|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
United States41992 Posts
On June 27 2019 02:49 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2019 02:44 KwarK wrote:On June 27 2019 02:37 IgnE wrote:On June 27 2019 02:09 Doodsmack wrote:
Here's Trump saying that hes glad McCain is dead, and he hopes McCain went to hell. I'm confused why this isn't garnering headlines.
probably because that’s not what he said. he did not say he “hoped” mccain was in hell. we just had someone in this thread explicitly wish that Duncan Hunter fall into a volcano and now you are criticizing Trump for being “glad that [McCain is] gone.” it is possible to be glad someone is gone without being glad they are dead per se It’s only possible for “I’m glad McCain is gone from public office” to not mean I’m glad McCain is dead if he wasn’t removed from public office by dying. But he was. If McCain were on vacation then yeah, gone from office wouldn’t mean dead. But he’s not on vacation, he’s dead. That’s how he became gone. Dying. nope. it’s entirely possible to be glad someone is gone without being glad that they had to die to be gone. you have this weird tic where you insist in certain instances that language can mean only one thing. it really detracts from other instances where you display impressive reasoning about things
The weird tic you’re referring to is called fluency.
In the English language when you say that you’re glad that a dead person is gone you are using gone as a euphemism for dead. Other versions would be “I’m glad they’re no longer here” or “I’m glad they passed”. We don’t like to say dead in polite English so we use words like gone or no longer with us.
|
lol no you aren’t. that’s certainly a possibility but it’s not the only or even the most likely possibility
based on what Trump actually said, he would be just as happy if McCain had retired from public life. death is accidental
|
On June 26 2019 10:50 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2019 10:46 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On June 26 2019 10:44 KwarK wrote:On June 26 2019 10:43 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I tell you what. If I ever need a defense attorney, I'm calling xDaunt. This guy sticks by his shit no matter what. I can applaud you that much. Dude, aren't you black? That's a fucking high risk play right there. Have you seen this examination he's weathered? That is meritorious by itself. Also, check the edit I made 2 seconds before your previous 2 posts. He's only got one strategy and it's the Chewbacca defence. It's not impressive. The fact that he keeps getting battered and then coming back is a testament only to his bloody mindedness in the face of public humiliation. With practice I'm pretty sure you could train anyone to answer only questions other than the ones asked.
Example: the entire republican congress.
|
United States41992 Posts
On June 27 2019 02:57 IgnE wrote:
lol no you aren’t. that’s certainly a possibility but it’s not the only or even the most likely possibility
I could say “I’m glad Thatcher is gone from office” and be referring to how she was ousted I guess because her process of going didn’t involve the grim reaper. McCain didn’t go anywhere though, he died. For him going = dying. Let’s put this another way. McCain is gone from the senate. Where has he gone to?
|
On June 27 2019 00:16 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2019 00:05 RvB wrote:On June 26 2019 20:08 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Jared Kushners peace for the middle east plan is out! https://www.whitehouse.gov/peacetoprosperity/It's called Peace to Prosperity, and it's basically a 50 billion dollar private investment and loan plan to improve Palestina and surrounding countries Lebanon, Egypt and Jordan. It's projected to give them 9% GDP growth every year for 10 years, 100k jobs every year for 10 years, support infrastructure building, increase legal safety for business owners, and create some sort of transport corridor between West Bank and Gaza. If implemented, Peace to Prosperity will empower the Palestinian people to build the society that they have aspired to establish for generations. With the support of the international community, this vision is within reach. Ultimately, however, the power to unlock it lies in the hands of the Palestinian people. Only through peace can the Palestinians achieve prosperity. However, there's nothing about what Palestinians would need to accept to 'unlock' this plan. There's nothing about any of the current problems that stop peace from happening. Nothing about territory or Jerusalem or anything. It's pretty much an investment plan with a requirement that 'peace' is needed. I guess this is the steam early access version of a peace plan... I don't think your critique is fair. Kushner has said that this is only the economic part of the plan and that the political part will follow later.
Kushner told reporters his team would release the plan's political details, which remain secret, "when we're ready", adding: "We'll see what happens".
www.google.com A peace plan is about the political details. You don't show off a peace plan without the part about how you get peace.
