Trump runs for POTUS / Trumped Up! Part V

[uke2se]

Why do you feel you need to change Pierson's quote? The actual quote was:

"So what. They're Muslims".

It's harder to reinterpret something if you have to base it on what was actually said.

 

[sunmaster14]

Why do you feel you need to change Pierson's quote? The actual quote was:

"So what. They're Muslims".

Because the interpretation of intended meaning depends on the context which is lost in a literal transcription of words. We actually have a video clip where audiovisual context can be analyzed, including facial expressions, inflection, indications of exasperation, as well as the words both she and her interlocutor said just prior. A literal transcription of words, particularly those uttered in a shouting match, can be more misleading than enlightening.

 

[slyjoe]

It's harder to reinterpret something if you have to base it on what was actually said.

I'm not sure whether or not Trump supporters hear, re-interpret subconciously, then write it down; or they write it down and then adjust.

 

[sunmaster14]

It's conceivable that's what she meant. It's not obvious that's what she meant, not by a long shot.

Well, it's obvious to me. Perhaps that's because I don't believe that she believes that normal, peaceful Muslims are subhuman. I suppose I could be wrong about that, but I don't think I've ever actually met anybody that does believe Muslims are subhuman.

 

[slyjoe]

Because the interpretation of intended meaning depends on the context which is lost in a literal transcription of words. We actually have a video clip where audiovisual context can be analyzed, including facial expressions, inflection, indications of exasperation, as well as the words both she and her interlocutor said just prior. A literal transcription of words, particularly those uttered in a shouting match, can be more misleading than enlightening.

I don't disagree entirely. However, in this case, what you wrote down changes the meaning of what she said. So taking the above into account, your opinion of all that is the justification for changing the quotation?

 

[Ladewig]

Can't you just picture them when little Donnie isn't in the room, brainstorming how they can manipulate the guy into actually preparing? One news source reported they made him watch the debate to show him how bad he was.

The guy's in a weird self-adulating bubble with his fingers in his ears.

Can't you just picture them when little Donnie isn't in the room, brainstorming how they can manipulate the guy into actually preparing? One news source reported they made him watch the debate to show him how bad he was.

I have a hard time believing that assertion. (1) How could his handlers be foolish enough to think that making him watch a recording of the debate would force him to realize that he performed poorly? (2) Even if they did convince him, he would not think the solution would be to learn facts or to prepare in any other formal manner. We are talking about a guy who is so clueless as to actually believe the claim that the practice townhall meeting was not debate prep.

Can't you just picture them when little Donnie isn't in the room, brainstorming how they can manipulate the guy into actually preparing? One news source reported they made him watch the debate to show him how bad he was.

I have a hard time believing that assertion. (1) How could his handlers be foolish enough to think that making him watch a recording of the debate would force him to realize that he performed poorly? (2) Even if they did convince him, he would not think the solution would be to learn facts or to prepare in any other formal manner. We are talking about a guy who is so clueless as to actually believe the claim that the practice townhall meeting was not debate prep.

Can't you just picture them when little Donnie isn't in the room, brainstorming how they can manipulate the guy into actually preparing? One news source reported they made him watch the debate to show him how bad he was.

I have a hard time believing that assertion. (1) How could his handlers be foolish enough to think that making him watch a recording of the debate would force him to realize that he performed poorly? (2) Even if they did convince him, he would not think the solution would be to learn facts or to prepare in any other formal manner. We are talking about a guy who is so clueless he might actually believe the claim that the practice townhall meeting was not debate prep.

This is a guy so out of touch that he thinks his quip bragging about not preparing for the debate and slamming Clinton is One more example of his hard-hitting style and will help him convince voters that he is a witty and smart man.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

You really bet that? I'm surprised, and more than a little bit disappointed in you. I think it's quite obvious what she meant. Did you even watch the clip?

It appears you're letting your feelings about her color your interpretation of her remarks. Kind of a slippery slope there, but it's an understandable cognitive error.

I watched it. The meaning was quite clear.

 

[sunmaster14]

I watched it. The meaning was quite clear.

Oh yeah? Please explain what you think she meant.

 

[Darat]

Because the interpretation of intended meaning depends on the context which is lost in a literal transcription of words. We actually have a video clip where audiovisual context can be analyzed, including facial expressions, inflection, indications of exasperation, as well as the words both she and her interlocutor said just prior. A literal transcription of words, particularly those uttered in a shouting match, can be more misleading than enlightening.

