|
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 |
Northern Ireland22769 Posts
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.
Fair points, but the alternatives people often jump to also suffer from those problems. Except without that shield of professional ethics/pride or hell folks who are just motivated to be great journalists or whatever.
|
Northern Ireland22769 Posts
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
They’ll just have to wait the next millennia or so until the next one
|
I really don't understand how it's still a close race between Kambala and Dolan J.
Donald Trump doesn't want to be president, he wants to win the election, clear himself from all lawsuits and go back to golfing as if he was some kind of rich guy.
Actual politics is made by weirdos like Elon or whatever the Project 2025 want to do.
|
On August 29 2024 03:57 oBlade wrote:You have to be semantic to differentiate between different things, because things being different can affect whether they are true or false, or right or wrong. Before I address all those separate beautiful questions, can you just do me a favor and point me to the exact sentence Trump said that he got more votes in California. The only sentence I see is Show nested quote +Donald Trump insisted in a meandering interview with television host Dr. Phil McGraw on Tuesday that he had actually won California which is again not from Trump but some yahoo writing an article on Yahoo. Any idiot can do that. Just because he is wrong doesn't mean we need to copy him. Do you have access to the full interview which is only available on Dr. Phil's platform "Merit Street Media" by chance? Because I scoured the Youtube interview and it doesn't contain a segment about California? If you're holding out on us please share, copyright be damned, but despite perusing the 3 minute read Yahoo article I can't find a sentence saying what you say.
I found the interview segment. It turns out we now have video confirmation that Trump was indeed talking about winning/losing the 2020 general election in California, as originally reported: https://x.com/harris_wins/status/1828605704405688478
Within the first 20 seconds of this video clip - which happens to be right before his Jesus-should-count-the-votes comments - he mentions his incredulity at being told that he lost California by 5 million votes. This is specifically a reference to 2020, when he lost California by roughly 5 million votes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election_in_California
(In 2016, he lost CA by ~4M votes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election_in_California ).
I've written out what he said at the beginning of the above video clip, word for word:
"I look at California. I gave a speech, I had crowds so big, I said there's no way I could lose California, but automatically they mark it down - if you're a Republican - as a loss, that you lose by five million votes. I said "five million votes"!? I guarantee, if Jesus came down and was the vote counter, I would win California. [He then goes on to say the same things that the article transcribed.]
I've underlined all the past-tense verbs. He technically should have said "I would have won California" to be a little more grammatically consistent, but this is the same guy who says "oranges" instead of "origins" ( https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=2287823888102281 ). No one's grammar is perfect, and I'm okay with giving Trump a pass on that. What actually matters is that he's clearly talking about his surprised reaction to supposedly losing California in the 2020 election by five million votes, which he then asserts is due to a dishonest vote count. I actually don't even blame Trump for his imperfect grammar here, as it's not nearly as big of a deal as when he makes up words or mixes up people's names.
Anyway, I think the original article could have also included the few sentences before what was transcribed in the article, to remove all doubt that he was talking about being cheated out of California in 2020. And, as we all know, he's also already talking about how 2024 will surely be rigged too. I can give him a pass on grammatical errors, but I won't give him a pass on making false accusations of past/future election rigging against him, nor will I give him a pass on him actually trying to rig elections.
|
|
|
On August 28 2024 20:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On the topic of U.S. politics, it appears that Trump's D.C. case isn't going to be automatically dismissed just because of the Supreme Court's "presidential immunity" ruling. The prosecution went through their entire case, removed the parts that would likely fall under the "presidential immunity" ruling, and realized they still had enough evidence to reindict Trump on all 4 criminal charges. Additionally, Jack Smith and the prosecution were smart enough to present this amended version to a *new* grand jury, that way Trump's defense couldn't complain that the old grand jury was going to be biased from already hearing about all the facts the first time around, including any that are now considered unusable due to presidential immunity. Show nested quote +Trump indicted again in election subversion case brought by Jack Smith
The 36-page indictment, secured Tuesday by the special counsel, is an attempt to recalibrate the case after the Supreme Court’s immunity decision.
A federal grand jury in Washington, D.C. has reindicted Donald Trump on four felony charges related to his effort to subvert the 2020 presidential election.
The 36-page indictment, secured Tuesday by special counsel Jack Smith, is an attempt by prosecutors to streamline the case against Trump to address the Supreme Court’s ruling last month that concluded presidents enjoy sweeping immunity from prosecution for their official conduct.
The new indictment removes some specific allegations against Trump but contains the same four criminal charges, including conspiracy to defraud the United States. It’s a signal that Smith believes the high court’s immunity decision doesn’t pose a major impediment to convicting the former president.
“The superseding indictment, which was presented to a new grand jury that had not previously heard evidence in this case, reflects the Government’s efforts to respect and implement the Supreme Court’s holdings and remand instructions,” Smith’s team wrote in an accompanying court filing.
The development is unlikely to alter the reality that a trial in the case before the November election looks impossible. In fact, the new indictment could drag the case out further — defense attorneys often seek delays after prosecutors revise criminal allegations.
