What does the future hold for Donald Trump? - threadbans in OP

Dyr

stefanovich wrote: »

Now that it is clear that the democrats doctored evidence in the impeachment trial will you guys admit that you were wrong ?

Did they? Should there be some sort of hearing about that? Sounds illegal.

stefanovich

extra gravy wrote: »

What's actually embarrassing is that you're focussing on a clearly minor unintentional error and ignoring all the damning evidence. As I said previously, we'll see what happens in a real court.

Unintentional error? They changed the date of a tweet from 2020 to be 2021 and changed an unverified account to be verified. Fraud.

Professor Moriarty

stefanovich wrote: »

Unintentional error? They changed the date of a tweet from 2020 to be 2021 and changed an unverified account to be verified. Fraud.

Would you have a link to this?

extra gravy

stefanovich wrote: »

Unintentional error? They changed the date of a tweet from 2020 to be 2021 and changed an unverified account to be verified. Fraud.

Fraud Thanks for the laugh!

stefanovich

stefanovich wrote: »

Unintentional error? They changed the date of a tweet from 2020 to be 2021 and changed an unverified account to be verified. Fraud.

Wrong here too. Maybe don't post your reply in both threads as you'll appear wrong to more people.

stefanovich

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Would you have a link to this?

Watch this video:

https://youtu.be/el4O9pSpX6U

PopePalpatine

Deleted User wrote: »

To sum up what it's about:

Trump's attorney got angry at the newscaster for asking to clarify what piece of evidence it was that he was suggesting was doctored.

The piece of evidence he was referring to was a retweet of someone's tweet by Trump and a tweet by that same person thanking Trump for the retweet. Since Trump's tweets cannot be accessed, they have to be recreated. In an image used in the New York Times, both a wrong year and a verified blue checkmark were incorrectly used for that person's tweets. This was very obviously an unintentional mistake as the title of the slide in that picture has the correct year and it is likely to have been caused by a graphic designer using a template and forgetting to change that template for this tweet.

When this evidence was then eventually used during court proceedings, the prosecution had noticed and fixed the incorrect year by then, but seemed to have forgotten to remove the incorrectly included blue checkmark. This is most likely again simply human error as there is no real benefit to its inclusion to the prosecution and the prosecution would be aware that many people watching would have noticed and pointed out this mistake if it was done on purpose.

In summary, his attorney got angry at the newscaster for asking a sensible question.

Were any of the prosecution wearing tan suits or sipping on lattes?

stefanovich

stefanovich wrote: »

Watch this video:

https://youtu.be/el4O9pSpX6U

And then do something that stefanovich is incapable of doing, namely reading my reply.

To sum up what it's about:

Trump's attorney got angry at the newscaster for asking to clarify what piece of evidence it was that he was suggesting was doctored.

The piece of evidence he was referring to was a retweet of someone's tweet by Trump and a tweet by that same person thanking Trump for the retweet. Since Trump's tweets cannot be accessed, they have to be recreated. In an image used in the New York Times, both a wrong year and a verified blue checkmark were incorrectly used for that person's tweets. This was very obviously an unintentional mistake as the title of the slide in that picture has the correct year and it is likely to have been caused by a graphic designer using a template and forgetting to change that template for this tweet.

When this evidence was then eventually used during court proceedings, the prosecution had noticed and fixed the incorrect year by then, but seemed to have forgotten to remove the incorrectly included blue checkmark. This is most likely again simply human error as there is no real benefit to its inclusion to the prosecution and the prosecution would be aware that many people watching would have noticed and pointed out this mistake if it was done on purpose.

In summary, his attorney got angry at the newscaster for asking a sensible question.

PopePalpatine

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Were any of the prosecution wearing tan suits or sipping on lattes?

Is the point you're making that you don't think the prosecution hired a graphics designer? Or am I misunderstanding you?

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Is the point you're making that you don't think the prosecution hired a graphics designer? Or am I misunderstanding you?

Nah, it's a reference to Obama's tan suit scandal where a scandal was made out of nothing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama_tan_suit_controversy

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Nah, it's a reference to Obama's tan suit scandal where a scandal was made out of nothing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama_tan_suit_controversy

Damn, I should have got that. I focused too much on lattes being associated with IT workers. :pac:

stefanovich

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And then do something that stefanovich is incapable of doing, namely reading my reply.

So how did the date change on the graphic? How was the check mark added? Magic? Or did they pay someone to deceive the American public?

Professor Moriarty

stefanovich wrote: »

Watch this video:

https://youtu.be/el4O9pSpX6U

I like him. Rude but honest. Liked what he said about the media and politics needing to come together in the middle.

rossie1977

Parachutes wrote: »

It’d be hilarious to see him as republican speaker of the house to enrage the democrats. Don’t think very likely though, it’s not big enough for him.

Like Trump would want to take on the workload of a house speaker lol.

stefanovich

stefanovich wrote: »

So how did the date change on the graphic? How was the check mark added? Magic? Or did they pay someone to deceive the American public?

All of that is answered in my post.

You know you're coming off as a bit odd right? Either you still have not read my reply or you have but have chosen to ignore the fact that I have answered all of these questions of yours. Very strange behaviour.

