I think when you read that article it’s important to think critically about how it’s composed.
I am as anti-trump as the next European “centrist dad”, but nothing I read there made me think he went out of his way to tell that story unprompted. I imagine he was interviewed, said a bunch of stuff, and then someone cherry-picked the quotes they needed to support the narrative of the article… You can’t just take it at face value!?
But they are giving the context in which he says it.
The story came about as he was discussing his uneasiness for looking at blood, which prompted him to recall the incident.
And I wouldn’t call it cherry picking if an article that says: Here is a bad thing Trump said in an old interview is quoting, well, said bad thing. In Context.
I mean, you are right about what they did. He said a lot of stuff and they represent the things that make him look bad. Doesn’t change that he said them tough.
I think when you read that article it’s important to think critically about how it’s composed. I am as anti-trump as the next European “centrist dad”, but nothing I read there made me think he went out of his way to tell that story unprompted. I imagine he was interviewed, said a bunch of stuff, and then someone cherry-picked the quotes they needed to support the narrative of the article… You can’t just take it at face value!?
But they are giving the context in which he says it.
And I wouldn’t call it cherry picking if an article that says: Here is a bad thing Trump said in an old interview is quoting, well, said bad thing. In Context.
I mean, you are right about what they did. He said a lot of stuff and they represent the things that make him look bad. Doesn’t change that he said them tough.