Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-02-2019, 11:00 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,378

Did Trump call Countess of Dumbarton "nasty"? [ed. originally Dumbarton confused w/Sussex]


When asked by an interviewer if he'd heard that Meghan Markle had talked of moving to Canada if Trump were elected our President said "No, I didn't know that she was nasty." (Instead of moving to Canada, she moved to Britain and became the Duchess of Sussex.) The White House went on a rampage of "Fake News" tweets when CNN said that Trump had called Markle "nasty." Who's right? Technically Trump didn't call Markle nasty; in fact he said he "didn't know that she was nasty."

So Dopers: CNN's story fake? You decide.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Unlike some of us — — I don't want to start lots of different threads, so let me piggy-back a related debate here.

George Will, noted conservative thinker says today's Republican Party has "the same mentality" as the American Communist Party of the late 30's and early 40's. Obviously he's not speaking of economic philosophy — the Communists wanted to give wealth to the workers, while the GOP wants to give more wealth to super-rich criminals — he's referring to their methods of waging politics. George Will, described as "the conservative rock," is no left-wing shill. His numerous awards include the Champion of Liberty Award from the Goldwater Institute. (Continue the video to see more examples of GOP and Trump hypocrisy.)

Dopers: Today's GOP has same mentality of the 1940 Communist Party USA? You decide.
  #2  
Old 06-02-2019, 12:58 PM
Walken After Midnight is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 4,513
Trump brought up the word "nasty". Trump says he thinks that Meghan Markle is "nasty" because she said critical things about him. If I were to say to someone "I didn't know that you were so greedy", it would be clear that I was implying that I thought they were greedy. The only reasonable defence would be to say that it was meant jokingly, not that it wasn't said, because there is an audio recording of it.
  #3  
Old 06-02-2019, 01:02 PM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,055
I hate these dumb controversies so much. They're stupid and Trump always wins them.

But... here's what happened. The interviewer mentioned Markle made unkind comments about Trump, and he replied "well, I didn't know she was nasty". We know he habitually uses 'nasty' as a synonym for 'unkind'. Not that she was unclean or diseased or whatever.

Now he's denying it, because he denies everything. People are trying to pin him against the wall, and they look dumb because he always lies his way out of it, his base lets him, and it's such a mild insult anyway to suggest someone is unkind.

She's nasty. I'm nasty to Trump too. Chrissakes, let's pick our controversies better.
  #4  
Old 06-02-2019, 01:02 PM
D'Anconia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,427
She isn't the Countess of Sussex.
  #5  
Old 06-02-2019, 01:14 PM
Baron Greenback's Avatar
Baron Greenback is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 11,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
She isn't the Countess of Sussex.
Indeed, she's the Countess of Dumbarton.
  #6  
Old 06-02-2019, 01:17 PM
running coach's Avatar
running coach is offline
Arms of Steel, Leg of Jello
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 36,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
She isn't the Countess of Sussex.
Excellent pointless point made there.
  #7  
Old 06-02-2019, 01:34 PM
D'Anconia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,427
And here I thought that this board was for fighting ignorance, not perpetuating it.
  #8  
Old 06-02-2019, 01:48 PM
running coach's Avatar
running coach is offline
Arms of Steel, Leg of Jello
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 36,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
And here I thought that this board was for fighting ignorance, not perpetuating it.
If you actually cared to fight ignorance, you would have included what she actually is and the difference between the titles.
  #9  
Old 06-02-2019, 02:10 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,378
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
She isn't the Countess of Sussex.
Oops. I got the title right in the main text but erred in the title.

@ Mods — can you s/Count/Duch/ the title for me please? Otherwise I guess the charge against D.J. Trump will need to be dropped.
  #10  
Old 06-02-2019, 02:12 PM
tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,814
This is hardly a Great Debate. It is a bit too "nasty" to go to MPSIMS, so I am afraid I am going to dump it on IMHO.

