|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 24 2016 02:50 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 02:49 On_Slaught wrote:On June 24 2016 02:46 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 24 2016 02:42 zlefin wrote:On June 24 2016 02:39 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 24 2016 02:29 zlefin wrote:
GH -> the quote didn't sound like it remotely said what you said it said.
PS man I wish tl would stop having annoying ads so I didn't have to disable stuff that breaks other discussion/forum features just to be able to use tl. It's literally no different than what Trump was saying from a functional perspective. Use threat against the opposition's family as leverage. The only difference is Trump came and said it outright bluntly and Hillary is secretive about it. please don't say literally when you mean figuratively. I disagree with your reading of the Hillary statement on this point; that's not how it reads to me. But I can see how you might read it your way; though the evidence that she intended it to mean they should direct attacks against members of Assad's family who aren't guilty of anything seems rather thin. I meant literal when I said literal. Functionally, they are literally advocating the same use of force policies. We just have to disagree then but I think you're being unfairly biased here in your interpretation of the two's positions. I mean Trump literally isn't saying that. Especially since he changed his view. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-terrorists_us_56e0d7cde4b065e2e3d4d82dDonald Trump said Wednesday night that he doesn’t necessarily want to kill the families of terrorists — a controversial proposal he has raised at various points during his campaign.
Instead, Trump told CNN, his policy would merely be “to go after them” if he wins the White House.
What “go after them” actually means is left to the imagination of voters, since Trump spoke only in evasive bromides during the interview.
“We have to do something and it’s the only way you stop it.”
“We have to be a lot tougher. We are playing with a different set of rules.”
“We have to play the game at a much tougher level than we are playing.”
“We’re not fighting it strongly enough.” "We should go after them" and give them hugs and cuddles?
He literally said "he doesn't necessarily want to kill the families of terrorists." We have no idea what he would actually do. Anybody who claims they do is lying or omniscient.
Why would we elect somebody who we have little to no idea what he would do on so many issues? The fact he changes his stances so often tells me he probably doesn't even know what he wants to do. He might fire bomb the whole country or he might decide it isn't worth our time and ignore them. WHO KNOWS. Guy is all over the place.
|
On June 24 2016 02:51 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 02:49 On_Slaught wrote:On June 24 2016 02:46 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 24 2016 02:42 zlefin wrote:On June 24 2016 02:39 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 24 2016 02:29 zlefin wrote:
GH -> the quote didn't sound like it remotely said what you said it said.
PS man I wish tl would stop having annoying ads so I didn't have to disable stuff that breaks other discussion/forum features just to be able to use tl. It's literally no different than what Trump was saying from a functional perspective. Use threat against the opposition's family as leverage. The only difference is Trump came and said it outright bluntly and Hillary is secretive about it. please don't say literally when you mean figuratively. I disagree with your reading of the Hillary statement on this point; that's not how it reads to me. But I can see how you might read it your way; though the evidence that she intended it to mean they should direct attacks against members of Assad's family who aren't guilty of anything seems rather thin. I meant literal when I said literal. Functionally, they are literally advocating the same use of force policies. We just have to disagree then but I think you're being unfairly biased here in your interpretation of the two's positions. I mean Trump literally isn't saying that. Especially since he changed his view. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-terrorists_us_56e0d7cde4b065e2e3d4d82dDonald Trump said Wednesday night that he doesn’t necessarily want to kill the families of terrorists — a controversial proposal he has raised at various points during his campaign.
Instead, Trump told CNN, his policy would merely be “to go after them” if he wins the White House.
What “go after them” actually means is left to the imagination of voters, since Trump spoke only in evasive bromides during the interview.
“We have to do something and it’s the only way you stop it.”
“We have to be a lot tougher. We are playing with a different set of rules.”
“We have to play the game at a much tougher level than we are playing.”
“We’re not fighting it strongly enough.” Isn't that what I argued he was getting at like 2-3 weeks ago prior to a thread lock when everyone was bringing up how it made him such a monster? Golly-gee what a coincidence
except instead of bringing up alternate statements you spend 6 posts trying to deny factual statements with an included source....
notice the difference?
|
|
|
United States43861 Posts
On June 24 2016 02:51 Plansix wrote:
All of those could mean anything or nothing. That is like mafia level "It would be a shame of something were to happen to them," passive aggressive.
