Quote (Black XistenZ @ Aug 3 2024 10:34pm)
Trump already accepted a debate under terms which were heavily stacked against him, against Biden. He won decisively, to the point that Democratic elites felt the need to switch their candidate. Trump has offered to debate Kamala, but this time under terms which are slightly more favorable to him (Fox News, in front of an audience, on Sept. 4). There is nothing unfair about these conditions - Trump had already accepted and pulled through a no audience debate on CNN, so why shouldn't we expect Kamala to be willing to "go into the lion's den" in similar fashion?
Generally speaking, after Democrats shoved Biden to the side, they are obviously no longer entitled to the date or the terms of the Trump/Biden debate that Trump's team had previously agreed on. Particularly when you consider that Biden was the democratically elected incumbent with a mandate from voters while Kamala got installed by party elites while the rank and file of the party had no say whatsoever.
Yeah, no Idea why they went with Kamala because she could use Joe Bidens war chest, especially if she raised 200 million dollars on her own, and the amount of campaign funds Biden had on hand at the time of his dropping out was negligible in comparison.
I would of not re done a primary, but allowed the brokered convention to play out with more electable candidates than going with the explicit DEI hire Kamala Harris.
What's better a candidate the public likes, or a shitty candidate with money that can hopefully be used to shape public opinion.
That's basically what this is, the system thinks it can form public opinion of Kamala to be favorable, instead of just fielding a favorable candidate.
Guests cannot view or vote in polls. Please register or login.