"Let’s review what actually happened. I pointed out that what you think Trump meant is not what he actually meant."
You do understand what you're saying is that your he-said-this-but-really-meant-this *interpretation* of the concrete, unambiguous statement "I think it's over. I don't want to deal with them but they're scum." Trump uttered is just you "projecting what you want to believe he said" rather than what he actually said, correct?
"Since you didn’t have an argument for that, you did the typical 'yeah but he’s a rapist and a felon' deflection."
Nope, that was a response to you trying to make it about, accusing me of TDS. Incidentally, I didn't say "rapist;" that's just you seeing what you want to see rather than what's actually there. No, I said "found civilly liable for sexual assault" -thank you for that window into your perceptions concerning Trump's actions, btw. And, since *you* made it about Trump Derangement Syndrome, which of us is attempting to run defense for a 34-times convicted felon found civilly liable for sexual assault by resorting to self-delusional assertions of "he-said-this-but-really-meant-this"? That would be you. That's pretty deranged there, bud.
"Apparently I surprised you by not going down your deflection hole and now you’re trying to blame me for getting off topic."
*You* made it about TDS, I just fed you what you needed to rabbit because I'm interested in seeing where you'll flee. And here we are, with you continuing to make false claims built on things no-one said.
Interesting... so first you make a claim of "you’re projecting what you want to believe" and then turn around and fire off a claim of Harris "pretty much campaigning for 4 years via her words and actions"? Really? Seems remarkably like you're engaging in a program of "fine for me but not for thee" while scrambling to move the conversation away from, strategically avoiding return to discussion of the accuracy of the OP.
I find that exceedingly strange given how you initially objected to a reasonable interpretation of Trump's own words, dictated by the mechanics of spoken English --especially given that Harris specifically campaigned for three months and that "four years" nonsense you're pushing is clearly just you "projecting what you want to believe" she did...
Well... that or the false narrative you need to create in an effort to shore up your allegation "Harris lost because of her incompetence. Her main qualifications were race and gender" when the vote count demonstrates strong potential in the opposite direction.
LOL!!! You're still pushing claim despite bountiful evidence to the contrary? Really? Does Danzinger's Bullshit Repellent come in a MAGAt-targeted version?
That's a nice fairy tale to tell yourself if you're desperately in need of copium but the numbers indicate otherwise. In 2024, it wasn't the landslide victory Trump so desperately tries to convince everyone happened. He got 49.8% of votes cast while Harris got 48.3% -that's a margin of only 1.5%. When we take into account the fact that Harris came into the race with only three months left to campaign, is generally disliked by the Right for the qualifications you named but only lost the race by what amounts to a razor-thin margin, that tends to take the wind out of claims of "incompetent".
Further, she likely would have picked up the necessary votes to win had she pressed hard on Red/swing states states because voters who went straight GOP on down-ballot candidates but rejected Trump for Biden in 2020 were still out there. Had you said "negligent," I'd have a certain inclination to agree but there's still the issue of limited campaign time-frame she was working with soooo...
All that aside, I'm obligated to ask: why are you trying so hard to steer the conversation as far as possible from the subject matter of the OP?
