Search This Blog

Friday, September 13, 2024

Trump tells The Post why he won’t debate Harris again: ‘Don’t think that there’s any need for it’

 Donald Trump is done with debates.

“We just don’t think that there’s any need for it,” the 45th president exclusively told The Post Thursday after announcing on Truth Social he would not take the stage against Vice President Kamala Harris again.

“We’ve done two. You know, one against Biden [on June 27], one against Comrade Kamala. I did well. I did really well,” the 78-year-old said during a phone interview.

Donald Trump told The Post he doesn’t think there’s a “need” to do another debate after the first one against Harris.Getty Images

“The debate polls, every single poll, had us winning it.”

00:00
00:00

Shortly before Trump’s announcement, the campaign blasted out a “confidential memorandum” claiming that its internal polling had showed the Republican nominee gaining two percentage points on Harris among likely voters across seven unidentified “target states.”

The GOP campaign had previously argued that the Harris camp should “stop f—ing around,” in the words of one Trump spokesperson, and take up the former president’s offer of a Sept. 25 debate hosted by NBC News.

Instead, the Harris camp countered by proposing a debate to be held sometime in October.

“There’s no debate on the 25th,” Trump told The Post Thursday afternoon. “Nothing has been arranged.”

Trump remained sore about his treatment Tuesday night by ABC News moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis, who were criticized for letting Harris skate on her falsehoods while giving Trump the third degree.

Trump and Harris debated on Tuesday in Philadelphia.AFP via Getty Images
Donald Trump speaks to reporters in the spin room after debating Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris.Getty Images

“I think she had the questions. And I think that the anchors … were a disgrace to American journalism,” Trump told The Post.

“You saw the way that was done, that was ridiculous,” he added.

“They didn’t challenge her on all of those things that they knew were false.”

The former president had initially proposed three debates with Harris — one hosted by Fox News Sept. 4, one hosted by ABC News Sept. 10, and one hosted by NBC News Sept. 25.

After the Democratic campaign passed up the Fox debate, Trump took part in a town hall in Harrisburg, Pa., alongside primetime host Sean Hannity.

Harris said they “owe” it to America to have a second debate.AP

“She was a no-show at the Fox Debate, and refused to do NBC & CBS,” Trump wrote of Harris on Truth Social. “KAMALA SHOULD FOCUS ON WHAT SHE SHOULD HAVE DONE DURING THE LAST ALMOST FOUR YEAR PERIOD. THERE WILL BE NO THIRD DEBATE!”

While Trump may be done with debates, his running mate, Sen. JD Vance of Ohio, is set to square off with Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz on Oct. 1 at a showdown hosted by CBS News.

Trump told The Post he had three words of advice for his running mate — “Just be yourself” — before predicting that the “Hillbilly Elegy” author would be “fantastic.”

https://nypost.com/2024/09/12/us-news/trump-tells-the-post-why-he-wont-debate-harris-again-just-dont-think-that-theres-any-need-for-it/

Government censorship is a greater threat than ‘disinformation’

by Douglas Murray

 “Disinformation” is once again in the news. 

On one side are people who say that if something sounds like a fake news story and smells like a fake news story then it is indeed a fake news story. 

On the other side are people who say that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it’s probably already been eaten by a Haitian immigrant.

Who to believe?

In any normal period it would be fairly easy to work out what is going on. 

00:04
04:18

In a story like the one from Springfield, Ohio, people make claims, the media investigates them and then everyone decides who they believe.

But who can you believe today?

Over recent days a lot of effort has once again gone in to highlighting the problem of online “misinformation.”

This week the Australian government threatened to fine social media companies that “enable misinformation.”

Under proposed new laws the Australian government could fine internet platforms up to 5% of their global revenues if the companies fail to stop the spread of such material.

They would particularly chase after platforms that failed to crack down on stories that hurt election integrity or public health.The decisions over who is guilty of this would be made by an Australian regulator which would set up its own standards and fine companies for non-cooperation.