It's a deliberate policy of denying the media soundbites. It's like when after Orlando he didn't say "Obama is a secret foreign Muslim who supports ISIS". He said Obama's response was very strange, that there's something going on and that while he knows what is going on he isn't going to say it and that he wants people to work it out for themselves. That way all the birthers know he's one of them but CNN can't put quote marks around it, even though it's not really so ambiguous.
|
On June 24 2016 02:52 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 02:50 Gorsameth wrote:On June 24 2016 02:49 On_Slaught wrote:On June 24 2016 02:46 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 24 2016 02:42 zlefin wrote:On June 24 2016 02:39 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 24 2016 02:29 zlefin wrote:
GH -> the quote didn't sound like it remotely said what you said it said.
PS man I wish tl would stop having annoying ads so I didn't have to disable stuff that breaks other discussion/forum features just to be able to use tl. It's literally no different than what Trump was saying from a functional perspective. Use threat against the opposition's family as leverage. The only difference is Trump came and said it outright bluntly and Hillary is secretive about it. please don't say literally when you mean figuratively. I disagree with your reading of the Hillary statement on this point; that's not how it reads to me. But I can see how you might read it your way; though the evidence that she intended it to mean they should direct attacks against members of Assad's family who aren't guilty of anything seems rather thin. I meant literal when I said literal. Functionally, they are literally advocating the same use of force policies. We just have to disagree then but I think you're being unfairly biased here in your interpretation of the two's positions. I mean Trump literally isn't saying that. Especially since he changed his view. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-terrorists_us_56e0d7cde4b065e2e3d4d82dDonald Trump said Wednesday night that he doesn’t necessarily want to kill the families of terrorists — a controversial proposal he has raised at various points during his campaign.
Instead, Trump told CNN, his policy would merely be “to go after them” if he wins the White House.
What “go after them” actually means is left to the imagination of voters, since Trump spoke only in evasive bromides during the interview.
“We have to do something and it’s the only way you stop it.”
“We have to be a lot tougher. We are playing with a different set of rules.”
“We have to play the game at a much tougher level than we are playing.”
“We’re not fighting it strongly enough.” "We should go after them" and give them hugs and cuddles? He literally said "he doesn't necessarily want to kill the families of terrorists." We have no idea what he would actually do. Anybody who claims they do is lying or omniscient. Why would we elect somebody who we have little to no idea what he would do on so many issues? The fact he changes his stances so often tells me he probably doesn't even know what he wants to do. He might fire bomb the whole country or he might decide it isn't worth our time and ignore them. WHO KNOWS. Guy is all over the place.
Going to clarify this post. My point isn't that Trump won't do some of the the bad/stupid things that he has claimed he will do.
My point is that I fail to see a positive reason to vote for Trump. Voting against Hillary? Sure. But voting for Trump? Based on what? We have no real idea what he will do. He has contradicted himself on almost every single issue he has ever raised (as this thread has pointed out multiple times). Voting for him because he will (or CAN for that matter) actually do a specific thing seems like a shaky proposition at best.
|
On June 24 2016 02:53 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 02:51 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 24 2016 02:49 On_Slaught wrote:On June 24 2016 02:46 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 24 2016 02:42 zlefin wrote:On June 24 2016 02:39 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 24 2016 02:29 zlefin wrote:
GH -> the quote didn't sound like it remotely said what you said it said.
PS man I wish tl would stop having annoying ads so I didn't have to disable stuff that breaks other discussion/forum features just to be able to use tl. It's literally no different than what Trump was saying from a functional perspective. Use threat against the opposition's family as leverage. The only difference is Trump came and said it outright bluntly and Hillary is secretive about it. please don't say literally when you mean figuratively. I disagree with your reading of the Hillary statement on this point; that's not how it reads to me. But I can see how you might read it your way; though the evidence that she intended it to mean they should direct attacks against members of Assad's family who aren't guilty of anything seems rather thin. I meant literal when I said literal. Functionally, they are literally advocating the same use of force policies. We just have to disagree then but I think you're being unfairly biased here in your interpretation of the two's positions. I mean Trump literally isn't saying that. Especially since he changed his view. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-terrorists_us_56e0d7cde4b065e2e3d4d82dDonald Trump said Wednesday night that he doesn’t necessarily want to kill the families of terrorists — a controversial proposal he has raised at various points during his campaign.
