Trump Falsely Claims Harris Rally Numbers are Fake

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

I wish I had copied that story when I found it.

It has literally changed since I read it the first time!

I have never seen that happen in real time before.

That is scary as hell.

a reply to: Lazy88

Seems to me Trump ""literally"" claims "There was nobody at the plane" and that Kamala "A.I'd it".

He also calls her "cheat" and claims her followers "didn't exist".

I am not quite sure how those accusations are figurative.

Those are claims of literal sorts.

a reply to: quintessentone

Still not the topic.
Still wrong.
Still a foreigner obsessively campaigning against Trump and for Harris.

The topic - Trump Falsely Claims Harris Rally Numbers are Fake

We are discussing the picture being AI altered or not. It was said it was. Then it looked like it wasn't. Now it's being said that the articles saying it wasn't were altered themselves.

We are discussing the fact that both Harris and Trump are falsely claiming the other one is faking numbers to their rallies.

Try to keep up.

a reply to: andy06shake

And nobody on the left to seems to care about Walz and his stolen valor to promote his political career which is a crime. When the left shows they actually care about the truth other than when it’s convenient, maybe all will care about figurative speech and puzzling pictures.

originally posted by: andy06shake
Seems to me Trump ""literally"" claims "There was nobody at the plane" and that Kamala "A.I'd it".

Normally I'd say that someone saying something like that was just being figurative. Taking a statement to the extreme to make a point. Like when it's raining outside hard and someone says 'it's raining cats and dogs' .. to make a point. However, Trump went on and on, pontificating about it. So I think he may have been being literal. Or it could have been his usual exaggerating to make a point. God only knows with him. He runs his mouths so much ...

a reply to: Lazy88

The thread is about Trump's false claims though.

Which i think you may find in this instance has been established to be a lot more than simply figurative, so there is that.

I'm starting to think Trump is just really bad with numbers. During his Twitter fiasco last night he tried to claim there were 60 million people listening when the listener count clearly said 1 million.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
Trump falsely claims Harris rally numbers are fake:

www.bbc.co.uk...

Is this not desperate "fake news"?

"Mr Trump, the Republican taking on the vice-president in November's election, said on his Truth Social platform, external that it was a fake and there was “nobody” there waiting for her.

However, in multiple other images and videos, some taken by people present but also by TV news teams and agency photographers, you can see a large crowd of people at the event."

How bad of an AI-rendered photo does it need to get before the left can see it is faked? The crowd is cartoonish and smoothed out. The engine cell does not reflect anyone but a small group of support people, same with the blue on the side of the plane, no people. There are also too many heads that match each other, this is about the level of Iran's faked photos, but yeah OMB.

a reply to: FlyersFan

And there is the rest of the post which he made of his own volition which clearly shows context and intent.

Literal would be my guess as to the claims made on this occasion.

I "literally" need to get a move on here through, so on that note.....

I bid ye all fair day for a while.

a reply to: andy06shake

You know, I'd actually like to run this particular issue all the way to ground. I work at airports, every day. I know how they operate. In this particular instance, I don't believe...anyone. I don't believe Trump, and I don't believe Harris, and I don't believe the picture in question. I think they're ALL lying, to be perfectly honest. Here's what I think REALLY happened...

1. I think the Harris campaign and/or Harris supporters used some clever photography techniques to make things appear other than they really were. They lied.

2. I think Trump got wind of this and exaggerated it from 'few' to 'ZERO!' He lied.

3. I think there were far less people in the immediate vicinity of that aircraft than what the picture seems to indicate.

4. And I do think that the Harris campaign augmented the picture to make it look like there were more people there than what were really there.

I base this on the following:

- Airports do not like, nor will they permit, large groups of un-screened persons near the apron areas where aircraft are. There are too many risks, and the TSA and local law enforcement don't have enough personnel to keep track of what is going on. So, large crowds are generally kept well back from aircraft on the apron/tarmac. A person using a camera can manipulate 'depth of field' to make distant objects look closer to foreground objects, and this is one trick I think was used.

- Harris likely did have some sort of a hangar at the airport set up for a mini-rally. So, I believe there were some people awaiting her arrival in a hangar, but taking a picture inside a hangar without a wide angle lens is very difficult. But when using a wide angle lens an image looks bigger than it is in reality. When you include a crowd into this mix, it makes it look like more people were there than there really were.

- If Harris did have a mini-rally set up in a regional airport hangar, then I don't believe that 'zero' people showed up. She's a presidential candidate; some people would always show up. So, the notion that 'zero' people showed up is not realistic. In the same breath, the idea that tens of thousands of people showed up is equally unrealistic for all the reasons stated above.

Bottom line...they're ALL lying!

a reply to: andy06shake

He is his own worst enemy.
He really just needs to shut up and stay on policy.
But that goes against his personality.
He sinks himself.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
I'm starting to think Trump is just really bad with numbers. During his Twitter fiasco last night he tried to claim there were 60 million people listening when the listener count clearly said 1 million.

He exaggerates and bloviates. It's what he does.

However ... Liberty Daily
This site says that the interview had a billion hits to watch it.
Don't know if that means a billion people viewed it or if it
means that it was tried to be viewed a billion times.
Not sure of the tech meaning ...

The Twitter interview was cyberattacked.
Harris claimed it was two rich guys who couldn't run the machines.
But it wasn't that. It was a cyber attack.
Someone out there doesn't believe in free speech ....

originally posted by: Threadbarer
I'm starting to think Trump is just really bad with numbers. During his Twitter fiasco last night he tried to claim there were 60 million people listening when the listener count clearly said 1 million.

It was at least 22,800,000 as of a bit ago.
Pretty good rally especially for being DDOS to begin with.
Record breaking.
Can’t wait to see the donation numbers.

Eta: currently 23,100,000 tuned in, between 7:47 PM and 10:47 PM ET, President Donald Trump's Space post received 73 million views. During the same period, there were 4 million posts about Elon Musk and President Trump's conversation on 𝕏, generating a total of 998 million views. x.com...

a reply to: Threadbarer

I saw 2.7 million (online) at one point during the interview, but whatever. It wasn't 60 million. This doesn't take into consideration the number of viewers who were, and still are, viewing the recorded version on platforms like X and YT.

In any case, I wouldn't characterize the X interview as a "fiasco" by any stretch. Yes, Trump criticized Harris and her lack of policies, BUT he also laid out some of his own policies (some of which were kind of surprising, frankly). Musk brought up some difficult topics (something the democrats avoid like the plague), and Trump responded.

You can call the interview a "fiasco" if you like, but there is no question that Trump laid down some things which the Harris campaign needs to respond to, particularly concerning their own policies (if they have any...besides not being Trump). It would be foolish for you, or anyone else, to dismiss the interview...that is unless you're trying to avoid discussing difficult topics.

Oh, well, Trump will probably be talking about this soon:
Walz indicted

I am trying to back this up with other info.

Trying to find JAG site info.



Sorry Porkchop! I can't seem to find any other sites that don't link back to this one and I don't know how to navigate the actual JAG site.

a reply to: FlyersFan

Someone out there doesn't believe in free speech ....

The Washington Post appealed to the WhiteHouse prior to the interview to see if they could assist in getting the interview stopped. So, I'd say the MSM is at the top of the list of those not believing in free speech.

a reply to: chiefsmom

You may want to learn some media literacy if you actually believe Real Raw News is a credible source.

a reply to: Threadbarer

If you bothered to look it up for yourself, they are not the only ones reporting this......