Yes, but also the media and “influencers” purposefully create these out of context sensationalist headlines that are often blatantly inaccurate given actual context.
And, unfortunately, this particular media outlet has a habit of it, too. I take what Daily Beast says with a big dose of skepticism until shown otherwise.
The phrase “A lot of people on your side are, too. I don’t control him” and especially the " I don’t control him" is an admission that he’s agreeing with her that what he’s doing is fucking wrong and trying to both sides shit is irrelevant and honestly a complete Epstein level of distraction that should be ignored.
You know damn well that the Republicans would take anything, in or out of context, and blare it from the roof top to make the Democrats seem weak or awful or whatever and the American people eat it up as truth.
Hate the game, make laws to change it, but play the damn game for fucks sake.
That’s what I don’t get why don’t the Dems play the same game? Look at all the shit Trump has done if his name wis Biden they would be screaming from the rooftops. Even his mental flubs and random dancing would be talked about endlessly.
Yet Trump can talk about another mans penis for 15 minutes and they are like he talked about other stuff also.
… an admission that he’s agreeing with her that what he’s doing is fucking wrong …
That’s arguably true, and different from “admitting Trump is unwell”. Johnson didn’t “admit that Trump [is] unwell”.
You know damn well that the Republicans would take anything, in or out of context, and blare it from the roof top to make the Democrats seem weak or awful or whatever and the American people eat it up as truth.
Of course, because they lie. They mislead, intentionally misrepresent, gaslight, contradict themselves. They thrive when there is no truth. This “post-truth world” is one they made, on purpose, to serve their aims. Fighting back by lying may be a tactical success, but it will definitely be a strategic failure.
No, they must be fought with undeniable facts, until the inevitable arrives. Every “not quite true” dilutes the strength of actual fact and empowers fascism.
No, he’s changing the meaning of “unwell” by comparing what she says about Trump to what Republicans say about Democrats. Which is not that they are actually too old and sick to govern. Well, they do say that and a lot more, but that’s not the implication he’s making here. He’s downplaying how “unwell” Trump is. Because “unwell” is a fucking understatement, and this is him just pushing it further under.
Yeah, just keep on losing while holding some ridiculous moral high ground and hold fast to the stupidity of never reading between the lines and only hold them account if they actually say “Hi, I’m Charlie Kirk and I fully admit I’m a raging racist” and since he never said those exact words, then we’ll happily vote to celebrate his life with and official federal day of mourning.
There’s a difference between a fairly accurate interpretation of someone’s statement and overreaching to accomplish a political goal. I find the headline of this article to be the latter.
I hear what you’re saying, but I don’t think it’s as black and white as you’re making it out to be. “Never reading between the lines” is a strawman; nobody suggested that should be the case.
And here’s why Democrats keep losing the messaging game.
Because Americans are too dumb to understand context?
Yes, but also the media and “influencers” purposefully create these out of context sensationalist headlines that are often blatantly inaccurate given actual context.
And, unfortunately, this particular media outlet has a habit of it, too. I take what Daily Beast says with a big dose of skepticism until shown otherwise.
This headline seems reasonable, though.
Yup. Green Day and George Carlin nailed it.
Because the messaging is controlled by right wing billionaires??
I’m not following. Help me understand?
The phrase “A lot of people on your side are, too. I don’t control him” and especially the " I don’t control him" is an admission that he’s agreeing with her that what he’s doing is fucking wrong and trying to both sides shit is irrelevant and honestly a complete Epstein level of distraction that should be ignored.
You know damn well that the Republicans would take anything, in or out of context, and blare it from the roof top to make the Democrats seem weak or awful or whatever and the American people eat it up as truth.
Hate the game, make laws to change it, but play the damn game for fucks sake.
Democrats have always been playing a completely different (losing) game than Republicans
That’s what I don’t get why don’t the Dems play the same game? Look at all the shit Trump has done if his name wis Biden they would be screaming from the rooftops. Even his mental flubs and random dancing would be talked about endlessly.
Yet Trump can talk about another mans penis for 15 minutes and they are like he talked about other stuff also.
That’s arguably true, and different from “admitting Trump is unwell”. Johnson didn’t “admit that Trump [is] unwell”.
Of course, because they lie. They mislead, intentionally misrepresent, gaslight, contradict themselves. They thrive when there is no truth. This “post-truth world” is one they made, on purpose, to serve their aims. Fighting back by lying may be a tactical success, but it will definitely be a strategic failure.
No, they must be fought with undeniable facts, until the inevitable arrives. Every “not quite true” dilutes the strength of actual fact and empowers fascism.
The “too” implies agreement
No, he’s changing the meaning of “unwell” by comparing what she says about Trump to what Republicans say about Democrats. Which is not that they are actually too old and sick to govern. Well, they do say that and a lot more, but that’s not the implication he’s making here. He’s downplaying how “unwell” Trump is. Because “unwell” is a fucking understatement, and this is him just pushing it further under.
Yeah, just keep on losing while holding some ridiculous moral high ground and hold fast to the stupidity of never reading between the lines and only hold them account if they actually say “Hi, I’m Charlie Kirk and I fully admit I’m a raging racist” and since he never said those exact words, then we’ll happily vote to celebrate his life with and official federal day of mourning.
There’s a difference between a fairly accurate interpretation of someone’s statement and overreaching to accomplish a political goal. I find the headline of this article to be the latter.
I hear what you’re saying, but I don’t think it’s as black and white as you’re making it out to be. “Never reading between the lines” is a strawman; nobody suggested that should be the case.