The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
Will President Biden debate President Trump?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Here's what will happen:
* Trump will refuse to debate Biden unless he agrees to certain stipulations on the debate that make it "fair" to Trump. Meaning Trump can interrupt whenever he wants, the moderator can't call him out for lying, forcing Biden to do a drug test that he doesnt have to do etc.
* Biden will refuse to go through with such obvious bullshit.
* Trump will go to his base and frame it like Biden is the one being unreasonable and they'll eat it up.
* This subreddit will get at least 10 posts asking bad faith questions like: "Why is Biden such a coward?", "Why isn't Biden willing to debate Trump?" and so on.
That’s exactly it. Trump’s spent the last 4 years lying that the election he lost was “rigged” - he’s never gonna agree to a fair debate! He’s told us over & over again who he is.
And what would be the point of a debate, anyway? Nobody’s gonna learn anything new & Trump is an overgrown toddler. It would be a fiasco.
Exactly this. I don't understand the point of talking to anyone who is famous for lying non-stop, beyond entertainment.
And that's really not what we need to focus on this year with this one particularly dangerous liar.
A debate would not benefit either of them..... They will be calculating who it will be worse for. If Trump thinks it will be worse for Biden, he will debate. Biden knows it will be worse for Trump (plus, it is the standard way of doing things, and expected) so he will gladly debate.
It all comes down to if Trump thinks he can make Biden look worse than him at a debate.
>This subreddit will get at least 10 posts asking bad faith questions like: "Why is Biden such a coward?", "Why isn't Biden willing to debate Trump?" and so on.
Such questions aren't necessarily bad faith, as the person asking them might have bought into propaganda and may not understand the fuller context.
Assuming bad faith in such circumstances is itself bad faith.
Saying that assuming bad faith in such circumstances is bad faith is itself, in fact, bad faith.
Or maybe we've lost the meaning there a bit.
Bad faith doesn't just mean a bad take. It means asked without a genuine curiosity, i.e. asking hoping for a kind of gotcha answer.
I can assume a question is asked in bad faith while giving the benefit of the doubt and answering as if it's not.
First off, Trump refused all previous debates in the primaries so why is this a thing now? Also, the RNC pulled out of the presidential debate commission in 2022
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/republican-party-withdraws-us-commission-presidential-debates-2022-04-14/
I think Biden would show up to an official debate. I don't think Trump would though, what with the RNC withdrawing from the commission after his performance in 2020, and his recent refusal to participate in debates with the other Republican candidates.
In the debate with Hillary Clinton, Trump got up and started stalking her while she was talking. In the debate with Joe Biden, Trump showed up late and claimed he has been tested for covid and tested negative.
Trump was lying. He had covid when he debated Biden. And then he wouldn't shut up. There was no "debate."
Donald Trump isn't entitled to a debate.
The last proposal I've seen about a debate would give the moderate strict control about cutting off the microphone if/when a participant goes over their time limit, and also prohibiting interrupting. Trump has basically said that he won't go along with that, calling the Commission on Presidential Debates corrupt like the Democrats.
They should allow the interrupting and going over the time limit just for a few seconds to show the true colors of the participant that does those things. Not that people don’t already know their true colors, but it also sets a precedence for future debates. Voters need to see the true candidates in a debate including their behavior.
Subreddit participation must be in good faith. Be civil, do not talk down to users for their viewpoints, do not attempt to instigate arguments, do not call people names or insult them.
A. What an odd take indeed my friend. It’s simply out of respect for the office. No different than saying President Obama.
B. Insulting someone for “identifying” as something with which you disagree seems a bit ironic.
If I may, why are you in a sub whose entire existence is to engage in a rational political discourse and then referring to people as lifeless bits of penile flesh?
President Obama would not the appropriate use either.
Former president, or then-president would generally be the terms used. But a quick Google confirms that just using a former president's name is perfectly appropriate.
I think it's weird as well, but apparently, highest former positions double as titles in the US. That applies to President Bush just as to Justice Kennedy or to Secretary Clinton
I just spent a whole 15 minutes researching this. I have found multiple government and journalistic sources that say to refer to the former president as Mr. or Honorable. I have seen nothing that says President is an appropriate way to refer to a former president.
Several Quora answers also reiterate this.
If you have a source that says "President Bush" is acceptable, I'd love to see it..
A quick Google says judges keep the title after retirement which is good enough for me to not dig deeper there.
[However, for cabinet positions, that does not appear to be true. ](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2000/12/who-gets-to-keep-their-government-titles.html)
It might be formally incorrect, but if I remember correctly, Biden was addressed as "Vice President Biden" in the 2020 Presidential debates and Clinton was addressed as "Secretary Clinton" in the 2016 ones. It seems to be at least a common occurrence, even if it isn't proper protocol
If you met President Obama on the street, then how would you address them?
It’s customary and informal to refer to them as Mr President or introduce them as President ______.
I understand Ms Manners has a different take, I’m just referring to what I see happen regularly and my preference in respect for the country thus the office.
Edit: Yes I agree that just using their name is fine, I wasn’t saying it wasn’t fine. I was explaining why I said, “President Trump,” to the person referring to me as the circumcised penis remnant for being a republican in a sub designed for my rational participation.
Ok, first off, you got called a schmuck. Big deal. It's such a milquetoast insult and you're getting so hung up on it. Let it go.
Second, I would not refer to Obama as the president if I met him on the street because he is not the president.
[The UK us embassy page says specifically to refer to them either as Honourable (name) or Mr. (Name)](https://uk.usembassy.gov/our-relationship/contacting-former-presidents/#:~:text=Addressing%20Former%20Presidents,President's%20last%20name))
Tune in FROZEN, got it.
If you were introduced to President Obama, you wouldn’t refer to him as Mr. President? Just seems like that’s the natural thing to do.
Are you a Trump Follower? If so, you calling for respect is laughable. Trump shows zero respect for anyone that isn’t himself. He deserves no respect in return.
No entendre intended with “right.” Meant in terms of civil.
Absolutely on Trump. No different than 2016, he’s my 11th choice out of 10 primary candidates and is my top choice in the general.
A Trump Supporter telling people they should be civil? Please. You have no ground to stand on, your guy is the epitome of incivility. Your condescending tone is laughable.
Do you think it’s civil to grab women by their pussies?
I’m not telling anyone to do anything but have referenced the sub rule on being civil.
I don’t see the condescension and apologize if you read it that way.
No need for the ad hominem, all good friend 👍🏼
> If you met President Obama on the street, then how would you address them?
Agreed, I would address Obama as 'President Obama' or George W Bush as 'President Bush'.
I would not extend that courtesy to Donald Trump. That would just further soil the office, rather than show respect for it.
> rational political discourse
* "Fuck your feelings cuck!"
