Atrazine is causing hermaphroditic frogs, chemically castrating them, and turning male frogs into behavioral females.
Trump often plays in a similar gray zone (e.g. dual meaning, hyperbole, simplification) with language because It is often a winning tactic.
Trump and Jones generate soundbites that cant be easily refuted with democratic soundbites. Overly simplistic rebuttals often end up even less accurate and more detached from reality.
I have given some thought to why this is, and I think it is for a few reasons. First, I think that democratic respondents don't share as much linguistic & conceptual framework with the target audience (e.g. a feminized male frog = a gay frog).
Second, and relatedly, I think rebuttals are afraid to engage with certain topics, and therefore end up tying themselves up in knots.
Last, is they have an oppositional defiant disorder where everything must be denied. "YES and" responses are off limits.
They cant just say "Yes, and poor chemical regulation is turning the frogs gay, and that is a bad thing"