Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When they say the “Hoax” thing in the beginning, people will stop listening. It automatically makes them wonder what other false claims they are making.
Keep in mind, that snopes is a left leaning website, and even THEY say, “ Trump did not call the coronavirus itself a hoax.”
They do try to muddy the waters, because of their leftist propensity, but they cant bring themselves to out and out lie, like the commercial does.
When they say the “Hoax” thing in the beginning, people will stop listening. It automatically makes them wonder what other false claims they are making.
Keep in mind, that snopes is a left leaning website, and even THEY say, “ Trump did not call the coronavirus itself a hoax.”
They do try to muddy the waters, because of their leftist propensity, but they cant bring themselves to out and out lie, like the commercial does.
Only with a clown like Trump would you even have to make these kind of semantical arguments.
"The threat of Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor is a hoax perpetrated by the media to hurt my re-election chances" the media talking about the threat was a hoax, not the actual attack. WTF difference does that make in context?
In the context of his "it will disappear" "15 cases and going down", etc, his use of the term hoax in relation to this situation, whether direct or indirect, doesn't matter in context. He led people to believe there was no concern about this thing, and many reacted accordingly.
It all makes me wonder about people who are so “concerned” about foreign nations trying to effect our election.
They show absolutely no concern about corporations trying to effect our election. Well, I guess that is unless the corporation is FOX News Corp.
The thing I wonder about them is, is the concern really that they are foreign nations, or is it the actual message that they are railing about. After all, they espouse the same level of vitriol for any conservative leaning news organization that they do for Russia. If Canada was putting up pro Clinton or anti Trump ads on Facebook or other social media, would the left have a big problem with a foreign country trying to meddle in our elections?
Only with a clown like Trump would you even have to make these kind of semantical arguments.
"The threat of Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor is a hoax perpetrated by the media to hurt my re-election chances" the media talking about the threat was a hoax, not the actual attack. WTF difference does that make in context?
In the context of his "it will disappear" "15 cases and going down", etc, his use of the term hoax in relation to this situation, whether direct or indirect, doesn't matter in context. He led people to believe there was no concern about this thing, and many reacted accordingly.
Exactly right. Whether he was referring to the virus itself or the criticism of his failure to take it seriously enough is irrelevant. The core message - that the covid was something that should not be taken seriously and will soon disappear - is the same either way.
Every other President since the invention of television has been able to handle these types of questions. There's no reason DJT should get an easy pass.
Only with a clown like Trump would you even have to make these kind of semantical arguments.
"The threat of Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor is a hoax perpetrated by the media to hurt my re-election chances" the media talking about the threat was a hoax, not the actual attack. WTF difference does that make in context?
In the context of his "it will disappear" "15 cases and going down", etc, his use of the term hoax in relation to this situation, whether direct or indirect, doesn't matter in context. He led people to believe there was no concern about this thing, and many reacted accordingly.
It is not semantics when the definitions are completely different. Your problem, as illustrated in your post, is that you dont understand the distinction. Let me change your example to make it analogous:
“The opposing party attempting to make the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, my fault, is just another one of their hoaxes.”
Exactly right. Whether he was referring to the virus itself or the criticism of his failure to take it seriously enough is irrelevant. The core message - that the covid was something that should not be taken seriously and will soon disappear - is the same either way.
No this is dishonesty. If what he said was really as bad, there would be no reason for the dishonest presentation of it. You guys could just present it as it is, and it would have the same impact.
But it is not, so you change the presentation in order to make it worse than it is.
It is not semantics when the definitions are completely different. Your problem, as illustrated in your post, is that you dont understand the distinction. Let me change your example to make it analogous:
“The opposing party attempting to make the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, my fault, is just another one of their hoaxes.”
You dont see the difference?
No. At the time he was telling people that coronavirus was contained and would soon disappear, so the claim that he as referring to being blamed for its spread makes no sense.
Trump even later clarified his "hoax" comment and said he was referring to "critic[ism]" of the White House's inadequate response to the coronavirus and the "job" they were doing in combating it.
Trump was asked if he regretted using “hoax” now someone had died. His use of the word referred to “the action [Democrats] tried to take to try to pin this on somebody because we’ve done such a good job”, he said.
“The hoax is on them. I’m not talking about what’s happening here,” Trump added, also saying “I don’t like it when they are criticising [federal health officials], and that’s the hoax.”
It is not semantics when the definitions are completely different. Your problem, as illustrated in your post, is that you dont understand the distinction. Let me change your example to make it analogous:
“The opposing party attempting to make the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, my fault, is just another one of their hoaxes.”
You dont see the difference?
You're a bit off on this
“The opposing party attempting to make downplaying Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, my fault, is just another one of their hoaxes.”
He played a very large part in the general population, especially his "base" downplaying it.
You don't think a bunch of those people in Louisiana who have this now weren't his "base" and took this lightly because of him and his media buddies?
No this is dishonesty. If what he said was really as bad, there would be no reason for the dishonest presentation of it. You guys could just present it as it is, and it would have the same impact.
But it is not, so you change the presentation in order to make it worse than it is.
I think they should be airing full quotes, because it makes no difference in context to anyone who isn't bending over backwards to defend him. But who airs 15 second quotes in political adds?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
