Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » 24 Dec 2025, 11:02 am » wrote: ↑

24 Dec 2025, 11:02 am

No, you didn't.

You may do so now...

Then I will demonstrate, using your citation, what a scrapie riddled ovine you are..

But you don't have the balls...

@ROG62  

Blackvegetable » 24 Dec 2025, 2:08 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Dec 2025, 2:08 pm

How can people be this **** stupid?

The Photograph:

The specific photograph of Roy Cohn and Donald Trump at a social event (likely a party at Le Club in June 1979, per Getty Images metadata for similar photos) is a genuine historical document of their association. The documentary used many archival photos and footage from Cohn's personal collection to build its narrative.

What is so hard to grasp?

viewtopic.php?p=2829678#p2829678

Blackvegetable » 24 Dec 2025, 1:13 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Dec 2025, 1:13 pm

What a **** *******...

More evidence that you don't know how AI works. It will say what you tell it to say. But on its own, it would never verify a person an image. It isn't able to yet. In 5 to 10 years, it probably will. But not now.


I busted you. 

Blackvegetable » 24 Dec 2025, 2:08 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Dec 2025, 2:08 pm

How can people be this **** stupid?

The Photograph:

The specific photograph of Roy Cohn and Donald Trump at a social event (likely a party at Le Club in June 1979, per Getty Images metadata for similar photos) is a genuine historical document of their association. The documentary used many archival photos and footage from Cohn's personal collection to build its narrative.


What is so hard to grasp?


 

The dude in your pic looks much younger than 33 years old?  I also laugh at likely a party at Le Club in June 1979
 
 

Blackvegetable » 24 Dec 2025, 2:14 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Dec 2025, 2:14 pm

viewtopic.php?p=2829678#p2829678

 

About the claim itself

• Over the years, various outlets and social-media posts have circulated photos from 1980s–1990s New York society events and charity galas where guests wore elaborate costumes or drag as part of themed parties.
• Some publications (including Vanity Fair, in commentary pieces rather than forensic reports) have reported or repeated claims that a person in one such photo was Trump, often citing second-hand accounts or party anecdotes—not conclusive proof.
• No independently verified, primary-source confirmation (e.g., Trump acknowledging it, event records explicitly naming him in that costume, or contemporaneous reporting) has ever settled the matter definitively.

Vanity Fair could be wrong, and a caption alone is not proof.Here’s the key point, stated plainly:
 A magazine caption is not evidence. It’s an editorial assertion, and those can be mistaken—especially for old party photos with costumes and incomplete records.A few important clarifications:1. Captions are not fact-checked like investigative reporting

• Captions are often written by editors using:
  • prior anecdotes,
  • social-circle lore,
  • secondhand attributions,
  • or assumptions repeated from earlier commentary.
• They usually do not cite primary verification unless the piece itself is an investigation.

2. Vanity Fair has editorial credibility — but not infallibility

• VF is reputable in culture, fashion, and commentary, not forensic identification.
• They are not immune to errors, especially in retrospective society gossip from the 1980s–90s.
• A caption saying “this is X” does not mean:
  • the person confirmed it,
  • the identity was verified,
  • or that documentation exists.

3. Why this specific claim remains weak

• No contemporaneous reporting from the event identifying him that way
• No on-record confirmation from Trump or the event organizers
• No multiple independent primary sources backing the claim
• The photo itself provides no verifiable identifiers, especially given costume, makeup, lighting, and angle

So the correct epistemic status of the claim is:“Asserted by a publication, but not independently established.”That’s very different from “proven,” and it’s completely reasonable to be skeptical—especially if the visual resemblance doesn’t persuade you.

Vegas » 24 Dec 2025, 2:19 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Dec 2025, 2:19 pm

More evidence that you don't know how AI works. It will say what you tell it to say. But on its own, it would never verify a person an image. It isn't able to yet. In 5 to 10 years, it probably will. But not now.

I busted you.

You asked AI to do something you now insist it doesn't. 

You're a **** moron.

 

Vegas » 24 Dec 2025, 2:23 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Dec 2025, 2:23 pm

 

It's not about the caption....it's about the attribution.


You are so **** g'ddammned stupid 
 

Blackvegetable » 24 Dec 2025, 2:29 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Dec 2025, 2:29 pm

It's not about the caption....it's about the attribution.

You are so **** g'ddammned stupid

1. And I already said that the attribution was never verified by VF. They don't have to in order to copyright or publish. They can attribute it to Santa Clause and it could still be published. How many **** times do you have to post the same rebutted comment?

2. For years, you have used the caption as proof. Now you are back-peddling. Shocker.

**** moron. Just stupid.

Blackvegetable » 24 Dec 2025, 2:27 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Dec 2025, 2:27 pm

You asked AI to do something you now insist it doesn't. 

You're a **** moron.

God. Why do you need **** dumbed down? I see you cherry pi9cked what I said again. How surprising. I said that ON ITS OWN it will never verify, but IF YOU TELL IT TO (which you did) it will. 

Nod.

Vegas » 24 Dec 2025, 2:39 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Dec 2025, 2:39 pm

1. And I already said that the attribution was never verified by VF. They don't have to in order to copyright or publish. They can attribute it to Santa Clause and it could still be published. How many **** times do you have to post the same rebutted comment?

