That's like saying "authors write crime fiction". True in a sense, but also deeply misleading when we consider many authors do not write crime fiction.
I'm shrugging off your attempt to deflect criticism of Donald Trump with a dishonest attack on the media.
Condemning the media for describing a suggestion as a suggestion is that. Saying that drinking bleach is a "perfect remembering" of what the media reported is that. You inarguably did these things and anyone can just go back a page or two to see.
It's quite obvious that isn't your motive, though. You leap into action to take the media to account-- even to the point of misrepresenting what they reported-- only when they criticise Trump or the Republicans. Your intent isn't to hold the media to account in any nonpartisan way. Its simply to deflect and defuse criticisms of the Republicans, whether those reports are true and fair criticisms or not.
I've described what Trump actually, demonstrably suggested. That is the truth. He suggested it, and I (and the media) pointed to it and described it accurately. You are the only one here to invent a worse scenario-- one in which the media said he suggested to drink bleach. They didn't do that-- you invented it as a smear.
Did you forget the Atlantic titled their article on it "Why It’s Important Not to Drink Bleach"?
Are you willing to claim that Time article was not deliberately misleading? I'm pretty sure we thoroughly identified that article as false and then tracked their source data down to prove they had the correct information.
They didn't claim Trump told people to. They just warned not to-- at a time when people were drinking bleach.
No, what you've shown is that daily data could be accessed, but you have not demonstrated that the daily data is what the Time journalist accessed. Thus no firm conclusion can be drawn whether it was deliberate or not.
He named the document he used, and then I showed you the document. You're effectively speculating that he could only see the left third of a page.
They warned not to with articles almost entirely about Trump, sometimes with a big picture of his face slapped across it. Maybe you could take a generous reading that they were using Trump to draw attention to genuine dangers, but that's still manipulative.
He named where the data came from - that's not necessarily the same thing as the document he used.
Oh god. Someone please persuade him to retire ASAP.
You know what? Fine. I will prove it. Beyond a shadow of doubt, I will prove it. And if you will be so kind as to admit I was correct on this specific instance, it's not going to crush your arguments overall, and I promise I won't gloat about it.
OK...? I'm sorry they put some pictures in a misleading place. This makes it about 10% as misleading as you were, when you entirely misrepresented what they said.
Men bring crime. Men are rapist. And some, I assume, are good people
Unfortunately, we probably don't want him to retire. All Dems have been othered by MAGA/Trump/Q/other far-right groups and no GOP member will ever listen to them. They MIGHT, and it's a very low percentage, listen to McConnell. But they are already well on their way to othering most of the GOP too
Where is the lie?
Again. Context.
No. Let me explain why.
This is a classic case of two separate news items coming out within a month of each other that are now mushed into one narrative
Turning year over year numbers into percentages and comparing increases by month and then attempting to dissect them across the day Trump made his comment is infinitely more effort than looking at the graph and seeing the peak before he said anything. The graph is big and simple. The numbers are small and more complicated. Your analysis doesn't make sense even if we try to rationalize it that way, which we shouldn't, because this isn't an undergrad doing the bare minimum on a mandatory assignment, this is a senior science writer authoring a voluntary piece for one of the world's most prominent magazines.
