So despite all reporting I’ve seen saying the crowd was hostile and people actually at the event saying this, and your first reaction being that you landed somewhere else. What’s the basis for this?
So despite all reporting I’ve seen saying the crowd was hostile and people actually at the event saying this, and your first reaction being that you landed somewhere else. What’s the basis for this?That was my first thought too. But I am also keenly aware that if you start to discount everything you dislike, you become an echo chamber. Maybe they were staffers, but if I had to bet they WERE black journalists cheering him on. The crowd was almost entirely black.
I watched the whole thing. The notion that he was completely laughed at the whole time is detached from reality.
Thanks for bringing up substance.
Go stick to reporting; never see it for yourself.So despite all reporting I’ve seen saying the crowd was hostile and people actually at the event saying this, and your first reaction being that you landed somewhere else. What’s the basis for this?
This statement goes against what every single person who was there so far has said about the event. There is nothing that really backs this up other than you say so. Reality does not seem to align with this statement. Actually this assumption.Maybe they were staffers, but if I had to bet they WERE black journalists cheering him on. The crowd was almost entirely black.
While I think that some posters on this forum are quite outspoken and aggressive, making this thread the context of such an argument is really inappropriate. The OP's impression of Trump's performance in that interview was that he "nailed it"... literally question 1 of the interview had Trump retreating straight into his typical victim mode and lashing out in all directions. In what universe is that "nailing" anything?No I know, some of the people here are insanely rabid.
I did mention later in this thread that I regret the title wording. "Nailed it" seemed to really get a rise out of everyone.While I think that some posters on this forum are quite outspoken and aggressive, making this thread the context of such an argument is really inappropriate. The OP's impression of Trump's performance in that interview was that he "nailed it"... literally question 1 of the interview had Trump retreating straight into his typical victim mode and lashing out in all directions. In what universe is that "nailing" anything?
(Apparently) like Roger Wilco, I initially thought the OP was satirical.
One of the main benefits of this forum is how a few posters dissect data. Learning about rhetorical fallacies not only helps you point out others poor arguments, but also evaluating your own. It’s not easy at all, but is something to considerOh here comes the pyramid and exhibits LOL, sorry guys I wish I was trolling this well.
Go stick to reporting; never see it for yourself.
I've said it six times now that he landed well based on crowd reaction and he said tons of dumb stuff as usual.
But you just admitted you didn’t see it for yourself and just assumed it was black people cheering for him despite people at the event saying otherwise.Go stick to reporting; never see it for yourself.
I've said it six times now that he landed well based on crowd reaction and he said tons of dumb stuff as usual. I even posted a full video.
Thanks for your feedback, you actually watched. I think we can agree to disagree.Again, you may want to consider that you're misreading the crowd reaction. Most others are hearing it differently. People who were there are telling you the crowd was overwhelmingly hostile and disapproving.
And finally, NO ONE who was there is claiming what you're claiming: That he was well received. NO ONE. In fact everyone there who was interviewed has said the crowd was laughing at him, hostile and disapproving.
At this point it is plainly obvious you're misreading the crowd.
You speak of nuance? Well consider this: The crowd was professional black journalists. Not just average people off the street. They showed restraint while being negative. The gasps and limited catcalls rather than boisterous booing that you seem to expect prove this.
And finally, the applause at the end were black journalists clapping for their colleagues on the stage. Not Trump.
Thanks for your feedback, you actually watched. I think we can agree to disagree.
I hate Trump as much as anyone else. Again, I was surprised he consistently drew applauses and "YEAH"s and clear woo's in favor of him. Yes there were tons of nervous laughter, mocking laughter, and shock response too.
Are you ignoring the fact that Trump also kept going back to the 'nasty lady' to put her to her place (no less than 3 times) and the crowd LAUGHED WITH HIM every time while the nasty lade rolled her eyes in defeat?
Do you think they were laughing with Trump or at Trump?Are you ignoring the fact that Trump also kept going back to the 'nasty lady' to put her to her place (no less than 3 times) and the crowd LAUGHED WITH HIM every time while the nasty lade rolled her eyes in defeat?
If you watched the whole thing, you can't possible tell me that he was 1000% laughed at the whole time with 0 support from the audience. That isn't even remotely close to true.Laughed AT him. Not with him. His attacks ARE funny. But because they are predictable, pathetic and pedantic, NOT valid.
Go back to second hand reporting please.Do you think they were laughing with Trump or at Trump?
Yes, his post was flat out called stupid in post 4. Post 2 and 3 both implied he was trolling, along with a few more posts right after 4. Let's not pretend people were being civil.No, his post was called stupid. That's a poor attack on the argument but it is attacking the argument, rather than the person.
View attachment 104290
If you cannot at minimum reach 'responding to tone' on this forum, you're gonna have people let you know.
I've watched it. For your specific example do you think they were laughing at Trump or with Trump?Go back to second hand reporting please.
If you watched the whole thing, you can't possible tell me that he was 1000% laughed at the whole time with 0 support from the audience. That isn't even remotely close to true.
Maybe they were laughing because she rolled her eyes?...
Are you ignoring the fact that Trump also kept going back to the 'nasty lady' to put her to her place (no less than 3 times) and the crowd LAUGHED WITH HIM every time while the nasty lade rolled her eyes in defeat?
Those 3 instances? No. definitely not. They were laughing at her or with Trump since the first reply actually worked "You're so nasty to me, I just came here in good spirits".Maybe they were laughing because she rolled her eyes?
I’ve asked this several times and gotten no answer. If Trump was killing it and winning over the audience, especially one expected to be hostile to him, that would be a great campaign moment for him that they would want to continue as long as possible.There's a reason his staff pulled him after ~20 mins. And it's not because the audience was agreeing with him ...
Go back to second hand reporting please.
It doesn’t matter watching a few clips or the entire Q&A. The few cheers were vastly drowned out with the laughs at himYes, his post was flat out called stupid in post 4. Post 2 and 3 both implied he was trolling, along with a few more posts right after 4. Let's not pretend people were being civil.
I get that it is likely a bad take. I haven't watched any of it myself yet. I wasn't planning on it because I find it difficult to stomach Trump speaking for more than 10-20 seconds at a time, but this thread has piqued my curiosity so I plan to attempt a watch when I get a chance. Even if it is a bad take, maybe he's just not proficient at reading rooms? Maybe the sound wasn't up enough to capture the nuances of the crowd reactions? Still not as bad as people who see his first post and immediately jump to the conclusion that he is maga or whatever.