The Reverend Al Sharpton is a master of saying nothing with the appearance of saying precisely what his followers want to hear. It's a public speaking trick. Try it out.
You start by addressing subject X. Then you cherry pick recent events and portray them in a way that suits your narrative. Then you respond to questions with absolute word salad. Your constituents, conditioned on confirmation boas, will hear what they want to hear.
The Rev. has been slinging nonsense and non sequiturs for a generation longer than recent, noted salad chef extraordinaire Kamala Harris. With apologies to the spouse of the former Second Gentleman, Sharpton is the ne plus ultra of the craft.
Al Sharpton speaks outside of Gov. Kathy Hochul's office after a meeting discussing removing NYC Mayor Eric Adams pic.twitter.com/FQWIhkQ883
— TaraBull (@TaraBull808) February 18, 2025
But hey, we're here to answer Sharpton's purely rhetorical question at a presser last night. The question followed an emergency New York huddle called by quarterback Kathy Hochul to discuss Eric Adams, a Dem teammate gone rogue.
Sharpton's question: "How do we gauge the public trust [as it relates to support/disapproval of Mayor Adams]?"
Al Sharpton is a sort of human invisibility cloak. People wear him to pass unscathed.
— A. Hariharan (@_AHariharan) February 19, 2025
The answer, Father Sharpton, is to listen to independent media sources. Listen to X, the closest thing we have to free speech in America. The USAID-funded types have a lockstep message perhaps best distilled to an account like JoFromJerz. The amount of divorced, aging, explicative-ridden, hungover, single motherly, eye-vessel-poppingly crude yet trite vitriol that has oozed from her unhealed soul is as formidable as it is common.
Besides, Al, you know what legacy media will say. They want Adams gone yesterday.
Please follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Truth Social, Gettr, Twitter
The mainstream opinion is naturally anti-Trump, and therefore anti-Trump-adjacent. By virtue of trying to rid New York City of illegal aliens, Adams falls into the latter camp. The Times complains bitterly that Adams is deeply corrupt, citing the lawfare charges levied against the mayor after he took a rebel stand on immigration.
The Times quotes several interviewees who use terms like "Pinocchio", "compromised", and "traitor" to describe Adams. Much later in the article, we hear from the other side who understand the greater good of the Trump-Adams treaty, but their bon mots aren't reflected in the headline, and don't come until most readers have stopped paying attention.
If Sharpton truly wanted to know how New Yorkers feel about Adams, he should spend time reading what writers and readers of independent media have to say on the matter. Together, they form the only New York audience not controlled by the dying, but still very much alive, corporate/deep state media conglomerate.
