Trump Comes to Ohio and Threatens the Entire Country

[hollodero]

(03-18-2024, 11:27 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Here I cannot agree.  Schumer specifically cited two justices by name.  Of course Schumer phrased in a way with a slight amount of plausible deniability, he is a slimy politicians after all.  But his statement is far more blunt than Trump's and far less open to misinterpretation.  You can argue their different history all you want, the statement on its own is all one needs to condemn him.

Oh, you might have misread my intentions with this example. I widely agree with you on that one, Schumer's words warrant condemnation ('highly irresponsible at the very least', which is also what I would say about Trump here). What I was getting at - even though the examples are not all that similar - was depicting the mechanics at play, eg. what I mean when accusing Trump of using a certain, devious language that can be defended as harmless, but probably isn't. Just curious why you tend to give Trump the benefit of the doubt and not Schumer. Imho, both do not deserve it.

And while I might even agree that Schumer was indeeed a bit more blunt than Trump in these specific instances, Trump just is a repeated offender on that front and the list one could make about all his "plausibly deniable" statements is endless.