The second question could have been a Great Debate, but throwing it in with celebrity trivia kinda threw that out of the bath. Sorry.

[ /Moderating ]
  #11  
Old 06-02-2019, 02:13 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 8,044
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/919611...box=1559380782

The question and Trump's delicate feelings being hurt, and his subsequent insult begin here at 1:29. Not sure why anyone would doubt it.
(It's a great interview with the Sun, by the way. Are they a tabloid? The interview features such so-called presidential junk speak as: "I can say we have among the cleanest climate in the world right now.")

Last edited by bobot; 06-02-2019 at 02:13 PM.
  #12  
Old 06-02-2019, 02:30 PM
Walken After Midnight is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 4,513

Did Trump call Countess of Dumbarton "nasty"? [ed. originally Dumbarton confused w/Sussex] Reply to


Isn't she the Duchess of Sussex?

She is also Countess of Dumbarton and Baroness Kilkeel, but her highest-ranking title is Duchess of Sussex.
  #13  
Old 06-02-2019, 02:31 PM
Telperion's Avatar
Telperion is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
(It's a great interview with the Sun, by the way. Are they a tabloid?
To the hilt.
  #14  
Old 06-02-2019, 02:38 PM
enipla is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Colorado Rockies.
Posts: 14,241
Any question about Trump that begins with "Is he. Or did he?" Can be answered with five words. "Because he is a moron". Covers every thing he does. Oh, you can go on to explain the usual criminal actions involved, but in the end, it comes down to the fact that he's a moron.
__________________
I don't live in the middle of nowhere, but I can see it from here.
  #15  
Old 06-02-2019, 03:23 PM
SciFiSam is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Beffnal Green innit
Posts: 8,303
Of course that's calling her nasty. It's not "technically" not calling her nasty just because he said "I didn't know" before it. That's not how language works.

HMS Irruncible is probably right about what he meant by the word nasty though - that fits better with the way he usually uses the word. So his use of the word isn't that terrible, really, especially considering the rest of the interview. But lying about saying it is pathetic.


Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/919611...box=1559380782

The question and Trump's delicate feelings being hurt, and his subsequent insult begin here at 1:29. Not sure why anyone would doubt it.
(It's a great interview with the Sun, by the way. Are they a tabloid? The interview features such so-called presidential junk speak as: "I can say we have among the cleanest climate in the world right now.")
The Sun is a tabloid, right-wing and scurrilous. Its reading age is pitched at the age of 8, and it's the most popular newspaper in the UK. They kind of sit on the fence about Trump most of the time.
  #16  
Old 06-02-2019, 03:37 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 18,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by enipla View Post
Any question about Trump that begins with "Is he. Or did he?" Can be answered with five words. "Because he is a moron". Covers every thing he does. Oh, you can go on to explain the usual criminal actions involved, but in the end, it comes down to the fact that he's a moron.
Fucking* moron.

*On good authority.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #17  
Old 06-02-2019, 05:38 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,378
Quote:
Originally Posted by enipla View Post
Any question about Trump that begins with "Is he. Or did he?" Can be answered with five words. "Because he is a moron". Covers every thing he does. Oh, you can go on to explain the usual criminal actions involved, but in the end, it comes down to the fact that he's a moron.
I disagree, and fear you've insulted morons.

Trump's IQ was probably three-digits during much of his life and was probably not that of a moron (51 - 71 IQ) — (at least until his most recent half-senescent phase).

I think many or perhaps most morons would make a far better President than DJT — adults would take charge.

DJT is a criminal, a sinful asshole, an egregious sexual harasser, totally selfish, easily duped, almost illiterate, and confused but with treasonous instincts.

No. I think I'm going to have to say that his low IQ is among the least of Trump's faults.