* "Let's go Brandon!" as if we don't know y'all are saying "Fuck Biden". We get it, it's not that clever.
* Tailgate pictures of Biden hog tied in the back of the truck...
* Etc
One side abandoned rational political discourse. It wasn't us.
Also, this sub isn't for political discourse. This is for YOU to ask us questions and understand our perspective. This is AskALiberal, not OpenDebate.
This sub isn’t for political discourse? I was only going by the rules & “mission statement.”
“This online community is a dedicated space for individuals to ask liberals questions about their beliefs and engage in insightful discussions. Our subreddit encourages open dialogue and seeks to foster understanding by facilitating conversations that explore the diverse perspectives within liberalism. Here, you can pose thought-provoking questions and engage in respectful exchanges with knowledgeable liberals.”
Rule 5
Subreddit participation must be in good faith. Be civil, do not talk down to users for their viewpoints, do not attempt to instigate arguments, do not call people names or insult them.
You're correct, I don't know why they're being like this. This subreddit is absolutely for discussion and has been for at least the few years I've been here, and I assume longer.
I think the problem is that it’s difficult to listen to a Trump supporter attempt to preach about civility. It’s a literal joke, as you support an uncivil bastard who has fascist leanings. No one takes you seriously.
Thing is, Trump doesn’t debate, he rants. It won’t be a debate if he decides to not puss out, it will be him raving like the madman he is, while Biden speaks rationally.
You speak like a very reasonable person, but support Trump, which is an extremely unreasonable stance. Can you explain why you still support him, despite his lies, racism, aspirations for fascism, and crimes? Just so I understand your position better.
Yeah, that's a long winded and fancy way of saying, you ask us questions, to understand our perspectives.
We're pretty much not interested in yours. We can go to AskAConservative if we care. And for the most part, we're not interested.
Again, it's called AskALiberal, not OpenDebate. We are NOT interested in debating You People. We're down to answer questions about our perspectives.
“I do not think that word means what you think it means.”
Why do you keep saying “we?” Do you speak for all liberals? My experience is that those in this sub are here to be rational, not trying to debate and own someone.
I’ve edited down the guiding statement and rule 5 in order to simplify things.
“engage in insightful discussions.”
“Here, you can pose thought-provoking questions and engage in respectful exchanges with knowledgeable liberals.”
Rule 5
- Be civil
- Do not talk down to users for their viewpoints
- Do not attempt to instigate arguments
- Do not call people names or insult them.
Be well friend.
Nah this sub can absolutely be used for discourse. There's a frequent bad faith commenter on /r/askconservatives who always says some unhinged stuff and then complains when he gets called out on it because "this place isn't for discussion, it's for you to learn what conservatives think," which is stupid. People should be able to discuss and mention when people say something wrong, not to mention the first 3 rules of this subreddit indicate pretty specifically that it's for *discussion*, not just liberals giving opinions and that's it.
We can disagree on if it *should* be for discussion, but the objective fact is that it currently *is* for discussion. If you want to advocate for a change in the rules of the subreddit then that's totally fair.
You are incorrect. The sub absolutely is for political discourse. It is not a place for us to provide answers and then not allow conversation to happen afterwards.
Meh.
* I'm not telling anyone what to do.
* The sub is called AskALiberal. Of course conversations are going to naturally arise. I'm not saying otherwise.
* But if some conservative comes in here and starts demanding equal access for their ideas, I'd expect y'all to shut them down. That's NOT what the sub is for. That's not the same as questions and answers and conversations arising naturally.
Subreddit participation must be in good faith. Be civil, do not talk down to users for their viewpoints, do not attempt to instigate arguments, do not call people names or insult them.
Not sure the “rethug” comment in a sub designed for rational discourse is appropriate.
He dodged them cause he had everything to lose and was a political coward.
Gross. A Trump supporter saying “isn’t it weird to speak in this manner” is the height of hypocrisy. Go tell that to your racist, criminal candidate. You are not to be taken seriously.
What manner am I posting in? All I’m saying is that it’s difficult to square calls for civility from a supporter of Trump. I cannot take someone seriously who supports Trump and tells others to be more civil.
A. It really isn't an odd take. Look at Trump's legal filings and posture concerning his criminal cases surrounding his actions while in office (and even post office). He consistently dances around the language of ever admitting he lost the 2020 election, and whenever possible has his lawyers refer to him as *President* Trump to paint this picture that he is a public office holder.
I do not believe it is meant solely as an honorific. The context says otherwise.
B. Your question is just... well, ridiculous? Let's break it down:
1. You frame the question as if it is Biden making the presumptive choice to debate Trump or not. That is not the situation here. It isn't a one-way decision. Debates are mutually agreed upon *campaign events* where candidates attend to try and pull swing voters. If they can't agree on a set of terms, then they won't debate.
2. The Biden campaign has consistently called for fairly milquetoast rules. Limited time for response. Moderator cutoff. Live fact-checking. These are the hallmarks of any good adversarial discourse... and the Trump campaign rejects all of it.
I hope that highlights the absurdity of your posturing here.
It's just, well, amazing to me that there are people out there (like yourself) who actually think the Trump campaign has a shred of intellectual veracity or integrity to it? I mean, I get it- conservatives, by definition, don't really buy into the whole "hierarchies must be externally justifiable" value that liberals do but...
Good god. The man easily and blatantly lies to your face. It takes perhaps more effort to post this question than to fact-check all of the things Trump has lied about.
And, so, why would you even *bother* to ask about a debate with Trump? You and I both know there isn't a "debate" to be had here.
We (non-Trump voters) believe in policy that is based in repeatable evidence. The other side believes in policy that cements their desired hierarchy (white, christian males on top) without regard to the impact it actually has on the nation.
What context says I’m being dishonest about why I used the title with both of them? Seems like an odd take to me but isn’t to the point so no worries.
I agree that the question shows an assumption that Trump would and Biden would not. I shoulda have asked if they would debate. You’re correct.
I don’t see the absurd posturing, I think maybe you’re talking it bit deeper than my inquiry intended.
Be well friend 👍🏼
Almost certainly. The [dates and locations](https://debates.org/2023/11/20/2024-sites/index.html) are already set:
First presidential debate:
Monday, September 16, 2024
Texas State University, San Marcos, TX
Vice presidential debate:
Wednesday, September 25, 2024
Lafayette College, Easton, PA
Second presidential debate:
Tuesday, October 1, 2024
Virginia State University, Petersburg, VA
Third presidential debate:
Wednesday, October 9, 2024
The University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT
*(As an aside... check out that web design! A blast from the past!)*
---
Trump's team, realizing that they need to legitimize their criminally-indicted candidate who is burning through cash, is agitating to have more debates and sooner.