Personally, I’m not certain that the Australian government has thought this through. And not just because it’s unclear how they expect to collect the loot from social media companies over whom they have stood as judge, jury and executioner.

Will they ask them to send a wire transfer? Or would they like the money to be handed over by check?

Perhaps they didn´t notice the mess caused when other governments tried to tread into this area.

In 2022 the Biden administration set up its “Disinformation Governance Board.” It was launched by Secretary Mayorkas’ Department of Homeland Security and was led by one Nina Jankowicz.

Remember her? She was famous for about 15 minutes after being appointed, when embarrassing videos of her singing surfaced online.

Surprisingly, for several months Mary Poppins was technically the person tasked with deciding what was true or untrue in the whole of the United States and cyberspace.

Unsurprisingly, she couldn’t perform the job and the “Disinformation Governance Board” was disbanded after a few months.

To be fair to Jankowicz, it wasn’t her fault. Because it wasn’t just that she wasn’t up to the job. The point is that nobody could be.

Other governments have gone in harder and faster. Last month the government of Brazil banned the platform X (formerly Twitter) for allegedly spreading disinformation.

Like the American and Australian governments, you have to almost coo at the sight of the Brazilian government complaining about fake news.

One reason why we shouldn’t allow governments to make decisions over what is true and what is not is that they aren’t very good at it.

Remember that these are the same authorities who spent recent years making claims that were completely untrue. As well as stopping people saying things that turned out to be very true indeed.

For example, readers might remember the summer of 2021, when Anthony Fauci went on TikTok to urge people to get vaccinated.

In an interview with TikTok star Mia Finney, Dr. Fauci said, “If you get COVID, recover and then get vaccinated, your level of protection will be extremely high. The (US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) still recommends that even though you’ve been infected that you should get vaccinated for the extra degree of protection.” 

That turned out to be what we used to call “untrue.”  But I have never seen any of these “disinformation experts” call for the censoring or fining of Dr. Fauci.

It is even worse in Australia. Having been the world’s worst lockdown zealots during COVID, Australian officials got away with saying the craziest things.

As premier of Victoria, Dan Andrews, seemed to relish every restriction he could force on the Australian public. At one point in the COVID era he got frustrated that as restrictions lifted his power was waning.

He discovered that some Australians had the gall to drink beer outside. For shame!

Andrews was furious that the public would dare to have a bevy – even when socially distanced – and in one news conference furiously told the Australian public that it wasn´t enough for them to lift their masks between sips.

According to him, if a person was so selfish as to have a beer on their own or with others outdoors then they should drink their beer through a facemask.

In other words it is entirely reasonable that any person should be skeptical that the Australian authorities – anymore than the Americans or Brazilians – can actually police what is true and what is not. Let alone worldwide.

There is absolutely no evidence that they can manage it. Government misleads the public all the time. As do some portions of the press and media.

At one end of this are outright lies. At another there is what you might call an “approved narrative.”

For example, just in the last few weeks we have seen the Democrats pretend that Kamala Harris never had any oversight on the southern border.

Is that disinformation? I should say so.

But would you want the government of Australia, Brazil or anywhere else decide that for us? Of course not. The American public can decide that for ourselves.

Exposing the ‘anti-racist’ con artists

I’ve just watched Matt Walsh’s new documentary film, “Am I Racist?” The creator of “What is a Woman?” is back with another amazing expose. This time taking on the “anti-racism” industry.

Through speaking to a range of completely inexpert experts Walsh not only makes a serious point about the only acceptable racism in our day. 

He also makes for a lot of laughs along the way. Not least against the queen of this sinister hustle – “author” Robin DiAngelo.

She seems to have erased her social media since the film came out this week. A great example of light – and laughter – being the best disinfectant.

https://nypost.com/2024/09/12/opinion/government-censorship-is-a-greater-threat-than-disinformation/