Read on Twitter
The hole John Steenhuisen is digging for himself and by virtue for @Our_DA is getting deeper.
When the leader of a party takes to Twitter to lambast someone, despite clear evidence of an error & apology being made, what would you call that?
And when it’s used to deflect?
When the leader of a party takes to Twitter to lambast someone, despite clear evidence of an error & apology being made, what would you call that?
And when it’s used to deflect?
Let’s check out the fuller context.
It was a somewhat different SONA given COVID-19 precautions, but there were persons in the house and protocols apply.
Those persons rose on two occasions.
1. When the Prez entered
2. When the Prez took the podium
(check ALL the footage)
It was a somewhat different SONA given COVID-19 precautions, but there were persons in the house and protocols apply.
Those persons rose on two occasions.
1. When the Prez entered
2. When the Prez took the podium
(check ALL the footage)
It’s clear from the footage the DA contingent rose on the 1st & remained seated on the 2nd.
What’s also clear from footage is DA contingent looking around them on the 2nd occasion.
They’re of sound faculties, they would have noticed the difference. They chose to remain seated
What’s also clear from footage is DA contingent looking around them on the 2nd occasion.
They’re of sound faculties, they would have noticed the difference. They chose to remain seated
John’s response to @JennMForster original tweet (at 06:42) is posted at 15:13. Jenn’s apology & correction is posted at 11:14 (moments after her error is pointed out) & it appears directly below her original tweet.
John adds a 2nd response at 15:15
Did he miss Jenn’s 2nd tweet?
John adds a 2nd response at 15:15
Did he miss Jenn’s 2nd tweet?
Jenn is making two points in her original tweet, one of fact, one of principle.
She errs in part on the fact. The DA stood on 1st rising, but it remained seated on the 2nd. The principle however still applies.
She errs in part on the fact. The DA stood on 1st rising, but it remained seated on the 2nd. The principle however still applies.
John uses the term “absolute lie”. By which he is ascribing intent to Jenn - that she is deliberately misstating the “truth”.
He does not address the principle. He offers no reason for why the DA @Natasha9Mazzone (?) remained seated on the 2nd.
He does not address the principle. He offers no reason for why the DA @Natasha9Mazzone (?) remained seated on the 2nd.
I’d tag John but blocked from pre-2019 election days. We differed on his stance on guns
Which adds another point. Jenn confirms she is blocked by John. What’s not clear is whether she was blocked prior to her tweet or after
Either way she cannot respond. But John’s faithful can
Which adds another point. Jenn confirms she is blocked by John. What’s not clear is whether she was blocked prior to her tweet or after
Either way she cannot respond. But John’s faithful can
And John’s faithful are not kind in their comments.
Is it unfair to expect that elected leaders, lead by example? That they treat persons with dignity & moderate their followers?
Jenn erred on fact. She apologised & restated the principle.
John blew right past that.
A leader?
Is it unfair to expect that elected leaders, lead by example? That they treat persons with dignity & moderate their followers?
Jenn erred on fact. She apologised & restated the principle.
John blew right past that.
A leader?
Final point. If you’re publicly critiquing the party you are opposed to, where would like the emphasis to lie?
On the disdain you exhibit for the President, the smack-down of a person who erred in good faith on social media, or on how your policy alternatives are better?
On the disdain you exhibit for the President, the smack-down of a person who erred in good faith on social media, or on how your policy alternatives are better?
