Donald Trump Targets 'Empire' Actor Jussie Smollett, Calls Him a 'DISGRACE'

[Crimson Dynamo]

President Donald Trump brought up the Jessie Smollett case during his rally in Green Bay, Wisconsin Saturday night,
calling the Empire star a "third-rate actor" and a "disgrace to our nation."

https://binaryapi.ap.org/fcde74538bad49c183764802ced27f22/preview.jpg


Trump claimed he never heard the term
"MAGA country" before hearing Smollett's claims about being assaulted
by two men who yelled "MAGA."

"It’s MAGA country. I didn’t hear that term until that third rate actor in Chicago went out and said I was beaten up by MAGA country,
can you believe it?" Trump said.

"That’s a hate crime, he said he was beaten up by MAGA country,
turned out to be a total lie," Trump continued, without referencing
Smollet by name. "MAGA... Make America Great Again. And by the way,
I have to tell you, that case in Chicago is a disgrace to our nation. A disgrace."

https://popculture.com/celebrity/2019/04/28/president-donald-trump-targets-empire-actor-jussie-smollett-calls-disgrace/

Clocked

[bots]

pretty sure you created a thread on the same subject the last time trump mentioned it, big night last night? :fan:

[arista]

Yes that Gay Actor
tried to make his 2 Nigerian mates
become whites and pro trump.

So Well Done The USA President
pointing out the Criminal Actor
that is currently fighting in courts against
the 2 Nigerian's that he Hired


Sign of The Times

[arista]

pretty sure you created a thread on the same subject the last time trump mentioned it, big night last night? :fan:


Yes I watched him Live on FoxNewsHD online only
its a important fact
to point that Gay Criminal Actor
who is a utter fool

[Marsh.]

What's his sexuality got to do with it arista?

[caprimint]

pretty sure you created a thread on the same subject the last time trump mentioned it, big night last night? :fan:
It was so important that it deserved two threads

:clap1:

[user104658]

Isn't this old news? Did Trump have his Sky+ on pause for a couple of months but not notice?

[arista]

What's his sexuality got to do with it arista?

He is a Professional actor who is Openly Gay.

Its Important as he is a Gay Actor
that is Criminal.


Some may not be aware he is Gay.

Non Criminal Gays are great

[bots]

He is a Professional actor who is Openly Gay.

Its Important as he is a Gay Actor
that is Criminal.


Some may not be aware he is Gay.

Non Criminal Gays are great

more important than a straight actor who is criminal?

[Crimson Dynamo]

pretty sure you created a thread on the same subject the last time trump mentioned it, big night last night? :fan:

Fake News I am afraid

:hee:

[Nicky91]

Isn't this old news? Did Trump have his Sky+ on pause for a couple of months but not notice?

the Jussie Smollett case is kinda old news now yeah


i'm shocked Trump only knows about this now, the same trump who is 24/7 on his social media, discussing the news

[Nicky91]

anyway Trump can call Jussie a disgrace, but Trump himself is a disgrace too for the white house

[Crimson Dynamo]

anyway Trump can call Jussie a disgrace, but Trump himself is a disgrace too for the white house

why?

[Nicky91]

why?

he's only president so far who fired loads of people, if they are getting too much against him and his opinion

based on that, i wouldn't want to work under him in white house, i'd worry for not having a long term job then LOL

[Oliver_W]

Jussie Smollett is a disgrace, and he's being sued by the state, if I recall correctly.

I'd not heard of Empire before all this so I don't know if he's a second rate actor, but judging from his interviews after the "attack" ... Trump's right.

[arista]

more important than a straight actor who is criminal?

No

[Marsh.]

He is a Professional actor who is Openly Gay.

Its Important as he is a Gay Actor
that is Criminal.


Some may not be aware he is Gay.

Non Criminal Gays are great

So why do you feel the need to advertise the fact he's gay as though it has any relevance?

Trump is straight!!!

[Livia]

Gay or straight, he is a disgrace. And finally... Trump gets something right.

[Tom4784]

Trump's so desperate to divert attention from his almost inevitable impeachment, he's scrambling. Let's not praise him for basically trying to get us to look at anything other than his guilt.

