Nah, that’s disingenuous. ‘The crosseyed fuck who tried to kill you had these damning accusations… oho, did you think those accusations were directed at you?’ Yes. So was the bullet. It’s not a fucking gotcha, it’s plainly why you asked. You need a better retort for someone flatly denying labels for their demonstrable crimes.
Or better yet, don’t platform fascists. You don’t need a blathering attention whore in the room to lay out the case for all of those words being factually accurate. His narcissistic ass is never gonna tearfully admit it’s all true. The Idiot picked a fight with a hurricane.
Who cares if it’s disingenuous? The Republicans are masters of it and I can’t remember the last time I saw one argue anything in good faith. In Canada we have a saying: When they go low, we kick them in the teeth. Democrats should adopt this wholeheartedly IMO. Especially when it comes to Trump himself.
Shit questions are still shit when they’re ours. Don’t poke The Idiot for correctly recognizing he was accused, nail him to the wall with the proof those accusations are correct! What’s the fucking point of having all evidence on our side if we act just like lying fascists doing bully tactics over nothing?
I don’t want a blue-team equivalent of whats-his-face jeering at Jack Smith with a hand full of nothing. I don’t want progressive podcasts patting anyone’s back over that kind of empty showmanship. I am not interested in making conservatives grumble like ‘oh, shucks’ when we hit them with a clever zinger. I want them to recoil. I want them to hear facts which keep them up at night, questioning the politics they have mistaken for an identity.
Except it doesn’t do that. Lets shuffle the teams and see if you can see how dumb this comes across.
Imagine Abdul El-Sayed having an interview with fox news, and after months of painting him as wanting Sharia law, close friends with people that hate America, and the daughter of a woman involved with the Muslim Brotherhood. In that interview they talk about someone that made a political assassination attempt on El-Sayed, stating their hate for all of the above. When asked about the manifesto of the shooter, El-Sayed says they were mentally ill and it’s terrible what the lies they’ve been convinced to believe about him. If the fox news interviewer then smugly says, “Oh do you think it’s referring to you?” does that not come across as the absolute dumbest smarmy gotcha? Wouldn’t that make you feel more like the media is being deceptive and moving in bad faith when talking about El-Sayed?
I am fully aware of the difference in these cases, and that Trump actually is a pedophile and rapist, but this smug clap back does nothing but galvanize those that already think the media is “out to get Trump”. And if we want to actually try and convince whoever in the Trump cult is teetering on realizing they’ve been lied to, its with the detailed receipts of how close Epstein and Trump were. Not pithy witticisms that amount to “pedo says what?”.
You’re using logic for a situation that’s illogical. Idiots vote based on vibes. Maybe seeing one clapback on something that doesn’t even make much sense will affect the vote of one type of idiot at just the right time.
Or maybe not. I’d be happy if all these stupid lying type attack ads were gone from our media landscape, but since that ain’t happening any time soon, I have to belive in swaying stupid people with dumb emotional stuff like this.
I’m sure you don’t believe that the names of insults don’t matter. You and I both know that we don’t call him autistic, or r*tarded. Because those are vulnerable groups who don’t need the stigma. It’s the same with the word narcissistic.
It’s a word that started with an ace kid, and ended up as a neurodivergent diagnosis.
Nah, that’s disingenuous. ‘The crosseyed fuck who tried to kill you had these damning accusations… oho, did you think those accusations were directed at you?’ Yes. So was the bullet. It’s not a fucking gotcha, it’s plainly why you asked. You need a better retort for someone flatly denying labels for their demonstrable crimes.
Or better yet, don’t platform fascists. You don’t need a blathering attention whore in the room to lay out the case for all of those words being factually accurate. His narcissistic ass is never gonna tearfully admit it’s all true. The Idiot picked a fight with a hurricane.
Who cares if it’s disingenuous? The Republicans are masters of it and I can’t remember the last time I saw one argue anything in good faith. In Canada we have a saying: When they go low, we kick them in the teeth. Democrats should adopt this wholeheartedly IMO. Especially when it comes to Trump himself.
Shit questions are still shit when they’re ours. Don’t poke The Idiot for correctly recognizing he was accused, nail him to the wall with the proof those accusations are correct! What’s the fucking point of having all evidence on our side if we act just like lying fascists doing bully tactics over nothing?
I don’t want a blue-team equivalent of whats-his-face jeering at Jack Smith with a hand full of nothing. I don’t want progressive podcasts patting anyone’s back over that kind of empty showmanship. I am not interested in making conservatives grumble like ‘oh, shucks’ when we hit them with a clever zinger. I want them to recoil. I want them to hear facts which keep them up at night, questioning the politics they have mistaken for an identity.
It’s so utterly frustrating to see people that seem to have politics that are completely rooted in twitter clap backs.
If that’s what it takes to convince idiots to stop voting for fascists I’m all for it
Except it doesn’t do that. Lets shuffle the teams and see if you can see how dumb this comes across.
Imagine Abdul El-Sayed having an interview with fox news, and after months of painting him as wanting Sharia law, close friends with people that hate America, and the daughter of a woman involved with the Muslim Brotherhood. In that interview they talk about someone that made a political assassination attempt on El-Sayed, stating their hate for all of the above. When asked about the manifesto of the shooter, El-Sayed says they were mentally ill and it’s terrible what the lies they’ve been convinced to believe about him. If the fox news interviewer then smugly says, “Oh do you think it’s referring to you?” does that not come across as the absolute dumbest smarmy gotcha? Wouldn’t that make you feel more like the media is being deceptive and moving in bad faith when talking about El-Sayed?
I am fully aware of the difference in these cases, and that Trump actually is a pedophile and rapist, but this smug clap back does nothing but galvanize those that already think the media is “out to get Trump”. And if we want to actually try and convince whoever in the Trump cult is teetering on realizing they’ve been lied to, its with the detailed receipts of how close Epstein and Trump were. Not pithy witticisms that amount to “pedo says what?”.
You’re using logic for a situation that’s illogical. Idiots vote based on vibes. Maybe seeing one clapback on something that doesn’t even make much sense will affect the vote of one type of idiot at just the right time.
Or maybe not. I’d be happy if all these stupid lying type attack ads were gone from our media landscape, but since that ain’t happening any time soon, I have to belive in swaying stupid people with dumb emotional stuff like this.
Theseistic, not narcissistic. Narcissus didn’t rape anyone, according to Conon he “rejected Eros”
A rose, by any other name, is still a fat fuck pedophile thief of the people.
I’m sure you don’t believe that the names of insults don’t matter. You and I both know that we don’t call him autistic, or r*tarded. Because those are vulnerable groups who don’t need the stigma. It’s the same with the word narcissistic.
It’s a word that started with an ace kid, and ended up as a neurodivergent diagnosis.