Both sides face a Friday deadline to propose next steps to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, the Biden appointee who is overseeing the proceedings in the trial court. Chutkan has scheduled a Sept. 5 hearing to set a course for the case.
Trump pleaded not guilty to the initial indictment and has repeatedly decried the prosecution as a political vendetta. After the new indictment was unveiled on Tuesday, Trump called it “ridiculous” in a post on his social media site, Truth Social.
“For them to do this immediately after our Supreme Court Victory on Immunity and more, is shocking,” Trump wrote.
The new charging document seeks to revive a case that was stalled for months while the Supreme Court weighed Trump’s immunity arguments. In a largely 6-3 decision on July 1, the high court announced a robust version of presidential immunity that made clear that at least some of the special counsel’s allegations could not proceed — and left the rest of the case in jeopardy.
The new indictment seeks to rely on a distinction the Supreme Court drew between a president’s private actions (which can be the subject of criminal charges) and actions that stem from a president’s official powers (which now carry a large degree of immunity).
In an apparent bid to downplay any connection between Trump’s official duties and his bid to overturn Joe Biden’s victory, the new indictment repeatedly emphasizes the political and personal nature of many of the actions Trump took during the post-election period and on Jan. 6, 2021.
For instance, the document underscores that Mike Pence was not only vice president, but also Trump’s “running mate,” when Trump pressured Pence to block the certification of the election results. It notes that Trump’s rally at the Ellipse on Jan. 6, 2021, was “privately funded” and “privately organized.” And it stresses that Trump often used his Twitter account for “personal purposes.”
The new document also eliminates a long list of top government officials who had informed Trump that his claims about election fraud and anomalies were false, including top intelligence, Justice Department, homeland security officials and White House lawyers.
Smith’s original 45-page indictment, unveiled last August, included claims that Trump sought to use the Justice Department to advance what prosecutors contend was an unlawful and fraudulent effort to overturn the election. Those details, which the Supreme Court put largely beyond the reach of prosecutors, have been omitted from the new, shorter charging document.
The new indictment adds no new defendants, but deletes all references to one alleged co-conspirator mentioned in the earlier indictment without being named or charged: former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark.
Clark held a Senate-confirmed post as head of DOJ’s Environmental and Natural Resources Division and was serving as the acting head of the department’s Civil Division at the end of the Trump administration when Trump considered a plan to install Clark to replace acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen.
Witnesses told a House investigation that, in the weeks after the 2020 election, Rosen and other Trump appointees had refused to send letters to local election officials claiming fraud in the presidential election results, but Clark was willing to do so. Trump ultimately abandoned the plan after nearly all of the senior leaders of the Justice Department said they would resign in protest.
In addition to the election subversion case, Smith has also charged Trump in Florida with hoarding classified documents and obstructing justice. Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, dismissed that case last month — a decision that Smith is appealing.
Trump also faces criminal charges in Georgia for interfering with the 2020 election results in that state. And in May, he was convicted in New York of falsifying business records to cover up a hush money payment to a porn star. https://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/27/trump-indicted-2020-election-subversion-00176503
A follow-up on this: Trump claims that Jack Smith isn't allowed to file the updated indictment, because there's a rule that forbids filing indictments within 60 days of a presidential election. Of course, there are ~70 days remaining before the presidential election, the indictment was filed with more than 60 days before the presidential election, and Trump's moronic complaint is going to be rejected: https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2024/08/28/trump-claims-jack-smith-couldnt-file-updated-indictment-before-election-heres-why-thats-false/
|
On August 29 2024 22:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2024 03:57 oBlade wrote:You have to be semantic to differentiate between different things, because things being different can affect whether they are true or false, or right or wrong. Before I address all those separate beautiful questions, can you just do me a favor and point me to the exact sentence Trump said that he got more votes in California. The only sentence I see is Donald Trump insisted in a meandering interview with television host Dr. Phil McGraw on Tuesday that he had actually won California which is again not from Trump but some yahoo writing an article on Yahoo. Any idiot can do that. Just because he is wrong doesn't mean we need to copy him. Do you have access to the full interview which is only available on Dr. Phil's platform "Merit Street Media" by chance? Because I scoured the Youtube interview and it doesn't contain a segment about California? If you're holding out on us please share, copyright be damned, but despite perusing the 3 minute read Yahoo article I can't find a sentence saying what you say. I found the interview segment. It turns out we now have video confirmation that Trump was indeed talking about winning/losing the 2020 general election in California, as originally reported: https://x.com/harris_wins/status/1828605704405688478 Within the first 20 seconds of this video clip - which happens to be right before his Jesus-should-count-the-votes comments - he mentions his incredulity at being told that he lost California by 5 million votes. This is specifically a reference to 2020, when he lost California by roughly 5 million votes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election_in_California (In 2016, he lost CA by ~4M votes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election_in_California ). I've written out what he said at the beginning of the above video clip, word for word: "I look at California. I gave a speech, I had crowds so big, I said there's no way I could lose California, but automatically they mark it down - if you're a Republican - as a loss, that you lose by five million votes. I said "five million votes"!? I guarantee, if Jesus came down and was the vote counter, I would win California. [He then goes on to say the same things that the article transcribed.] I've underlined all the past-tense verbs. He technically should have said "I would have won California" to be a little more grammatically consistent, but this is the same guy who says "oranges" instead of "origins" ( https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=2287823888102281 ). No one's grammar is perfect, and I'm okay with giving Trump a pass on that. What actually matters is that he's clearly talking about his surprised reaction to supposedly losing California in the 2020 election by five million votes, which he then asserts is due to a dishonest vote count. I actually don't even blame Trump for his imperfect grammar here, as it's not nearly as big of a deal as when he makes up words or mixes up people's names. Anyway, I think the original article could have also included the few sentences before what was transcribed in the article, to remove all doubt that he was talking about being cheated out of California in 2020. And, as we all know, he's also already talking about how 2024 will surely be rigged too. I can give him a pass on grammatical errors, but I won't give him a pass on making false accusations of past/future election rigging against him, nor will I give him a pass on him actually trying to rig elections.
