[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Four U.S. presidents spoke this week about systemic racism and injustice. They used their platforms to illuminate the humanity in all Americans and to decry the dehumanization of some. And they summoned the nation to confront its failures, make change and come together.

Typical high sounding political pablum. Push came to shove, they all used force, against other races, against other ideologies, against others period. I like your rhetorical trick of using the mellifluous high tone to "illuminate" their speeches for us.

A fifth U.S. president spoke instead this week about using military force to dominate Americans who are protesting racial injustice.

Another commonplace rhetorical trick of raising rioters, hooligans, thugs, to admirable "protesters of racial injustice." This is too blatant for any rational person to swallow. You know damned well that Trump wasn't referring to peaceful protesters. I would like to say this kind of cheap fakery is beneath you, but it isn't.

He declared winners and losers among state and city officials trying to safeguard their streets. And, with his reelection campaign in mind, he sought to apply a partisan political lens to the national reckoning over racial inequities.

God, you end with this thick, vague, contorted attempt at saying something that sounds bad for Trump.

But you did successfully tone down the rhetoric from the lofty heights when speaking of the other four contra-Trump Presidents to a more lowly, commonplace, somewhat antagonistic and confused diction befitting your opinion of Trump.

Congratulations on that, but more clarity and specificity would help the reader, though, on the other hand, vagueness, generalization, lack of rigorous candor, makes it easier to make orange man bad.