> I'm not sure this particular example fits the "sarcastic" angle Ok, but Trump disagrees with you: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/12/donald-trum

> I'm not sure this particular example fits the "sarcastic" angle Ok, but Trump disagrees with you: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/12/donald-trump-obama-isis-founder-sarcasm https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/12/donald-trump... > Perhaps DT's objection is over the implication from HH's statement, rather than to be taken literally Perhaps all sorts of things. That's the problem - throughout the campaign all sorts of Trump surrogates found themselves saying "What he actually meant was...". > It would certainly be great if DT had the eloquence of Obama, and his statements were well-crafted and not so open to interpretation It's totally fair to be suspicious of well-crafted statements of career politicians and prefer the "honest simple speech" of outsiders. I'm not sure that's a good description of the way that Trump talks, however. It's impossible to prove, but I believe that he deliberately speaks ambiguously to serve his own purposes - which is the opposite of honest speech. > He will eventually become President, and be forced to make decisions - actions are much easier to evaluate than words. This is very true. And who knows, he might do great things - I'm not hopeful, though.