i’ve seen this before. the next step in this goes like ‘yea but trump doesn’t actually mean what he says, he’s hyperbolic. you need to read between the lines and can’t take it literally.’
|
On August 29 2024 23:45 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2024 22:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 29 2024 03:57 oBlade wrote:You have to be semantic to differentiate between different things, because things being different can affect whether they are true or false, or right or wrong. Before I address all those separate beautiful questions, can you just do me a favor and point me to the exact sentence Trump said that he got more votes in California. The only sentence I see is Donald Trump insisted in a meandering interview with television host Dr. Phil McGraw on Tuesday that he had actually won California which is again not from Trump but some yahoo writing an article on Yahoo. Any idiot can do that. Just because he is wrong doesn't mean we need to copy him. Do you have access to the full interview which is only available on Dr. Phil's platform "Merit Street Media" by chance? Because I scoured the Youtube interview and it doesn't contain a segment about California? If you're holding out on us please share, copyright be damned, but despite perusing the 3 minute read Yahoo article I can't find a sentence saying what you say. I found the interview segment. It turns out we now have video confirmation that Trump was indeed talking about winning/losing the 2020 general election in California, as originally reported: https://x.com/harris_wins/status/1828605704405688478 Within the first 20 seconds of this video clip - which happens to be right before his Jesus-should-count-the-votes comments - he mentions his incredulity at being told that he lost California by 5 million votes. This is specifically a reference to 2020, when he lost California by roughly 5 million votes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election_in_California (In 2016, he lost CA by ~4M votes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election_in_California ). I've written out what he said at the beginning of the above video clip, word for word: "I look at California. I gave a speech, I had crowds so big, I said there's no way I could lose California, but automatically they mark it down - if you're a Republican - as a loss, that you lose by five million votes. I said "five million votes"!? I guarantee, if Jesus came down and was the vote counter, I would win California. [He then goes on to say the same things that the article transcribed.] I've underlined all the past-tense verbs. He technically should have said "I would have won California" to be a little more grammatically consistent, but this is the same guy who says "oranges" instead of "origins" ( https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=2287823888102281 ). No one's grammar is perfect, and I'm okay with giving Trump a pass on that. What actually matters is that he's clearly talking about his surprised reaction to supposedly losing California in the 2020 election by five million votes, which he then asserts is due to a dishonest vote count. I actually don't even blame Trump for his imperfect grammar here, as it's not nearly as big of a deal as when he makes up words or mixes up people's names. Anyway, I think the original article could have also included the few sentences before what was transcribed in the article, to remove all doubt that he was talking about being cheated out of California in 2020. And, as we all know, he's also already talking about how 2024 will surely be rigged too. I can give him a pass on grammatical errors, but I won't give him a pass on making false accusations of past/future election rigging against him, nor will I give him a pass on him actually trying to rig elections. i’ve seen this before. the next step in this goes like ‘yea but trump doesn’t actually mean what he says, he’s hyperbolic. you need to read between the lines and can’t take it literally.’
That's true. Who are we to say that Trump really meant California, or losing by five million votes, or even Jesus? It's all part of Trump's master plan, and we should just have faith. Trump works in mysterious ways.