Instead, Trump told CNN, his policy would merely be “to go after them” if he wins the White House.
What “go after them” actually means is left to the imagination of voters, since Trump spoke only in evasive bromides during the interview.
“We have to do something and it’s the only way you stop it.”
“We have to be a lot tougher. We are playing with a different set of rules.”
“We have to play the game at a much tougher level than we are playing.”
“We’re not fighting it strongly enough.” Isn't that what I argued he was getting at like 2-3 weeks ago prior to a thread lock when everyone was bringing up how it made him such a monster? Golly-gee what a coincidence except instead of bringing up alternate statements you spend 6 posts trying to deny factual statements with an included source.... notice the difference?
Except that didn't happen and you are using 'rhetoric and hyperbole' to get a pants-on-fire rating form politifact.
|
On June 24 2016 02:58 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 02:51 Plansix wrote:
All of those could mean anything or nothing. That is like mafia level "It would be a shame of something were to happen to them," passive aggressive. It's a deliberate policy of denying the media soundbites. It's like when after Orlando he didn't say "Obama is a secret foreign Muslim who supports ISIS". He said Obama's response was very strange, that there's something going on and that while he knows what is going on he isn't going to say it and that he wants people to work it out for themselves. That way all the birthers know he's one of them but CNN can't put quote marks around it, even though it's not really so ambiguous.
Its the classic coded messaging done by Nixon and to a lesser extent, McCarthy. The war on drugs was never really about drugs. The war on crime was never really about crime. McCarthy’s attacks were never really about communism. But it sounded good and they could always deny their real intent.
|
On June 24 2016 02:58 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 02:51 Plansix wrote:
All of those could mean anything or nothing. That is like mafia level "It would be a shame of something were to happen to them," passive aggressive. It's a deliberate policy of denying the media soundbites. It's like when after Orlando he didn't say "Obama is a secret foreign Muslim who supports ISIS". He said Obama's response was very strange, that there's something going on and that while he knows what is going on he isn't going to say it and that he wants people to work it out for themselves. That way all the birthers know he's one of them but CNN can't put quote marks around it, even though it's not really so ambiguous.
Do you think that really makes sense?
Do you think birthers are going to vote for Hillary Clinton even if he stops 'pandering to them' like you think he is to 'let them know he's one of them'?
I just fail to see his motive in doing what you think he's doing. It makes no rational sense when the alternative explanation makes perfect sense. Why attribute the irrational interpretation of someone's argument to them when a perfectly reasonable explanation exists? This is the 'principle of charity' concept all over again.
|
On June 24 2016 03:04 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 02:58 KwarK wrote:On June 24 2016 02:51 Plansix wrote:
All of those could mean anything or nothing. That is like mafia level "It would be a shame of something were to happen to them," passive aggressive. It's a deliberate policy of denying the media soundbites. It's like when after Orlando he didn't say "Obama is a secret foreign Muslim who supports ISIS". He said Obama's response was very strange, that there's something going on and that while he knows what is going on he isn't going to say it and that he wants people to work it out for themselves. That way all the birthers know he's one of them but CNN can't put quote marks around it, even though it's not really so ambiguous. Do you think that really makes sense? Do you think birthers are going to vote for Hillary Clinton even if he stops 'pandering to them' like you think he is to 'let them know he's one of them'? I just fail to see his motive in doing what you think he's doing. It makes no rational sense when the alternative explanation makes perfect sense. Why attribute the irrational interpretation of someone's argument to them when a perfectly reasonable explanation exists? This is the 'principle of charity' concept all over again.