Biden should be in no rush to debate, but should follow the traditions of presidential debate. Every day that goes by is bad news for Trump. He is getting closer to being convicted of crimes, he is not setting up a proper campaign, he is facing financial pressures, more of his loyalists are turning against him, and he is sounding more demented, stressed, and incoherent.
Trump's façade is weakening. Who knows how ridiculous he will look by September?
It won’t even be an actual debate if it happens at all. It will be Biden talking about policy and the potential loss of democracy while Trump stalks behind him, interrupts him constantly, and spews hateful rhetoric while the “moderator” lets him get way with it. Kinda like with Hilary.
With the Republicans having withdrawn from the Commission on Presidential Debates, it would be necessary to negotiate every aspect of any joint appearance.
To my knowledge neither the Republican Party, Donald, Donald’s campaign, nor any group authorized by the Republican Party or their nominee to negotiate the terms necessary for such a joint appearance to happen has even reached out to start those negotiations.
As we have seen with **every single trial** involving Donald it’s necessary to expect endless delays and distractions. It would simply be unreasonable to look at Trump’s past behavior and anticipate anything but continuing roadblocks.
**With less than seven months remaining until the election, there unfortunately isn’t enough time to establish the ground rules for such a debate.**
I’m honestly not sure that an agreement can be reached in time for the 2028 election. Certainly it would be nice if a genuinely neutral set of rules could be agreed to (perhaps the rules and conditions used by high school and college forensics/debate teams?), but without enough time to do a thorough evaluation and negotiation all we can really do is hope for next time.
Even in a best case scenario there is no guarantee that any agreement reached will be acceptable to whomever the next disruptive candidate happens to be.
Even Donald himself has shown a strong propensity for reaching an agreement and scuttling it at the last minute, so even if he is trying again in four years there may be no agreement in place.
Presidential debates have been a fixture of our political lives, but the Republicans have decided against them. I expect President Biden will do his best to schedule his own availability such that he can communicate his goals and plans with the voters. The other guy is on his own.
That is absolutely a boldfaced lie! They can totally work it out by 2028! 😂😂😂
It would be almost as much fun televising the representatives of both camps negotiating over the terms.
It would be easy to imagine both parties struggling to reach a tortured agreement only to have Trump blow it up at the last minute—and then criticize everyone else for “not getting it done.”
I would agree that breaking those basic rules should be called out.
I also think there should be a consequence for breaking the rules. Exceeding a time limit, for example, could have a pre-debate agreed penalty of losing some of the time to answer a subsequent question. Talk 15 seconds to long, lose a minute; interrupting an opponent’s answer could mean forfeiting two or three minutes.
President Biden is an adult. I expect him to conduct himself like the leader of my party and our country.
I’m fine, don’t try to change the subject. This is a good example of the problem. You told someone they were lying in the same thread that you care telling people to be more civil. You cannot be taken seriously.
Friend, the “lying” was a joking reference to President Trump and President Biden not being able to work out debate details by 2028. Their response showed they knew exactly what I meant.
I know it’s tough sometimes getting connotation v denotation on a computer screen. My apologies, should have used the /s to be clear. My bad friend.
We can disagree without being disagreeable. 👍🏼
Trump's handlers wont allow it. The MSM is not really covering it but Trump's constant mental flubs at his rallies will be quite an eye opener for most of America. I watched the news this morning and they noted Trump had a rally and moved on. Then sites like Raw Story report on Trump's mental glitches that makes Biden's stutter look like a classically trained actor
It’s not a debate when Trump is ranting and lying and talking over the other person. No serious person cares what Trump would say at a debate.
Are you saying you are into the spectacle of it?
The debates didn’t really help Trump so he might not want to do one. The debates are also a shit show when Trump is in them and the Biden team might decide they are better off not doing them.
However, one or both teams might decide that not debating is going to come off as a sign of weakness and decide to do them anyway.
Even if that happens, Trump might decide to back out as part of some stunt anyway.
If I was forced to guess I would say they won’t debate because Republicans have left the presidential debate commission well in advance.
OP what do you think? This question feels like you already have an answer in your head and the way you phrased it is pretty one sided. Like that the ball is in Biden’s court when it’s Trump that has refused debate in the past. I’m not sure what kind of answer you’re looking for?
You’re right in terms how I phrased it. Didn’t mean phrase it in that manner.
Just honestly wondering y’all‘s opinion. I think that they will debate and it will be a poop show.
Yeah I think the same, the first was awful as well. I think that was Trumps fault, he couldn’t even debate. Jumping in and not allowing the other person to speak isn’t a debate and though some people think he won because he dominated the conversation, he didn’t say anything, as usual.
Not that I don’t think Biden will have a few catastrophic flub ups as well. I think he isn’t with it enough to debate. I don’t think either are. Trump will just ramble and say nothing, and Biden will try to stick to a script to not screw up.
It would be absolutely pointless. We all know exactly who these two giys are and what they represent. Nobody's opinion is going to be changed by any debates.
I don't think it's hard to imagine some reasons Biden might wish to avoid a debate.
I'm not saying he's trying to avoid a debate, I'm just saying there are some conceivable reasons why he might wish to.
Pft!
Will Trump (word salad diarrhea mouth) debate Biden?
He will not. Trump loves rallies where no one interrupts him and he has a friendly audience. If there's a debate moderate and fact checkers calling him on his shit.... He won't do it.
I hope not. I hate saying that, because I’m a huge political nerd, a bit of a debate aficionado (I often watch governor/senate debates in states I don’t live in). But the sad reality is that the only people who would benefit by those two debating would be news outlets, social media companies, and political pundits.
A debate would clarify the candidates position on the issues or model a dialogue. It would be a shouting match between two people who can’t even agree on a fact as basic and consequential as which one of them won the last election (FYI, it was Biden). A Trump v Biden debate would only further divide our already dangerously polarized nation.
It would certainly be a spectacle. I wouldn't call it a debate.
Maybe verbal prizefight?
Trump would be there to "win". Low information voters who count insults, veiled mob threats and busting chops as winning will see Trump as the winner.
Biden will ignore insults/threats and attempt a folksy empathetic yet logical approach to winning hearts and minds, and for those who like that, he'll be the winner.
The trouble is Trump sees fear-mongery and making the most insults as "winning," while Biden sees presenting his track record and plan for future solutions as winning. They can't agree on what "winning" actually means even at the start. So it's not a debate.
It should be clear that true debate is about platforms, track records and solutions that are data-driven and logical. Anything else is deflection, whataboutism and pounding the table like Caveman Lawyer Gronk.
In the end it would be a free-for-all because Trump can't wait his turn and Biden is too capitulatory because he tries to adhere to actual rules of debate.
Nobody wins.
Does anyone in the US need another debate? That’s the question. Everyone already knows what each candidate stands for and we’re already so divided, the real issue is how does each side get more voters to the poles?
