It's hardly ever going to turn out to have been the right call when a public person decides "to just be grossly generalistic."
My discussion is about the hedging language that preceded it and asking why do that:https://twitter.com/chrisgeidner/status/774457367522082816 …
-
-
@ParkerMolloy@fmanjoo I'm going to say "okay" and walk away because it's after 1am on a Friday night/Saturday morning -
Okay. I'm not sure what that means, but, okay.
-
"is it beneficial to the greater cause to play devil's advocate for trump's demographic?"
-
I wasn't doing that! Not at all, and you're either reading things into what I wrote or intentionally misreading what I wrote.
-
I guess I'm confused by the "maybe..." followed by the "but..."; was this purely thought exploration?
-
I was saying, "I don't think HRC's campaign has taken position that 50% of Trump supporters are deplorable, but maybe they are."
-
Does that inverse recitation make it more clear? I was saying, "I don't think this is their position, but maybe it is."
-
But, more importantly, that was just an underlying Q to the actual Q I was asking: Why the "grossly generalistic" caveat?
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.