|
On August 29 2024 22:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2024 03:57 oBlade wrote:You have to be semantic to differentiate between different things, because things being different can affect whether they are true or false, or right or wrong. Before I address all those separate beautiful questions, can you just do me a favor and point me to the exact sentence Trump said that he got more votes in California. The only sentence I see is Donald Trump insisted in a meandering interview with television host Dr. Phil McGraw on Tuesday that he had actually won California which is again not from Trump but some yahoo writing an article on Yahoo. Any idiot can do that. Just because he is wrong doesn't mean we need to copy him. Do you have access to the full interview which is only available on Dr. Phil's platform "Merit Street Media" by chance? Because I scoured the Youtube interview and it doesn't contain a segment about California? If you're holding out on us please share, copyright be damned, but despite perusing the 3 minute read Yahoo article I can't find a sentence saying what you say. I found the interview segment. It turns out we now have video confirmation that Trump was indeed talking about winning/losing the 2020 general election in California, as originally reported: https://x.com/harris_wins/status/1828605704405688478 Within the first 20 seconds of this video clip - which happens to be right before his Jesus-should-count-the-votes comments - he mentions his incredulity at being told that he lost California by 5 million votes. This is specifically a reference to 2020, when he lost California by roughly 5 million votes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election_in_California (In 2016, he lost CA by ~4M votes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election_in_California ). I've written out what he said at the beginning of the above video clip, word for word: "I look at California. I gave a speech, I had crowds so big, I said there's no way I could lose California, but automatically they mark it down - if you're a Republican - as a loss, that you lose by five million votes. I said "five million votes"!? I guarantee, if Jesus came down and was the vote counter, I would win California. [He then goes on to say the same things that the article transcribed.] I've underlined all the past-tense verbs. He technically should have said "I would have won California" to be a little more grammatically consistent, but this is the same guy who says "oranges" instead of "origins" ( https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=2287823888102281 ). No one's grammar is perfect, and I'm okay with giving Trump a pass on that. What actually matters is that he's clearly talking about his surprised reaction to supposedly losing California in the 2020 election by five million votes, which he then asserts is due to a dishonest vote count. I actually don't even blame Trump for his imperfect grammar here, as it's not nearly as big of a deal as when he makes up words or mixes up people's names. Anyway, I think the original article could have also included the few sentences before what was transcribed in the article, to remove all doubt that he was talking about being cheated out of California in 2020. And, as we all know, he's also already talking about how 2024 will surely be rigged too. I can give him a pass on grammatical errors, but I won't give him a pass on making false accusations of past/future election rigging against him, nor will I give him a pass on him actually trying to rig elections.
Not to go back to the subjunctive well, but grammar pedants would note that he should also say “if Jesus were the vote counter,” not “was,” since it’s describing an imaginary or hypothetical scenario. “If Jesus was” is supposed to mean (according to the grammar pedants, anyway) that the speaker is genuinely uncertain whether something was the case, e.g. “If Jesus was the vote counter, then I apologize for questioning the integrity of His count.”
Of course, nobody likes grammar pedants. I’m straying uncomfortably close to being one myself here just by pointing this out, which feels bad because I also hate grammar pedants; if I found out Trump did understand the subjunctive mood and was intentionally misusing it to piss off a few English teachers I’d be kind of into that. It brings me a little joy to imagine all those English teachers getting irrationally angry as Chaim Topol sings “If I Was a Rich Man,” powerless to stop him.
But the slightly relevant point is that Trump (like the vast majority of English speakers) doesn’t know how the subjunctive works but does have a vague impression that the verbs get funny when “if” gets involved, which is probably why he messed up the back half of the sentence. It’s fine, happens to everybody, but there’s really no reason to be confused about what he’s saying.
As long as we’re entertaining alternate readings that aren’t really supported by the text and wouldn’t be any better even if they were right, I’d like to put forward that he’s not saying he actually got more votes in California; he’s saying that if our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ were in a position of authority over counting the votes, he would have cheated the count because he would have known re-electing Donald Trump was just that important.
|
On August 30 2024 00:30 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2024 22:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 29 2024 03:57 oBlade wrote:You have to be semantic to differentiate between different things, because things being different can affect whether they are true or false, or right or wrong. Before I address all those separate beautiful questions, can you just do me a favor and point me to the exact sentence Trump said that he got more votes in California. The only sentence I see is Donald Trump insisted in a meandering interview with television host Dr. Phil McGraw on Tuesday that he had actually won California which is again not from Trump but some yahoo writing an article on Yahoo. Any idiot can do that. Just because he is wrong doesn't mean we need to copy him. Do you have access to the full interview which is only available on Dr. Phil's platform "Merit Street Media" by chance? Because I scoured the Youtube interview and it doesn't contain a segment about California? If you're holding out on us please share, copyright be damned, but despite perusing the 3 minute read Yahoo article I can't find a sentence saying what you say. I found the interview segment. It turns out we now have video confirmation that Trump was indeed talking about winning/losing the 2020 general election in California, as originally reported: https://x.com/harris_wins/status/1828605704405688478 Within the first 20 seconds of this video clip - which happens to be right before his Jesus-should-count-the-votes comments - he mentions his incredulity at being told that he lost California by 5 million votes. This is specifically a reference to 2020, when he lost California by roughly 5 million votes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election_in_California (In 2016, he lost CA by ~4M votes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election_in_California ). I've written out what he said at the beginning of the above video clip, word for word: "I look at California. I gave a speech, I had crowds so big, I said there's no way I could lose California, but automatically they mark it down - if you're a Republican - as a loss, that you lose by five million votes. I said "five million votes"!? I guarantee, if Jesus came down and was the vote counter, I would win California. [He then goes on to say the same things that the article transcribed.] I've underlined all the past-tense verbs. He technically should have said "I would have won California" to be a little more grammatically consistent, but this is the same guy who says "oranges" instead of "origins" ( https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=2287823888102281 ). No one's grammar is perfect, and I'm okay with giving Trump a pass on that. What