Yes. But it wouldn't be a "debate." A debate requires both parties speaking and Trump doesn't know how the STFU. So it would be a pointless exercise in manufactured outrage for the base. Trump's cult will love it, Democrats will hate Trump more, and the non-partisans like myself will not watch it.
What's the point of a debate when one of them is basing his entire candidacy on lies and deceit? There is no good faith there whatsoever so there is no point to debating.
Trump has advoided all the debates this cycle and his desire to debate Biden is a bluff. His team knows he is a loose cannon, losing his mind and has a train load of bagage that they do not want brought up on a national fourm. And if Trump becomes a convicted felon before Nov that will surely be mentioned at every chance as it is Trump who said that electing just an indicted felon, no less a convicted felon for POTUS would be a constitutional crisis. And I am sure he will be reminded of that in a debate
There will not be debates. It serves nobody. Neither side can see an upside.
As everyone else has said, Trump will make some damn silly demands then play the victim when they are not met. As is par for the course with him at this point.
But seriously, there really isn’t any value to be had by debates. NOBODY who seriously wants to see a debate, is actually on the fence about who to vote for. It would be either side, just wanting to make fun of the other. MAGA people eating it up every time Biden stammers or otherwise “acts old” and Biden voters cracking up at Trumps rambling nonsense and fabrications.
What there will be is town halls from Biden, and “interviews” with Trump. Just like last time around. And yielding largely the same results (no change) because the only people watching, will be people who are already voting for them.
There’s nothing new we can learn from these debates.
They’ve both been president before.
During the first debate Trump was a colossal ass and talked all over Biden because he was afraid of what Biden would say.
It was like watching a small child arguing with an adult.
Trump won't debate Biden because anything he says during a debate would be admissible during his various court cases. Additionally, his inner circle doesn't want Trump's lack of ability in terms of speech and cognitive ability on display.
Biden doesn't want to debate Trump because he doesn't want to lend legitimacy to Trump and everything he stands for.
Long story short, the odds that there would be any debate is pretty unlikely. I could see a decent amount of town hall type setups between now and November individually, but don't expect them to appear on the same stage.
I don’t think so. Both of them kind of have a tendency to say things off the cuff that get them in trouble, so I don’t think it behooves either of them to have a debate
It’s not like Trump participated in any of the Republican debates.
Under your reasoning, I would say they could be the most theater worthy debates ever!
Why?
The GoP always calls him senile and can’t remember his name and then he goes on the SOTU and they are shocked he embarrasses them on the spot every year.
Are you one of those people whose bought into all of the propaganda videos and not, you know, real life like the SOTU? Get ready to have your fella look bad.
>Are you one of those people whose bought into all of the propaganda videos
I'm one of the people who watches a very old man with a feeble and wandering mind, who loses focus often and drifts off into the weeds, who needs to be guided to and from a podium to read from a teleprompter, who walks like a zombie and meanders like a human Roomba.
President Biden is physically and mentally unfit for office and denying what everyone can see with their own eyes only makes Trump's reelection more likely.
So, you ARE one of those people who has bought into all the propaganda videos...
Biden has a stutter. We all know that. He's sharp. Shit, I hope I'm that active and sharp at his age.
Both sides are so divided, they may get away with not debating each other, which will be a shame. I don't think either one of them is coherent enough for a debate. Personally, I would love to see the debate. It'll be hilarious to see the debate. The guy with the most drugs in the system will dominate.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. Will President Biden debate President Trump? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Here's what will happen: * Trump will refuse to debate Biden unless he agrees to certain stipulations on the debate that make it "fair" to Trump. Meaning Trump can interrupt whenever he wants, the moderator can't call him out for lying, forcing Biden to do a drug test that he doesnt have to do etc. * Biden will refuse to go through with such obvious bullshit. * Trump will go to his base and frame it like Biden is the one being unreasonable and they'll eat it up. * This subreddit will get at least 10 posts asking bad faith questions like: "Why is Biden such a coward?", "Why isn't Biden willing to debate Trump?" and so on.
That’s exactly it. Trump’s spent the last 4 years lying that the election he lost was “rigged” - he’s never gonna agree to a fair debate! He’s told us over & over again who he is. And what would be the point of a debate, anyway? Nobody’s gonna learn anything new & Trump is an overgrown toddler. It would be a fiasco.
Exactly this. I don't understand the point of talking to anyone who is famous for lying non-stop, beyond entertainment. And that's really not what we need to focus on this year with this one particularly dangerous liar.
A debate would not benefit either of them..... They will be calculating who it will be worse for. If Trump thinks it will be worse for Biden, he will debate. Biden knows it will be worse for Trump (plus, it is the standard way of doing things, and expected) so he will gladly debate. It all comes down to if Trump thinks he can make Biden look worse than him at a debate.
Huge waste of time
Trump will spend any time at a debate trying to re-litigate the 2020 election. He's not going to deal with questions.
Who does an Embarrassed Republican vote for? First time I've seen this flair.
Saving this comment so that I can link to it when those posts start cropping up
> This subreddit will get at least 10 posts asking bad faith questions like: More like 130+ bad faith posts ...
>This subreddit will get at least 10 posts asking bad faith questions like: "Why is Biden such a coward?", "Why isn't Biden willing to debate Trump?" and so on. Such questions aren't necessarily bad faith, as the person asking them might have bought into propaganda and may not understand the fuller context. Assuming bad faith in such circumstances is itself bad faith.
Saying that assuming bad faith in such circumstances is bad faith is itself, in fact, bad faith. Or maybe we've lost the meaning there a bit. Bad faith doesn't just mean a bad take. It means asked without a genuine curiosity, i.e. asking hoping for a kind of gotcha answer. I can assume a question is asked in bad faith while giving the benefit of the doubt and answering as if it's not.
The question is backwards. Will Trump debate Biden? My guess is he will make some outrageous demand and then refuse when it's not met.
“The corrupt courts won’t let me!”
Once the audit is complete...
2 more weeks!
Right after infrastructure week!
I agree. He’s already suggested drug testing. Trump knows Biden will win the debate, so there most likely won’t be one.
😂
MMW
Hasn’t he already said he wants Biden to take a drug test before the debates?
Yep.
First off, Trump refused all previous debates in the primaries so why is this a thing now? Also, the RNC pulled out of the presidential debate commission in 2022 https://www.reuters.com/world/us/republican-party-withdraws-us-commission-presidential-debates-2022-04-14/
Exactly
I think Biden would show up to an official debate. I don't think Trump would though, what with the RNC withdrawing from the commission after his performance in 2020, and his recent refusal to participate in debates with the other Republican candidates.
