The post, which apparently will not be showing up in the corresponding thread on PolitiFact's Facebook page:
***If Cain knows so much about these documents and speaks of them so frequently then such an elementary (school) mistake shouldn't happen.***
We might use the same reasoning to ridicule the president for campaigning... in all 57 states. Your reasoning is spurious. Extemporaneous speech easily leads to omissions and other slips of the tongue. The evidence says that is the case here with Cain.
***And you know damn well that those listening to him probably don't know the difference and think that those words really ARE in the Constitution.***
Those people listening to him in Atlanta have had a chance to listen to him for years, as he is a well-known radio personality there. Like me, they're likely to have heard Cain's full and accurate explanation prior to hearing his announcement speech. Not that it matters what the audience thinks. The point is whether Cain knows what he's talking about or not. The evidence says yes. You say no.
***So he was trying to intentionally mislead his audience, or he spoke incompetently about a topic he supposedly knows a lot about.***
Sure, if you'll admit that President Obama spoke incompetently about the number of states in the union even though he's relatively expert in knowing the number of states. Where's that teleprompter when you really need it?
***And yes, you are ignoring the obvious (as usual).***
About what, specifically? It's obvious in both videos I linked that Cain knows the contents of the founding documents as touching his announcement speech. Yet you're trying to leave it an open question whether he knows what he's talking about. Aren't you the one ignoring the evidence?
No comments:
Post a Comment