actually matters is that he's clearly talking about his surprised reaction to supposedly losing California in the 2020 election by five million votes, which he then asserts is due to a dishonest vote count. I actually don't even blame Trump for his imperfect grammar here, as it's not nearly as big of a deal as when he makes up words or mixes up people's names. Anyway, I think the original article could have also included the few sentences before what was transcribed in the article, to remove all doubt that he was talking about being cheated out of California in 2020. And, as we all know, he's also already talking about how 2024 will surely be rigged too. I can give him a pass on grammatical errors, but I won't give him a pass on making false accusations of past/future election rigging against him, nor will I give him a pass on him actually trying to rig elections. Not to go back to the subjunctive well, but grammar pedants would note that he should also say “if Jesus were the vote counter,” not “was,” since it’s describing an imaginary or hypothetical scenario. “If Jesus was” is supposed to mean (according to the grammar pedants, anyway) that the speaker is genuinely uncertain whether something was the case, e.g. “If Jesus was the vote counter, then I apologize for questioning the integrity of His count.” Of course, nobody likes grammar pedants. I’m straying uncomfortably close to being one myself here just by pointing this out, which feels bad because I also hate grammar pedants; if I found out Trump did understand the subjunctive mood and was intentionally misusing it to piss off a few English teachers I’d be kind of into that. It brings me a little joy to imagine all those English teachers getting irrationally angry as Chaim Topol sings “If I Was a Rich Man,” powerless to stop him. But the slightly relevant point is that Trump (like the vast majority of English speakers) doesn’t know how the subjunctive works but does have a vague impression that the verbs get funny when “if” gets involved, which is probably why he messed up the back half of the sentence. It’s fine, happens to everybody, but there’s really no reason to be confused about what he’s saying. As long as we’re entertaining alternate readings that aren’t really supported by the text and wouldn’t be any better even if they were right, I’d like to put forward that he’s not saying he actually got more votes in California; he’s saying that if our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ were in a position of authority over counting the votes, he would have cheated the count because he would have known re-electing Donald Trump was just that important.
You are the winner of the thread this week! Thank you!
|
On August 30 2024 00:30 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2024 22:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 29 2024 03:57 oBlade wrote:You have to be semantic to differentiate between different things, because things being different can affect whether they are true or false, or right or wrong. Before I address all those separate beautiful questions, can you just do me a favor and point me to the exact sentence Trump said that he got more votes in California. The only sentence I see is Donald Trump insisted in a meandering interview with television host Dr. Phil McGraw on Tuesday that he had actually won California which is again not from Trump but some yahoo writing an article on Yahoo. Any idiot can do that. Just because he is wrong doesn't mean we need to copy him. Do you have access to the full interview which is only available on Dr. Phil's platform "Merit Street Media" by chance? Because I scoured the Youtube interview and it doesn't contain a segment about California? If you're holding out on us please share, copyright be damned, but despite perusing the 3 minute read Yahoo article I can't find a sentence saying what you say. I found the interview segment. It turns out we now have video confirmation that Trump was indeed talking about winning/losing the 2020 general election in California, as originally reported: https://x.com/harris_wins/status/1828605704405688478 Within the first 20 seconds of this video clip - which happens to be right before his Jesus-should-count-the-votes comments - he mentions his incredulity at being told that he lost California by 5 million votes. This is specifically a reference to 2020, when he lost California by roughly 5 million votes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election_in_California (In 2016, he lost CA by ~4M votes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election_in_California ). I've written out what he said at the beginning of the above video clip, word for word: "I look at California. I gave a speech, I had crowds so big, I said there's no way I could lose California, but automatically they mark it down - if you're a Republican - as a loss, that you lose by five million votes. I said "five million votes"!? I guarantee, if Jesus came down and was the vote counter, I would win California. [He then goes on to say the same things that the article transcribed.] I've underlined all the past-tense verbs. He technically should have said "I would have won California" to be a little more grammatically consistent, but this is the same guy who says "oranges" instead of "origins" ( https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=2287823888102281 ). No one's grammar is perfect, and I'm okay with giving Trump a pass on that. What actually matters is that he's clearly talking about his surprised reaction to supposedly losing California in the 2020 election by five million votes, which he then asserts is due to a dishonest vote count. I actually don't even blame Trump for his imperfect grammar here, as it's not nearly as big of a deal as when he makes up words or mixes up people's names. Anyway, I think the original article could have also included the few sentences before what was transcribed in the article, to remove all doubt that he was talking about being cheated out of California in 2020. And, as we all know, he's also already talking about how 2024 will surely be rigged too. I can give him a pass on grammatical errors, but I won't give him a pass on making false accusations of past/future election rigging against him, nor will I give him a pass on him actually trying to rig elections. Not to go back to the subjunctive well, but grammar pedants would note that he should also say “if Jesus were the vote counter,” not “was,” since it’s describing an imaginary or hypothetical scenario. “If Jesus was” is supposed to mean (according to the grammar pedants, anyway) that the speaker is genuinely uncertain whether something was the case, e.g. “If Jesus was the vote counter, then I apologize for questioning the integrity of His count.” Of course, nobody likes grammar pedants. I’m straying uncomfortably close to being one myself here just by pointing this out, which feels bad because I also hate grammar pedants; if I found out Trump did understand the subjunctive mood and was intentionally misusing it to piss off a few English teachers I’d be kind of into that. It brings me a little joy to imagine all those English teachers getting irrationally angry as Chaim Topol sings “If I Was a Rich Man,” powerless to stop him. But the slightly relevant point is that Trump (like the vast majority of English speakers) doesn’t know how the subjunctive works but does have a vague impression that the verbs get funny when “if” gets involved, which is probably why he messed up the back half of the sentence. It’s fine, happens to everybody, but there’s really no reason to be confused about what he’s saying. As long as we’re entertaining alternate readings that aren’t really supported by the text and wouldn’t be any better even if they were right, I’d like to put forward that he’s not saying he actually got more votes in California; he’s saying that if our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ were in a position of authority over counting the votes, he would have cheated the count because he would have known re-electing Donald Trump was just that important.