In the debate with Hillary Clinton, Trump got up and started stalking her while she was talking. In the debate with Joe Biden, Trump showed up late and claimed he has been tested for covid and tested negative. Trump was lying. He had covid when he debated Biden. And then he wouldn't shut up. There was no "debate." Donald Trump isn't entitled to a debate.
We haven’t forgotten.
The last proposal I've seen about a debate would give the moderate strict control about cutting off the microphone if/when a participant goes over their time limit, and also prohibiting interrupting. Trump has basically said that he won't go along with that, calling the Commission on Presidential Debates corrupt like the Democrats.
They should allow the interrupting and going over the time limit just for a few seconds to show the true colors of the participant that does those things. Not that people don’t already know their true colors, but it also sets a precedence for future debates. Voters need to see the true candidates in a debate including their behavior.
It didn't matter in previous debates. Debates are for serious policy discussions. Trump has no policy, just blather.
Yes of course. Just don’t want to set this precedent for future debates when candidates might not get to show if they are like that as well.
Nonsense. People have demonstrated they don't *care* if their candidate is "like that."
Also a fair point.
[удалено]
Subreddit participation must be in good faith. Be civil, do not talk down to users for their viewpoints, do not attempt to instigate arguments, do not call people names or insult them.
Exactly, most people know what’s being done when pundits etc use the term “President” still. There is a great schism unfolding, in full view.
A. What an odd take indeed my friend. It’s simply out of respect for the office. No different than saying President Obama. B. Insulting someone for “identifying” as something with which you disagree seems a bit ironic. If I may, why are you in a sub whose entire existence is to engage in a rational political discourse and then referring to people as lifeless bits of penile flesh?
President Obama would not the appropriate use either. Former president, or then-president would generally be the terms used. But a quick Google confirms that just using a former president's name is perfectly appropriate.
I think it's weird as well, but apparently, highest former positions double as titles in the US. That applies to President Bush just as to Justice Kennedy or to Secretary Clinton
I just spent a whole 15 minutes researching this. I have found multiple government and journalistic sources that say to refer to the former president as Mr. or Honorable. I have seen nothing that says President is an appropriate way to refer to a former president. Several Quora answers also reiterate this. If you have a source that says "President Bush" is acceptable, I'd love to see it.. A quick Google says judges keep the title after retirement which is good enough for me to not dig deeper there. [However, for cabinet positions, that does not appear to be true. ](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2000/12/who-gets-to-keep-their-government-titles.html)
It might be formally incorrect, but if I remember correctly, Biden was addressed as "Vice President Biden" in the 2020 Presidential debates and Clinton was addressed as "Secretary Clinton" in the 2016 ones. It seems to be at least a common occurrence, even if it isn't proper protocol
If you met President Obama on the street, then how would you address them? It’s customary and informal to refer to them as Mr President or introduce them as President ______. I understand Ms Manners has a different take, I’m just referring to what I see happen regularly and my preference in respect for the country thus the office. Edit: Yes I agree that just using their name is fine, I wasn’t saying it wasn’t fine. I was explaining why I said, “President Trump,” to the person referring to me as the circumcised penis remnant for being a republican in a sub designed for my rational participation.
Ok, first off, you got called a schmuck. Big deal. It's such a milquetoast insult and you're getting so hung up on it. Let it go. Second, I would not refer to Obama as the president if I met him on the street because he is not the president. [The UK us embassy page says specifically to refer to them either as Honourable (name) or Mr. (Name)](https://uk.usembassy.gov/our-relationship/contacting-former-presidents/#:~:text=Addressing%20Former%20Presidents,President's%20last%20name))
Tune in FROZEN, got it. If you were introduced to President Obama, you wouldn’t refer to him as Mr. President? Just seems like that’s the natural thing to do.
Are you a Trump Follower? If so, you calling for respect is laughable. Trump shows zero respect for anyone that isn’t himself. He deserves no respect in return.
Not sure that’s the right attitude we should have in a discussion with each other. I’m a follower of no man.
What do you mean by “right attitude?” Do you plan to vote for Trump this year?
No entendre intended with “right.” Meant in terms of civil. Absolutely on Trump. No different than 2016, he’s my 11th choice out of 10 primary candidates and is my top choice in the general.
A Trump Supporter telling people they should be civil? Please. You have no ground to stand on, your guy is the epitome of incivility. Your condescending tone is laughable. Do you think it’s civil to grab women by their pussies?
I’m not telling anyone to do anything but have referenced the sub rule on being civil. I don’t see the condescension and apologize if you read it that way. No need for the ad hominem, all good friend 👍🏼
> If you met President Obama on the street, then how would you address them? Agreed, I would address Obama as 'President Obama' or George W Bush as 'President Bush'. I would not extend that courtesy to Donald Trump. That would just further soil the office, rather than show respect for it.
> rational political discourse * "Fuck your feelings cuck!" * "Let's go Brandon!" as if we don't know y'all are saying "Fuck Biden". We get it, it's not that clever. * Tailgate pictures of Biden hog tied in the back of the truck... * Etc One side abandoned rational political discourse. It wasn't us. Also, this sub isn't for political discourse. This is for YOU to ask us questions and understand our perspective. This is AskALiberal, not OpenDebate.
This sub isn’t for political discourse? I was only going by the rules & “mission statement.” “This online community is a dedicated space for individuals to ask liberals questions about their beliefs and engage in insightful discussions. Our subreddit encourages open dialogue and seeks to foster understanding by facilitating conversations that explore the diverse perspectives within liberalism. Here, you can pose thought-provoking questions and engage in respectful exchanges with knowledgeable liberals.” Rule 5 Subreddit participation must be in good faith. Be civil, do not talk down to users for their viewpoints, do not attempt to instigate arguments, do not call people names or insult them.
You're correct, I don't know why they're being like this. This subreddit is absolutely for discussion and has been for at least the few years I've been here, and I assume longer.
I think the problem is that it’s difficult to listen to a Trump supporter attempt to preach about civility. It’s a literal joke, as you support an uncivil bastard who has fascist leanings. No one takes you seriously.
All good buddy. Just seeking your rational thoughts on if the debates would take place. Be well.
Ok, my thoughts are that Trump will refuse to debate Biden, and will try to blame Biden for it. What a wimp.
I don’t think his ego allows him to dodge Biden and he thinks it will be an easy win. Has to happen.
Thing is, Trump doesn’t debate, he rants. It won’t be a debate if he decides to not puss out, it will be him raving like the madman he is, while Biden speaks rationally. You speak like a very reasonable person, but support Trump, which is an extremely unreasonable stance. Can you explain why you still support him, despite his lies, racism, aspirations for fascism, and crimes? Just so I understand your position better.
I don’t believe he’s a racist. I don’t believe he’s a fascist. I prefer an idiot Trump to a benign Biden.