Is there really disagreement about this? If so, I think we need to move back to GD.
  #18  
Old 06-03-2019, 09:29 AM
CurtC is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,779
Quote:
Originally Posted by SciFiSam View Post
Of course that's calling her nasty. It's not "technically" not calling her nasty just because he said "I didn't know" before it. That's not how language works.
I don't even see how it's not "technically" calling her nasty. The implied word in what he said is "previously," which Trump didn't say because it's more than two syllables, but here it is with that:

"I didn't previously know she was nasty."

That's clear from the context that he was informed of something that he didn't previously know, and he's commenting that he now knows she's nasty. I can't agree that he didn't technically call her nasty - he did call her that.
  #19  
Old 06-03-2019, 10:07 AM
Icarus's Avatar
Icarus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In front of my PC, y tu?
Posts: 5,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by SciFiSam View Post
HMS Irruncible is probably right about what he meant by the word nasty though - that fits better with the way he usually uses the word.
It has been my observation that he only seems to use the word in reference to statements by females. That being the case, there is something more in his intention. If in his mind "Nasty" = "Unkind to me" (or something similar), then one would expect to hear him use the word in describing any attack on him from anyone. Instead, I hear an implicit misogyny, that his expectation is that females should always exhibit a level of demure decorum, that only men are allowed to get in the gutter and duke it out (his preferred approach).
  #20  
Old 06-03-2019, 10:48 AM
running coach's Avatar
running coach is offline
Arms of Steel, Leg of Jello
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 36,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icarus View Post
It has been my observation that he only seems to use the word in reference to statements by females. That being the case, there is something more in his intention. If in his mind "Nasty" = "Unkind to me" (or something similar), then one would expect to hear him use the word in describing any attack on him from anyone. Instead, I hear an implicit misogyny, that his expectation is that females should always exhibit a level of demure decorum, that only men are allowed to get in the gutter and duke it out (his preferred approach).
I see what you did there.
  #21  
Old 06-03-2019, 01:45 PM
Yllaria is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Stockton
Posts: 10,786
Native speakers of English know what is meant by the following:

We were all worried that the test would be hard, but even Ronald passed.

You don't get to say afterward that you didn't technically call Ronald dumb. You did, and everyone knows you did.
  #22  
Old 06-03-2019, 02:20 PM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,055
Quote:
Originally Posted by CurtC View Post
That's clear from the context that he was informed of something that he didn't previously know, and he's commenting that he now knows she's nasty. I can't agree that he didn't technically call her nasty - he did call her that.
When I read "was nasty" I see it as past perfect... i.e. an action that took place in the past to completion. Similar to "she was mean" doesn't mean "she's a mean person", it means "she said a mean thing". It's the same with "nasty". People other than Trump use it the same way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Icarus
It has been my observation that he only seems to use the word in reference to statements by females. That being the case, there is something more in his intention.
Not really. When men insult him, he often goes far beyond "nasty" (starting with "loser" and getting worse from there). Yes there's a gender distinction but not with any important difference than I can see.
  #23  
Old 06-03-2019, 02:39 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 60,951
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
Not really. When men insult him, he often goes far beyond "nasty" (starting with "loser" and getting worse from there). Yes there's a gender distinction but not with any important difference than I can see.
Beyond "nasty", besides "nasty"-He saves the term "nasty" for females in almost all cases, and if you can't see that "nasty women" obviously means something to him then the problem is yours, not ours. It is juvenile "girls are nasty" crap that he gets away with because of all the apologists out there always ready to tell us what he "really" meant. Well, we know what he meant(despite all the creative interpretations), and we know he lied yet again when he said he didn't say it...which I noticed you didn't cover at all.
  #24  
Old 06-03-2019, 02:41 PM
Snarky_Kong is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 8,251
Yes. It's incredible obvious that he did. Anyone that says otherwise is obeying Big Brother's final command.
  #25  
Old 06-03-2019, 03:11 PM
Nava is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 41,585
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icarus View Post
It has been my observation that he only seems to use the word in reference to statements by females.
Mainly, but during the flight he used it to refer to the Mayor of London. I am sure Mr. Khan's feelings are so terribly hurt, not. And even that wasn't good enough to displace the footie, because the Brits know what's important and tantrums aren't it:

Quote:
Originally Posted by CNN
But Trump, who loves nothing more than to be the center of attention, could not capture the main headlines in Britain Sunday morning. His latest eruptions took second place to coverage of Liverpool's win over Tottenham in an all-English final of Europe's Champions League soccer competition.
__________________
Evidence gathered through the use of science is easily dismissed through the use of idiocy. - Czarcasm.

