Donald Trump pushed a narrative during the presidential debate with Kamala Harris, without any evidence, that Haitian immigrants are eating people's cats and dogs.
That’s because he really does believe it. If you listen to him say he heard it on TV it is the most genuine statement he has ever made. It’s like a child telling you exactly what they saw on TV.
If you’re looking for someone to sue it would have to be the “sources” Trump heard the information from. Unfortunately I’m confident those people understand the ruse. They know to say allegedly. They know how to utilize weasel words.
Oh man. “I saw it on TV!”. Exact same intonation my 4yo used when he saw a “trailer” for Mario Movie 2 when actually it was just some junk a highschool kid threw together in iMovie. Totally belief and innocent ignorance.
It’s at that moment I realized that Trump isn’t just a useful idiot. He’s the perfect useful idiot.
Like a part of me thinks that Trump might actually believe in Santa and that he looks an awful lot like that guy in the power tool show and sounds an awful lot like Buzz Lightyear.
His niece, Mary Trump, knows him well and is a licensed clinical psychologist. She’s spoken and written extensively on his mental disorders (normally a psychologist won’t do that publicly, but she’s said he’s such a danger to the nation, she feels she has no choice).
He has the best brain. The greatest brain. One time, for some unknown reason, he took a cognitive test meant for dementia patients. He supposedly passed but he claimed it was hard for him. Such a stable genius.
The amazing thing about that idiocy mostly flew under the radar at the time:
According to neurologists, in the test he was bragging about (aside from being extremely easy because it’s meant to screen for dementia), those would not have been the words.
The point of the 5 words portion is that the words are never related, because that would defeat the purpose of the memory test. They’re always carefully selected unrelated words, like daisy clock giraffe piano door.
He very obviously did not remember the words and was just naming things he could literally see at the time.
It’s just the phrasing that lawyers always use because it’s difficult to prove that someone actually knew something. So even if the person denies they knew it wasn’t one hundred percent true you can still make the argument that they should have known it wasn’t true. Although, you cant always be sued for defamation about a group of people. It depends on the laws in that state
He should be sued for slander
He should be imprisoned for terrorism.
Amen to that. Where the hell is homeland security when shits like this (Drumpf & Fox) are spreading lies & slander that bring agitated unrest & death?
If he was a normal ass person he already would have been with all the Jan 6er scum
problem is you could never prove beyond all reasonable doubt he didn’t believe it himself
That’s because he really does believe it. If you listen to him say he heard it on TV it is the most genuine statement he has ever made. It’s like a child telling you exactly what they saw on TV.
If you’re looking for someone to sue it would have to be the “sources” Trump heard the information from. Unfortunately I’m confident those people understand the ruse. They know to say allegedly. They know how to utilize weasel words.
Oh man. “I saw it on TV!”. Exact same intonation my 4yo used when he saw a “trailer” for Mario Movie 2 when actually it was just some junk a highschool kid threw together in iMovie. Totally belief and innocent ignorance.
It’s at that moment I realized that Trump isn’t just a useful idiot. He’s the perfect useful idiot.
Like a part of me thinks that Trump might actually believe in Santa and that he looks an awful lot like that guy in the power tool show and sounds an awful lot like Buzz Lightyear.
He’s the Star Trek Mirror Universe version of Chauncy Gardener.
The “sources” is Vance the previous day in a rally.
Sounds like a candidate for a proper psych evaluation, then.
His niece, Mary Trump, knows him well and is a licensed clinical psychologist. She’s spoken and written extensively on his mental disorders (normally a psychologist won’t do that publicly, but she’s said he’s such a danger to the nation, she feels she has no choice).
She’s well worth reading and listening to.
And she’s not the only person in his family tree that is speaking out against the orange menace.
He has the best brain. The greatest brain. One time, for some unknown reason, he took a cognitive test meant for dementia patients. He supposedly passed but he claimed it was hard for him. Such a stable genius.
The amazing thing about that idiocy mostly flew under the radar at the time:
According to neurologists, in the test he was bragging about (aside from being extremely easy because it’s meant to screen for dementia), those would not have been the words.
The point of the 5 words portion is that the words are never related, because that would defeat the purpose of the memory test. They’re always carefully selected unrelated words, like daisy clock giraffe piano door.
He very obviously did not remember the words and was just naming things he could literally see at the time.
Exactly.
aNOthEr aTtAcK oN oUR rIGHtful LEaDer bY thE wOkE mOb
In legal speak the term is “knew or should have known”
is that actually the bar for slander? interesting
It’s just the phrasing that lawyers always use because it’s difficult to prove that someone actually knew something. So even if the person denies they knew it wasn’t one hundred percent true you can still make the argument that they should have known it wasn’t true. Although, you cant always be sued for defamation about a group of people. It depends on the laws in that state