Whether it makes sense to release the political details later is a different argument altogether. It's just nonsense to dismiss the peace deal outright because it lacks the political part when that part is yet to be released.
|
United States41992 Posts
On June 27 2019 02:57 IgnE wrote:
lol no you aren’t. that’s certainly a possibility but it’s not the only or even the most likely possibility
based on what Trump actually said, he would be just as happy if McCain had retired from public life. death is accidental
But McCain didn’t go into retirement. He went into dead. A journey Trump is glad he took.
|
it doesn’t matter where he’s gone to. what matters is that he’s gone.
you know what accidental means right? didn’t you say you read Aristotle?
|
On June 27 2019 03:00 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2019 02:57 IgnE wrote:
lol no you aren’t. that’s certainly a possibility but it’s not the only or even the most likely possibility
I could say “I’m glad Thatcher is gone from office” and be referring to how she was ousted I guess because her process of going didn’t involve the grim reaper. McCain didn’t go anywhere though, he died. For him going = dying. Let’s put this another way. McCain is gone from the senate. Where has he gone to?
Hell if there's any justice in the afterlife lol.
I'm not sure why it matters which one he meant though?
|
United States41992 Posts
On June 27 2019 03:03 IgnE wrote:
it doesn’t matter where he’s gone to. what matters is that he’s gone.
you know what accidental means right? didn’t you say you read Aristotle?
Going is intrinsically linked to the destination. To give a very simple example, saying I’m happy you’re finally going has a very different meaning if the destination is Disneyland vs prison.
He’s saying that he’s glad that McCain is there, not here. If that had been retirement then sure, the man lived a life of public service, he could use a break. But there, in the context of McCain, is hell.
|
United States41992 Posts
If my mother-in-law was previously staying at our house and I said to my wife that I’m happy she’s gone because I’ll get to do what I want her reaction would depend very heavily on whether the mil was gone because she’d been dragged out by a coroner after terminal brain cancer.
I assure you that if you ask people whether it’s okay to say you’re glad she’s gone (back home) vs you’re glad she’s gone (to a farm upstate with all the other mothers-in-law) you’ll get universal responses. Feel free to poll people though. You’ll find that where they’ve gone is key to the interpretation.
|
On June 27 2019 01:41 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2019 01:01 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Well, if 2018 showed anything is that the blue wave is a coming... I think by 2020, we're going to have way more voters registered. Especially with how much school shootings are going on... I think it’s more likely than not at this point that we end up with an 8 year Trump presidency. This also might be unpopular to say, but I think Trump is actually only getting “better” at his job, which is something you’d expect from most people in most jobs as they get experience.
Where are you getting >50% odds? Trump has some serious weaknesses going into 2020. Are you real pessimistic on Democratic field? Are you fairly sure Trump keeps his 2016 EC states intact?
|
United States41992 Posts
The best thing Trump has going for him is the economy but the problem is that the economy has just been more of the same Obama prosperity that his key constituents didn’t enjoy any part of. In terms of numbers of voters I’d wager more Democrats saw an improvement in their economic situation than Republicans, though in terms of dollars I’d guess the inverse is true and that the biggest winners were predominantly Republican.
|
On June 27 2019 03:18 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2019 01:41 IgnE wrote:On June 27 2019 01:01 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Well, if 2018 showed anything is that the blue wave is a coming... I think by 2020, we're going to have way more voters registered. Especially with how much school shootings are going on... I think it’s more likely than not at this point that we end up with an 8 year Trump presidency. This also might be unpopular to say, but I think Trump is actually only getting “better” at his job, which is something you’d expect from most people in most jobs as they get experience. Where are you getting >50% odds? Trump has some serious weaknesses going into 2020. Are you real pessimistic on Democratic field? Are you fairly sure Trump keeps his 2016 EC states intact?
It's shaping up to be another base election with both sides attempting to drive down the other's support rather than lift their own. That favors Trump with pretty much any nominee other than Bernie (and even that's a stretch, though for different reasons).
|
On June 27 2019 03:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2019 03:18 Danglars wrote:On June 27 2019 01:41 IgnE wrote:On June 27 2019 01:01 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Well, if 2018 showed anything is that the blue wave is a coming... I think by 2020, we're going to have way more voters registered. Especially with how much school shootings are going on... I think it’s more likely than not at this point that we end up with an 8 year Trump presidency. This also might be unpopular to say, but I think Trump is actually only getting “better” at his job, which is something you’d expect from most people in most jobs as they get experience. Where are you getting >50% odds? Trump has some serious weaknesses going into 2020. Are you real pessimistic on Democratic field? Are you fairly sure Trump keeps his 2016 EC states intact? It's shaping up to be another base election with both sides attempting to drive down the other's support rather than lift their own. That favors Trump with pretty much any nominee other than Bernie (and even that's a stretch, though for different reasons).