I appreciate your post much more than Trump's posts, but maybe that's just because I prefer Grammar Nazis over American ones.
|
On August 30 2024 02:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2024 00:30 ChristianS wrote:On August 29 2024 22:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 29 2024 03:57 oBlade wrote:You have to be semantic to differentiate between different things, because things being different can affect whether they are true or false, or right or wrong. Before I address all those separate beautiful questions, can you just do me a favor and point me to the exact sentence Trump said that he got more votes in California. The only sentence I see is Donald Trump insisted in a meandering interview with television host Dr. Phil McGraw on Tuesday that he had actually won California which is again not from Trump but some yahoo writing an article on Yahoo. Any idiot can do that. Just because he is wrong doesn't mean we need to copy him. Do you have access to the full interview which is only available on Dr. Phil's platform "Merit Street Media" by chance? Because I scoured the Youtube interview and it doesn't contain a segment about California? If you're holding out on us please share, copyright be damned, but despite perusing the 3 minute read Yahoo article I can't find a sentence saying what you say. I found the interview segment. It turns out we now have video confirmation that Trump was indeed talking about winning/losing the 2020 general election in California, as originally reported: https://x.com/harris_wins/status/1828605704405688478 Within the first 20 seconds of this video clip - which happens to be right before his Jesus-should-count-the-votes comments - he mentions his incredulity at being told that he lost California by 5 million votes. This is specifically a reference to 2020, when he lost California by roughly 5 million votes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election_in_California (In 2016, he lost CA by ~4M votes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election_in_California ). I've written out what he said at the beginning of the above video clip, word for word: "I look at California. I gave a speech, I had crowds so big, I said there's no way I could lose California, but automatically they mark it down - if you're a Republican - as a loss, that you lose by five million votes. I said "five million votes"!? I guarantee, if Jesus came down and was the vote counter, I would win California. [He then goes on to say the same things that the article transcribed.] I've underlined all the past-tense verbs. He technically should have said "I would have won California" to be a little more grammatically consistent, but this is the same guy who says "oranges" instead of "origins" ( https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=2287823888102281 ). No one's grammar is perfect, and I'm okay with giving Trump a pass on that. What actually matters is that he's clearly talking about his surprised reaction to supposedly losing California in the 2020 election by five million votes, which he then asserts is due to a dishonest vote count. I actually don't even blame Trump for his imperfect grammar here, as it's not nearly as big of a deal as when he makes up words or mixes up people's names. Anyway, I think the original article could have also included the few sentences before what was transcribed in the article, to remove all doubt that he was talking about being cheated out of California in 2020. And, as we all know, he's also already talking about how 2024 will surely be rigged too. I can give him a pass on grammatical errors, but I won't give him a pass on making false accusations of past/future election rigging against him, nor will I give him a pass on him actually trying to rig elections. Not to go back to the subjunctive well, but grammar pedants would note that he should also say “if Jesus were the vote counter,” not “was,” since it’s describing an imaginary or hypothetical scenario. “If Jesus was” is supposed to mean (according to the grammar pedants, anyway) that the speaker is genuinely uncertain whether something was the case, e.g. “If Jesus was the vote counter, then I apologize for questioning the integrity of His count.” Of course, nobody likes grammar pedants. I’m straying uncomfortably close to being one myself here just by pointing this out, which feels bad because I also hate grammar pedants; if I found out Trump did understand the subjunctive mood and was intentionally misusing it to piss off a few English teachers I’d be kind of into that. It brings me a little joy to imagine all those English teachers getting irrationally angry as Chaim Topol sings “If I Was a Rich Man,” powerless to stop him. But the slightly relevant point is that Trump (like the vast majority of English speakers) doesn’t know how the subjunctive works but does have a vague impression that the verbs get funny when “if” gets involved, which is probably why he messed up the back half of the sentence. It’s fine, happens to everybody, but there’s really no reason to be confused about what he’s saying. As long as we’re entertaining alternate readings that aren’t really supported by the text and wouldn’t be any better even if they were right, I’d like to put forward that he’s not saying he actually got more votes in California; he’s saying that if our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ were in a position of authority over counting the votes, he would have cheated the count because he would have known re-electing Donald Trump was just that important. I appreciate your post much more than Trump's posts, but maybe that's just because I prefer Grammar Nazis over American ones.