No but they may decide not to vote at all if they see him turn toward the middle in too obvious a manner.
|
On June 24 2016 03:08 Trainrunnef wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 03:04 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 24 2016 02:58 KwarK wrote:On June 24 2016 02:51 Plansix wrote:
All of those could mean anything or nothing. That is like mafia level "It would be a shame of something were to happen to them," passive aggressive. It's a deliberate policy of denying the media soundbites. It's like when after Orlando he didn't say "Obama is a secret foreign Muslim who supports ISIS". He said Obama's response was very strange, that there's something going on and that while he knows what is going on he isn't going to say it and that he wants people to work it out for themselves. That way all the birthers know he's one of them but CNN can't put quote marks around it, even though it's not really so ambiguous. Do you think that really makes sense? Do you think birthers are going to vote for Hillary Clinton even if he stops 'pandering to them' like you think he is to 'let them know he's one of them'? I just fail to see his motive in doing what you think he's doing. It makes no rational sense when the alternative explanation makes perfect sense. Why attribute the irrational interpretation of someone's argument to them when a perfectly reasonable explanation exists? This is the 'principle of charity' concept all over again. No but they may decide not to vote at all if they see him turn toward the middle in too obvious a manner.
So you think he's making a conscious choice to pander to a minority birther voterbase to ensure they vote for him at the expense of the media backlash the majority of voters will see?
|
It also assumes that Trump is a rational actor that plans out what he says with some purpose beyond immediate attention. I have never been convinced that is the case.
|
United States43861 Posts
On June 24 2016 03:04 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 02:58 KwarK wrote:On June 24 2016 02:51 Plansix wrote:
All of those could mean anything or nothing. That is like mafia level "It would be a shame of something were to happen to them," passive aggressive. It's a deliberate policy of denying the media soundbites. It's like when after Orlando he didn't say "Obama is a secret foreign Muslim who supports ISIS". He said Obama's response was very strange, that there's something going on and that while he knows what is going on he isn't going to say it and that he wants people to work it out for themselves. That way all the birthers know he's one of them but CNN can't put quote marks around it, even though it's not really so ambiguous. Do you think that really makes sense? Do you think birthers are going to vote for Hillary Clinton even if he stops 'pandering to them' like you think he is to 'let them know he's one of them'?
No, I think he genuinely believes that Obama is a foreign Muslim ISIS agent but someone has told him that he cannot say that so instead he says
He (Obama) doesn't get it or he gets it better than anybody understands. It's one or the other.
We're led by a man who is a very — look, we're led by a man that either is, is not tough, not smart, or he's got something else in mind. And the something else in mind, you know, people can't believe it. People cannot — they cannot believe that President Obama is acting the ways he acts and can't even mention the words radical Islamic terrorism. There's something going on. It's inconceivable.
Later asked to explain what he meant by "something else in mind" and "something going on" he said
Well, you know, I’ll let people figure that out for themselves. Cause to be honest with you there certainly doesn’t seem to be a lot anger or passion when he – when we want to demand retribution for what happened over the weekend. There was certainly not a lot of passion, there was certainly not a lot of anger. You know, I’ll let that, we’ll let people figure it out.
Out of curiousity, have you figured out what Trump meant by "something going on"? Either you think you know what he meant or you don't. What do you think he meant?
|
On June 24 2016 03:10 Plansix wrote:
It also assumes that Trump is a rational actor that plans out what he says with some purpose beyond immediate attention. I have never been convinced that is the case.
So interpret everything he says under the assumption that he is a narcissistic attention-whore that doesn't think about anything he says unless it nets him more attention?
Is this a productive or fair way to engage with someone you disagree with?
|
On June 24 2016 03:14 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 03:10 Plansix wrote:
It also assumes that Trump is a rational actor that plans out what he says with some purpose beyond immediate attention. I have never been convinced that is the case. So interpret everything he says under the assumption that he is a narcissistic attention-whore that doesn't think about anything he says unless it nets him more attention? Is this a productive or fair way to engage with someone you disagree with?
In the case of Trump and his actions since hoping onto the Birther movement in 2008, yes. I do not believe Trump is anything more than a narcissistic bigot that won in a field of lack luster opponents. It is not the way I approach everyone I disagree with. But Trump’s stances on issues are so irrational, scattershot and self serving, I can see no other way to view him.
|
On June 24 2016 02:34 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 02:14 Nyxisto wrote:On June 24 2016 01:43 xDaunt wrote:
Comparing the danger of mentally unstable white people to the danger of Islamic terrorism is disingenuous. The critical difference is that, unlike the lone, mentally unstable white person who shoots up a bunch of people, Islamic terrorists have an actual agenda that is backed by a lot of people: supplanting Western culture with Muslim culture. It's this assault on Western identity that merits governments giving extra -- and if you look at it in a vacuum, undue -- attention to Islamic terrorists. Am I less dead if someone kills me without an agenda? If not I don't really care. The dangerous part is the murder thing, not the agenda Sure, but the point is that Islamic terrorism also threatens those who won't die from the immediate acts of terrorism. It's not a "one off" type of thing.