Timberrrrrrrr

stefanovich wrote: »

So how did the date change on the graphic? How was the check mark added? Magic? Or did they pay someone to deceive the American public?

This is really embarrassing for you at this stage, and it's even worse because you keep digging and digging and making a show-off yourself. Keep it up, very entertaining:D

rossie1977

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

And what about the likes of AOC and the left egging on and excusing violence, burning, thuggery and assault in cities across the United States?

I'm as far from a Trump supporter as you can get but some of the hypocrisy is astounding.

Where, show me comparable examples please.

Did AOC stand outside riling up her supporters who then went on to attack buildings and police minutes later...

rossie1977

Damning. Well Republicans in congress only have themselves to blame when Democrats dominate for next decade

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1360784870771810307

12gauge dave

Well said.
The lies and hypocrisy of the left were highlighted far more than ever for the public to see during this impeachment.


Trump is in a much strongee position than he was this time last week him and his fan base are reinvigorated.

Nigel Farage (@Nigel_Farage) Tweeted:
This is brilliant. It sums up the dishonesty of the Democrats and their friends in the media. Trump still has strong support.

https://t.co/yxliYzf5bi https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1361063607782490112?s=20

12gauge dave

12gauge dave wrote: »

Well said.
The lies and hypocrisy of the left were highlighted far more than ever for the public to see during this impeachment.


Nigel Farage (@Nigel_Farage) Tweeted:
This is brilliant. It sums up the dishonesty of the Democrats and their friends in the media. Trump still has strong support.

https://t.co/yxliYzf5bi https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1361063607782490112?s=20

You're a bit late on that one. Try reading a few pages back.

extra gravy

12gauge dave wrote: »

Trump is in a much strongee position than he was this time last week

Active criminal investigations against him in NY and Georgia. Is that your idea of a strong position?

Fiery mutant

Really clutching at straws when you take Nigel Farrage word as gospel.

ExMachina1000

Fiery mutant wrote: »

Really clutching at straws when you take Nigel Farrage word as gospel.

It's not Farage talking in the video though

The amount of Trumpists who have either posted that video or commented on that video is quite high. Surprisingly, it's also equal to the same number of Trumpists who have avoided directly replying to my comment about that video.

Tippex

stefanovich wrote: »

Clinton literally did that 4 years ago.

Eh only clinton was not the sitting president

Tell me how

12gauge dave wrote: »

Well said.
The lies and hypocrisy of the left were highlighted far more than ever for the public to see during this impeachment.


Trump is in a much strongee position than he was this time last week him and his fan base are reinvigorated.

Nigel Farage (@Nigel_Farage) Tweeted:
This is brilliant. It sums up the dishonesty of the Democrats and their friends in the media. Trump still has strong support.

Did you not hear Mitch McConnell's speech after the verdict yesterday?

Former President Trump's actions preceding the riot were a disgraceful dereliction of duty.

There is no question that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of that day.

The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their president.

And their having that belief was a foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false statements, conspiracy theories, and reckless hyperbole which the defeated president kept shouting into the largest megaphone on planet Earth.

How many people, out of the 74M who voted for him, do you think did so solely because of him, or how many solely because he was the Republican candidate?

I'm guessing the former number was vastly greater than the latter.
Do you think die hard Republicans would shift their allegiance to a 74 year old single term, twice impeached candidate in 2024?

Tell me how

stefanovich wrote: »

She spent 4 years saying Trump colluded with the Russians. He didn’t. She lied.

Except, she didn't or can you find a clip of her saying this in the last 4 years.

Tippex

Tell me how wrote: »

Except, she didn't or can you find a clip of her saying this in the last 4 years.

Don’t you will only receive a link to a video and be told to watch it, then when you counter they will admit they didn’t watch it all. Or they will post a link to a headline that doesn’t actually mean what they think based on the content of the article. This is all based on my opinion over the last few pages which I have just caught up on.

stefanovich

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You're a bit late on that one. Try reading a few pages back.

Graphic designer made an error that just happened to change the date from a year before the capitol attack to days before. Interesting error. I’d like to see the graphic designer in question admit that under oath. All we have to go on at the moment is your guess.

Carfacemandog

rossie1977 wrote: »

Damning. Well Republicans in congress only have themselves to blame when Democrats dominate for next decade

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1360784870771810307

You are vastly, vastly overestimating the American electorate, a huge swathe of which have zero interest in well intentioned nor functional/competent governance and who instead think of politics as a reality tv/sports type of affair.

There very little centre left in the US, and I would estimate republicans lose about 2-3% support over this rather than the much higher figure they would have lost from the Cult of Trump abandoning them (not for the democrats but for something further to the right of them again).

Of course, that scenario will still play out if Trump decides to run third party, so they've still got to keep their tongues firmly applied to the sole of his shoes in hopes that he won't. If he runs in 2024, I reckon it's less likely than not that they even have a primary process (something they also cancelled last year).

This outcome was predetermined, much more worthwhile are the criminal investigations like Georgia and likely others such as SDNY for whom Trump is "Individual 1".