Donald Trump is considering skipping the upcoming ABC debate on September 10, citing perceived network bias and his love for negotiating debate locations like a picky restaurant patron eyeing the menu.

Trump's potential no-show at the ABC debate stems from concerns over network bias following a contentious interview with Sen. Tom Cotton, along with a growing disagreement over microphone rules that has turned debate negotiations into a theatrical production. With Trump's campaign advocating for muted microphones while Harris' camp demands 'hot' ones, the debate landscape is already heating up—and that's before we even get to the actual debate.

The heart of the matter lies in Trump's assertion that his willingness to participate hinges on the perceived fairness of the network. After his critique of a supposedly slanted interview conducted by ABC News with Sen. Tom Cotton, he seems to have decided that he deserves a better stage for his performance. Trump has explicitly stated that if the bias of the network persists in influencing the format, he would rather take his talents—and potentially all the ballots—somewhere else, like NBC or CBS. Because, you know, nothing says confidence like broadcasting on the competition's turf.

In an almost comical turn of events, both campaigns have found themselves at an impasse regarding debate rules. At this point, it could be argued that negotiating these rules resembles haggling in a flea market rather than a dignified political discussion. Harris' campaign has requested that both candidates' microphones remain 'hot' throughout the debate. This would, of course, allow for an uninterrupted symphony of sound bites—ideal for any sound engineer with a penchant for chaos.

Meanwhile, Trump's team seems to have an affinity for the quiet approach. They argue for the same rules employed during the June debate with CNN, which included muted microphones. It's almost as if Trump's campaign is intent on controlling the volume of the event to ensure that their candidate's charm can be maximized in pre-recorded segments rather than live interruptions. Because who doesn't appreciate a little crafted narrative over natural discourse?

Interestingly, despite these current debates about the debates, Trump's campaign had previously committed to participating in three such affairs. Now, however, out of these, only ABC has managed to squeeze through the confirmation process. If one of the other two scheduled debates faces the same scrutiny, we might just be left with a one-man show, featuring Trump performing stand-up routines instead of engaging in vital political discourse.

Trump has been particularly vocal about his criticisms of ABC, invoking the specter of Donna Brazile's scandal from the 2016 election in his rantings. Perhaps he believes that dredging up past grievances from the electoral graveyard will somehow bolster his case against the network’s integrity. After all, who wouldn’t want to incorporate a little historical context as they navigate modern political debates?

Adding to the complexity is the fact that this debate cycle represents a significant departure from tradition. For the first time, the Commission on Presidential Debates is taking a backseat while the candidates navigate their own battlegrounds. This unprecedented shift begs one to wonder if the candidates will soon be hoisting banners not just for their campaigns but also their preferred broadcast networks, as if the debates were akin to a sporting event.

Ultimately, amidst this swirling tempest of microphone diplomacy and network preferences, Trump has not held back on expressing skepticism regarding Harris' campaign decisions on debate formats. However, skepticism here could just be the appetizer for a main course of theatrics on debate night as each camp prepares its tactics like a chess game.

In conclusion, as the September 10 debate approaches, it becomes glaringly apparent that a mere discussion about who gets to speak louder is only part of the drama. With the specter of network bias and the demands for controlled sound against unceasing audio, it looks as if any preparations might need a few tweaks. Whether this debate will descend into chaos or transform into a beautifully orchestrated exchange remains to be seen. But one thing is for certain: Trump's persistent evaluation of the rules could result in an opening act that leaves us all wondering just who really controls the mic.