Yes. But not the sweeping majority or homogeneity implied by leaving off any mention of “Some,” and mentioning only the negative attributes.
Hey man, all I know is the way it’s literally always been used in every sentence I have heard or seen written in my entire life. ‘Some’ is a relatively small plural quantity. ‘Many’ is a relatively large plural quantity (though not necessarily a large percentage, if we’re talking a huge population). Only when you get to ‘most’ are you really talking about a majority.
But tell you what - I’ll meet you in the middle. If there are only three items, then “some of them” would constitute a majority. (Specifically, it would constitute the number two.)
Do you think Trumpy Boy was talking about a set of three people?
The definition of the word “some” isn’t really in question, is it? It’s what Trump’s intended meaning was that’s important. And we determine that, in large part, through context.
Here’s the quote:
**" The U.S. has become the dumping ground for everyone else’s problems. "
When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us [sic]. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.
“But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we’re getting. And it only makes common sense. It only makes common sense. They’re sending us not the right people.” **
Here you have sweeping, definite statements: “They’re not sending their best.” “They’re sending people that have lots of problems.” “They’re sending us not the right people.”
Then you have the some sentence, which is not sweeping and much less definite: “some”, “I assume”.
So what was his intent? What’s his point? His topic sentence, so to speak? It’s that we’ve become a dumping ground, and that Mexico is a case in point: they’re sending us “not the right people.” It’s not that mixed in with good people, Mexico is “sending” a few rapists and drug dealers.
The transcript I used: Donald Trump's Presidential Announcement Speech | Time
Given the impending collapse of civilization,
is “what party you vote for” of significance??
More important to cut back on sugar in your diet,
or learn to play the harmonica,
or do something romantic.
That’s not what suitable means!
What is the purpose of this post?
Seriously, I’m curious, what are you trying to achieve with this post? Is it meant as a counterargument to the OP’s point? Were you trying to communicate disagreement with him? Could you not tell that if you say “suitable” to mean one thing and he says “suitable” to clearly mean something entirely different, that you’re going to talk past each other? When you say “suitable” to mean “voted into office” and he says “suitable” to mean “uninformed and almost perfectly badly chosen for the job”, you can say “he’s suitable” and SenorBeef can say “he’s unsuitable” and you’re both right. Did you really not get what SenorBeef was saying to the degree that you thought this was a reasonable counterargument?
What’s the point?
Our nuts march and stamp their feet and go out to vote for people who aren’t crazy. Your nuts get elected to office.
When Trump said “they let you do it”, it certainly sounds to me that he was suggesting that he could act without permission, and that the women in question wouldn’t attempt to stop him. In other words, they let him get away with it, not that they wanted it or didn’t mind it. His statement doesn’t indicate any concern for what the women in question wanted, or even awareness that it might have mattered.
On the Mexican immigrants, I think you’ve acknowledged that he was deliberately creating the impression that most are rapists, even if his statement was technically ambiguous. I assume you’re also aware that Trump has a tendency to give himself a fig leaf of cover when he says something controversial, so that he (or more often his surrogates) can later insist that’s not what he said. Like how he so often uses a preface like “Many people are saying…”
My question is, why are you (evidently) more concerned that people not paraphrase his awful statements when criticizing them, than about the awful statements themselves? Isn’t the fact that Trump was painting Mexicans as rapists worse than the fact that someone might fail to mention that he threw in “some I assume are good people” (clearly a pro forma statement that doesn’t even express certainty that these non-raping Mexicans exist.)
I’m not saying accurate quotations don’t matter, but in Trump’s case his statements are routinely, obviously intended to let him communicate these sorts of offensive views while giving himself just enough cover that his supporters can say “he never actually said that.” It’s the usual dog-whistle politics that’s been going on for decades, except with Trump the whistle is more of a klaxon. By focusing on the bullshit qualifiers that are just there so the non-racist Republicans can pretend they aren’t supporting someone who blatantly panders to racists, you are helping him get away with blatantly pandering to racists. Why? Are you just so enamored with calling liberals on any exaggeration or distortion that you can’t see the forest for the trees?
Wow. Just found this thread. And find it hard to believe how amazingly my post from that other thread has been twisted from my intended meaning.
I do not mean to engage in some sort of moral relativism or imply that both sides are equally to blame on any given issue. I merely state that disagreement, even very vigorous disagreement, is quite possible without assigning moral blame.