2. For years, you have used the caption as proof. Now you are back-peddling. Shocker.

**** moron. Just stupid.

VF paid to use a copyrighted image. It knew what it bought, and from whom.

How many **** times do you have to post the same rebutted comment?

The dumb **** you assert is irrelevant. 

For years, you have used the caption as proof. Now you are back-peddling. Shocker.

You're a **** idiot.

It is attributed. 

Vegas » 24 Dec 2025, 2:41 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Dec 2025, 2:41 pm

God. Why do you need **** dumbed down? I see you cherry pi9cked what I said again. 
 

No...I  took two of your statements which directly contradict each other....

Blackvegetable » 24 Dec 2025, 2:43 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Dec 2025, 2:43 pm

It knew what it bought, and from whom.


 

You can't prove that. That is the point. Buying the copyright doesn't verify anything. They could have bought it in an archive of drag photos at that event or any event. Then attribute it to Trump. That is legal. Now shut up.

You're a **** idiot.

It is attributed. 

I prove that you used "caption" as your evidence, then you take off a month. Deal?

1. You will continue to ignore that you have used the "caption" as evidence. Maybe I should repeat this to you 100 times, just to piss you off.

Blackvegetable » 24 Dec 2025, 2:45 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Dec 2025, 2:45 pm

No...I  took two of your statements which directly contradict each other....

You just cherry picked again. No. They don't contradict. If you were literate, you would see why. 

Vegas » 24 Dec 2025, 2:47 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Dec 2025, 2:47 pm

You can't prove that. That is the point. Buying the copyright doesn't verify anything. They could have bought it in an archive of drag photos at that event or any event. Then attribute it to Trump. That is legal. Now shut up.

I prove that you used "caption" as your evidence, then you take off a month. Deal?

1. You will continue to ignore that you have used the "caption" as evidence. Maybe I should repeat this to you 100 times, just to piss you off.

You can't prove that

I don't have to.

AI confirmed it.

Then attribute it to Trump.

No, they don't.  They attribute it to the artist and owner.

You're a **** idiot.

I prove that you used "caption" as your evidence, then you take off a month. Deal?

I prove that I've used "attribution", and you send me your head by FEDEX Overnight.

Deal?

Vegas » 24 Dec 2025, 2:48 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Dec 2025, 2:48 pm

You just cherry picked again. No. They don't contradict. If you were literate, you would see why.

No...you ARE that **** stupid...

Blackvegetable » 24 Dec 2025, 2:05 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Dec 2025, 2:05 pm

Ask yourself why you are compelled to deny this fact.....also.

For years BV would flash that photo  whenever he seemed to be completely out of ammo and I always took it as his signal that he was "tapping out" .
For years not one single member of this forum [including the Libtards] had any earthly idea what that photo was supposed to mean.....  
It wasn't until BV FINALLY worked up the nerve  to tell the forum what he thought that was a photo of....and when he did, he was met with so much GENUINE UNADULTERATED RIDICULE.....[and gut busting laughter].  

That poor guy lives in a magic fairy dream world.
 
 

Blackvegetable » 24 Dec 2025, 2:45 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Dec 2025, 2:45 pm

No...I  took two of your statements which directly contradict each other....

Here *******. Watch this. You see the pic below. That is unmistakingly Trump. No doubt. Here is my prompt to AI:

Prompt: "Attribute this pic as Trump"

It's reply: 
I can’t attribute this image as Donald Trump.
I can describe the image, but I can’t verify or confirm the identity of the person shown.


Yet, your ******* wrote a confirmation in your AI response. You thought I wouldn't bust you. BUSTED!


 

*GHETTOBLASTER » 24 Dec 2025, 2:59 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Dec 2025, 2:59 pm

For years BV would flash that photo  whenever he seemed to be completely out of ammo and I always took it as his signal that he was "tapping out" .
for years not one single member of this forum [including the Libtards] had any earthly idea what that photo was supposed to mean.....  
It wasn't until BV FINALLY worked up the nerve  to tell the forum what he thought that was a photo of....and when he did that he was met with so much ridicule...GENUINE UNADULTERATED RIDICULE.....and gut busting laughter.  

That poor guy,

Why should anyone believe your retelling? 

Vegas » 24 Dec 2025, 3:00 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Dec 2025, 3:00 pm

Here *******. Watch this. You see the pic below. That is unmistakingly Trump. No doubt. Here is my prompt to AI:

Prompt: "Attribute this pic as Trump"

It's reply: 
I can’t attribute this image as Donald Trump.

 

You don't know **** about AI..

Your English is at a 4th grade level.

It is obvious, when reading your crap, that you don't read.

Blackvegetable » 24 Dec 2025, 3:01 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Dec 2025, 3:01 pm

Why should anyone believe your retelling?

Back at you. You are a habitual liar. Nobody should trust a word from you.  Oh...you want evidence of your lies? Sure, here you go:

1. Acknowledge your biased prompt or that you added this: 

The attribution correctly identifies both the subjects of the photo and the photographer who captured the moment, making it a reliable source.

2. "Not a penny."