So @CillizzaCNN has an article claiming to highlight "The 28 most outrageous lines from Donald Trump's Mount Rushmore speech"
I don't know if he had any say in that headline, but there is no reasonable way to describe most of these lines as "outrageous" https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/04/politics/donald-trump-mount-rushmore-south-dakota-speech-lines/index.html
I don't know if he had any say in that headline, but there is no reasonable way to describe most of these lines as "outrageous" https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/04/politics/donald-trump-mount-rushmore-south-dakota-speech-lines/index.html
A bunch of the lines are completely uncontroversial things like thanking first responders and describing the achievements of Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln.
Outrageous!
Outrageous!
A bunch of others are actually very positive statements about equality, open debate, and loving the country that everyone should applaud without pause, but Czilla responds to them with random other non-sequiturs.
Outrageous!
Outrageous!
The one that really seemed to bother @CillizzaCNN was Trump's defense of Mount Rushmore..
"Uh, was there some sort of movement to tear down Mount Rushmore I was unaware of or....?"
Apparently, Chris doesn't read CNN...
"Uh, was there some sort of movement to tear down Mount Rushmore I was unaware of or....?"
Apparently, Chris doesn't read CNN...
Rest are basically CC taking issue with the opinions/framing in Trump's speech and instead insisting his own are right.
Ex: There is absolutely an effort to dispute view of founders as heroes in academia. It's why Zinn's People's History & 1619 project are being promoted.
Ex: There is absolutely an effort to dispute view of founders as heroes in academia. It's why Zinn's People's History & 1619 project are being promoted.
There are lines someone might disagree with or think Trump is wrong about, but how do these count as outrageous?
Was @CillizzaCNN hoping that no one actually read past the headline?
Was @CillizzaCNN hoping that no one actually read past the headline?