[Twosugars]

He is a Professional actor who is Openly Gay.

Its Important as he is a Gay Actor
that is Criminal.


Some may not be aware he is Gay.

Non Criminal Gays are great

Ok so from now on you should state in bold sexuality of people when you post about them

[Crimson Dynamo]

Trump's so desperate to divert attention from his almost inevitable impeachment, he's scrambling. Let's not praise him for basically trying to get us to look at anything other than his guilt.

You have been falsely predicting an impeachment for 2 years now, when will you admit defeat??

[Tom4784]

You have been falsely predicting an impeachment for 2 years now, when will you admit defeat??

Do a little research, LT. The Mueller report has basically gifted Congress what they need. Trump has reached the point when he was quoted saying that he wanted to push charges against people who spoke out against him. He's done.

It's only a matter of time.

[Twosugars]

You have been falsely predicting an impeachment for 2 years now, when will you admit defeat??

Why should he?
Democrats are still thinking about it :laugh:

[Crimson Dynamo]

Why should he?
Democrats are still thinking about it :laugh:

Just awful

[Alf]

Why is the original Juicy Smulay thread closed?

Anyway, there's been another "Juicy" This time, apparently a twelve year old girl said that 3 boy pupils cut off her dreadlocks and called her racist names.

The media ran with the story and politicians tweeted out about it and how brave the girl is and how the boys needed punishing.

Aaaaaaand it was a hoax. It turned out the girl made it all up.

[Tom4784]

You have been falsely predicting an impeachment for 2 years now, when will you admit defeat??

Well this post aged like milk, didn't it?

[Twosugars]

Well this post aged like milk, didn't it?

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

[Alf]

:laugh::laugh::laugh:It's not that funny, powdered milk can last.

[Ammi]

...it’s hard to know why she would have said what she did...an attention cry..?../..worries and anxieties in her school or home life...?...it’s impossible for us to know atm, but thankfully the falsehood has been revealed and I hope that all children involved are given appropriate counselling ...for me though, this doesn’t compare with Jessie Smollett, who is an adult and has a celebrity status ...so any reasoning of possible ‘attention cry’ could not be looked at in the same way...and I think it’s important to keep in balance how rare this type of false claim appears to be...

..’False claims of racially-motivated assault are rare, according to Katheryn Russell-Brown, who directs the University of Florida Law School’s Center for the Study of Race and Race Relations.’...

[Niamh.]

Well this post aged like milk, didn't it?[emoji23]

[bots]

would be nice if people didn't attack/ridicule posters that are unable to defend themselves

[user104658]

Well this post aged like milk, didn't it?

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

[emoji23]

Tbf I'd have saved this until after any potential impeachment because if I was a betting man... well, I wouldn't necessarily bet on him dodging it, but I certainly wouldn't be putting any money on impeachment going ahead. Not in today's world.

[Kazanne]

would be nice if people didn't attack/ridicule posters that are unable to defend themselves

Yes it's pretty unnecessary,but are you surprised :hehe::wavey:

[Niamh.]

Tbf I'd have saved this until after any potential impeachment because if I was a betting man... well, I wouldn't necessarily bet on him dodging it, but I certainly wouldn't be putting any money on impeachment going ahead. Not in today's world.

That's true tbf, honestly I reckon they could find a dead body buried under his patio and he'd probably still get away with it

[Niamh.]

would be nice if people didn't attack/ridicule posters that are unable to defend themselves

Oh come off it, it's hardly an attack

[Liam-]

Yeah he’s definitely not getting impeached, there are way too many spineless Republicans to let it happen while they’ve still got the majority, they value their positions over their country unfortunately

[user104658]

That's true tbf, honestly I reckon they could find a dead body buried under his patio and he'd probably still get away with it

My prediction for Trump is that he'll do a full 8 years and then find himself under the spotlight as soon as he's done. However he'll be 78 by then, and add on a couple of years of legal proceedings, chances are he'll be dead or senile and declared unfit for trial before anything even happens.

