It's hardly ever going to turn out to have been the right call when a public person decides "to just be grossly generalistic."
-
-
"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?
-
If she/they believe it, why hedge, which undermines the claim? If she/they don't believe it, why say it?
-
because to play politics is to play semantics? I don't think hedging undermines here.
End of conversation
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.