Trumps says he’ll testify - do you believe him?
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/12/nyregion/trump-trial-testify-hush-money-case.html
shareHere we go again.
He said "would", which means he may or may not testify, at least the NYTs quoted him correctly since there is also a video of him saying it.
Btw, you should use archive when citing paywall sites.
So, do you think he will?
To clear his honest, chaste and holy name?
I don't know, but even if he does, their decision is already made.
shareYou mean if Trump perjures himself in 6 seconds?
Agreed
They don’t care about the truth.
Their decision was already made when they fabricated those bogus charges.
Stormy on the other hand, perjured herself.
Who doesn’t care about the truth?
The jury?
Trumps a wuss if he’s innocent and doesn’t take the stand
Nothing new there…
It’s a Leftist/Lib/Dem jury; of course they don’t care about the truth.
The judge is corrupt and is anti-Trump.
The trial was fixed before it started. Whether Trump testifies or not will not change their decision.
Btw, you should use archive when citing paywall sites.
now thats a great idea 👍
since there is also a video of him saying it.
aha!
a clue into your dividing line between "real" and "MSM lies"
So if theres a video its real?
Or does it have to be a video you like?
Theres videos of the piss poor turnout at Jersey
It depends if/when it is distorted or taken out of context.
For example: Someone on the politics board quoted Trump saying "will" when the video shows him saying "would."
A CNN reporter disingenuously misquoted what Trump said in a different article.
At least nytimes quoted him correctly: "Trump, when asked whether he would take the stand, responded that he would." https://archive.ph/vq3nQ
I pointed this out a few weeks ago on another post:
https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/6619fa68e9a22919ca416634/tRump-says-he-will-absolutely-testify-at-his-hush-money-trial
ok I read that , now i'm confused .
the debate is would or will
but also if its "would" , what is the full sentence ?
in normal grammar would is followed by a condition
eg
I would if I was taller
I would if i could afford it
I would if i was 50 years younger
etc
So what was Trumps context?
In fact thinking about it "would" will usually pan out to "wont" ( as in the examples above)
"Would" is open to one of two possible outcomes: Yes or No
"Will" is closed to only one outcome: Yes
well , yes and no , and also I already said that .
Just tell me what Trumps entire sentence was in order to gauge the context of his "would"
(that's assuming he managed to form an intelligible sentence)
"Trump, when asked whether he would take the stand, responded that he would."
He has said the same in the past using the word "would", but not testified; therefore, based on that, it is unlikely that he will testify, however, it's still a possibility.
Personally, if I knew that it would make a difference, I would testify, but considering that its a liberal/leftist/anti-Trump Jury with a corrupt Judge and corrupt DA, I doubt that it would make any difference.
ah , "responded that he would." puts a different spin on it
That not him using the word would , Thats someone reporting the meaning of his (unspecified ) words.
that changes everything from English grammar /structure /comprehension perspective .
That means he said he will.
He said "would" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPGJyd0kc0I
Slow the video to .5 if you missed it.
You, Thaisticks and CNN are deliberately misquoting him by re-interpreting what he said.
I am looking at this objectively/neutrally for a change - just trying to get to the bottom of the wording debate and not even participating in the other side of the discussion .(pros & cons of him testifying)
So on that video:
reprtr: "Are you going to testify in your trial in NY?"
Trump: "Yeah , I would testify absolutely ... its a scam ... its a scam ... thats not a trial "
He didnt give a condition like "I would but xyz" so I take that to mean
"I would if I am required or asked to"
which is basically a yes
I've got this far without actually checking what your interpretation is .
do you not like the "yes interpretation" ?
is that why you argued against it with
"You, Thaisticks and CNN are deliberately misquoting him by re-interpreting what he said." ?
He also used "would" in the past when asked, but he didn't, it was waived; therefore, it is unlikely that he will, but it's still a possibility since "would" is an open condition:
"(expressing the conditional mood) indicating the consequence of an imagined event or situation."
"Can we use would to refer to the future? Yes, would is used in the future subjunctive tense. In this situation, would can be used to describe a possible or unlikely action or scenario in the future."
While "would" and "will" share some similarities in indicating futurity, they are not universally interchangeable. Their usage is context-dependent and influenced by nuances that distinguish one from the other. "Would" is commonly employed in hypothetical or polite expressions, introducing a conditional or softer tone to the statement. On the other hand, "will" is more straightforward, denoting a definite future action or a strong assertion.share
yes I agree with those definitions
I think will and would can mean pretty much the same but will is more suited to future tense , 'would' can be used for futire and indeed was by DT.
"I will bake a cake unless theres no eggs left"
"I would bake a cake if there are eggs left"
both are future unknown conditions
both work , although "will" is less clunky
DT didnt give any conditions though so its pretty ambiguous.
edit..
I think would works far better if the condition is in the preceding question
"Would you bake if asked?"
"I would!"