Sure, and if you want to argue “a staffer did it”, then “staying on point”/“generally cohesive” is a stretch to make the argument work. This has extremely jumpy flow, and trying to move the standard further back and say “bUt NoT fOr TrUmP” just turns this whole thing into an unfalsifiable hypothesis facilitated by an infinitely movable goalpost. I can point out why it’s so jumpy (any literate person should be able to), but I’m confident it’ll be met with, again, “tRuMp StAnDaRdS tHo!!”.
Edit: More importantly, though, saying confidently that “it’s not from Trump” is hilariously unfounded. I’m not arguing it is or is not from Trump, but rather that saying anything definitively like that is absurd.
Sure, and if you want to argue “a staffer did it”, then “staying on point”/“generally cohesive” is a stretch to make the argument work. This has extremely jumpy flow, and trying to move the standard further back and say “bUt NoT fOr TrUmP” just turns this whole thing into an unfalsifiable hypothesis facilitated by an infinitely movable goalpost. I can point out why it’s so jumpy (any literate person should be able to), but I’m confident it’ll be met with, again, “tRuMp StAnDaRdS tHo!!”.
Edit: More importantly, though, saying confidently that “it’s not from Trump” is hilariously unfounded. I’m not arguing it is or is not from Trump, but rather that saying anything definitively like that is absurd.