I hope you're not surprised or offended to be treated as an enemy combatant troll when every single comment you write is some obnoxious reply-guy lawyered-up "gotcha" correction that has absolutely no bearing or change to the original narrative being presented, even when you happen to be technically correct on a flimsy subsurface level.
I could go back into the original post and change one word to completely eliminate this falsely perceived inaccuracy you seem to be so stuck on; instead of calling them "quotes" I could just call them "trends" or "viral moments/memes". What you are doing right now is is more akin to nitpicking any pointless technicality you happen to stumble upon, which has very little value to all parties concerned.
I question your motives and your intent.
I do not believe you are interested in making a helpful contribution to this post.
I think you are interested in "being right" and, like so many before you, using social media as some kind of toxic echo-chamber of catharsis where you can position yourself in such a way that your words are somehow superior and inarguable truths. I assure you that's not how it works.
Legit everything has already been said before; it's just a matter of if the person saying it was famous enough to be remembered and attributed to the quote. So right off the bat you are making a distinction as to whether the quote in question was spoken by someone famous enough, which immediately disqualifies it as some kind of set-in-stone fact.
What's the rule here? If I can Google the quote and Google recognizes it, it's a "real" quote, but anything that Google doesn't find is original? That's not going to work, is it? I trust I don't have to explain how easy it would be to discredit and find exceptions within any kind of objective ruleset for this type of thing.
People who do not like this person get unknowingly caught up in the whirlwind that is their influence.
Taylor Swift is one of the world's biggest influencers, whether people like it or not.
That is the point.
That was always the point.
That point has not even been dented in the slightest by this conversation.
The examples given are perfectly accurate within this context.
I don't give a shit if a lawyer would not sign off on them.
Good day, sir.