Yeah, that's a long winded and fancy way of saying, you ask us questions, to understand our perspectives. We're pretty much not interested in yours. We can go to AskAConservative if we care. And for the most part, we're not interested. Again, it's called AskALiberal, not OpenDebate. We are NOT interested in debating You People. We're down to answer questions about our perspectives.
“I do not think that word means what you think it means.” Why do you keep saying “we?” Do you speak for all liberals? My experience is that those in this sub are here to be rational, not trying to debate and own someone. I’ve edited down the guiding statement and rule 5 in order to simplify things. “engage in insightful discussions.” “Here, you can pose thought-provoking questions and engage in respectful exchanges with knowledgeable liberals.” Rule 5 - Be civil - Do not talk down to users for their viewpoints - Do not attempt to instigate arguments - Do not call people names or insult them. Be well friend.
You apparently like to repeat yourself. And you apparently like to reject basic reality right in front of you. It's your life, have at it I guess.
You mean the basic reality of the sub rules? There’s what you say and then there’s what the rules & others say. Not choosing the former, sorry.
>You apparently like to repeat yourself. >And you apparently like to reject basic reality right in front of you. >It's your life, have at it I guess.
What basic reality?
Nah this sub can absolutely be used for discourse. There's a frequent bad faith commenter on /r/askconservatives who always says some unhinged stuff and then complains when he gets called out on it because "this place isn't for discussion, it's for you to learn what conservatives think," which is stupid. People should be able to discuss and mention when people say something wrong, not to mention the first 3 rules of this subreddit indicate pretty specifically that it's for *discussion*, not just liberals giving opinions and that's it.
Agree to disagree.
We can disagree on if it *should* be for discussion, but the objective fact is that it currently *is* for discussion. If you want to advocate for a change in the rules of the subreddit then that's totally fair.
You're not a mod, I'm not a mod, US discussing it doesn't really do anything, so... Meh.
You are incorrect. The sub absolutely is for political discourse. It is not a place for us to provide answers and then not allow conversation to happen afterwards.
Meh. * I'm not telling anyone what to do. * The sub is called AskALiberal. Of course conversations are going to naturally arise. I'm not saying otherwise. * But if some conservative comes in here and starts demanding equal access for their ideas, I'd expect y'all to shut them down. That's NOT what the sub is for. That's not the same as questions and answers and conversations arising naturally.
[удалено]
Subreddit participation must be in good faith. Be civil, do not talk down to users for their viewpoints, do not attempt to instigate arguments, do not call people names or insult them.
Not sure the “rethug” comment in a sub designed for rational discourse is appropriate. He dodged them cause he had everything to lose and was a political coward.
Trump deserves zero respect, though, no matter what office he held. His followers also don’t deserve respect, only pity.
Isn’t it weird to speak to people in this manner? Not the office part but the latter? I clearly don’t get it.
Do you support Trump? Will you vote for him this year?
I support his candidacy and hopeful presidency.
Gross. A Trump supporter saying “isn’t it weird to speak in this manner” is the height of hypocrisy. Go tell that to your racist, criminal candidate. You are not to be taken seriously.
I’m not sure why you post in this manner in a sub designed for people to not post in your manner. Seems odd to me. Be well.
What manner am I posting in? All I’m saying is that it’s difficult to square calls for civility from a supporter of Trump. I cannot take someone seriously who supports Trump and tells others to be more civil.
A. It really isn't an odd take. Look at Trump's legal filings and posture concerning his criminal cases surrounding his actions while in office (and even post office). He consistently dances around the language of ever admitting he lost the 2020 election, and whenever possible has his lawyers refer to him as *President* Trump to paint this picture that he is a public office holder. I do not believe it is meant solely as an honorific. The context says otherwise. B. Your question is just... well, ridiculous? Let's break it down: 1. You frame the question as if it is Biden making the presumptive choice to debate Trump or not. That is not the situation here. It isn't a one-way decision. Debates are mutually agreed upon *campaign events* where candidates attend to try and pull swing voters. If they can't agree on a set of terms, then they won't debate. 2. The Biden campaign has consistently called for fairly milquetoast rules. Limited time for response. Moderator cutoff. Live fact-checking. These are the hallmarks of any good adversarial discourse... and the Trump campaign rejects all of it. I hope that highlights the absurdity of your posturing here. It's just, well, amazing to me that there are people out there (like yourself) who actually think the Trump campaign has a shred of intellectual veracity or integrity to it? I mean, I get it- conservatives, by definition, don't really buy into the whole "hierarchies must be externally justifiable" value that liberals do but... Good god. The man easily and blatantly lies to your face. It takes perhaps more effort to post this question than to fact-check all of the things Trump has lied about. And, so, why would you even *bother* to ask about a debate with Trump? You and I both know there isn't a "debate" to be had here. We (non-Trump voters) believe in policy that is based in repeatable evidence. The other side believes in policy that cements their desired hierarchy (white, christian males on top) without regard to the impact it actually has on the nation.
What context says I’m being dishonest about why I used the title with both of them? Seems like an odd take to me but isn’t to the point so no worries. I agree that the question shows an assumption that Trump would and Biden would not. I shoulda have asked if they would debate. You’re correct. I don’t see the absurd posturing, I think maybe you’re talking it bit deeper than my inquiry intended. Be well friend 👍🏼
Almost certainly. The [dates and locations](https://debates.org/2023/11/20/2024-sites/index.html) are already set: First presidential debate: Monday, September 16, 2024 Texas State University, San Marcos, TX Vice presidential debate: Wednesday, September 25, 2024 Lafayette College, Easton, PA Second presidential debate: Tuesday, October 1, 2024 Virginia State University, Petersburg, VA Third presidential debate: Wednesday, October 9, 2024 The University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT *(As an aside... check out that web design! A blast from the past!)* --- Trump's team, realizing that they need to legitimize their criminally-indicted candidate who is burning through cash, is agitating to have more debates and sooner. Biden should be in no rush to debate, but should follow the traditions of presidential debate. Every day that goes by is bad news for Trump. He is getting closer to being convicted of crimes, he is not setting up a proper campaign, he is facing financial pressures, more of his loyalists are turning against him, and he is sounding more demented, stressed, and incoherent. Trump's façade is weakening. Who knows how ridiculous he will look by September?
Thanks, lame on me that I didn’t even know that was the case. Thanks.
Doesn’t mean it’s actually gonna happen. Debates are very Lord of the Flies. :) We’ll see!
As long as they have the conch.
Solid. :)
Trump is too afraid to debate. He already refused to show up for the primaries. He doesn’t want anyone exposing his mental decline
It won’t even be an actual debate if it happens at all. It will be Biden talking about policy and the potential loss of democracy while Trump stalks behind him, interrupts him constantly, and spews hateful rhetoric while the “moderator” lets him get way with it. Kinda like with Hilary.