[Kizzy]

Best Christmas present ever?... Trump and Johnson deposed :)

[Alf]

...it’s hard to know why she would have said what she did...an attention cry..?../..worries and anxieties in her school or home life...?...it’s impossible for us to know atm, but thankfully the falsehood has been revealed and I hope that all children involved are given appropriate counselling ...for me though, this doesn’t compare with Jessie Smollett, who is an adult and has a celebrity status ...so any reasoning of possible ‘attention cry’ could not be looked at in the same way...and I think it’s important to keep in balance how rare this type of false claim appears to be...

..’False claims of racially-motivated assault are rare, according to Katheryn Russell-Brown, who directs the University of Florida Law School’s Center for the Study of Race and Race Relations.’...Yes, poor her. Don't worry about the innocent boys she accused of a race, hate crime, or as the media called them, "the White Boys". Of course, they wasn't White boys with the media after we found out it was a hoax, they were back to being just boys.

Maybe if Juicy Smulay had have been made an example of and thrown in prison for manufacturing a race hate crime, this girl may not have got any ideas to do something as stupid.

My problem isn't even with the girl, my problem is with the media and others that jumped to judgement without any facts, because their eyes were popping out of their head with excitement that they might have a race story. This is the third story this year where the media as done that, that I know about, with Smulay and the Covington School kids.

[Alf]

Maybe the next race hate crime will be real, but it would be quite reasonable for people not believe it after these events. The boy who cried Wolf and all that.

[The Slim Reaper]

Maybe the next race hate crime will be real, but it would be quite reasonable for people not believe it after these events. The boy who cried Wolf and all that.

This is a standard that only ever applies to certain crimes though. No one ever says this about tax fraud or bank robbery, but it applies to rape and race.

Not only do these crimes have to reach a higher level of proof, but they are also the quickest to be used against any future person making the same accusations. Wonder why.

[Niamh.]

This is a standard that only ever applies to certain crimes though. No one ever says this about tax fraud or bank robbery, but it applies to rape and race.

Not only do these crimes have to reach a higher level of proof, but they are also the quickest to be used against any future person making the same accusations. Wonder why.

Yeah 100%, you get the odd case of someone lying and it suddenly proves that no one ever gets raped or racially abused and anyone saying so is a big fat liar............great logic

[Alf]

This is a standard that only ever applies to certain crimes though. No one ever says this about tax fraud or bank robbery, but it applies to rape and race.

Not only do these crimes have to reach a higher level of proof, but they are also the quickest to be used against any future person making the same accusations. Wonder why.If you believe actual crimes like tax fraud or bank robbery are the same as innocent people being accused of a horrible crime, then I can't really debate you. You're not coming from a genuine place.

[Oliver_W]

Tbf I'd have saved this until after any potential impeachment because if I was a betting man... well, I wouldn't necessarily bet on him dodging it, but I certainly wouldn't be putting any money on impeachment going ahead. Not in today's world.
My prediction for Trump is that he'll do a full 8 years and then find himself under the spotlight as soon as he's done. However he'll be 78 by then, and add on a couple of years of legal proceedings, chances are he'll be dead or senile and declared unfit for trial before anything even happens.
Yeah he’s definitely not getting impeached, there are way too many spineless Republicans to let it happen while they’ve still got the majority, they value their positions over their country unfortunately
That's true tbf, honestly I reckon they could find a dead body buried under his patio and he'd probably still get away with it

Yeah, tbh I think the Dems know the only way there's a slither of a chance he won't serve his second term is impeachment, so they're using every opportunity they can.

[The Slim Reaper]

If you believe actual crimes like tax fraud or bank robbery are the same as innocent people being accused of a horrible crime, then I can't really debate you. You're not coming from a genuine place.

People still make false accusations though, and that's what your post was about; namely, that it would be understandable for no one to believe the next accuser of a hate crime. My point was that no one actually uses this argument anywhere else apart from 2 extremely specific areas; race/hate crime, and violence against women.

[Oliver_W]

This is a standard that only ever applies to certain crimes though. No one ever says this about tax fraud or bank robbery, but it applies to rape and race.