Subjunctive man strikes again!
|
Glad I wasn’t the only one that thought it was fun.
I’m not a Grammar Nazi, though, I swear! I don’t understand the subjunctive mood either! I probably misused it several times in that post!
I just thought the combination of obscure grammatical distinctions and making the Prince of Peace tally ballots was funny, and considering the discussion was otherwise focused on distinguishing whether Trump is making bullshit claims about the 2020 election or the 2024 one (both, obviously, regardless of what he meant in this specific case) I didn’t really think I’d be wasting anybody’s time by goofing off a bit.
|
Northern Ireland22769 Posts
Obviously what Trump meant was that he could have won California but for the silent majorityTM being so disheartened by the elitesTM in CommieforniaTM that they need the inspiration of the Second Coming overseeing the SwampTM to feel their vote will count, that hope is not yet lost
It’s showing a hitherto unseen level of humility actually for Trump to tacitly concede that the thus far unprecedented event in the modern age of the resurrection of a famous religious figure might be more inspirational than his own shtick
|
Alt + 0153 and you can make the Trademark™ symbol
|
Northern Ireland22769 Posts
On August 30 2024 04:51 ChristianS wrote:
Glad I wasn’t the only one that thought it was fun.
I’m not a Grammar Nazi, though, I swear! I don’t understand the subjunctive mood either! I probably misused it several times in that post!
I just thought the combination of obscure grammatical distinctions and making the Prince of Peace tally ballots was funny, and considering the discussion was otherwise focused on distinguishing whether Trump is making bullshit claims about the 2020 election or the 2024 one (both, obviously, regardless of what he meant in this specific case) I didn’t really think I’d be wasting anybody’s time by goofing off a bit.
I must say I’m finding it quite disturbing that the mods are allowing literal (grammar) Nazis to post their propaganda in this hallowed ground! Deny it all you want, my ears are attuned to the frequencies of dog whistles.
Nah I enjoyed it for my sins!
The mechanics of language and their various terms are rather interesting. Are youse folks Stateside taught them as a matter of course in the curriculum or is it something interested folks study a bit later in-depth?
Over here we basically don’t, least for ye olde Queen’s tongue. We get a smattering of the basics via studying foreign languages, but we can drop those too by the time you’re 16.
So really the only folks I tend to encounter with the vocabulary to describe these linguistic mechanics are folks who’ve got a real passion for learning a foreign language and keep studying it, or the occasional hobbyist.
|
On August 30 2024 05:38 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2024 04:51 ChristianS wrote:
Glad I wasn’t the only one that thought it was fun.
I’m not a Grammar Nazi, though, I swear! I don’t understand the subjunctive mood either! I probably misused it several times in that post!
I just thought the combination of obscure grammatical distinctions and making the Prince of Peace tally ballots was funny, and considering the discussion was otherwise focused on distinguishing whether Trump is making bullshit claims about the 2020 election or the 2024 one (both, obviously, regardless of what he meant in this specific case) I didn’t really think I’d be wasting anybody’s time by goofing off a bit. I must say I’m finding it quite disturbing that the mods are allowing literal (grammar) Nazis to post their propaganda in this hallowed ground! Deny it all you want, my ears are attuned to the frequencies of dog whistles. Nah I enjoyed it for my sins! The mechanics of language and their various terms are rather interesting. Are youse folks Stateside taught them as a matter of course in the curriculum or is it something interested folks study a bit later in-depth? Over here we basically don’t, least for ye olde Queen’s tongue. We get a smattering of the basics via studying foreign languages, but we can drop those too by the time you’re 16. So really the only folks I tend to encounter with the vocabulary to describe these linguistic mechanics are folks who’ve got a real passion for learning a foreign language and keep studying it, or the occasional hobbyist.
My experience in elementary/middle/high school: I didn't learn much about different verb tenses in English / Language Arts classes, but I learned way more about different verb tenses when I studied Spanish as my second/foreign language choice.
|
On August 30 2024 05:38 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2024 04:51 ChristianS wrote:
Glad I wasn’t the only one that thought it was fun.
I’m not a Grammar Nazi, though, I swear! I don’t understand the subjunctive mood either! I probably misused it several times in that post!
