Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes you could ignore what he actually said and try to construct a narrative that doesn't sound bad. But, isn't that a lot more complicated than just listening to what he actually said? To be more direct, myself and many other people aren't going to play that game. The only people that would are people who have a narrative in mind in advance and are going to find a way to justify it post hoc.
It is more complicated, but that's how communication works; most people do not mean anything close to the literal wording they use -- "Nobody goes there anymore, it’s too crowded". If you refuse to "play that game", then you get to be offended a lot more often, but you will also have to draw a distinction between how you understand communication from in-group and out-group, which seems to me to be even more complicat…
Holy projection, Batman!
What you are saying is that in order to fully understand what Biden means when he says "you ain't black if you don't vote for me", we have to search for a meaning for this that puts Biden in the best possible light while still maintaining a modicum of plausibility.
Meanwhile, to take an example of understanding communication from the out-group, when Trump says "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard" what he really meant was "let's go burn the Capitol down and murder everyone we can find, and also overthrow the government lol!1!1!!1!!!!". And we know that's what he meant because we have to search for the worst possible meaning of his words, and throw that modicum of plausibility right out the window. Then blame Trump for breaking the window.
But to you this is the less "complicated" way of understanding communication from the in-group and the out-group?
All anm89 is proposing is to just listen to what both men said. The same. For both of them. But this is what you're calling too complicated?