|
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 |
Spain17989 Posts
On August 29 2024 05:09 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think it's a bit ambiguous but tbh my reading is that he's saying he would win the 2024 california election if not for the election being rigged.
Here's the caveat though - this is actually a worse statement than him saying he would have won it in 2020 if not for the rigged election, because it's him already building up the narrative that the 2024 election will be stolen from him (if he doesn't win) and I'd be pretty surprised if it doesn't lead to some fairly wide spread riots, should he lose.
Well, he's also saying that the only way the vote counting wouldn't be rigged against him is if it were literally Jesus Christ doing the counting, so I'm not sure it's the most coherent of arguments regardless...
|
Would be pretty cool if the person that 70 million people intend to vote for as their president was able to convey his thoughts on a literacy level on par with a 3rd grader. Maybe my standards are too high.
|
Canada11350 Posts
I don't see a substantial difference between him saying but for fraud he did win in 2020 or but for fraud he would win in 2024.
He claimed rigged elections in the year he won. He claimed rigged elections prior to losing in 2020 and keeps going on about rigged elections now.
Among the many worrying things about Trump, the man is impervious to facts that contradict his beliefs. That or he is a malicious liar. Or both, I guess. One interesting thing to come out is timelines of Trump's staffers disproving to him his voter fraud claims and then the very next day or day after that he speaks to the crowd with exact same voter fraud claims. His own party in Georgia couldn't convince him that the elections were secure. He fixates on falsehoods and no amount of evidence can shake him. That's terrifying.
He hasn't changed. He's up to his old tricks (or is completely conspiracy-brained). He keeps saying mail in introduces mass voter fraud with no evidence and discounts evidence contrary to his position. That's why he called for the vote count to stop in 2020. Stop counting. Don't count the votes of the citizens who sent their votes by mail. It's appalling there is a candidate who wanted to deny duly cast votes of American citizens, and not just a few.
I've voted against my own party for far less.
|
|
|
On August 29 2024 05:54 Falling wrote:
I don't see a substantial difference between him saying but for fraud he did win in 2020 or but for fraud he would win in 2024.
He claimed rigged elections in the year he won. He claimed rigged elections prior to losing in 2020 and keeps going on about rigged elections now.
Among the many worrying things about Trump, the man is impervious to facts that contradict his beliefs. That or he is a malicious liar. Or both, I guess. One interesting thing to come out is timelines of Trump's staffers disproving to him his voter fraud claims and then the very next day or day after that he speaks to the crowd with exact same voter fraud claims. His own party in Georgia couldn't convince him that the elections were secure. He fixates on falsehoods and no amount of evidence can shake him. That's terrifying.
He hasn't changed. He's up to his old tricks (or is completely conspiracy-brained). He keeps saying mail in introduces mass voter fraud with no evidence and discounts evidence contrary to his position. That's why he called for the vote count to stop in 2020. Stop counting. Don't count the votes of the citizens who sent their votes by mail. It's appalling there is a candidate who wanted to deny duly cast votes of American citizens, and not just a few.
I've voted against my own party for far less.
Pretty much, I have no respect for the a lot of American conservatives because you have this guy literally making his own reality, is making decisions based on this reality, is constantly is saying things to justify this reality, and yet we're still seeing those people in this thread carrying water for this man who has been super consistent about one single thing.
This isn't a vacuum. If Biden said something similarly alarming about Texas, I could give him the benefit of doubt because he doesn't have a track record of openly commiting crimes and spending 4+ years screaming about rigged elections against him. Jesus Christ are we forgetting who the hell is saying these comments and his past actions/comments regarding election fraud?
Some are more mealy mouthed about it but all of them all still voting for Trump because none of these things matter so long they "win". What would make those people not vote for him if you have a dude who literally committed crimes to famously STOP THE COUNT and pushed an insurrection at the capitol?
On August 29 2024 05:35 Dan HH wrote:
Would be pretty cool if the person that 70 million people intend to vote for as their president was able to convey his thoughts on a literacy level on par with a 3rd grader. Maybe my standards are too high.
He's like any other politican but no other man in the world is able to get so many people to carry water for him. Just look at the past page of people giving Trump the benefit of the doubt.
|
They largely canceled out. Gonna pull numbers from this. Pre DNC Harris was up 2.6%, which grew to 3.7% as of the last datapoint for RFK, and then dipped to 3.4% as of the last update.
|
On August 29 2024 06:46 Gahlo wrote:They largely canceled out. Gonna pull numbers from this. Pre DNC Harris was up 2.6%, which grew to 3.7% as of the last datapoint for RFK, and then dipped to 3.4% as of the last update.
Cool, thanks!
|
United States42682 Posts
On August 29 2024 03:29 BlackJack wrote:
“I would win” is definitely not past tense
In this context it absolutely is. Trump has shitty grammar but he’s referring specifically to the 2020 California vote counting.
He’s saying he got more votes than anyone else in California in 2020. He’s saying he won the vote and if they had counted fairly they would have declared him the victor.
|
United States24680 Posts
I have no idea what Trump would claim he meant to say there, but there's nothing that odd about using "I would win" to refer to what would have happened in a hypothetical re-enactment of past events with a different initial condition (e.g., jesus counting votes). His wording was ambiguous, so neither side is necessarily wrong.
"If President Johnson chose to appoint me supreme commander from the beginning of vietnam, I would win that war, OK?" Such a statement is not referring to a future second Vietnam War, regardless of whether or not you consider his bone spurs now healed.
