Sanders camp: Discussions underway for Trump debate

cajuncocoa

Banned
Joined
May 15, 2007
Messages
16,013
Bernie Sanders’s campaign manager says “back-channel conversations” are underway with Donald Trump’s staff about setting up a bipartisan debate between the two presidential candidates.

“I think it would benefit voters from across the country and I have to believe it would be one of the most-watched debates in presidential politics,” Jeff Weaver said Thursday on MSNBC.

“Let's see if he has the courage to go one-on-one with Bernie Sanders,” he added.

The Sanders campaign is seeking to ramp up pressure on Trump to follow through on his Wednesday night remarks to late-night talk-show host Jimmy Kimmel.

Trump, the presumptive GOP nominee, said he’d be open to debating Sanders if the proceeds went to charity.

Sanders’s camp seized on the remarks and is trying to pressure the businessman to follow through.

“The senator wants to do it,” Sanders spokesman Michael Briggs told The Hill. “We’ll see if Trump meant what he said.”

more: http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...rs-camp-discussions-underway-for-trump-debate
 
Trump has graciously declined:

Based on the fact that the Democratic nominating process is totally rigged and Crooked Hillary Clinton and Deborah Wasserman Schultz will not allow Bernie Sanders to win, and now that I am the presumptive Republican nominee, it seems inappropriate that I would debate the second place finisher," Trump said. "Likewise, the networks want to make a killing on these events and are not proving to be too generous to charitable causes, in this case, women’s health issues. Therefore, as much as I want to debate Bernie Sanders - and it would be an easy payday - I will wait to debate the first place finisher in the Democratic Party, probably Crooked Hillary Clinton, or whoever it may be.
 
Why would he want to debate Sanders? You hit up; not down.

Because he said that he would?

If he didn't want to "hit down" then he shouldn't have made the proposal in the first place. No follow-through. What a great leadership credential.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rad
Because he said that he would?

If he didn't want to "hit down" then he shouldn't have made the proposal in the first place. No follow-through. What a great leadership credential.

Oh come on, guys. You are really reaching now.
 
Oh come on, guys. You are really reaching now.

Hardly. This is just one more example in a long litany in which Trump can never be depended on to hold to anything he says. It is diagnostic regarding his character, and it is disqualifying.
 
Because he said that he would?

If he didn't want to "hit down" then he shouldn't have made the proposal in the first place. No follow-through. What a great leadership credential.

Trump's not good at follow through. I've read where some veterans are still waiting on some promised funds.
 
Last edited:
Because he said that he would?

If he didn't want to "hit down" then he shouldn't have made the proposal in the first place. No follow-through. What a great leadership credential.

Yeah and he said he would because he wants their support over Clinton. He realized that he can piss more people off into voting against Clinton by talking about how rigged it is then by actually discussing his policies as a better solution to socialism.
 
He was foolish to accept the idea in the first place, but wise to turn it down. Trump is the nominee; Bernie is not and will never be. The only person who would gain anything from this debate would be Sanders. There's a certain percentage of Bernie supporters who will jump ship and vote for Trump; probably not too many, but some will. Trump could only alienate that contingent in a debate and turn them away from him. That's assuming he wins. If he loses, then that gives the Dems and the #NeverTrump crowd a huge weapon in their arsenal against him. "He gets squashed by number two, how can you trust him against number one?!" It was a bad decision to say he'd do it, but at least he didn't follow up a bad call with an even worse one.
 
He was foolish to accept the idea in the first place, but wise to turn it down. Trump is the nominee; Bernie is not and will never be. The only person who would gain anything from this debate would be Sanders. There's a certain percentage of Bernie supporters who will jump ship and vote for Trump; probably not too many, but some will. Trump could only alienate that contingent in a debate and turn them away from him. That's assuming he wins. If he loses, then that gives the Dems and the #NeverTrump crowd a huge weapon in their arsenal against him. "He gets squashed by number two, how can you trust him against number one?!" It was a bad decision to say he'd do it, but at least he didn't follow up a bad call with an even worse one.

I was flipping channels this afternoon and caught Trump's speech in San Diego. C-SPAN had open phones afterwards, with separate lines for Repubs, Dems and Independents. I was shocked that every single caller, besides one, was going to vote for Trump. Dems who hated Hillary, all the way down the line...
 
He was never going to debate Sanders. The purpose was to marginalize Hillary. While people were talking about the debate they were completely ignoring the fact that it would be Hillary who was going against Trump in the general. Still a bit childish of Trump to propose a debate on issues that he knew he would never go through with.
 
Back
Top