For years, Donald Trump has leaned on all-caps social media posts to grab attention online.
His Truth Social feed often reads like a never-ending shouting match. However, that changed after Gavin Newsom (D-Calif.) began mocking the president’s style in dozens of posts interspersed among his regular missives.
This has been going on for the better part of a week, and seems to have gotten to Trump’s ego, as his latest Truth Social posts aren’t in his classic all-caps style.
He explicitly implied he was considering running on Charlemagne’s show. Wouldn’t mean much for most people but Jon has always aggressively shut down any such suggestion and here he brought it up.
By explicitly implied, you mean he laughed and didn’t explicitly deny it when asked, then changed the subject. Also keep in mind he’s been asked this question publicly probably once a week for the last 20 years.
I mean, it’s possible. I’ll just wait until he actually confirms he’s exploring it.
It’s weird that you’re implying you know he’s answered the question weekly(going hard with the hyperbole) but have obviously never seen him give said answer.
link pls maybe timestamp too anybody?
He’s been asked all the time since the George W. Bush administration. Incidentally the comments sections for The Daily Show have been filled with comments about it since their videos were first put on YouTube. Here’s a random time he was asked. I found it in 5 seconds.
https://youtu.be/RQMDZTAQsYE
Yes! And a whole movie was made and released based on the idea of someone like him running. Probally largely due to this strong, long present sentiment. It stars Robin Williams.
Yeah I know. I’ve seen dosens of times.
Choose one
Implicitly explied.
No! Schrödinger’s cat for president!
He clearly implied. Leaving no room for confusion or doubt that he implied what he implied.
The implication was explicit. He’s considering running. No one thinks he was implying he would run for a spot on Sesame Street, or as Chief of Staff, or any other position.
You don’t think that works well enough, especially in the context of Jon’s relationship with the subject in the past?
You keep using these words… I do not think they mean what you think they mean.
If you must interpret the meaning of his words based on additional context, then he was implying.
If there is no need for interpretation, then he was being explicit.
His relationship to the subject in the past has been an utter lack of interest in running for any kind of office, and has never even attempted it on a local level or expressed a desire to.
How about we all get the dick of celebrityhood in general out of our collective mouths and just let the man tell us what he has planned if he has something planned.
Whoa, I was just discussing why I would go easy on the poor word choices here. Calm down.
Go watch the clip. In the context of Jon Stewart it’s weird. He hasn’t given the idea serious thought since the rally to restore sanity in ancient times.
Even Jon Stewart cannot defy the rules of logic.
Either he explicitly said “I am running for president” or he implied it by saying something other than “I am running for president.”
“I’m not saying I’m running for president but I’m not not saying that, if you know what I mean”
(haven’t seen the clip, just postulating)
That’s not explicit. At most, it strongly implies he’s running.
Pretty much whenever someone ends a sentence with “if you know what I mean”, they are implying something.
It’s not about him actually running. It’s about him considering. You’re jumping ahead.
He’s never considered it an option before. But now he’s considering it.
Either way, he is either explicitly considering it or he implied that he’s considering it.
It’s not explicitly saying X, it’s explicitly implying X. Really being explicit that they’re implying the thing.
You can’t explicitly imply something. You can either imply or be explicit.
Our understanding of how words work is different and that is ok. We’ve clearly communicated how we each interpret the phrase, so there’s no misunderstanding in this case and we are unlikely to encounter the same phrase together again in the wild.
edit: root disagreement is that you believe the adverb “explicitly” cannot modify the verb “imply”, whereas I believe it can. I doubt either of us will convince the other.