Jay Ashcroft flopped when faced with the most dreaded predicament amongst grandstanding blowhards: a follow-up question

Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft’s attempt to justify his ludicrous threat to have President Joe Biden removed from the state’s electoral ballot spiraled into chaos over the most basic of questions: “How so?”

During a Monday interview with CNN’s Boris Sanchez, the Republican was asked how he justified his threats to have Biden removed from the state’s ballot in retaliation for recent attempts to remove Trump from state ballots on grounds that his actions in the aftermath of the 2020 election constitute insurrection. The constitutionality of such a removal will soon be reviewed by the Supreme Court.

“What would then be your justification for removing Joe Biden from the ballot in Missouri. Has he engaged in your mind in some kind of insurrection?” Sanchez asked.

“There have been allegations that he’s engaged in insurrection,” Ashcroft replied. He was then met with the most dreaded predicament amongst grandstanding blowhards: a follow-up question.

“How so?” Sanchez asked, prompting Ashcroft to demand that Sanchez stop interrupting him. “You can’t say something like that and not back it up,” Sanchez countered.

“You interrupted me before I could back it up,” a flustered Ashcroft complained. “Are you scared of the truth?”

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Didn’t watch the video, but from the quotes he did wait…

      The Republican just claimed he was cut off so he couldn’t answer, and then still wouldn’t answer.

      He wants to have the “let me finish” argument where it just devolves to that. When given time to answer, they don’t, just keep saying “let me finish” until they walk away.

      Remember, Republicans are toddlers, and they argue like that

      • ThrowawayOnLemmy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        32
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The host did cut him off a few times, but he cut him off specifically to keep him on focus to the questions at hand and not let him bloviate.

        • maniclucky@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          29
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah. When a secretary of state positively asserts that there have been allegations that the sitting president of the United States has engaged in insurrection, making them answer “what did he do?” is the only next thing that should be asked and no deviations should be allowed.

      • rynzcycle@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I just watched, he does jump in once or twice, but seems like satellite delay awkwardness mostly.

        After laying out the question, “what are the (details of the) allegations of Biden’s supposed insurrection” Sanchez gives him loads of time to look like the fool he is.

      • Waluigis_Talking_Buttplug@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        11 months ago

        but from the quotes he did wait

        didn’t watch the video

        Okay buddy. Good for you I guess. You didn’t watch and yet you have an opinion that’s specifically related to watching.

    • Chainweasel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      The host cut him off to keep him on track so he can ruin his own argument instead of changing the subject.

    • PoopingCough@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah i think the problem is when you just let them talk they will quickly change the subject and start up the gish gallop so interrupting is the only way to actually stay on topic. Otherwise you’re just giving them a platform to spew a hundred lies without having a chance to refute anything.