Not only do these crimes have to reach a higher level of proof, but they are also the quickest to be used against any future person making the same accusations. Wonder why.

Yeah 100%, you get the odd case of someone lying and it suddenly proves that no one ever gets raped or racially abused and anyone saying so is a big fat liar............great logic

Have any high profile hate crimes actually turned out to be not-fake?

[The Slim Reaper]

Yeah, tbh I think the Dems know the only way there's a slither of a chance he won't serve his second term is impeachment, so they're using every opportunity they can.

Trump isn't winning the 2020 election if he's still in office, without some major shenanigans going on.

[user104658]

Trump isn't winning the 2020 election if he's still in office, without some major shenanigans going on.

Only if you believe that Clinton-skepticism played a large role in the 2016 election. Otherwise most likely scenario for 2020 is a very similar outcome. People don't change, at least not quickly, it's exactly the same reason that there's not much point running a 2nd Brexit referendum. It would still show a roughly 50/50 split, despite all we've seen in the last 3 years.

There's a reason that only one president in the last 40 years hasn't had two full terms.

[Niamh.]

Have any high profile hate crimes actually turned out to be not-fake?

The ones where people actually died.....no denying those ones I guess?

*I'm talking about shootings, targeting Mosques and the like or are they just "mentally ill" individuals rather than perpetrators of hate crimes?

[Niamh.]

Only if you believe that Clinton-skepticism played a large role in the 2016 election. Otherwise most likely scenario for 2020 is a very similar outcome. People don't change, at least not quickly, it's exactly the same reason that there's not much point running a 2nd Brexit referendum. It would still show a roughly 50/50 split, despite all we've seen in the last 3 years.

Do you not believe Clinton-Skepticism? Of course this is only anecdotal but while I was in the states just before the election most Americans we spoke to about it said they were voting Trump because they disliked Hilary so much......of course they could have just been saying that because on some level they realise that voting Trump seems a bit ... hhhmmm not attractive? (I can't think of the word I'm searching for here) but you know, that they were slightly embarrassed at admitting that they just wanted to vote for him so need to give some sort of justification for it?

[Oliver_W]

The ones where people actually died.....no denying those ones I guess?

*I'm talking about shootings, targeting Mosques and the like or are they just "mentally ill" individuals rather than perpetrators of hate crimes?

That sort of thing I'd class as terror attacks more than anything else.

What I was thinking of was alleged one-on-one incidents.

[The Slim Reaper]

Only if you believe that Clinton-skepticism played a large role in the 2016 election. Otherwise most likely scenario for 2020 is a very similar outcome. People don't change, at least not quickly, it's exactly the same reason that there's not much point running a 2nd Brexit referendum. It would still show a roughly 50/50 split, despite all we've seen in the last 3 years.

There's a reason that only one president in the last 40 years hasn't had two full terms.

It absolutely did play a role in the election. Especially the fact the Comey held a press conference to announce he was investigating her again, 9 days before the election. He's the most historically unpopular president in the modern age, and his victory in 16 came down to about 30-50k votes across 2 or 3 states. Take Michigan for example, he won by 16k votes, in a state where 18k people voted for Jill Stein because everyone assumed Hillary would win.

Mistakes like these won't happen again. Ironically, Trumps only path to victory imo, is if he runs against Biden, who he may be forced out of office having been fearful to go up against.

[Twosugars]

That sort of thing I'd class as terror attacks more than anything else.

What I was thinking of was alleged one-on-one incidents.

So racism suddenly doesn't exist?

Wow

[Oliver_W]

So racism suddenly doesn't exist?

Wow

What a wilful misunderstanding.

I was clearly questioning if any high profile alleged hate crimes turned out to not be fake, I didn't say racism doesn't exist, or that hate crimes never happen.

[Niamh.]

What a wilful misunderstanding.

I was clearly questioning if any high profile alleged hate crimes turned out to not be fake, I didn't say racism doesn't exist, or that hate crimes never happen.

Well, the new case here with the little girl seems like it only became high profile because it was false (or am I wrong about that?)

