By John Q. Hosedrinker 
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt claimed President Donald Trump’s Davos speech received “rave reviews.” However, critics quickly disputed this assessment, describing the 72-minute speech as rambling and filled with attacks on various topics. Trump’s speech included demanding control of Greenland (while mistakenly referring to Iceland), insulting other nations, and veering into unrelated tangents. Social media users and public figures widely mocked Leavitt’s claims, contrasting her statement with the actual content and delivery of Trump’s speech.
Read the original article here
Critics Mock ‘Delusional’ Karoline Leavitt After Trump’s Speech
The recent remarks from Karoline Leavitt, White House press secretary, following Donald Trump’s speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, have sparked a wave of criticism. The central point of contention revolves around Leavitt’s assertion that Trump received “rave reviews” for his address. However, many find her assessment to be, at best, a significant misrepresentation of the event, and at worst, a deliberate attempt to mislead. The reality, as viewed by many, was a rambling speech filled with attacks and inaccuracies.
Rather than “rave reviews,” critics described the speech as “raving,” a reflection of the content itself. Trump’s speech wandered across a wide array of topics, from Somali immigrants to windmills, often veering into tangents and misstatements. A particularly notable blunder involved Trump repeatedly confusing Iceland with Greenland. This error, compounded by the speech’s disjointed nature, led many to question the accuracy of Leavitt’s assessment and the credibility of the information she was conveying.
Some commentators went beyond simply disagreeing with Leavitt’s evaluation, suggesting her statements were not rooted in genuine belief, but rather a calculated strategy. The consensus seemed to be that she wasn’t necessarily delusional, but a deliberate “bad actor” willing to distort the truth to support her boss. This viewpoint paints her not as someone who is mistaken, but as someone who is actively complicit in spreading misinformation, fully aware of the falsehoods she propagates.
The age of Leavitt was brought up, with many noting how quickly she appeared to have aged since taking on the role. This was seen as a sign of the toll that defending controversial opinions and falsehoods takes on a person. Some likened her to Baghdad Bob, the Iraqi Information Minister known for his unwavering and often contradictory statements during the Iraq War. Others even saw her as a tool of propaganda, and nothing more.
The overall sentiment seemed to be a growing frustration with what many perceive as a concerted effort to manipulate public perception. The focus wasn’t just on the specific words of the speech, but on the larger context of a political environment where truth is often sacrificed for political gain. The criticism extends beyond Leavitt, reflecting a broader concern about the willingness of some individuals to prioritize loyalty and political objectives over accuracy.
A recurring theme was the comparison to propaganda, with descriptions like “North Korea-level nonsense” and “TikTok x1000 level nutso” emerging. There was a strong sense that Leavitt’s statements were designed to deceive, and that anyone defending them was either willingly lying or hopelessly out of touch with reality. This reinforces the idea that she knows the truth, and chooses to lie anyway.
Many commenters found it hard to believe her was truly being sincere with her comments. The public perception was that she wasn’t just stating an opinion, but actively distorting reality. This was seen as a calculated move to reinforce a particular narrative and maintain support for a controversial figure. The focus was on her perceived skill as a “bullshitter,” and how she was successful in her role.
The lack of critical perspective from the press corps was also a point of irritation for many. Some thought that the media should push back harder against what they perceive as misinformation. Without this challenge, they believe, the situation allows such falsehoods to spread with impunity.
It’s clear that the comments made on this topic go beyond mere disagreement, but instead show a deeply held belief that Leavitt’s statements were deliberately misleading and dishonest. Her role, they contend, isn’t to inform, but to support the narrative, even if that narrative is demonstrably false. The response to her claims reflects a growing concern about the erosion of truth and the consequences of political maneuvering.