Your argument is that Trump said he wants to be supreme dictator so when he says the sky is pink we should interpret that statement to mean he wants to be supreme dictator.
I’m arguing that we should focus on why he’s claiming the sky is pink in addition to focusing on the threat of him intent on being supreme dictator.
Also Donald Trump: You won’t have to vote any more! We’ll fix it and you won’t have to vote again.
You: But what could he MEAN by that? WHY would he say that? Only an enlightened intellectual such as myself could reasonably tussle any logical meaning out of such complicated statements of intent.
I wish people actually gave a crap about words and context and responsible journalism. There are real issues to discuss and this is a gigantic distraction. I genuinely don’t understand how people are so blinded by their emotions that they can look the facts in the face and reject them.
Our inability to separate rhetoric and disinformation from facts, or in this case, our inability to separate two entirely different statements, is our greatest threat. It’s all garbage in garbage out. It’s terrifying.
It has everything to do with this topic. You can’t just ignore years of precedent and take a current snapshot in time and say nothing prior matters.
The words used matter, and responsible journalism will call out when someone says something like this. We should be less accepting of rhetoric like this, and if it was just poorly phrased, then he seems to do that a lot and should be scrutinized and lambasted for it.
Your argument is that Trump said he wants to be supreme dictator so when he says the sky is pink we should interpret that statement to mean he wants to be supreme dictator.
I’m arguing that we should focus on why he’s claiming the sky is pink in addition to focusing on the threat of him intent on being supreme dictator.
Donald Trump: I will be a dictator on day 1.
Also Donald Trump: You won’t have to vote any more! We’ll fix it and you won’t have to vote again.
You: But what could he MEAN by that? WHY would he say that? Only an enlightened intellectual such as myself could reasonably tussle any logical meaning out of such complicated statements of intent.
Thank you for proving my point so succinctly 😩
This has nothing at all to do with this topic.
I wish people actually gave a crap about words and context and responsible journalism. There are real issues to discuss and this is a gigantic distraction. I genuinely don’t understand how people are so blinded by their emotions that they can look the facts in the face and reject them.
Our inability to separate rhetoric and disinformation from facts, or in this case, our inability to separate two entirely different statements, is our greatest threat. It’s all garbage in garbage out. It’s terrifying.
It has everything to do with this topic. You can’t just ignore years of precedent and take a current snapshot in time and say nothing prior matters.
The words used matter, and responsible journalism will call out when someone says something like this. We should be less accepting of rhetoric like this, and if it was just poorly phrased, then he seems to do that a lot and should be scrutinized and lambasted for it.
I edited my post since you want to be obtuse about this.