HarthorneWingo wrote:BallSacBounce wrote:HarthorneWingo wrote:Trump wants to take the pandemic off the table for the debate?
That oaf is running scared. This is what we attorneys call "consciousness of guilt" evidence. He knows he messed up very bigly.
This debate was supposed to be about foreign policy. The debate commission changed it. There's no reason for Trump to agree to the change.
The pandemic, as well as the other topics were all brought up in the Chris Wallace debate. There's no reason to do the same debate again.
Okay, I didn’t know that. Certainly foreign policy should be the focus of the debate then. It’s also important for voters to get to hear each candidate on those related issues. That said, I don’t know how he could avoid it. At least they’re giving him a heads up. If he was smart, he’d use that to and advantage and cut “s great deal” as he likes to say. Trump really squandered this crisis. If he had handled it competently and honestly, he’d probably have a shot.
I think the issue is, it is likely the "third" debate was intended to be focused around foreign policy, but since there was no "second" debate, it's questionable whether this is still the "third" debate and therefore whether the commission should have full discretion to focus the topics on areas it views as having the greatest public interest. It's fair criticism that the topics were included in the first debate - it's also fair criticism whether an actual debate on those topics actually took place during those debates, and whether foreign policy is relevant to the undecided voter (in comparison to the proposed topics of Fighting COVID-19, American families, Race in America, Climate change, National security, Leadership).
If I add my two cents to the dispute - Covid-19, climate change, national security and leadership all have an element of foreign policy embedded within those topics. Ultimately, it seems there is an opportunity to shape the discourse in whatever direction the candidates choose.