I can think that position A advocated by person X is a stupid, foolish idea which flies in the face of common sense and maybe even the fundamental laws of physics without thinking that person X is somehow morally deficient, evil, or a bad person for advocating position A.
And I believe that we need our leaders in Congress to be able to disagree on one matter and yet have the very same Congresscritters move on and join together on a completely unrelated issue. The very same people at loggerheads over health care still need to be able to address disaster relief funding.
It’s always weird to me in this forum and other places where people describe conservatives and liberals as like yin and yang when US conservatives are real outliers compared to the rest of the developed world.
e.g. where can you go where people would suggest gun control does not reduce gun violence (and bear in mind, most of the developed world has both gun controls and far, far less gun violence than the US)?
When it comes to Trump supporters, you can fool some of the people some of the time 
Bricker, you’re a generally honest guy. So, a thought experiment for you:
We come up with a perfectly fair and objective way to rate people on three characteristics: (a) honesty and integrity (b) intelligence and rigorous intellectual curiosity, and (c) selflessness, actually acting in ways that the actor believes will help other human beings, particularly strangers. God himself is administering our test, so we know it’s fair. We then run this test on the 100 most prominent Democrats/Liberals (so, Hillary, Obama, Jon Stewart, Michael Moore, Elizabeth Warren, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, etc) and the 100 most prominent Republicans/Conservatives (Trump, Ryan, McConnel, but also Limbaug, Coulter, Milo, Steve Bannon). We weight the people by how prominent they are, and in particular authors and pundits are given more weight if they have a larger following, and elected officials are given more weight the higher office they hold/held.
What results would you expect?
(And, if your response is that I seem to have cherry-picked particularly virtuous Dems and particularly loathsome Pubs, well, who is the liberal equivalent to Anne Coulter or Steve Bannon I should have picked?)
Sorry, Bone, I know I’m responding late, but figured I’d take a nip at this. Actually, I kind of agree with you: politics has always been dirty, there have always been rivalries, and sometimes they spill out into public view. I don’t think that Newt Gingrich was the first to get nasty with the opposition, but he came along at a time when politics became more sport than academic. Not that politics has ever been completely an academic subject, but during the Cold War, people viewed politics with greater objectivity and sobriety because they knew that the wrong people in office could destroy life on earth.
Gingrich’s rise coincided with two things: the abatement of global nuclear armageddon, and the rise of talk radio and talk TV, which turned politics into a form of sport or a form of entertainment. The rise of new media, from the renaissance of AM radio, to having 500 cable channels with different audiences, to the internet blog, and on to social media, American politics became more fragmented and made it easier for tribal leaders to emerge.
Newt Gingrich started in the era of Rush Limbaugh’s rise on AM radio and later the rise of Fox News on cable. Conservatives who didn’t like “liberal” news, which was usually factual but admittedly sensational and often overlooking some of the more subtle aspects of a particular issue, could now push back and present their own news to their own audiences. Newt Gingrich realized that entertainers like Rush Limbaugh were saying a lot of nasty things and being rewarded by large followings of loyal, devoted listeners. Congressmen have always seen the value of appealing to voter bases in their districts, but Gingrich saw opportunities to do this on a larger scale. And he did. And he was successful until Bill Clinton figured out how to use his negative energy against him.
The statement is vague, like a lot of Trump’s word salads. The quote by itself should raise alarms, but what made it really and truly disturbing was the apparent fact that he had victimized numerous people in exactly the same way he described. If there were no accusers, we would assume that he’s just got the mind of a 13 year-old bragging about sex he’s never had.
Again, he’s vague. Trump said just enough so that his target audience would react to it and see him as having the courage to go there, when nobody else would dare. And yet he pulls his punches at the end by saying “Some, I suppose, are good people.” So on the one hand it’s “Mexico is sending us rapists, but perhaps a few of the ones coming from south of the border are okay.” But how can we be sure who’s okay and who’s not? Who would care if some are good people when Mexico is apparently sending rapists by the boat load? That’s the juxtaposition that Trump leaves his audience to consider.
It’s like saying there is a pack of wild rabid dogs that just escaped and are now roaming the streets where our children play and our elderly sit on their porches, though I suppose a few are not rabid. How are we to know which ones aren’t rabid? Why would a rational person who cares about his own safety and the safety of his family waste time making that differentiation? The important thing is to round up those rabid dogs. The denotative message may not be as damning as the connotative message, but the connotative message has the desired effect all the same.