Yeah, but the immediate danger of it is limited. There's not that many ISIS guys around to bring the US or Europe down and they literally have to blow themselves up every time they're attacking someone, that's a really bad way to fight a war. They're not in a position of power and the only way you empower them is if you buy into their narrative or agenda. That's why it's important to not treat their attacks like something special and put in in contrast to the overall level of violence and safety threats.
|
On June 24 2016 03:14 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 03:10 Plansix wrote:
It also assumes that Trump is a rational actor that plans out what he says with some purpose beyond immediate attention. I have never been convinced that is the case. So interpret everything he says under the assumption that he is a narcissistic attention-whore that doesn't think about anything he says unless it nets him more attention? Is this a productive or fair way to engage with someone you disagree with?
If he didn't want this to happen you would think he would make more clear statements instead of being misinterpreted all the time for the past however long it has been. Or you accept that it is his intention to be ambiguous so he can say things without saying them.
|
On June 24 2016 03:14 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 03:10 Plansix wrote:
It also assumes that Trump is a rational actor that plans out what he says with some purpose beyond immediate attention. I have never been convinced that is the case. So interpret everything he says under the assumption that he is a narcissistic attention-whore that doesn't think about anything he says unless it nets him more attention? Is this a productive or fair way to engage with someone you disagree with?
If you have ever paid attention to the way his speeches are written compared to others you will find that they are much more self centered and self aggrandizing than the competition. Let me know if you want actual examples otherwise i will assume that you agree.
|
If Trump is dumb, why are we trying to decrypt and cipher the hidden message that he is trying to send to a small group of conspiracy theorists?
I think you guys are over analyzing this a bit too much. I think Trump purposely gives ambiguous statements, because people will fill in the blanks on their own and make their own inference. So, you can have so many different people with different perspectives and backgrounds all thinking that Trump is specifically speaking to them as a group.
With the Obama statements by Trump that Kwark sourced, i think it is a good example of what I'm talking about. Trump knows that most of his base dislikes Obama for so many different reasons. I believe Trump's statement is ambiguous enough for someone to draw any conclusion on what he meant about Obama.
Not only that but people flock to the us vs them mentality. Trump is trying to make hillary and obama the enemy to his supporters or to anyone who might listen. Pretty much every politician does this.
|
On June 24 2016 03:18 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 03:14 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 24 2016 03:10 Plansix wrote:
It also assumes that Trump is a rational actor that plans out what he says with some purpose beyond immediate attention. I have never been convinced that is the case. So interpret everything he says under the assumption that he is a narcissistic attention-whore that doesn't think about anything he says unless it nets him more attention? Is this a productive or fair way to engage with someone you disagree with? In the case of Trump and his actions since hoping onto the Birther movement in 2008, yes. I do not believe Trump is anything more than a narcissistic bigot that won in a field of lack luster opponents. It is not the way I approach everyone I disagree with. But Trump’s stances on issues are so irrational, scattershot and self serving, I can see no other way to view him.
He wasn't a birther in 2008 I don't think, because his book Think Like A Champion expresses high hopes and praise for Obama. The birther movement had quieted down by 2011, until Trump brought it up again as a shortcut for catapulting himself into the spotlight because he was seriously thinking about running in 2012 (as he had been since 2000 and earlier).
|
I don’t believe we are over thinking it at all. The man previously argued that Obama is Muslim and not born in the US, despite overwhelming evidence. I have seen nothing to make me think that Trump no longer holds those views. Only that he cannot express them without massive backlash. So he does it in a more round about way.
Edit: oBlade, I apologize for the error. My deep knowledge of the birther movement is pretty much limited to it being really stupid, sort of racist and Trump buying into it. I'm pretty fuzzy on the dates.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
