Is Donald Trump really trying to get out of debating Kamala Harris again? Or is it the opposite?

On Thursday, it seemed like the dust had finally settled. “The debate about debates is over,” said Michael Tyler, the Harris campaign communications director, in a statement. “Donald Trump’s campaign accepted our proposal for three debates—two presidential and a vice presidential debate.”

“Assuming Donald Trump actually shows up on September 10 to debate Vice President Harris, then Governor Walz will see JD Vance on October 1 and the American people will have another opportunity to see the vice president and Donald Trump on the debate stage in October,” the Harris campaign continued.

But now, Trump’s team claims that the Democrat lied when she said the two sides reached a debate agreement. At the moment, there is only one confirmed debate between the presidential nominees, to be held September 10 by ABC News.

Nevertheless, the Trump campaign’s press secretary Karoline Leavitt told the Daily Caller Friday that Trump will be doing three debates and Vance will be doing two.

  • John_McMurray@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Are you seriously taking a common expression of exasperation to push some very specious theories about whether that man actually existed? The cult leader 2000 years ago most definitely fucking did, any other conjecture is Elvis Presley is alive conspiracy horseshit people like you pretend to abhore.

    • P00ptart@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 months ago

      You really trying to advocate that Jesus Christ existed? Despite no proof at all? Might as well try to advocate that Deadpool is real.

      • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        What would you accept as proof?

        https://www.history.com/news/was-jesus-real-historical-evidence

        “These are all Christian and are obviously and understandably biased in what they report, and have to be evaluated very critically indeed to establish any historically reliable information,” Ehrman says. “But their central claims about Jesus as a historical figure—a Jew, with followers, executed on orders of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, during the reign of the Emperor Tiberius—are borne out by later sources with a completely different set of biases.

        Or are you arguing there is no proof anyone existed prior to the 1800s? Oh sure there are documents, but that’s not proof.

        • P00ptart@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          There’s documents saying that Medusa existed as well. There’s documents saying Santa claus existed. Hell, in today’s world, there’s documents saying Indiana Jones existed. And you accept documents as proof 1800 years after the motherfucker supposedly existed?

          • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 months ago

            Genius here can’t tell the difference between documents created by historians and documents created to be fictional stories.

            There’s documents saying Santa claus existed

            Saint Nicholas did in fact exist. He had no magic powers, was just a generally nice guy, and folklore was created around him after he died.

            • P00ptart@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              3 months ago

              Not the point and you know it. Saint Nicholas wasn’t flying around in a magic sleigh. And that’s before questioning the “saint” part. Do you really think some dude that turned water to wine would be mad about jagerbombs?

              • ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                3 months ago

                And that’s before questioning the “saint” part.

                Well, he was a nice guy at least. He snuck into people’s houses and left bags of gold so they wouldn’t have to sell their daughters into slavery.

                • Samvega
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  Historical evidence of a Jesus of Nazareth acting in ways that resemble a non-magical version of the New Testament is extremely underwhelming, to me. I don’t have a pro-Christian or pro-Abrahamic bias.

                  I don’t think any such figure existed, and was a wholesale invention.

                  • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    I don’t have a pro-Christian or pro-Abrahamic bias.

                    True, you have an anti-Christian, anti-Abrahamic balance. Why else would you be so offended by the idea that a Jew, with followers, executed on orders of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, during the reign of the Emperor Tiberius, existed?

                    I don’t think any such figure existed, and was a wholesale invention.

                    I don’t think you exist and are a wholesale invention. There’s no proof to the contrary.

              • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                Saint Nicholas wasn’t flying around in a magic sleigh.

                Agreed. And nobody here is arguing that Jesus was turning water into wine. If you read my post it specifically said: a Jew, with followers, executed on orders of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, during the reign of the Emperor Tiberius

                When you’re so anti-religion you loop around to sticking firmly to your personal beliefs and ignoring any evidence that disagrees with them…

                • P00ptart@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Because outside of those religious texts, there’s 0 evidence to him existing at all. None.

                  • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    Again, if you actually read my post, it specifically mentioned that religious texts are biased and therefore not credible, and the link mentions other historical documents that mention him existing.

                    But you saw a post disagreeing with your religious beliefs so you plugged your ears and tuned it out rather than risk hearing something that might challenge your (for some reason) deeply held beliefs.

                    We can agree Saint Nicholas was just some guy and a mythology was built up around him. We have a direct example of that happening. I don’t know why the idea that a similar thing could happen to some other guy is so dangerous to your world view.