trump the nomination, are acting as a part of the Hillary campaign.

NeverTrump, having failed at what they were formed to do, have been sucked into the Hillary campaign and are now working for her, in that they are working against Trump and for nobody at all. This obsessive campaigning against Trump can only, only, only result in bolstering the Hillary candidacy. Those who claim not to see this, are being dishonest with themselves and with us. IMO

As you have indicated, the NeverTrump 'movement' as it was at the outset (Kristol, et al) is more or less defunct, and will have little influence on the outcome. However, the NeverTrump diehards who have been conscripted into the Hillary campaign, may have a disproportional amount of influence by giving the apolitical masses the impression that not only the GOPe elites hate Trump (and they hate Cruz as well, btw), but that everyone hates Trump, including the very Republicans who nominated him. Which is what they want to do.

If the NeverTrump movement were what they say they are, they would have little influence. However, now that they have morphed over into a campaigning arm for the Clinton Presidency, now they, combined with the media and everything else, could leverage the outcome by a few percentage points. And that, would be enough to make President Hillary a reality.

I don't particularly care what they do. Everyone has their own perspective and interests. It is the dishonesty of the maneuver that irks me.

It is a pleasure to discuss this with you, CatherineofArago. I hope we will have an opportunity to speak again soon.

[flowers]

Finally. A normal level-headed question/response.

#NeverTrump as established by the GOPe was severely damaged by the Trump nomination. I doubt there are many people who would debate this.

However, the Hillary campaign seeing this smoldering volcano of self righteous indignation, jumped right in to fill the gap. And now, whether they know it or not, many of the original NeverTrumps, who started with the goal of denying Trump the nomination, are acting as a part of the Hillary campaign.

NeverTrump, having failed at what they were formed to do, have been sucked into the Hillary campaign and are now working for her, in that they are working against Trump and for nobody at all. This obsessive campaigning against Trump can only, only, only result in bolstering the Hillary candidacy. Those who claim not to see this, are being dishonest with themselves and with us. IMO

As you have indicated, the NeverTrump 'movement' as it was at the outset (Kristol, et al) is more or less defunct, and will have little influence on the outcome. However, the NeverTrump diehards who have been conscripted into the Hillary campaign, may have a disproportional amount of influence by giving the apolitical masses the impression that not only the GOPe elites hate Trump (and they hate Cruz as well, btw), but that everyone hates Trump, including the very Republicans who nominated him. Which is what they want to do.

If the NeverTrump movement were what they say they are, they would have little influence. However, now that they have morphed over into a campaigning arm for the Clinton Presidency, now they, combined with the media and everything else, could leverage the outcome by a few percentage points. And that, would be enough to make President Hillary a reality.

I don't particularly care what they do. Everyone has their own perspective and interests. It is the dishonesty of the maneuver that irks me.

It is a pleasure to discuss this with you, CatherineofArago. I hope we will have an opportunity to speak again soon.

Thank you 240B! Excellent!  bold type mine. Very, very good.

[DCPatriot]

Finally. A normal level-headed question/response.

#NeverTrump as established by the GOPe was severely damaged by the Trump nomination. I doubt there are many people who would debate this.

However, the Hillary campaign seeing this smoldering volcano of self righteous indignation, jumped right in to fill the gap. And now, whether they know it or not, many of the original NeverTrumps, who started with the goal of denying Trump the nomination, are acting as a part of the Hillary campaign.

NeverTrump, having failed at what they were formed to do, have been sucked into the Hillary campaign and are now working for her, in that they are working against Trump and for nobody at all. This obsessive campaigning against Trump can only, only, only result in bolstering the Hillary candidacy. Those who claim not to see this, are being dishonest with themselves and with us. IMO

As you have indicated, the NeverTrump 'movement' as it was at the outset (Kristol, et al) is more or less defunct, and will have little influence on the outcome. However, the NeverTrump diehards who have been conscripted into the Hillary campaign, may have a disproportional amount of influence by giving the apolitical masses the impression that not only the GOPe elites hate Trump (and they hate Cruz as well, btw), but that everyone hates Trump, including the very Republicans who nominated him. Which is what they want to do.

If the NeverTrump movement were what they say they are, they would have little influence. However, now that they have morphed over into a campaigning arm for the Clinton Presidency, now they, combined with the media and everything else, could leverage the outcome by a few percentage points. And that, would be enough to make President Hillary a reality.

I don't particularly care what they do. Everyone has their own perspective and interests. It is the dishonesty of the maneuver that irks me.

It is a pleasure to discuss this with you, CatherineofArago. I hope we will have an opportunity to speak again soon.

 

[sinkspur]

Finally. A normal level-headed question/response.

#NeverTrump as established by the GOPe was severely damaged by the Trump nomination. I doubt there are many people who would debate this.

However, the Hillary campaign seeing this smoldering volcano of self righteous indignation, jumped right in to fill the gap. And now, whether they know it or not, many of the original NeverTrumps, who started with the goal of denying Trump the nomination, are acting as a part of the Hillary campaign.