I don't get why you are thinking this before the debate has even started. Biden could flame out tonight and everything changes. Warren could flame out tomorrow and Bernie picks up all her supporters.
So many things are up in the air to be calling it a base election
|
On June 27 2019 03:14 KwarK wrote:
If my mother-in-law was previously staying at our house and I said to my wife that I’m happy she’s gone because I’ll get to do what I want her reaction would depend very heavily on whether the mil was gone because she’d been dragged out by a coroner after terminal brain cancer.
I assure you that if you ask people whether it’s okay to say you’re glad she’s gone (back home) vs you’re glad she’s gone (to a farm upstate with all the other mothers-in-law) you’ll get universal responses. Feel free to poll people though. You’ll find that where they’ve gone is key to the interpretation.
if someone says, “i am glad that the jury awarded me $1M” in an accident case they are not saying “i am glad i was disabled in this accident” despite the fact that the award was contingent on the disablement.
i hesitate to even provide more examples because you’ve shown yourself to be a very ungenerous debater when locked into a multipage argument, and it may just multiply irrelevant features that distract you. the meanings of every utterance depend on the timing and context (tone, previous conversation, already revealed sentiments, etc). i can easily think of instances where you could say precisely those things you suggest about a mother-in-law and it would be fine regardless of where she went. what you are doing is taking a statement that can be interpreted in many ways (like all statements) and saying “see here are instances where it means what i want it to mean, so this other thing must also mean that thing i want it to mean.” sorry, no, you are being deliberately obtuse.
frankly both interpretations are reasonable ones depending on your assumptions. the fact that you simply refuse to acknowledge a very reasonable interpretation says more about you than the statement itself. there are plenty of people that can and will reasonably interpret it the way i have laid out. your failure to acknowledge this is just a reflexive imputation of bad faith towards the speaker and leads to the breakdown of public intercourse. you have very often decided in this thread that one interpretation of something is the only permissible interpretation. this is philosophically untenable and ultimately incoherent.
|
On June 27 2019 03:33 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2019 03:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 27 2019 03:18 Danglars wrote:On June 27 2019 01:41 IgnE wrote:On June 27 2019 01:01 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Well, if 2018 showed anything is that the blue wave is a coming... I think by 2020, we're going to have way more voters registered. Especially with how much school shootings are going on... I think it’s more likely than not at this point that we end up with an 8 year Trump presidency. This also might be unpopular to say, but I think Trump is actually only getting “better” at his job, which is something you’d expect from most people in most jobs as they get experience. Where are you getting >50% odds? Trump has some serious weaknesses going into 2020. Are you real pessimistic on Democratic field? Are you fairly sure Trump keeps his 2016 EC states intact? It's shaping up to be another base election with both sides attempting to drive down the other's support rather than lift their own. That favors Trump with pretty much any nominee other than Bernie (and even that's a stretch, though for different reasons). I don't get why you are thinking this before the debate has even started. Biden could flame out tonight and everything changes. Warren could flame out tomorrow and Bernie picks up all her supporters. So many things are up in the air to be calling it a base election
You probably don't remember but in the 2016 cycle we were constantly reminded why debates don't significantly alter support over the long term. Some of the main reasons in this context are that they only get a total of like 7 minutes and people barely pay attention this early.
Generally though that's why I said "shaping up" as in that's the path we're on. Doesn't mean we can't change it, but that's where we're going with the current heading.
|
I would prefer if we didn't stop for three pages to talk about the digusting things Trump says, and whether or not they are actually disgusting. He does enough disgusting things that we could just talk about those. At this point, no one is gonna change their mind about Trump based on something he says. Half the people already know that he constantly says disgusting stuff, and the other half simply doesn't care.
|
maybe don’t post a Trump tweet, proceed to seriously misrepresent it, and then wonder why not enough people are talking about this misrepresentation
|
I didn't post it. That was kind of my point. I don't think people should post every Trump tweet, or get outraged about stuff that Trump tweets. I don't think anything that Trump could possibly tweet at this point could substantially influence what people think about him.
Regardless of whether there was any misrepresentation or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