[user104658]

Do you not believe Clinton-Skepticism? Of course this is only anecdotal but while I was in the states just before the election most Americans we spoke to about it said they were voting Trump because they disliked Hilary so much......of course they could have just been saying that because on some level they realise that voting Trump seems a bit ... hhhmmm not attractive? (I can't think of the word I'm searching for here) but you know, that they were slightly embarrassed at admitting that they just wanted to vote for him so need to give some sort of justification for it?

I believe it existed, just like the "rebellion / lolz" Brexit votes, but not to a large enough extent that it was 100% pivotal. I also think that an absolute ****ing boatload of people who didn't vote at all in 2016 are probably some of the most vocal Trump supporters by now and will definitely vote in the next election, which will counteract most (if not more than) the "omg what happened" non-voters from the Democrat side.

The same goes for Brexit really. There's an idea that people who didn't bother and are now horrified would vote en masse and dramatically change the result - but I strongly suppect that there are plenty of crowing no-deal Brexiteers who didn't vote in the referendum the first time.

[edited to add] Also because of how the US electoral system works, it doesn't matter at all if Democrat supporters in states that already voted democrat - e.g. California and New York - come out in droves to vote. The democrat vote can literally double in those states and it doesn't make any difference... and those two states alone contain nearly 20% of the entire population of the US. Their FPTP system is even more broken than the UK's and that's saying something.

[The Slim Reaper]

I believe it existed, just like the "rebellion / lolz" Brexit votes, but not to a large enough extent that it was 100% pivotal. I also think that an absolute ****ing boatload of people who didn't vote at all in 2016 are probably some of the most vocal Trump supporters by now and will definitely vote in the next election, which will counteract most (if not more than) the "omg what happened" non-voters from the Democrat side.

The same goes for Brexit really. There's an idea that people who didn't bother and are now horrified would vote en masse and dramatically change the result - but I strongly suppect that there are plenty of crowing no-deal Brexiteers who didn't vote in the referendum the first time.

I think Trump capped out his limit in 16. In order win by a few thousand votes he had the right mix of an excited base to vote for him, and a depressed democratic vote. There's just no evidence that his supporter base has grown, and evidence that points to the opposite happening.

Besides which, he's killing farming because of his trade war, more steel plants have closed in his 4 years, than in 8 years of Obama, and the same with coal, it won't affect his numbers that much, but it will be an issue that his dem opponents can absolutely hammer. He's getting a relatively free pass at the mo as the dems are focussed on each other, but as soon as that's decided, there will be constant attacks on his record - Mexico, healthcare, sucking up to dictators (Kim and I are in love), not believing his own intelligence over Putin etc.


I think he'll always have a rabid base, because of the kind of people he deliberately tries to appeal to, but the mid terms showed that people will flood out in elections to vote against him, and that's his major weakness, his ability to motivate the other side.

[user104658]

It absolutely did play a role in the election. Especially the fact the Comey held a press conference to announce he was investigating her again, 9 days before the election. He's the most historically unpopular president in the modern age, and his victory in 16 came down to about 30-50k votes across 2 or 3 states. Take Michigan for example, he won by 16k votes, in a state where 18k people voted for Jill Stein because everyone assumed Hillary would win.

Mistakes like these won't happen again. Ironically, Trumps only path to victory imo, is if he runs against Biden, who he may be forced out of office having been fearful to go up against.

Like I said in my reply to Niamh, I think there are other considerations that mean you can't make a direct comparison like that to 2016. A huge number of Trump's most vocal supporters are people who have never voted in their lives believing it "pointless, all politicians are the same anyway", who LOVE Trump's "unconventional" ranting and xenophobia, and will without a shadow of a doubt vote for him in the next election. They'll be first in line. Just like the UK's multitude of racists and xenophobes who didn't get out of bed to vote in Brexit 1 would be camping outside the voting centre if there was a Brexit 2.

[Alf]

I think Trump capped out his limit in 16. In order win by a few thousand votes he had the right mix of an excited base to vote for him, and a depressed democratic vote. There's just no evidence that his supporter base has grown, and evidence that points to the opposite happening.

