Trump's attacks, listed
- Thread starter billvon
- Start date
So, not all paid actors, after all? That's the last one I heard, way back at lunchtime.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
I guess they AI'd all the live video footage too.
But, as always, his cult followers don't care about lies.
And that since that is interference with an election, she should be disqualified!
I mean, trying to literally kill the vice president so he doesn't certify the vote might SOUND like electoral interference, but compared to being accused of manipulating a picture in the media, that's small potatoes.
And because he's not averse to blatant hypocrisy, there are numerous examples on his Truth Social sight of pictures / ads that are genuinely AI-generated (e.g. him smiling with a group of black people, him standing with some attractive black women etc) and him, or at least his followes, trying to pass them off as real.
Trump supporters target black voters with faked AI images
Faked images of black voters with Trump are a growing disinformation trend in the US election, the BBC finds.
www.bbc.co.uk
Regarding this thread: just remember that, as far as Trump is concerned, all publicity is good publicity.
I'm not sure that giving him extra free airtime to spread his attacks on Harris is a good idea, even if they are unhinged. Trump's antics are already attractive for many Americans. Why spread his word further?
I'm not sure that giving him extra free airtime to spread his attacks on Harris is a good idea, even if they are unhinged. Trump's antics are already attractive for many Americans. Why spread his word further?
I think the 15 people that visit this site, let alone read such content, not to mention that many of those can't vote in the US, aren't going to make the blindest bit of difference to the outcome, or to other people's views. So there's that.
Then it should be noted that some of us find this whole thing an interesting study. As to what that study is has yet to be determined. It could be the downfall of US democracy at one extreme, or the come-uppance of a pathologically narcissistic cult leader at the other.
Either way, some of us do find it interesting. Like crash investigators getting the chance to witness the crash itself rather than just come in afterward.
But, if we follow the policy of not highlighting his ridiculous attacks and thereby implicitly (or explicitly) condoning them, then we're no better than those who implicitly support those attacks by not raising them at all. And that only leads to more people buying in to his cult. Heck, the US is struggling with a mainstream media that is effectively normalising the fact that he lies. In one of his press-conferences it was later claimed he had lied (which includes gross exaggerations, misinformation, and made-up stuff) 162 times during his c.60 minute speech. But mainstream media mostly give him a free-ride on it. Normalising it. Even the BBC fails to properly highlight the sheer volume of the garbage he speaks. Not issues of policy, on which the BBC would rightly not get involved, but simple fact-checking of the lies.
As for your initial premise: "all publicity is good publicity", that may have been the case in 2016. But it wasn't really the case for him in 2020, and in 2024 it's actually having the reverse effect: publicity (of his character, his nature) is bad publicity. It's why his campaign advisors are trying desperately to get him to stay on-message, and to stop the doom-mongering and personal attacks. Because people are getting to see who he is. Not his policies. And they're not drinking the koolaid any more.
The more publicity that can be given to his abhorrent nature, his pathological narcissism, even before one looks at his policies, the more will vote against him. Republicans are turning away from him, and they'll vote for Harris not because of her policies but because the alternative, Trump, is unpalatable. The Democrats don't really need to do anything at this stage because Trump is tanking his own campaign through the publicity he is getting.
So, please, instead of being concerned that this is giving air to Trump, be pleased that his lies and ridiculous attacks are being highlighted for what they are. Not enough is being done in the mainstream media.
And then be comforted that so few people know about this site, visit this site, and read stuff on this site, that even if we were all in support of the Orange one it wouldn't make one jot of difference.
Then it should be noted that some of us find this whole thing an interesting study. As to what that study is has yet to be determined. It could be the downfall of US democracy at one extreme, or the come-uppance of a pathologically narcissistic cult leader at the other.
Either way, some of us do find it interesting. Like crash investigators getting the chance to witness the crash itself rather than just come in afterward.
But, if we follow the policy of not highlighting his ridiculous attacks and thereby implicitly (or explicitly) condoning them, then we're no better than those who implicitly support those attacks by not raising them at all. And that only leads to more people buying in to his cult. Heck, the US is struggling with a mainstream media that is effectively normalising the fact that he lies. In one of his press-conferences it was later claimed he had lied (which includes gross exaggerations, misinformation, and made-up stuff) 162 times during his c.60 minute speech. But mainstream media mostly give him a free-ride on it. Normalising it. Even the BBC fails to properly highlight the sheer volume of the garbage he speaks. Not issues of policy, on which the BBC would rightly not get involved, but simple fact-checking of the lies.
As for your initial premise: "all publicity is good publicity", that may have been the case in 2016. But it wasn't really the case for him in 2020, and in 2024 it's actually having the reverse effect: publicity (of his character, his nature) is bad publicity. It's why his campaign advisors are trying desperately to get him to stay on-message, and to stop the doom-mongering and personal attacks. Because people are getting to see who he is. Not his policies. And they're not drinking the koolaid any more.
The more publicity that can be given to his abhorrent nature, his pathological narcissism, even before one looks at his policies, the more will vote against him. Republicans are turning away from him, and they'll vote for Harris not because of her policies but because the alternative, Trump, is unpalatable. The Democrats don't really need to do anything at this stage because Trump is tanking his own campaign through the publicity he is getting.
So, please, instead of being concerned that this is giving air to Trump, be pleased that his lies and ridiculous attacks are being highlighted for what they are. Not enough is being done in the mainstream media.
And then be comforted that so few people know about this site, visit this site, and read stuff on this site, that even if we were all in support of the Orange one it wouldn't make one jot of difference.
That's a good analogy, except I don't suppose finding out how it all came apart will help anyone prevent this happening again; that has never worked for historians in the past, as humanity keeps blundering down the same gullies. However, what happens in US politics affects the world, so we're all potential victims, potential beneficiaries; we have a stake.
Yawn! He's been doing it on national television for 40-odd years. The novelty wore off long ago; he and the cult have blended seamlessly into the fabric of American current events - have become effectively normal.
And boooooring!!! The more his idiotic rants are re-broadcast, the more people are fed up with hearing the same old crap.
Except late-show comedians. If Trump got the chance to crown himself, they'd be the first group stood up against that byooodifull border wall and machine-gunned own in his first day as god-emperor. He and his core supporters are as allergic to satire as Elphaba was to water. Ridicule will eventually dissolve them.