Last edited by Nava; 06-03-2019 at 03:13 PM.
  #26  
Old 06-03-2019, 04:24 PM
fedman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
When asked by an interviewer if he'd heard that Meghan Markle had talked of moving to Canada if Trump were elected our President said "No, I didn't know that she was nasty." (Instead of moving to Canada, she moved to Britain and became the Duchess of Sussex.) The White House went on a rampage of "Fake News" tweets when CNN said that Trump had called Markle "nasty." Who's right? Technically Trump didn't call Markle nasty; in fact he said he "didn't know that she was nasty."

So Dopers: CNN's story fake? You decide.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Unlike some of us — — I don't want to start lots of different threads, so let me piggy-back a related debate here.

George Will, noted conservative thinker says today's Republican Party has "the same mentality" as the American Communist Party of the late 30's and early 40's. Obviously he's not speaking of economic philosophy — the Communists wanted to give wealth to the workers, while the GOP wants to give more wealth to super-rich criminals — he's referring to their methods of waging politics. George Will, described as "the conservative rock," is no left-wing shill. His numerous awards include the Champion of Liberty Award from the Goldwater Institute. (Continue the video to see more examples of GOP and Trump hypocrisy.)

Dopers: Today's GOP has same mentality of the 1940 Communist Party USA? You decide.
unfortunately, Will is a respected conservative intellectual (I may not always agree with his points, but he is fair), who got called out as "major loser" by someone who doesn't even read books, and Trump calls himself a conservative
  #27  
Old 06-03-2019, 04:43 PM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,055
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Beyond "nasty", besides "nasty"-He saves the term "nasty" for females in almost all cases, and if you can't see that "nasty women" obviously means something to him then the problem is yours, not ours.
I mean, how can one argue with the inassailable logic of "well obviously".

Quote:
It is juvenile "girls are nasty" crap that he gets away with because of all the apologists out there always ready to tell us what he "really" meant.
You can easily look at my posting history to see that I condemn Trump harshly and energetically pretty much every times the subject comes up. Pretty much, except when I see my side acting unwisely.

Quote:
we know he lied yet again when he said he didn't say it...which I noticed you didn't cover at all.
No, you didn't notice that. What you are experiencing is your own failure to notice that I specifically covered it in my first post.

As a Trump-hater this is exactly what I wish people on my side would stop doing... lathering themselves into a righteous outrage over some ambiguous unimportant thing without bothering to think it through at all. It's cannon fodder for people who think liberals are hyperventilating ninnies who are obsessed over vague word choice.

Last edited by HMS Irruncible; 06-03-2019 at 04:45 PM.
  #28  
Old 06-03-2019, 04:51 PM
SciFiSam is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Beffnal Green innit
Posts: 8,303
Quote:
Originally Posted by CurtC View Post
I don't even see how it's not "technically" calling her nasty. The implied word in what he said is "previously," which Trump didn't say because it's more than two syllables, but here it is with that:

"I didn't previously know she was nasty."

That's clear from the context that he was informed of something that he didn't previously know, and he's commenting that he now knows she's nasty. I can't agree that he didn't technically call her nasty - he did call her that.
You missed the second "not" in my post (easy to do). I was disagreeing with the OP who claimed he was not technically calling her nasty. You and I are in agreement

Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
When I read "was nasty" I see it as past perfect... i.e. an action that took place in the past to completion. Similar to "she was mean" doesn't mean "she's a mean person", it means "she said a mean thing". It's the same with "nasty". People other than Trump use it the same way.