Had a look at the clip and have to admit I couldn't see her crossing her fingers behind her back, at what point in the video does that happen?

 

[NoahFence]

I think we need a .gif of a washing machine. Spin cycle.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

The whole point of surrogates is to provide soundbites;
preferably those that help their bosses, but if they are incompetent some that will hurt.

Surrogates are already the interpreters of their bosses. If they need an extra layer to be understood, they are not doing their job.

 

[sunmaster14]

Had a look at the clip and have to admit I couldn't see her crossing her fingers behind her back, at what point in the video does that happen?

Since Fast Eddie refuses to answer my question, how about you tell me what you think she meant? Please be specific.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

The whole point of surrogates is to provide soundbites;
preferably those that help their bosses, but if they are incompetent some that will hurt.

Surrogates are already the interpreters of their bosses. If they need an extra layer to be understood, they are not doing their job.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Since Fast Eddie refuses to answer my question, how about you tell me what you think she meant? Please be specific.

She means Muslims don't count as equals, they don't have or deserve the same rights and protections as real people. They are Untermensch.

That's what I think she meant.

 

[sunmaster14]

She means Muslims don't count as equals, they don't have or deserve the same rights and protections as real people. They are Untermensch.

That's what I think she meant.

Has she ever said that before? Has she ever said that after? Did she ever say anything like that elsewhere in the same interview? Her focus was on the fact that Arab countries have problems with insurgents, and that we have no good way to vet people coming into our country from those countries.

It would be remarkable if she held such an extreme view, and it only came out in a two word exclamation in a heated debate.

 

[varwoche]

I suspect Sunmaster is correct about what Pierson said. If we flesh it out, it might go something like this... So what. They're Muslims. Donald Trump never proposed banning Muslims. Just because our campaign website still has the proposal verbatim, so what.

She didn't denigrate Muslims. Quite the opposite. She was channeling Baghdad Bob.

 

[NoahFence]

Has she ever said that before? Has she ever said that after? Did she ever say anything like that elsewhere in the same interview? Her focus was on the fact that Arab countries have problems with insurgents, and that we have no good way to vet people coming into our country from those countries.

It would be remarkable if she held such an extreme view, and it only came out in a two word exclamation in a heated debate.

She should have said "So what IF they're Muslim" - as if it doesn't matter where they come from or what they believe. They're dangerous.

Nope.

She said "So what, they're Muslim" - intended to belittle them.

Spin all you want my friend. It ain't working.

 

[halleyscomet]

Trump's late night Twitter trouble

Using Twitter data from the past year—as well as older tweets collected by trumptwitterarchive.com—I plotted the frequency of Trump’s late-night tweeting. For the purposes of this article, I’m conservatively restricting what qualifies as “late” as a tweet posted between midnight and 3:59 a.m.; anything posted later might just be a product of Trump waking up earlier than usual. Here’s a look at the past year and a half, since Trump declared his candidacy:

 

[sunmaster14]

She should have said "So what IF they're Muslim" - as if it doesn't matter where they come from or what they believe. They're dangerous.

Right. That's what she should have said, and I believe that's what she meant to say. You're condemning her for failing to voice the IF there in the middle of a heated debate. I don't like to condemn people based on such flimsy evidence.

Nope.

She said "So what, they're Muslim" - intended to belittle them.

Spin all you want my friend. It ain't working.

You call it spin, but I couldn't care less about changing anybody's mind here. I only want to see how good your arguments are. Not very, is my conclusion so far.

 

[NoahFence]

Right. That's what she should have said, and I believe that's what she meant to say. You're condemning her for failing to voice the IF there in the middle of a heated debate. I don't like to condemn people based on such flimsy evidence.

Then she needs to be fired because she doesn't understand A) English and B) The Ramifications of misspeaking. Maybe you should send her a resume and get a job with the Trump Spin Machine. Post-comment translator. We'll put you in a little box in the corner of the TV like a sign-language interpreter. Every time she or Trump or any of them stick their foot in their mouth, you can hold up a sign that says "That's not what he/she means"?

You call it spin, but I couldn't care less about changing anybody's mind here. I only want to see how good your arguments are. Not very, is my conclusion so far.

Right. My arguments suck because I respond to what was actually said, instead of waiting for some asinine backpedaling translation from the Trump camp.