Besides which, he's killing farming because of his trade war, more steel plants have closed in his 4 years, than in 8 years of Obama, and the same with coal, it won't affect his numbers that much, but it will be an issue that his dem opponents can absolutely hammer. He's getting a relatively free pass at the mo as the dems are focussed on each other, but as soon as that's decided, there will be constant attacks on his record - Mexico, healthcare, sucking up to dictators (Kim and I are in love), not believing his own intelligence over Putin etc.


I think he'll always have a rabid base, because of the kind of people he deliberately tries to appeal to, but the mid terms showed that people will flood out in elections to vote against him, and that's his major weakness, his ability to motivate the other side.Candace Owens Blexit movement is growing.

[user104658]

I think Trump capped out his limit in 16. In order win by a few thousand votes he had the right mix of an excited base to vote for him, and a depressed democratic vote. There's just no evidence that his supporter base has grown, and evidence that points to the opposite happening.

Besides which, he's killing farming because of his trade war, more steel plants have closed in his 4 years, than in 8 years of Obama, and the same with coal, it won't affect his numbers that much, but it will be an issue that his dem opponents can absolutely hammer. He's getting a relatively free pass at the mo as the dems are focussed on each other, but as soon as that's decided, there will be constant attacks on his record - Mexico, healthcare, sucking up to dictators (Kim and I are in love), not believing his own intelligence over Putin etc.


I think he'll always have a rabid base, because of the kind of people he deliberately tries to appeal to, but the mid terms showed that people will flood out in elections to vote against him, and that's his major weakness, his ability to motivate the other side.

Maybe, especially if they hammer home that he's cosying up to communist states, but I still personally believe that general sociological tides play a far bigger role in voting outcomes than any up-to-the-minute specifics or electioneering.

I would also point out that Trump in the odds was 5/1 and Hillary 1/5, exactly mirroring Brexit's 5/1 and Remain's 1/5, and to toot my own trumpet, I considered both Brexit and Trump to be near-certainties. "The indications" look at what's going on, and what the polls say, and neither have much or anything at all to do with what your average voter will do when they plod into that voting booth. They vote with their gut, and with "what sounds about right" vagueries. Voter apathy in the heavily democrat states is out of the equation; Dems still took them so again, it doesn't matter if the Dem vote in NYC or Los Angeles literally doubles. It would greatly extend the popular vote lead of the Democrats but, in the US system, so what? The only states that matter are the swing states and I'm FAR from convinced that the revitalised Democrat vote will outweigh the emboldened vote of Wall-supporting illiterates who haven't voted for generations. Those people aren't being polled. They're not part of the debate. They'll still be part of the numbers in the final count and people forget that.

[Twosugars]

What a wilful misunderstanding.

I was clearly questioning if any high profile alleged hate crimes turned out to not be fake, I didn't say racism doesn't exist, or that hate crimes never happen.

Well if it was misunderstanding it certainly wasn't wilful

That's how I read your post:shrug:
Maybe be more precise next time?

[The Slim Reaper]

Like I said in my reply to Niamh, I think there are other considerations that mean you can't make a direct comparison like that to 2016. A huge number of Trump's most vocal supporters are people who have never voted in their lives believing it "pointless, all politicians are the same anyway", who LOVE Trump's "unconventional" ranting and xenophobia, and will without a shadow of a doubt vote for him in the next election. They'll be first in line. Just like the UK's multitude of racists and xenophobes who didn't get out of bed to vote in Brexit 1 would be camping outside the voting centre if there was a Brexit 2.

I agree with you on that, there are absolutely other considerations. No election is ever completely simplistic, but I just disagree that he has even more people to tap into this time around, when all the evidence suggests the opposite. They were first in line last time around too, there are just more dems in the US, and they won't be arguing amongst themselves this time around.

That's before the stuff in my other posts come into play.

[Twosugars]

Maybe, especially if they hammer home that he's cosying up to communist states, but I still personally believe that general sociological tides play a far bigger role in voting outcomes than any up-to-the-minute specifics or electioneering.

