This. They've had a vested interest in ignoring it, in assuming the other side is being hyperbolic about it.
I think (as I often do) about the Congressional GOP overriding President Obama's veto on the law to hold Saudi Arabia accountable for 9/11 and then, when they realized the precedent they were setting could be used against us (his argument for vetoing), they blamed him.
"He should have told us," they said to a man who enacted a whole veto and carefully explained his reasoning. "He should have told us in a way that would make us understand he was serious."
I think about the Brexiteers, who campaigned on a platform that was equal part lies and fearmongering, and when they won, they asked that their counterparts in Europe who had warned them about what they were committing to drop their own masquerade and were told there was none.
"We were lying about you... and obviously you were lying about us, right?"
It is no great secret nor special insight to say that Donald projects, but the story he loves to tell where Adam Schiff sold the Democratic caucus on a fairytale of a bad phone call and then the transcript came out and they all freaked out may be ironically prophetic in the end.
"What do you mean this isn't a lot of partisan nonsense? What do you mean we've been defending a criminal? Obviously you said that but you should have found a special way to say it that would let us know you were serious. You should've said the safe word."
