Correct. Some might be laughing, some might not. I'm not building any case, I'm simply being asked a bunch of questions and being asked to reply to them in the most specific of ways. If you'd rather I answer in a more generalized fashion on the talking point I'd be happy to, but someone else may not. Some people may have laughed, and some may have not, which I mentioned in another post recently, just not involving you. What exactly and for what reason they were laughing is also questionable. Tea Party, or is that a mystical thought?

Laying blame? This was about them laughing initially, in which you implied was Trumps fault. I would call that blame, but that's just me. Your talking points aren't much different than what the Dems, left, and media are spouting, so who's the whisper follower? So your laughing while I'm just stating possibilities? Good to know since I'm so true.

I don't recall saying I think Trump is specifically a righty, just like I recall mentioning I'm not specifically either. You ever wonder how many Independents or Libertarians are looking for answers and end up being treated the way I have here at times? Wondering why Trump won and seems to be staying if not getting more popular?

Coughing typically isn't a one time deal, along with chatter, etc, so it's quite possible it could be part of it. To assume it's all only laughter is like assuming the ocean is nothing but water when looking and listening from a distance, which is what you would think initially. There's much else going on in that water though. I said it could be all of the above.

Well the media made it clear Trump was being laughed at and not the media, so they either wouldn't know or they would be covering that up by making a case against Trump. The fact that I and a few of my friends thought it was about the media, which was before we had heard anything else other than the initial articles saying it was Trump, shows that some of the UN may have thought the same thing. Other friends have stated they believe the media's view is correct. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, maybe it's both.

I don't think he went off script. He could have since he does sometimes, so like I've said a few times here, there's a bunch of possibilities, but his head and eye movements and body language say to me he's reading and then speaking, even during his "America's so true" point. There could have been some laughter before that as well yes. So are you saying that Trump may have gone off script in reaction to the laughter? It's hard to believe if that's the case, that he wasn't looking for more laughs, and by saying what he said, he sure got that.

1.  Please go back to the clip of the speech.  It's almost dead silence (the coughs you mentioned being a notable exception that simply highlights how quiet it otherwise is) until the key point where the audience reacts to what he is saying.  I'm not saying it's nothing but laughter but I'm saying it's clearly a reaction to what he is saying, which includes the laughter. 

2.  You didn't answer this. 

3.  (my interpretation) you didn't answer this. 

4.  (off script) Yes, I think that he went off script.  By my interpretation, Trump managed to turn "laughing at" into "laughing with", which I think everyone would agree is a positive for him. 

This is more or less how I suspect it went down:  He gave the line "In less than two years, my administration has accomplished more than ... almost any administration ... in the history of our country."  His next line was going to be "America's economy is booming like never before", but as he was beginning that sentence he noticed that the crowd was reacting to his previous statement, and said "So true" to reinforce the point he had made (cutting off his own sentence, creating the "America's so true" line).  This caused even greater audience reaction (which includes obvious laughter by this point if not sooner) and he rolled with it and got some more laughs.  You'll notice that when he said "Didn't expect that reaction, but that's okay" the laughter increased by a huge amount and he even got some applause. So going back to point 3, do you think that's an unrealistic interpretation, or do you think that although it's plausible your interpretation is even more likely?  Or as a third possibility, now that I've laid it all out like that do you think what I just described is more likely after all? 

My interpretation, I did answer, your just not reading or understanding what I'm saying, even after rephrasing some of what I've said prior, or you don't like my answer and are deflecting.

If you think one of the options is more plausible, then that's your opinion and that's fine. All of the above is possible so take your pick. We're not going to completely agree based on where we started, because there is no way for either of us to know exactly how everything came together, and there are too many variables to narrow it down to one indisputable outcome.

First off, please note that despite #2 being the biggest part of my post it is actually the least critical.  In other words, stop brushing off 1, 3, &4. 

1.  You didn't answer this.  Considering it's the only direct evidence either of us have, it's concerning to me that you want to focus exclusively on what we have much more limited information on.  Even if you disagree with my interpretation of the evidence you ought to either get on the same page as me as far as the actual facts of what is on the audio clip, or go on the record with where you disagree with me about those facts.  Half the reason the country is so fucking divided is that people aren't even living in the same perceived reality anymore, and the fact that you are fighting me tooth and nail on the very idea of establishing what the facts are (let alone fighting over what those facts actually are) is infuriating. 

2.  I said, "It makes no sense to me to simultaneously say Trump likes to push buttons, and was trying to push the media's buttons, and yet was also trying to sneak the joke past the media.  If it "wasn't clear to the world", how does it make sense that the line got a big laugh at all?  Are you suggesting that everyone was laughing at a DIFFERENT joke that they perceived Trump as telling?"

Questions I asked: 
a—How could Trump simultaneously be pushing people's buttons and also hiding the thing that is supposedly pushing their buttons from them?  In other words, how could he intend for the media to get riled up while also intending to hide from the media the thing that could potentially rile them up? 
b—If he was hiding it from "the world", how did the U.N. audience spot it?  Or conversely, if the U.N. audience didn't spot it, what were they laughing at? 

What you said: 
"Well the media made it clear Trump was being laughed at and not the media, so they either wouldn't know or they would be covering that up by making a case against Trump. The fact that I and a few of my friends thought it was about the media, which was before we had heard anything else other than the initial articles saying it was Trump, shows that some of the UN may have thought the same thing."
a—Either you didn't answer, or you are abandoning the idea you earlier claimed that he was intentionally hiding the joke from the media without telling me. 
b—The only thing you said relevant to my question was that you and some but not all of your likeminded friends chose to interpret this as a secret coded genius message that the media either is too dumb to understand or is actively lying about.  This is not very on point. 

Now, I will admit that it's possible that I was also off target in the question I directed at you based on your posts.  If my question #2 was relevant to what you were saying (even though you disagree) then please ignore this paragraph.  If you feel my question was off target then you should have been the one to bring this up explicitly, not me; but please read on.  Looking back, I may have overstated my point relative to what you originally said, which may have been closer to (paraphrased), "the plan was to make a joke that wasn't too blatant an attack so that the media may or may see it but they wouldn't jump all over him".  If I was previously missing the mark but have now more accurately addressed your original point, it's still extremely unconvincing to me on at least two levels: 
—He makes blatant attacks on parts of the media all the time (why avoid it now?);
—The media jumped all over him (while the blatant attacks usually get less coverage);
—The joke logic you cite is a huge stretch to me (this part is the only thing you answered; your anecdotal evidence is a fair though limited counterpoint). 

3&4.  You didn't answer this.  You said "any are possible" (well technically you said "all ... are possible" which is false) but that doesn't answer the question of "do you think my idea is wildly less likely than yours, or just somewhat or a little less likely?"  While I'm at it, how likely do you think your explanation is to be right?  In other words, are you highly confident in your explanation or is it just more likely than anything else you've thought of despite not being very confident? 

I'm not going to pretend that David Pakman isn't biased, but in my experience he's pretty honest about presenting his facts. In this video he shows evidence that the UN delegates were laughing at Trump's claimed accomplishments (not at the media):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ng9V5F2a1lE