I just thought the combination of obscure grammatical distinctions and making the Prince of Peace tally ballots was funny, and considering the discussion was otherwise focused on distinguishing whether Trump is making bullshit claims about the 2020 election or the 2024 one (both, obviously, regardless of what he meant in this specific case) I didn’t really think I’d be wasting anybody’s time by goofing off a bit. I must say I’m finding it quite disturbing that the mods are allowing literal (grammar) Nazis to post their propaganda in this hallowed ground! Deny it all you want, my ears are attuned to the frequencies of dog whistles. Nah I enjoyed it for my sins! The mechanics of language and their various terms are rather interesting. Are youse folks Stateside taught them as a matter of course in the curriculum or is it something interested folks study a bit later in-depth? Over here we basically don’t, least for ye olde Queen’s tongue. We get a smattering of the basics via studying foreign languages, but we can drop those too by the time you’re 16. So really the only folks I tend to encounter with the vocabulary to describe these linguistic mechanics are folks who’ve got a real passion for learning a foreign language and keep studying it, or the occasional hobbyist.
I think it’s pretty all over the place just depending on the curriculum where you happened to go to school. I got a decent amount of grammar education in 8th grade but it was absolutely the kind of thing everybody despised and you could pretty reasonably get through without ever properly learning it. Never came up in high school, I started learning a bit more about it when I was taking other languages. Imagine my surprise, trying to wrap my head around the subjunctive in Spanish, when I learned we have one of these stupid things in English, too!
Personally I tend to oppose prescriptivist attitudes toward language anyway; if the majority of English speakers are regularly starting sentences with “me and Tom” instead of “Tom and I” then as far as I’m concerned that’s just as “correct” as the alternative. You can insist that “me” is the accusative case and only belongs in the predicate, but as far as I’m concerned those are scientific terms meant to describe the language people naturally speak. If your scientific theory does not accurately describe what happens in nature, your theory is wrong, not nature.
|
Northern Ireland22769 Posts
On August 30 2024 06:19 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2024 05:38 WombaT wrote:On August 30 2024 04:51 ChristianS wrote:
Glad I wasn’t the only one that thought it was fun.
I’m not a Grammar Nazi, though, I swear! I don’t understand the subjunctive mood either! I probably misused it several times in that post!
I just thought the combination of obscure grammatical distinctions and making the Prince of Peace tally ballots was funny, and considering the discussion was otherwise focused on distinguishing whether Trump is making bullshit claims about the 2020 election or the 2024 one (both, obviously, regardless of what he meant in this specific case) I didn’t really think I’d be wasting anybody’s time by goofing off a bit. I must say I’m finding it quite disturbing that the mods are allowing literal (grammar) Nazis to post their propaganda in this hallowed ground! Deny it all you want, my ears are attuned to the frequencies of dog whistles. Nah I enjoyed it for my sins! The mechanics of language and their various terms are rather interesting. Are youse folks Stateside taught them as a matter of course in the curriculum or is it something interested folks study a bit later in-depth? Over here we basically don’t, least for ye olde Queen’s tongue. We get a smattering of the basics via studying foreign languages, but we can drop those too by the time you’re 16. So really the only folks I tend to encounter with the vocabulary to describe these linguistic mechanics are folks who’ve got a real passion for learning a foreign language and keep studying it, or the occasional hobbyist. I think it’s pretty all over the place just depending on the curriculum where you happened to go to school. I got a decent amount of grammar education in 8th grade but it was absolutely the kind of thing everybody despised and you could pretty reasonably get through without ever properly learning it. Never came up in high school, I started learning a bit more about it when I was taking other languages. Imagine my surprise, trying to wrap my head around the subjunctive in Spanish, when I learned we have one of these stupid things in English, too! Personally I tend to oppose prescriptivist attitudes toward language anyway; if the majority of English speakers are regularly starting sentences with “me and Tom” instead of “Tom and I” then as far as I’m concerned that’s just as “correct” as the alternative. You can insist that “me” is the accusative case and only belongs in the predicate, but as far as I’m concerned those are scientific terms meant to describe the language people naturally speak. If your scientific theory does not accurately describe what happens in nature, your theory is wrong, not nature.
Cheers for the context to DPB too!
I mean this is it, and why people hate grammar nazis in a nutshell. There’s a lot of joy and interesting divergence in language and its varied forms. Even within the vernacular evolution of one language, never mind across languages.
Grammar Nazis will lecture on language while at a real, fundamental core level not understand or value how they work. It’s like some music theory nerd telling you some song you really love sucks because it doesn’t adhere to 18th century conceptions of harmony or something
We’re an interesting species, and language is a huge part of it, celebrate the cool stuff. Hell, I was reading an article the other day about various cultures that don’t think of numbers in a decimal friendly way.
Do they fundamentally gauge numbers in a way different to you or I at a cognitive level, or the same way with a different translation layer?
That’s a cool thing to consider for me. Or do cultures develop subtle differences in behaviours based on the confines on the language they’re working in?
Linguistic prescriptivism just doesn’t find space for all that fun and interesting stuff
|
Northern Ireland22769 Posts
On August 30 2024 05:01 BlackJack wrote:
Alt + 0153 and you can make the Trademark™ symbol
Merci, I don’t think I’ve made a post on here since before I hit 10K posts that was done on desktop, which is why you’ll rarely see me do much block quote posting but that’s good to know
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
