>> He did say it. And that's part of why I'm calling the overall speech ambiguous.
Nothing ambiguous about it. If you flatly say, "I'm referring to group x but not group y" you cannot rightly infer that group y is included. This is not complicated. At the very worst you could say, "That's confusing, he should have said it like this..." But it isn't even complicated. It is crystal clear. I don't know how you could have made the same point and had it be clearer.
The other possible assertion is that he was lying, which there is absolutely no basis, whatsoever, for. That statement would have to be supported by some kind of meaningful truth, and it isn't.
It is a simple case of misleading media reporting (which in many instances chose to "leave out" the qualification) or people hearing precisely what they want to hear just as you have done this morning.
If the man qualified it, and you're not acknowledging it, you are leading yourself to conclusions that are unjust. I find it strange, given the usual precision of your language, that you would do this intentionally, and find it interesting. Are we dealing with TDS? Is it induced by media coverage? Is it caused by Trump just not being a likable person? I do not know. |