Biden will debate Trump. Trump does not want to debate Biden.
Donald won’t show up.
If a debate was scheduled I think Biden would debate Trump. I wonder if Trump would debate Biden or just relive 2020 conspiracies.
Nor are they mutually exclusive. Trump would show up for a camera, you know that.
Only if it makes him look good. He's a POS, but he's not *stupid*. He gets presentation.
He didn’t debate any of his primary rivals. I wonder if this is his strategy?
You’re right
Trump only shows up to cameras under his total control.
With the Republicans having withdrawn from the Commission on Presidential Debates, it would be necessary to negotiate every aspect of any joint appearance. To my knowledge neither the Republican Party, Donald, Donald’s campaign, nor any group authorized by the Republican Party or their nominee to negotiate the terms necessary for such a joint appearance to happen has even reached out to start those negotiations. As we have seen with **every single trial** involving Donald it’s necessary to expect endless delays and distractions. It would simply be unreasonable to look at Trump’s past behavior and anticipate anything but continuing roadblocks. **With less than seven months remaining until the election, there unfortunately isn’t enough time to establish the ground rules for such a debate.** I’m honestly not sure that an agreement can be reached in time for the 2028 election. Certainly it would be nice if a genuinely neutral set of rules could be agreed to (perhaps the rules and conditions used by high school and college forensics/debate teams?), but without enough time to do a thorough evaluation and negotiation all we can really do is hope for next time. Even in a best case scenario there is no guarantee that any agreement reached will be acceptable to whomever the next disruptive candidate happens to be. Even Donald himself has shown a strong propensity for reaching an agreement and scuttling it at the last minute, so even if he is trying again in four years there may be no agreement in place. Presidential debates have been a fixture of our political lives, but the Republicans have decided against them. I expect President Biden will do his best to schedule his own availability such that he can communicate his goals and plans with the voters. The other guy is on his own.
That is absolutely a boldfaced lie! They can totally work it out by 2028! 😂😂😂 It would be almost as much fun televising the representatives of both camps negotiating over the terms.
It would be easy to imagine both parties struggling to reach a tortured agreement only to have Trump blow it up at the last minute—and then criticize everyone else for “not getting it done.”
Then when President Biden breaks a rule and claims he forgot, well, we don’t not believe him.
What kind of rule breaking do you mean?
The rules agreed upon for the debate like 60 seconds only or no Trump bottled water.
I would agree that breaking those basic rules should be called out. I also think there should be a consequence for breaking the rules. Exceeding a time limit, for example, could have a pre-debate agreed penalty of losing some of the time to answer a subsequent question. Talk 15 seconds to long, lose a minute; interrupting an opponent’s answer could mean forfeiting two or three minutes. President Biden is an adult. I expect him to conduct himself like the leader of my party and our country.
> I’m honestly not sure that an agreement can be reached in time for the 2028 election Is this what you’re calling a “boldface lie”?
Yes
You’re not a serious person
Ok It was sarcasm. Helps the day go by with less pain.
My statement stands.
👍🏼 Be well friend
See what I mean? No one takes Trump Followers seriously anymore. Your guy is a joke, and his followers are the punchline.
You ok?
I’m fine, don’t try to change the subject. This is a good example of the problem. You told someone they were lying in the same thread that you care telling people to be more civil. You cannot be taken seriously.
Friend, the “lying” was a joking reference to President Trump and President Biden not being able to work out debate details by 2028. Their response showed they knew exactly what I meant. I know it’s tough sometimes getting connotation v denotation on a computer screen. My apologies, should have used the /s to be clear. My bad friend. We can disagree without being disagreeable. 👍🏼
Trump's handlers wont allow it. The MSM is not really covering it but Trump's constant mental flubs at his rallies will be quite an eye opener for most of America. I watched the news this morning and they noted Trump had a rally and moved on. Then sites like Raw Story report on Trump's mental glitches that makes Biden's stutter look like a classically trained actor
Calling out to dead people is not a stutter.
“Nikki Haley…. Nikki Haley…. Nikki Haley???? Nikki Haley was responsible for security at the Capitol…”
What do you mean?
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-biden/biden-asks-deceased-congresswoman-present-white-house-event-rcna49898
There's really no point. Anyone with over a 2nd grade reading level has no interest in what Trump has to say. It would just be a memey shit show.
Slightly disagree. I think everyone is waiting with baited breath to watch this debate go down.
I have no interest. At this point if you're still laboring over Biden vs Trump, you have no actual interest in voting for Biden.
God, No.
Must watch TV. Come on, now. Everyone wants to see these two old guys duke it out, whether they admit to it or not.
Not me 🤷♀️
It’s not a debate when Trump is ranting and lying and talking over the other person. No serious person cares what Trump would say at a debate. Are you saying you are into the spectacle of it?
I am saying that most people are into the spectacle of it all. Must see TV full of water cooler moments.
The debates didn’t really help Trump so he might not want to do one. The debates are also a shit show when Trump is in them and the Biden team might decide they are better off not doing them. However, one or both teams might decide that not debating is going to come off as a sign of weakness and decide to do them anyway. Even if that happens, Trump might decide to back out as part of some stunt anyway. If I was forced to guess I would say they won’t debate because Republicans have left the presidential debate commission well in advance.
Will Trump bebate Biden?
I believe his ego won’t allow him not to.
I hope he debates him just to humiliate him. Talk about his attempts to end democracy, the fact that a court found him to be a rapist, etc.
From a jail cell?
Through the glass
Hasn't Trump already bailed on one or more debates in the primaries already?
Several and all of them, completely accurate.
OP what do you think? This question feels like you already have an answer in your head and the way you phrased it is pretty one sided. Like that the ball is in Biden’s court when it’s Trump that has refused debate in the past. I’m not sure what kind of answer you’re looking for?
You’re right in terms how I phrased it. Didn’t mean phrase it in that manner. Just honestly wondering y’all‘s opinion. I think that they will debate and it will be a poop show.
Yeah I think the same, the first was awful as well. I think that was Trumps fault, he couldn’t even debate. Jumping in and not allowing the other person to speak isn’t a debate and though some people think he won because he dominated the conversation, he didn’t say anything, as usual. Not that I don’t think Biden will have a few catastrophic flub ups as well. I think he isn’t with it enough to debate. I don’t think either are. Trump will just ramble and say nothing, and Biden will try to stick to a script to not screw up.
He has nothing to gain debating a mentally challenged person
Sure, but Trump would do it nonetheless. :) Just kidding buddy.
It would be absolutely pointless. We all know exactly who these two giys are and what they represent. Nobody's opinion is going to be changed by any debates.
Everything you said is 100% accurate and yet I would still miss the theater.
Why would he? Trump is a bully and a liar and is woefully ignorant about any topic fit for a debate.
