“At long last we discover his spirit animal. The Chicken,” Harris adviser David Plouffe wrote on X.
    • cdf12345@lemm.eeEnglish
      96·
      3 months ago

      I CANT FUCKING WAIT.

      This is the payoff after slogging through 9 seasons of this shit.

      • AbidanYre@lemmy.worldEnglish
        40·
        3 months ago

        If he just keels over Vizzini style in the middle of one of his rallies, it’ll be the most viewed video on YouTube in no time.

      • Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works
        25·
        3 months ago

        That look he had when Kamala told him people left his rallies early was so incredible. He looked old, confused, and angry. I loved that for him.

      • cm0002@lemmy.world
        11·
        3 months ago

        It was pretty good in the early seasons, then it got really repetitive for a while. It was pretty obvious the writers started phoning it in, but now it seems like they’re back with a vengeance!

      • Cadeillac@lemmy.worldEnglish
        50·
        3 months ago

        My mom died from an aneurysm. That isn’t something to joke about

        Dude seriously deserves an aneurysm

    • Match!!@pawb.socialEnglish
      6·
      3 months ago

      i was thinking we could gaslight him into thinking he died in the assassination attempt

  • realcaseyrollins@thelemmy.clubEnglish
    1·
    3 months ago

    Where was this energy when Kamala was acting like she didn’t want to do any debates at all? Smh

    I’m not saying Trump isn’t cowardly for this, because he is. But anyone clowning on Kamala for not wanting to debate but not Trump doesn’t actually have a problem with debate dodging.

    Edit: My b, I misrepresented her position at the time. She didn’t want to do two of the three proposed debates at the time but accepted ABC News’ invitation

    • OneWomanCreamTeam@sh.itjust.works
      18·
      3 months ago

      Maybe I missed that bit of the news cycle but when was Kamala acting like she didn’t want a debate? I remember her being hesitant about the rules Trump was demanding at first, but that’s about it.

        • null@slrpnk.net
          22·
          3 months ago

          You’re literally using an example of Kamala not letting Trump weasel out of a scheduled debate as evidence of Kamala trying to weasel out of a debate.

          You’re either a troll or genuinely that stupid. Which one is it?

        • priapus@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          7·
          3 months ago

          Read the first paragraph of the article. He was trying to dodge the ABC debate and instead have it on Fox. Obviously Kamala would not want to have the debate run by a company heavily biased towards her opponent.

          • realcaseyrollins@thelemmy.clubEnglish
            1·
            3 months ago

            Obviously Kamala would not want to have the debate run by a company heavily biased towards her opponent.

            So now you see why Trump didn’t want to do the ABC debate

            • Soulg@sh.itjust.works
              19·
              3 months ago

              It’s not that they’re biased against Trump, it’s REALITY that’s biased against him. He’s a demented psychopath.

            • priapus@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
              7·
              3 months ago

              https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/abc-news/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/fox-news-bias/ These organizations are on very different levels of bias and credibility.

              Furthermore, the ABC debate was already agreed to and scheduled. Why on earth would Harris agree to change the debate to a host known for spreading misinformation with an extreme right wing bias?

              Trump chose to agree to this debate. He doesnt get to change the agreement after.

            • WindyRebel@lemmy.world
              7·
              3 months ago

              I downvoted you because ABC was going to do better journalism work than Fox would, which is why Trump didn’t want to do it. The three fact checks (which weren’t enough imo) are proof of why he didn’t want to do it. He’s an idiot and literally parroted the exact same shit he says everywhere for the last few years. At least Kamala told me something new about housing plans and abortion and where she stands/plans to do.

              • realcaseyrollins@thelemmy.clubEnglish
                1·
                3 months ago

                A couple of them I didn’t like, the big one being where David Muir debated Trump about the 2020 election cases and Trump actually ended up fact checking David on that, he had no rebuttal (although Trump doesn’t seem to understand exactly what it means to “have standing”).

                But it’s less about the fact checks and more about the fact that they chose to only fact check one person’s lies. Kamala Harris lied through her teeth during the debate and nobody fact checked her. I personally would prefer to not have fact checks in these debates at all, as the debates are only supposed to be between two people. But if there are going to be fact checks, those should be applied to both candidates.

                • webadict@lemmy.world
                  4·
                  3 months ago

                  Considering that Trump got fact checked only a couple of times and that Trump himself got an unfair treatment where he was given the chance to rebuttal every single time he wanted, I will say that you have given a biased answer. I am still going to say that Trump did, indeed, lie about the election being fraudulent. Given that, let’s see how each of those court cases were ruled!

                  Trump v. Biden (Wis. Dec. 14, 2020). 3 out of 4 claims dismissed under doctrine of laches. This is actually funny because that means the plaintiff does have standing. Last claim ruled against Trump.

                  Trump v. Wis. Elecs. Comm’n. (E.D. Wis. Dec. 12, 2020). Ruled against. No violation of the Elections Clause.

                  King v. Whitmer (E.D. Mich. Dec. 7, 2020). Could’ve been dismissed for lack of standing because the plaintiffs were Republican presidential electors and not state electors. But INSTEAD analyzed the merits and ruled against them regardless.

                  Ward v. Jackson (Ariz. Sup. Ct., Maricopa Cnty. Dec. 4, 2020) Plaintiff denied relief because they failed to meet evidentiary standards for their election fraud claims. Evidence showed election was 99.45% accurate and the errors were human errors.

                  Law v. Whitmer (Nev. Dist. Ct., Carson City Dec. 4, 2020). Dismissed because plaintiffs failed to prove that any voting device malfunctioned, that the election board was guilty of malfeasance, or that there was election fraud.

                  Donald J. Trump for President v. Bockvar (M.D. Pa. Nov 21, 2020). Dismissed because lacked standing BUT ALSO reviewed the case and rejected the plaintiff’s claim that upholding the Equal Protection Clause requires complete equality because that would be impossible.

                  Wood v. Raffensperger (N.D. Ga. Nov. 20, 2020). Could’ve been dismissed for lack of standing OR doctrine of laches, BUT INSTEAD court rules on merits regardless! Dismissed plaintiff’s claims of violation of Equal Protection clause (same as above), Elections and Electors Clause claims because Raffensperger didn’t didn’t override or rewrite any state laws, AND a claim that individuals have a constitutional right to observe the electoral process.

                  Bower v. Ducey (D. Ariz. Dec 9, 2020). Dismissed for lack of standing BUT ALSO reviewed the case and found that plaintiff’s claims were largely based on hearsay and irrelevant analysis of unrelated elections and no claims of fraud were credible.

                  Constantino v. City of Detroit (3d Jud. Ct. Wayne Cnty. Nov. 13, 2020). Plaintiff preliminary injunction denied due to failure to meet evidentiary standards, including locations, frequency, and names of those involved of alleged misconduct. Additionally, defendants provided sufficient evidence to convince court that they acted within the law.

                  Arizona Republican Party v. Fontes (Ariz. Sup. Ct., Maricopa Cty.) Case dismissed due to numerous procedural defects on part of the plaintiffs.

                  Idk man, it really looks like that EVEN THE CASES THAT WERE DISMISSED TO LACK OF STANDING were reviewed and found not credible for so, so, so many reasons.

        • prole
          5·
          3 months ago

          So disingenuous.

          Edit: just read the replies… Guess it wasn’t intentional.

        • IzzyScissor@lemmy.world
          4·
          3 months ago

          Maybe because Fox “News” is legally NOT a news organization but instead an entertainment organization. That’s not the place to have political debates, and presidential candidates shouldn’t be pushing to have debates for “entertainment” in the first place.