Not really. When men insult him, he often goes far beyond "nasty" (starting with "loser" and getting worse from there). Yes there's a gender distinction but not with any important difference than I can see.
It's not past perfect - that would be "had been nasty." It's indirect speech using past simple as a reporting verb. Like you'd say "I didn't know she was Countess of Dumbarton," not is. That would not mean she's no longer the Countess of Dumbarton, any more than Trump's usage means she's no longer "nasty."

He often goes much further than nasty with women, too.
  #29  
Old 06-03-2019, 04:57 PM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,055
Quote:
Originally Posted by SciFiSam View Post
It's not past perfect - that would be "had been nasty."
My mistake, the term is "simple past" for what I want to say. But I mean the same definition: an action completed in the past. If I say "she was pissed" it doesn't imply she is still pissed today. If I say "she was mean" it doesn't imply she is still mean today. Same thing with "she was nasty." She said a nasty thing yesterday. It's a thing she did.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure Trump thinks all women are slimy and nasty if he can't put his hands on them. But that's not what's going on here and this is a dumb, futile point to prosecute.

Last edited by HMS Irruncible; 06-03-2019 at 04:58 PM.
  #30  
Old 06-09-2019, 12:36 AM
SciFiSam is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Beffnal Green innit
Posts: 8,303
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
My mistake, the term is "simple past" for what I want to say. But I mean the same definition: an action completed in the past. If I say "she was pissed" it doesn't imply she is still pissed today. If I say "she was mean" it doesn't imply she is still mean today. Same thing with "she was nasty." She said a nasty thing yesterday. It's a thing she did.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure Trump thinks all women are slimy and nasty if he can't put his hands on them. But that's not what's going on here and this is a dumb, futile point to prosecute.
But he's not using simple past. He's using reported speech, where the verb changes to simple past form but it's referring to something in the present. They look the same, but in context it's clear which one he's using.

If someone said that about your wife or sister would you think oh, that's fine, he's just taking about the past?
  #31  
Old 06-09-2019, 06:45 AM
enipla is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Colorado Rockies.
Posts: 14,241
Que Trump making some grade school insult about Dumbarton. How is he restraining himself? Is he starting to act like a grown up?
__________________
I don't live in the middle of nowhere, but I can see it from here.
  #32  
Old 06-09-2019, 06:50 AM
Hampshire is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 10,975
Clinton should have said “I didn’t know there were so many severely retarded deplorables that support Trump” so she could claim she never called them that.
  #33  
Old 06-09-2019, 07:24 AM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,055
Quote:
Originally Posted by SciFiSam View Post
But he's not using simple past. He's using reported speech, where the verb changes to simple past form but it's referring to something in the present. They look the same, but in context it's clear which one he's using.
I see your point and I can see how people might think it's ambiguous in that way. But he is literally and contextually talking about an action that was completed in the past. Meghan Markle, in the past, indisputably said (well-deserved) unkind things about Trump.

Additionally it's well documented that "be nasty" means "speak or behave unkindly". Whichever tense you choose, Trump's own speech patterns support the use of "nasty" as "unkind". The context here is clearly about an unkind remark made in the past; there's insufficient context to support whatever else is being asserted.

Quote:
If someone said that about your wife or sister would you think oh, that's fine, he's just taking about the past?
If someone said "she was nasty" and the context was that she said unkind things then I would take the simplest interpretation that "she was nasty" meant "she said something unkind". I would then judge whether the unkindness was warranted, and possibly become nasty myself on her behalf. What I would not do in any case is declare a bad word crisis and commence twisting my panties over it.