It's a bit odd to word the California claim the way Trump did, but it's well within the bounds of Trump's usual linguistic oddness. But as others have said, his statement is almost equally ridiculous regardless of which interpretation you choose. Either way, if the former president doesn't want his words misconstrued, he should speak less ambiguously.
|
On August 29 2024 07:15 micronesia wrote:
Either way, if the former president doesn't want his words misconstrued, he should speak less ambiguously.
What a depressingly low standard you have for journalism
|
United States24680 Posts
I'm not talking about journalism, I'm talking about Trump.
|
On August 29 2024 07:41 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2024 07:15 micronesia wrote:
Either way, if the former president doesn't want his words misconstrued, he should speak less ambiguously.
What a depressingly low standard you have for journalism
The journalist reported a perfectly acceptable attempt at translating Trump's poorly-worded rhetoric, and all of the different translations (did he mean California general 2016? did he mean California general 2020? did he mean California general 2024?) result in the same conclusions: Trump is wrong and/or a liar and/or interested in perpetuating the falsehood that he's the victim of widespread voter fraud. He's also the one to blame for this, not the journalist.
|
On August 29 2024 07:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2024 07:41 BlackJack wrote:On August 29 2024 07:15 micronesia wrote:
Either way, if the former president doesn't want his words misconstrued, he should speak less ambiguously.
What a depressingly low standard you have for journalism The journalist reported a perfectly acceptable attempt at translating Trump's poorly-worded rhetoric, and all of the different translations (did he mean California general 2016? did he mean California general 2020? did he mean California general 2024?) result in the same conclusions: Trump is wrong and/or a liar and/or interested in perpetuating the falsehood that he's the victim of widespread voter fraud. He's also the one to blame for this, not the journalist.
Wild idea but they could just report what was actually said and allow the reader to interpret instead of adding their own editorializing to the headline knowing that most people are only going to read the headline anyway.
Think about it this way, it seems roughly half the people here think he is talking about 2024 and half the people here think he is talking about 2020. So one could assume there is enough ambiguity that either are "acceptable attempts" at translating Trump's statement.
So by that logic you would probably be agreeable to either of the following headlines "Trump says California was stolen in 2020" or "Trump says unless Jesus is vote counter California will be stolen in 2024." But they can't both be true, he wasn't talking about 2 different elections simultaneously (or maybe he was, he has magical grammar after all). So you're content with half the media getting it wrong and half getting it right as long as they both made an "acceptable attempt" to interpret. But they could easily just all be right if they just report what he said. I'm not sure why that's not the preferable option.
|
Btw this is hardly some one-off example. Look at John Kerry in 2004 when he said
"You know education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."
Most people interpreted that as a shot at U.S. military members as being stuck in Iraq because they were too dumb to get into college. John Kerry insists that it was supposed to be a jab at George Bush saying dumb ol' Bush didn't do his homework so now we're bogged down in Iraq.
Do you really think we're better off if the Fox Newses of the world run headlines of "John Kerry calls US troops stupid for getting themselves stuck in Iraq" and the CNN and MSNBCs of the world run headlines "Conservatives incorrectly interpret John Kerry's bush joke." Then we can all retreat to our own echo chambers where our favorite news station tells us the correct interpretation of what was meant? People wonder why we are so divided as a nation? How is it not better if the news tell us what John Kerry said so we all at least have some foundational facts instead of everyone just regurgitating the way their favorite journalists are interpreting things?
|
Northern Ireland25302 Posts
Journalism has always had some kind of interpretative aspect to it. The what happened part is one core, but the why is the other.
|
On August 29 2024 08:17 WombaT wrote:
Journalism has always had some kind of interpretative aspect to it. The what happened part is one core, but the why is the other.
Indeed. And when you consider the average layperson, having professionals interpret what's happening and what's being said, and offer insight through the literary and historic lenses, that's at least half the value of any good reporting. Context is essential. Research is paramount. The idea that perfect journalism consists of quotes and nothing else is either stupid or naive. We'd be so much more susceptible to repeating great mistakes from history if we didn't analyze the parallels we can draw today.
|
Can’t believe the word “subjunctive” did not come up at any point in this discussion. The rare chance for subjunctive fans to achieve relevance and they missed it
|
On August 29 2024 09:02 ChristianS wrote:
Can’t believe the word “subjunctive” did not come up at any point in this discussion. The rare chance for subjunctive fans to achieve relevance and they missed it
My vocabulary is still trying to catch up on "murder" and "infinity"
|
On August 29 2024 08:17 WombaT wrote:
Journalism has always had some kind of interpretative aspect to it. The what happened part is one core, but the why is the other.
Same goes with that interpretation being intentionally and unnecessarily deceptive/manipulative for attention. It would be better imo if there was a place to get just the things that happened, but that's not going to be profitable up against the Pulitzer inspired yellow journalism that is the standard in the US. So that's a no-go under capitalism.
|
On August 29 2024 10:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2024 08:17 WombaT wrote:
Journalism has always had some kind of interpretative aspect to it. The what happened part is one core, but the why is the other. Same goes with that interpretation being intentionally and unnecessarily deceptive/manipulative for attention. It would be better imo if there was a place to get just the things that happened, but that's not going to be profitable up against the Pulitzer inspired yellow journalism that is the standard in the US. So that's a no-go under capitalism.
I mean, that's just a case for better standards in journalism, no? Just because we can have bad actors, or perhaps rational actors under bad incentives, doesn't mean the basis of interpretation and synthesis of information are wrong to have.
But I agree that anything is a long shot with the late stage capitalism we have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
