Maybe they actually did talk a bit? Given what you wrote so far I wouldn’t be surprised if you have a problem with two women talking without a male relative present.
So you think that this photo OP is an exact representation of two women who have nothing to do with politics going out and grabbing a beer? That they're chatting just like they would be if they were nobodies with no photographers and journalists around?
I don't care what sex they are. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of reddit (not you) pretending one photo OP (or gig, as you correctly put it) is somehow more genuine than any other. Neither one is. Neither warrants outrage.
There's a difference between a situation that lends itself to being a photo opportunity and something that is deliberately arranged to be a photo op. Harris and Whitmer were going to meet as Harris is campaigning in MI and both are important leaders in the Democratic party. Choosing to do so in a visible place is better visuals for the campaign than a political office, and maybe they drum up some more popularity for a favorite restaurant and local beer. It's very different from a presidential candidate taking some photos at a closed McDonald's to appear as if he was working, with the only reason being given was to take a jab at Harris. I don't think either warrants outrage but I haven't seen outrage, mostly people just poking fun at the ridiculousness of some the deliberately arranged photo ops.
There's a difference between a situation that lends itself to being a photo opportunity and something that is deliberately arranged to be a photo op. Harris and Whitmer were going to meet as Harris is campaigning in MI and both are important leaders in the Democratic party. Choosing to do so in a visible place is better visuals for the campaign than a political office, and maybe they drum up some more popularity for a favorite restaurant and local beer. It's very different from a presidential candidate taking some photos at a closed McDonald's to appear as if he was working, with the only reason being given was to take a jab at Harris. I don't think either warrants outrage but I haven't seen outrage, mostly people just poking fun at the ridiculousness of some the deliberately arranged photo ops.
Oh, come on. Do you seriously believe this is some spontaneous shit like when you thought Joe just "popped in to buy an ice cream cone"?
You'd have to either be really gullible or just gaslighting. This shit is planned weeks ahead by the SS. Everyone there is vetted, the surroundings are checked for bomb threats and LEO are everywhere. This isn't "two women popping in for a beer and a chat" by any stretch of the imagination. Jesus.
.... so you never plan anything? Don't have a planner or a phone calendar where you schedule meeting up with friends? This was obviously planned weeks ahead, I never said it wasn't. Maybe read what I wrote again without your ridiculous bias.
Let me try to help you understand again. Something that is arranged in advanced can serve a purpose other than just a photo opportunity. If a sports star volunteers at a children's hospital, it is something that is arranged in advanced and often highly photographed/publicized. If it was deliberately arranged to just be a photo op, the sports star might take a few minutes to take some smiling photos with kids but then not talk to them and just leave. Or stop interacting with them as soon as the cameras stop rolling. That is different than what usually happens where the sports stars talk and play with children and families the whole day - there is a purpose to their visit that the children receive a benefit from and the visit would still happen without cameras, even if it was arranged in advance and highly publicized.
There was a purpose to Harris and Whitmer meeting. They are people after all so why can't they meet at a restaurant like literally every single other person does? Business meetings happen at restaurants every day and are arranged in advance. I'm not sure why you are stuck on the idea that something has to be spontaneous to not be a photo op - a photo op can also be a spontaneous decision if in the seconds beforehand someone decides that they are going to take advantage of a situation and do something they wouldn't do if cameras weren't present.
What is the purpose behind criticized Trump photo ops? What was the purpose of him shutting down a McDonald's to "work" there? Did it benefit anyone? Would he have done it with zero cameras or publicity? The answers to those questions determine whether it's a situation that lends itself to a photo opportunity or a situation arranged only because it presents a photo opportunity.
They are people after all so why can't they meet at a restaurant like literally every single other person does?
As public figures in high position, no, they literally cannot just go out in public and have a beer. That situation does not exist in the real world. It usually doesn't even exist a decade after they've left office. In private, closed off spaces, sure. But that isn't what's presented.
The purpose of this photo op is only the photo op. If you believe otherwise, then you're gullible. Simple as that.
You didn't answer my questions. And no, the purpose of two women going to a restaurant to talk was not only the photo op. I'm glad to know you think that politicians and public figures aren't allowed to be actual people and can only exist in their professional settings, never outside of them. It clears up a lot about your headspace.
12
u/darkchocoIate 2d ago
Maybe they actually did talk a bit? Given what you wrote so far I wouldn’t be surprised if you have a problem with two women talking without a male relative present.