Last edited by HMS Irruncible; 06-09-2019 at 07:28 AM.
  #34  
Old 06-09-2019, 07:51 AM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,055
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hampshire View Post
Clinton should have said “I didn’t know there were so many severely retarded deplorables that support Trump” so she could claim she never called them that.
Most certainly she should have said that. I know you meant this as a joke, but you also allude to a plain fact: public discourse now has a significant element of trolling and bullshit, and most Democrats are (to their detriment) well behind Republicans in this area.

Suggest that you read this brilliant piece from the brilliant Matt Yglesias The hack gap: how and why conservative nonsense dominates American politics.

Last edited by HMS Irruncible; 06-09-2019 at 07:55 AM.
  #35  
Old 06-12-2019, 12:33 PM
SciFiSam is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Beffnal Green innit
Posts: 8,303
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
I see your point and I can see how people might think it's ambiguous in that way. But he is literally and contextually talking about an action that was completed in the past. Meghan Markle, in the past, indisputably said (well-deserved) unkind things about Trump.

Additionally it's well documented that "be nasty" means "speak or behave unkindly". Whichever tense you choose, Trump's own speech patterns support the use of "nasty" as "unkind". The context here is clearly about an unkind remark made in the past; there's insufficient context to support whatever else is being asserted.


If someone said "she was nasty" and the context was that she said unkind things then I would take the simplest interpretation that "she was nasty" meant "she said something unkind". I would then judge whether the unkindness was warranted, and possibly become nasty myself on her behalf. What I would not do in any case is declare a bad word crisis and commence twisting my panties over it.
But he didn't just say "she was nasty." He said "I didn't know she was nasty." The whole sentence makes the meaning different. You can't tale out a load of words to change the meaning of what someone actually said.

He's not using past simple just to report something that happened in the past, he's using reported speech. This is not something any native English speaker needs to think about, it's just how you speak.

I agree that he seems to think nasty has a different meaning to most of us do, and he basically meant "mean, unkind". But he wasn't saying it in the past tense. Please look up reported speech.
  #36  
Old 06-12-2019, 01:06 PM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,055
Quote:
Originally Posted by SciFiSam View Post
He's not using past simple just to report something that happened in the past, he's using reported speech. This is not something any native English speaker needs to think about, it's just how you speak.

I agree that he seems to think nasty has a different meaning to most of us do, and he basically meant "mean, unkind". But he wasn't saying it in the past tense. Please look up reported speech.
I'm sorry, this is wrong. His sentence - as constructed - could be either reported speech or simple past. You can't conclusively say which one it is without knowing the intent. I have my ideas about intent, you have yours, and there's also a case to be made that he never has any intent, he just runs his mouth.

This is my point; people see Trump using ambiguous language and saying "look, he's calling women a bunch of nasty whores again" when there are equally likely cases to be made that he's saying some different unimportant thing. It reinforces the perception that people are focused on uncharitable readings of his verbal gaffes because they have nothing else to criticize him on. Donald Trump hates women he doesn't control. We can take this as axiomatic. The ways he expresses this don't matter. His gaffes don't matter.

This matters to me because this kind of petty schoolyard bullshit distracts from the gravely substantive reasons to be uniquely outraged about Trump. Could we maybe talk about his attacks on reproductive rights and the rights of rape victims? No, you don't understand, THIS TIME we finally nailed him for calling a woman nasty. /s

Last edited by HMS Irruncible; 06-12-2019 at 01:10 PM.
  #37  
Old 06-12-2019, 04:06 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,378
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
Most certainly she should have said that. I know you meant this as a joke, but you also allude to a plain fact: public discourse now has a significant element of trolling and bullshit, and most Democrats are (to their detriment) well behind Republicans in this area.