I would also point out that Trump in the odds was 5/1 and Hillary 1/5, exactly mirroring Brexit's 5/1 and Remain's 1/5, and to toot my own trumpet, I considered both Brexit and Trump to be near-certainties. "The indications" look at what's going on, and what the polls say, and neither have much or anything at all to do with what your average voter will do when they plod into that voting booth. They vote with their gut, and with "what sounds about right" vagueries. Voter apathy in the heavily democrat states is out of the equation; Dems still took them so again, it doesn't matter if the Dem vote in NYC or Los Angeles literally doubles. It would greatly extend the popular vote lead of the Democrats but, in the US system, so what? The only states that matter are the swing states and I'm FAR from convinced that the revitalised Democrat vote will outweigh the emboldened vote of Wall-supporting illiterates who haven't voted for generations. Those people aren't being polled. They're not part of the debate. They'll still be part of the numbers in the final count and people forget that.

Wall-supporting illiterates :laugh:

[user104658]

I agree with you on that, there are absolutely other considerations. No election is ever completely simplistic, but I just disagree that he has even more people to tap into this time around, when all the evidence suggests the opposite. They were first in line last time around too, there are just more dems in the US, and they won't be arguing amongst themselves this time around.

That's before the stuff in my other posts come into play.

There are more dems certainly but they're clustered on the coasts in large population areas where their vote is significantly diluted. I also think there's a good chance that there's still plenty of "invisible voters" for Trump to tap into next time around... those who were agreeing with him on their TV in 2016 but didn't truly believe that he could win enough to motivate them to the voting booth. Those people now know he can win, because he did win, and that might be enough to get them to pick up a pen. I guess we'll see what happens :joker:. You never know he might not even be in the running, unlikely as it is.

[Oliver_W]

Well, the new case here with the little girl seems like it only became high profile because it was false (or am I wrong about that?)

I'd not heard of her before but Alf's description made it sound like the bandwagon was rolling in her support before they realised she was lying.

[bots]

I agree with you on that, there are absolutely other considerations. No election is ever completely simplistic, but I just disagree that he has even more people to tap into this time around, when all the evidence suggests the opposite. They were first in line last time around too, there are just more dems in the US, and they won't be arguing amongst themselves this time around.

That's before the stuff in my other posts come into play.

the GoP have been very busy altering the voting boundaries in their favour. If you take a look at the boundaries that will be in play at the next election, you will realise how ludicrous they are and how it could easily tilt a result in favour of Trump

[Niamh.]

I'd not heard of her before but Alf's description made it sound like the bandwagon was rolling in her support before they realised she was lying.

I don't know, hadn't heard of it until she was lying tbh :shrug:

[Twosugars]

I don't know, hadn't heard of it until she was lying tbh :shrug:

Don't spoil the narrative :hehe:

[Oliver_W]

I don't know, hadn't heard of it until she was lying tbh :shrug:

The very first I heard of her was this thread :joker: but it sounds like she was similar to Smollett - went crying to the media that she was attacked, the media duly wailed, it turned out she was lying. But like I said, that's all I got from this thread, so who knows/cares.

[Niamh.]

The very first I heard of her was this thread :joker: but it sounds like she was similar to Smollett - went crying to the media that she was attacked, the media duly wailed, it turned out she was lying. But like I said, that's all I got from this thread, so who knows/cares.

That Jussie guy was famous though so bound to get more exposure true or not true

[Twosugars]

The very first I heard of her was this thread :joker: but it sounds like she was similar to Smollett - went crying to the media that she was attacked, the media duly wailed, it turned out she was lying. But like I said, that's all I got from this thread, so who knows/cares.

Ask yourself why the media was ready to believe
Bc theres so much racism about it is believable

[Alf]

Ask yourself why the media was ready to believe
Bc theres so much racism about it is believableThat's one way to look at it, another way is, there's not enough racism for the dividers to use, so they make it up.

[Twosugars]

That's one way to look at it, another way is, there's not enough racism for the dividers to use, so they make it up.

Unluckily theres plenty, from top politicians down to people in the street
So no need for your hypotheticals