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?
Mediaite - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Mediaite:
MBFC: Left - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source
Search topics on Ground.News
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.
One of the issues he has is that ABC and the Dems want real time fact checking.
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?
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.
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.
Here’s my proposal.
During each candidate’s first turn to speak, no fact checks are shown, but the fact checkers will use the other candidate’s turn to come up with corrections. Then when it’s the first candidate’s turn again, the start of that their speaking time is used to read the corrections from their previous statement. If the corrections take the whole speaking slot, too bad so sad.
He can just bring in alternative fact checkers
Make him afraid some more
St. Alia of the Knife
lol what a bitch
