re: #397 Nyet

You realize that freetoken’s comment doesn’t support what you wrote and doesn’t contradict what I wrote, right? What he wrote was completely true and yet completely orthogonal to my point, which was: if you’re going to accuse “some in the media” of falsifying someone’s words, it helps to check out primary sources first.

I wasn’t saying the media falsified anything. I said they said she called him a bigot. She did not. I just read the whole speech. I understand your point. You don’t seem to want to see mine.

The media could just as easily have said Clinton’s speech built a case that Donald Trump is a bigot. Because that is what she did exactly.

What would you have thought had she just simply said “Donald Trump is a bigot?”

Would it have been as effective? Would it have shut down the ears of a lot of people? Would it have been seen as outrageous and a low blow?

How would the media have reacted to that as opposed to how they did report it? You would have heard that in little video sound clips over and over and over again. You won’t see that because it did not happen.

There is the difference I am talking about.

You can call it splitting hairs. I think I will call it subtle effectiveness.

Disagree all you want. It is your right. I think others will understand what I am talking about. I think freetoken was one of those people.

I am dropping it after this comment. I’ve made my point. It would be stupid to carry it any further from my end.