Correct, his post was called stupid, but that is different from an ad hominem attack. 2 and 3 were indeed questions as to whether he was trolling, because the argument was pretty absurd and I suspect the posters were curious if it was meant to be sarcastic or not. Once it was established that the OP was indeed serious, then the serious critiques of the argument came in. OP didn't care for that.
I might as well go all the way with devil's advocate: maybe Trump said if you bring up Project 2025 he walks, and that's why they immediately pulled him, not because he was being harassed. That doesn't account for all the first hand accounts that say it was going bad for him though.
Yes, the simplest answer is the most likely one - they ended the interview because it was going badly. I have not seen a single piece of evidence from anyone at the event that would indicate otherwise.
Is there a single, solitary piece of evidence that indicates this? We even have statements from those involved in making terms for the interview with Trump and to the best of my knowledge none of them said that.
Did you watch the opening where Trump said, "You started thirty minutes late and told me Kamala would be here. But then you said she now wasn't, we'll do zoom. Now she's not even here in zoom and we're late." The 'nasty' host just conceded and took it.
TRUMP SPEAKS AT NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BLACK JOURNALISTS CONFERENCE IN CHICAGO
Here is a time-marked start where Trump walked in:
WATCH: Trump speaks at National Association of Black Journalists conference in Chicago
Donald Trump falsely suggested Kamala Harris had misled voters about her race as the former president appeared before the National Association of Black Journalists in Chicago Wednesday in an interview that quickly turned hostile.www.pbs.org
He faced a very hard question right from the start - "You've held dinners with white supremacists, you called several politicians of color to go back where they came from, and you called Kamala a DEI hire, what do you have to say to this audience?" He completely dodged it by saying how nasty the host was when he made an effort to be a guest. He actually drew laughter and applause from the audience. This mofo actually dodged it completely.
I do not like him. But I watched the whole 30 minutes or whatever. He was actually... endearing (wtf?), and drew laughter and cheers (yes cheers) from the audience consistently.
At the end his central messages were: Illegal immigrants are coming to take your black jobs too + ill use our large oil to drive down inflation, don't mind EVs + the waterpot black lady police killing "looked very bad" + Biden made inflation.
He kept on going back to the moderator with the 'nasty question' how she was late to the event, her equipment didn't work, NUMEROUS times throughout the debate and the crowd laughed every time. She just sat there defeated because she couldn't be louder than the guest, I guess.
The whole thing was closed by drawing a nice applause and cheers.
Damn I was surprised. He actually handled himself well. That appearance was a win for him and for the garnering black support.
OP? OP did not respond to tone, he was lashing out from people not agreeing with him. He didn't lead with 'well see I thought such and such and this and that, I didn't see what you saw, tell me more about your interpretation'. It went immediately to ad homnem.
Yup calling the pile on as an echo chamber. And telling us to ignore what we saw and only accept a few approval cheers and laughs as a successful event. And while yes I do think the OP is voting Harris, but one doth protest too much by repeating he doesn’t support the orange monkey.
So the sum total of your evidence is a statement by the world’s most notorious liar that doesn’t say anything about leaving early.
You already admitted you have no idea who was cheering or laughing and just assumed it was the audience of black journalists and not Trump’s paid staff. By your own admission you didn’t see what you are claiming and just guessed.
What on earth are you talking about? What proof do you have that the cheering and laughing together was entirely from the non-black audience of trump camp? What proof do YOU have?
The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, which is you. As of right now all contemporaneous accounts of the event I am aware of from people who were actually there and not watching a video that didn't show the crowd say the crowd was extremely hostile. The sum total of your evidence is that some people in the room who you cannot identify cheered and therefore this means Trump won over an audience of black journalists by making racist comments and denigrating their profession.
Pointing out flaws in your reasoning is not 'dangerous'. You have to be able to accept criticism.
Hey an actual post about the event!
I don't think Trump thinks he aced it, he's just running the same play he runs for literally everything, which is to claim it was the best ever.
Facebook
Twitter