Suggest that you read this brilliant piece from the brilliant Matt Yglesias The hack gap: how and why conservative nonsense dominates American politics.
Thanks for the excellent link. The article focuses on a general problem — how liberal journalists end up gulled — but does quote a dismaying study:
Quote:
Specifically, by exploiting semi-random variation in Fox viewership driven by changes in the assignment of channel numbers, they find that if Fox News hadn’t existed, the Republican presidential candidate’s share of the two-party vote would have been 3.59 points lower in 2004 and 6.34 points lower in 2008. Without Fox, in other words, the GOP’s only popular vote win since the 1980s would have been reversed and the 2008 election would have been an extinction-level landslide. And that’s only measuring the direct impact of the Fox cable network. If you consider the supplemental effect of Sinclair’s local news broadcast, the AM radio shows of Fox personalities like Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham, and the broader constellation of right-wing punditry, the effect would surely be larger.
  #38  
Old 06-12-2019, 04:16 PM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,055
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Thanks for the excellent link. The article focuses on a general problem — how liberal journalists end up gulled — but does quote a dismaying study:
Welcome. Everybody should read everything Matt Yglesias writes, all the time.
  #39  
Old 06-17-2019, 10:58 AM
SciFiSam is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Beffnal Green innit
Posts: 8,303
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
I'm sorry, this is wrong. His sentence - as constructed - could be either reported speech or simple past. You can't conclusively say which one it is without knowing the intent. I have my ideas about intent, you have yours, and there's also a case to be made that he never has any intent, he just runs his mouth.

This is my point; people see Trump using ambiguous language and saying "look, he's calling women a bunch of nasty whores again" when there are equally likely cases to be made that he's saying some different unimportant thing. It reinforces the perception that people are focused on uncharitable readings of his verbal gaffes because they have nothing else to criticize him on. Donald Trump hates women he doesn't control. We can take this as axiomatic. The ways he expresses this don't matter. His gaffes don't matter.

This matters to me because this kind of petty schoolyard bullshit distracts from the gravely substantive reasons to be uniquely outraged about Trump. Could we maybe talk about his attacks on reproductive rights and the rights of rape victims? No, you don't understand, THIS TIME we finally nailed him for calling a woman nasty. /s
It's not a matter of interpretation, though. The context makes it completely unambiguous that it's reported speech. Not everything is just a matter of opinion.

The ambiguity lies in the way he means "nasty." It does seem like he uses that word in a less serious way than some people interpret it.

Gaffes don't matter nearly as much as actual policies but they don't stop people commenting on the substantive issues. There's still huge amounts of pushback when it comes to the new laws that make lives more dangerous for women.
  #40  
Old 06-17-2019, 06:09 PM
Monocracy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 556
When I read the OP, I thought, "yep, it's clear called her nasty." But after reading this thread, I changed my mind. I believe his meaning was: "I didn't know she said nasty things about me."

After watching the YouTube video in the OP, I'm absolutely positive that's the correct interpretation.

The interviewer asks, paraphrased, "Did you see that she was not so nice to you during your campaign?" and his response is, "I didn't know she was nasty [to me during my campaign]."

It's pretty clear in context.
  #41  
Old 06-18-2019, 01:09 AM
PatrickLondon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: London
Posts: 3,350
Seems to me he uses "nasty" as a child would, i.e., almost anything short of outright praise (and cuddles).
  #42  
Old 06-20-2019, 04:06 PM
SciFiSam is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Beffnal Green innit
Posts: 8,303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monocracy View Post
When I read the OP, I thought, "yep, it's clear called her nasty." But after reading this thread, I changed my mind. I believe his meaning was: "I didn't know she said nasty things about me."

After watching the YouTube video in the OP, I'm absolutely positive that's the correct interpretation.

The interviewer asks, paraphrased, "Did you see that she was not so nice to you during your campaign?" and his response is, "I didn't know she was nasty [to me during my campaign]."

It's pretty clear in context.
Agreed. It doesn't have the import people are claiming the word "nasty" infers.

But it's still reported speech.

It's also still not the kind of thing a President would usually say about a high profile royal, when about to visit them. They'd just say I didn't know that, or something better than that, like "we all have our disagreements." He went for a personal attack. It's a minor example of what he usually does but imagine if Obama or GWB had ever said something similar.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:47 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017