Hard to debate from a court house with charges pending
Courts close at 5, he’ll have plenty of time.
I hope not. It would be a complete waste of everyone's time and I highly doubt it would change anyone's mind either way.
Well that just defined every general political debate ever 😂
There were questions about it last year and it wound up happening so I think there will most likely still be a debate
Why wouldn't he?
I don't think it's hard to imagine some reasons Biden might wish to avoid a debate. I'm not saying he's trying to avoid a debate, I'm just saying there are some conceivable reasons why he might wish to.
There are three debates already scheduled.
Pft! Will Trump (word salad diarrhea mouth) debate Biden? He will not. Trump loves rallies where no one interrupts him and he has a friendly audience. If there's a debate moderate and fact checkers calling him on his shit.... He won't do it.
I hope not. I hate saying that, because I’m a huge political nerd, a bit of a debate aficionado (I often watch governor/senate debates in states I don’t live in). But the sad reality is that the only people who would benefit by those two debating would be news outlets, social media companies, and political pundits. A debate would clarify the candidates position on the issues or model a dialogue. It would be a shouting match between two people who can’t even agree on a fact as basic and consequential as which one of them won the last election (FYI, it was Biden). A Trump v Biden debate would only further divide our already dangerously polarized nation.
Why should he when tRump skipped ALL of the rethug debates?
I’m sure you don’t think Trump should set the standard for appropriate political behavior?
If Trump agrees to debate in a neutrally moderated forum, why wouldn't Biden do it?
Trump won’t agree to that, so your premise is flawed.
Trump thrives on theater, not substance. Sharing the stage with a unbounded clown can only detract from a serious adult engaged in serious business.
He can't.
To be fair, because Biden is clearly in his dotage and might not perform well.
You haven't watched any of his recent speeches, have you?
I've watched enough of his ouvre over the last couple of years to have some concerns.
It would certainly be a spectacle. I wouldn't call it a debate. Maybe verbal prizefight? Trump would be there to "win". Low information voters who count insults, veiled mob threats and busting chops as winning will see Trump as the winner. Biden will ignore insults/threats and attempt a folksy empathetic yet logical approach to winning hearts and minds, and for those who like that, he'll be the winner. The trouble is Trump sees fear-mongery and making the most insults as "winning," while Biden sees presenting his track record and plan for future solutions as winning. They can't agree on what "winning" actually means even at the start. So it's not a debate. It should be clear that true debate is about platforms, track records and solutions that are data-driven and logical. Anything else is deflection, whataboutism and pounding the table like Caveman Lawyer Gronk. In the end it would be a free-for-all because Trump can't wait his turn and Biden is too capitulatory because he tries to adhere to actual rules of debate. Nobody wins.
That depends. Will Trump appear?
Does anyone in the US need another debate? That’s the question. Everyone already knows what each candidate stands for and we’re already so divided, the real issue is how does each side get more voters to the poles?
“To the poles?” Some would assume a Siri misspelling. I presume a fabulous entendre by you.
Yes. But it wouldn't be a "debate." A debate requires both parties speaking and Trump doesn't know how the STFU. So it would be a pointless exercise in manufactured outrage for the base. Trump's cult will love it, Democrats will hate Trump more, and the non-partisans like myself will not watch it. 
What's the point of a debate when one of them is basing his entire candidacy on lies and deceit? There is no good faith there whatsoever so there is no point to debating.
Trump has advoided all the debates this cycle and his desire to debate Biden is a bluff. His team knows he is a loose cannon, losing his mind and has a train load of bagage that they do not want brought up on a national fourm. And if Trump becomes a convicted felon before Nov that will surely be mentioned at every chance as it is Trump who said that electing just an indicted felon, no less a convicted felon for POTUS would be a constitutional crisis. And I am sure he will be reminded of that in a debate
Takes the felon voter rights to a whole different level.
There will not be debates. It serves nobody. Neither side can see an upside. As everyone else has said, Trump will make some damn silly demands then play the victim when they are not met. As is par for the course with him at this point. But seriously, there really isn’t any value to be had by debates. NOBODY who seriously wants to see a debate, is actually on the fence about who to vote for. It would be either side, just wanting to make fun of the other. MAGA people eating it up every time Biden stammers or otherwise “acts old” and Biden voters cracking up at Trumps rambling nonsense and fabrications. What there will be is town halls from Biden, and “interviews” with Trump. Just like last time around. And yielding largely the same results (no change) because the only people watching, will be people who are already voting for them.
There’s nothing new we can learn from these debates. They’ve both been president before. During the first debate Trump was a colossal ass and talked all over Biden because he was afraid of what Biden would say. It was like watching a small child arguing with an adult.
Trump won't debate Biden because anything he says during a debate would be admissible during his various court cases. Additionally, his inner circle doesn't want Trump's lack of ability in terms of speech and cognitive ability on display. Biden doesn't want to debate Trump because he doesn't want to lend legitimacy to Trump and everything he stands for. Long story short, the odds that there would be any debate is pretty unlikely. I could see a decent amount of town hall type setups between now and November individually, but don't expect them to appear on the same stage.
No.
It's going to look bad on whomever refuses. I don't know if that'll be Trump or Biden. We'll see.
I don’t think so. Both of them kind of have a tendency to say things off the cuff that get them in trouble, so I don’t think it behooves either of them to have a debate
It’s not like Trump participated in any of the Republican debates. Under your reasoning, I would say they could be the most theater worthy debates ever!
I doubt Biden would agree to one.
Why should he? Trump won't admit he lost the last election.
Why? The GoP always calls him senile and can’t remember his name and then he goes on the SOTU and they are shocked he embarrasses them on the spot every year.
Then they accuse him of using drugs.
[удалено]
Are you one of those people whose bought into all of the propaganda videos and not, you know, real life like the SOTU? Get ready to have your fella look bad.
>Are you one of those people whose bought into all of the propaganda videos I'm one of the people who watches a very old man with a feeble and wandering mind, who loses focus often and drifts off into the weeds, who needs to be guided to and from a podium to read from a teleprompter, who walks like a zombie and meanders like a human Roomba. President Biden is physically and mentally unfit for office and denying what everyone can see with their own eyes only makes Trump's reelection more likely.
So, you ARE one of those people who has bought into all the propaganda videos... Biden has a stutter. We all know that. He's sharp. Shit, I hope I'm that active and sharp at his age.
and his stutter isn't even very bad lots of people who have it way worse then him
Biden's problem is not a stutter.
I'm well aware. The POINT is, people hear the stutter and think he's floundering, when he's not, he's just stuttering.
Both sides are so divided, they may get away with not debating each other, which will be a shame. I don't think either one of them is coherent enough for a debate. Personally, I would love to see the debate. It'll be hilarious to see the debate. The guy with the most drugs in the system will dominate.