NeverTrump, having failed at what they were formed to do, have been sucked into the Hillary campaign and are now working for her, in that they are working against Trump and for nobody at all. This obsessive campaigning against Trump can only, only, only result in bolstering the Hillary candidacy. Those who claim not to see this, are being dishonest with themselves and with us. IMO

As you have indicated, the NeverTrump 'movement' as it was at the outset (Kristol, et al) is more or less defunct, and will have little influence on the outcome. However, the NeverTrump diehards who have been conscripted into the Hillary campaign, may have a disproportional amount of influence by giving the apolitical masses the impression that not only the GOPe elites hate Trump (and they hate Cruz as well, btw), but that everyone hates Trump, including the very Republicans who nominated him. Which is what they want to do.

If the NeverTrump movement were what they say they are, they would have little influence. However, now that they have morphed over into a campaigning arm for the Clinton Presidency, now they, combined with the media and everything else, could leverage the outcome by a few percentage points. And that, would be enough to make President Hillary a reality.

I don't particularly care what they do. Everyone has their own perspective and interests. It is the dishonesty of the maneuver that irks me.

It is a pleasure to discuss this with you, CatherineofArago. I hope we will have an opportunity to speak again soon.

And yet here you are, talking about #NeverTrump.   There is nothing dishonest about not voting for either of two despicable candidates. 

If you favor Trump, then by all means, elect him.   I will have no hand in electing either one because I will vote for neither Hillary nor Trump.

[unknown]

There is nothing dishonest about not voting for either of two despicable candidates. 

If you favor Trump, then by all means, elect him.   I will have no hand in electing either one because I will vote for neither Hillary nor Trump.

Then why do you take it so personal? What is that that drives you so emotionally that you always have to make some comment or many more comments bashing Trump and Trump supporters? Curious minds want to know.

[sinkspur]

Then why do you take it so personal? What is that that drives you so emotionally that you always have to make some comment or many more comments bashing Trump and Trump supporters? Curious minds want to know.

I think Trump is dangerous to the country, much more dangerous than Hillary. 

We've had terrible presidents before.

We've never had crazy.

[XenaLee]

Will Donald Trump try to weasel out of the presidential debates? On the one hand, he has verbally committed to three joint appearances with Hillary Clinton this fall. On the other, he seeks to renegotiate the terms under which the matches will take place. At some point, and soon, Trump will have to decide which matters more: having his conditions met, or stepping into the spotlight as a presidential debater before the largest audience of his career.

During the primary season Trump wielded substantial influence over how the Republican debates were staged, particularly after the kick-off event in Cleveland broke viewership records. Those 24 million people weren’t tuning in for Jeb Bush, a reality that handed Trump the leverage to make demands. Some of the demands were met—shorter program lengths, the inclusion of opening and closing statements, while others were ignored—like the suggestion that the networks contribute their debate profits to charity.

But enormous differences separate primary debates from general election debates, not the least of which is that primary debates fall under the guise of commercial programming, while general election debates are classic examples of public service TV. Trump got away with making demands during the primaries because the cable news networks that sponsored the debates needed his participation to boost ratings. General election match-ups do not include commercials, and haven’t since their inception in 1960. The ratings for presidential debates, huge as they are, cannot be monetized. Debates are pure civic virtue—that’s one of their attractions.


Over the past year the Commission on Presidential Debates has announced the dates, locations and formats of the 2016 general election debates. The Clinton campaign recently accepted these terms, without fanfare and without conditions. Trump, by contrast, is positioning himself as the programs’ would-be executive producer, the type who steps in at the last minute and starts making troublesome changes.

Specifically, Trump has complained about the scheduling of debates against NFL games, ignoring the fact that presidential debates routinely compete with professional sporting events. The commission’s carefully chosen dates were announced almost a year ago, and the host institutions—college campuses across the U.S.—have spent millions of dollars preparing around that calendar. Furthermore, in an age when viewers are adept at juggling multiple screens, such programming conflicts may be irrelevant.

Trump says he wants a voice in choosing debate moderators. In early rounds of presidential debates, from Kennedy-Nixon through the 1980s, this was standard practice. But over the past few cycles the debate commission has made a point of announcing the slate of moderators before the campaigns dive into the nitty-gritty of debate planning. Effectively this has cut candidates and handlers out of the process — that was the commission’s goal, and it’s a laudable one.

Because Trump sees himself as a television maestro, someone with fabulous ideas, we can expect him to weigh in on matters of format and production. Will he ask for a more self-serving structure than the one that’s being proposed? Under the current plan, two of the three debates involve several rounds of 15-minute open discussion periods — hardly Trump’s thing. It is conceivable that he may lobby for a repeat of the Sarah Palin format in her 2008 debate with Joe Biden: ultra-short response times that favor memorized sound bites over sustained arguments. Against Hillary Clinton, this may be Trump’s best hope.

More

http://time.com/4446776/donald-trump-debates/

I think Trump will drum up some lame excuse to not debate Hillary at the last minute.  And why should he even bother with debates?  I mean....it's not like he's actually trying to win or anything.

http://www.redstate.com/joesquire/2016/08/13/maybe-donald-trump-wont-debate/