in

Liberals Desperately Demand New Debate ‘Rules’ To Help Biden

Team Trump was trying to secure more debates between Donald Trump and presumptive nominee Joe Biden. Biden’s campaign predictably refused, but agreed to three in the Fall. Now, a New York Times reporter is making wild demands for the debate, in an apparent attempt to halt them altogether.

Okay, let’s be honest for a second. Does anyone think Joe Biden can stand a snowball’s chance in hell against Donald Trump? The president is a virtual powerhouse of energy and enthusiasm. He is sharp, clever, and devastating to his enemies. Joe Biden, on the other hand, can’t even remember what day it is.

A debate between the two would be like watching Lebron James play one-on-one with a toddler.

But Biden’s campaign has to agree to debates or they would be bucking decades of tradition and history. To refuse to debate would be handing the election over to Trump. But a New York Times columnist thinks he has a solution that will protect Biden and make Trump look like a loser. But it exposes the left’s panic.

A prominent columnist for the New York Times is urging Joe Biden’s campaign to rethink the terms agreed upon for the three debates between their candidate and President Donald Trump…

Friedman, who has won the Pulitzer Prize three times for his work, proceeded to argue that the former vice president should not appear at the debates unless Trump releases his tax returns and a “real-time fact-checking team approved by both candidates” is included in the debates. [Source: Breitbart]

This would have looked like a real suggestion, had he not included the tax return thing. Fact-checking is common after big debates. They did it during the Democratic primary debates. Real-time fact-checking is unrealistic, though, as it takes time to properly research data. And it suggests that the candidates are just lying during a debate—a pretty underhanded thing to suggest.

But saying Trump has to release his tax returns in order to participate in a presidential debate? What does one thing have to do with the other? Nothing, of course. Friedman is just putting that in there, hoping Trump would refuse. Why would he do that? Because this has nothing to do with making the debates fair.

This is about creating a situation where Biden can easily refuse debating Trump. Everyone knows Biden will fall flat on his face if he has to debate Trump. More and more evidence suggests Biden cannot form coherent sentences. In all his recent appearances, he was clearly reading from a script. Even then, he struggled.

What is he going to do when he’s up against Donald Trump? Trump will eat him for lunch. People have been saying this for months. Yet Biden’s campaign can’t just decline to debate him—that would surprise and upset millions of voters.

So, what does a losing party like the Democrats do? Come up with bogus criteria for the debate, knowing it won’t happen.

Don’t be fooled. Friedman is offering a “lifeline” to Biden’s campaign, one that will most likely prevent any debates from happening. The Democrats can take up these suggestions, maybe pretending they were their own, and demand Trump agrees.

If Trump says no to the tax return (given his history), Biden can safely decline debating him. A win, right? Not quite.

Nobody would think it’s normal to demand tax returns as a condition for a debate. A debate is about two candidates voicing their opposing views on how they’ll lead America. If Biden actually tries to worm out of debates (for any reason), after his campaign already agreed, it would hurt him more than he could imagine.

But debating Trump would also seal his fate. Kind of a lose-lose situation, huh?

Maybe Democrats shouldn’t have nominated this guy to begin with?


Share With Your Friends

What do you think?

0 points
Upvote Downvote