And it doesn’t matter that he and the campaign, again almost entirely anonymously but from respectable reporters insofar as thats a thing, said that they asked him to say it less? Of what value is the distinction between asking him not to say it at all or to say it less?
My dude you are taking the word of an anonymous report over the actual evidence you can go look up with your eyes on CSPAN! You can go to their website & see tons of videos of his campaign stops where he fucking says it!
I’m not trying to say that he stopped saying it. I am asking what is the importance of the distinction? The people you are so annoyed with are annoyed that the brakes were pumped. If they are speaking generally and saying he stopped saying it, and the reality is he was asked to say it less.
The brakes weren't pumped. It didn't happen. He continued saying the stuff you wanted him to say, the media stopped covering it & then made up a source to excuse themselves.
Complaining that the Dems didn't do enough vs targeting the people that actually make the choices on what gets airtime. Do you really not see a difference?
The Dems both did not do enough, they lost the election. And the media stopped covering it. The Dems are bad at media. Why can’t both of those things be true? What is the value of getting bent up that some people think one matter more? You’re still arguing about something unimportant with an ally.
Comments