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.
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?
Genius here can’t tell the difference between documents created by historians and documents created to be fictional stories.
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.
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?
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.
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…
Because outside of those religious texts, there’s 0 evidence to him existing at all. None.
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.
Saint Nicholas was a real, documented person, and by all accounts a good one at that. But there isn’t a single bit of credible, contemporary evidence that Jesus existed at all. There are inscriptions mentioning Jesus and where he came from but they were hundreds of years after the time when he would have existed.
According to you there’s no “proof” of that, it’s just things people wrote down, and that’s not proof.
At least your admitting you bother to look at any evidence that disagrees with your religious beliefs. From my link earlier:
No, it’s more that I’ve come across a truly obnoxious person, so I block them on Lemmy. Bye.
It’s weird how it’s always the religious fundamentalists that feel the need to tell you they are blocking you instead of just leaving the conversation.
“I’m an open minded intellectual, so I’m not listening to you anymore.” Okay then.
Yes, keep talking about yourself, dear.
Having a real hard time understanding Jesus of Nazareth existed but Jesus God Incarnate didn’t, huh?
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.
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 you exist and are a wholesale invention. There’s no proof to the contrary.
I don’t think the horror film character Candyman exists, either, but that’s not because I’m offended by a horrifically murdered black man becoming a personification of vengeance.
Therefore I question whether it is necessary that not thinking something always exists denotes being offended. How many gods and religions do you not believe in? Do you find those offensive? If yes, that’s your problem, not mine - do not hold me to your standards in this regard.
Seek psychiatric help, you’re being rude to people that don’t exist. Also, you (for some reason) invent figments of your imagination that are more rational than you, which is messed up.
If anyone told me “Zeus was actually based on some guy from early Greece that we have historical evidence for” my reaction to that would be more along the line of “Oh, that’s interesting” instead of “Your evidence better be pretty overwhelming!” Knowing Saint Nicholas was a real person doesn’t mean I’m mailing Christmas lists to the north pole. The origins of things are interesting, and I’m not going to argue with experts in the field (historians), that’s how you get Flat Earthers.
Ya right, like I’m going to take advice from a figment of my imagination. That’s something a crazy person would do!
You might react to tomatoes with an intense dislike, this does not stop them from being food. Your psychological preferences have no sway on facts.
In a similar way, do not assume your own excessive open-mindedness to statements made with a lack of evidence means that this is ‘correct’. Your preferences are not moral laws.
I’m autistic and logical. I don’t identify as a human. I don’t care what the majority thinks. I’m not going to go along with something because of the status quo. The status quo doesn’t feed children, it creates and exploits an underclass, it victim-blames for structural inequality. I distrust the status quo.
Every historian in the world could say we accept that “Jesus existed as a real man.” I don’t believe that without evidence.
Open-mindedness means being receptive to evidence, not being receptive to belief in the face of a lack of it.