If “some” does not mean “most”, then Trump does not believe that most of the immigrants are good people, right?
We do not even have to guess that this is what Trump meant since Trump doubled-down on his statement and defended it.
Further, Trump pushed and kept pushing for a literal wall to be built on the Mexican border despite illegal immigration dropping on the Mexican border. I do not think he wanted a wall to keep all the good people out.
Some means “being one, a part, or an unspecified number of a larger group.” It does not mean “most” and it does not mean “least.”
Some dogs have four legs. Some dogs have fewer than four legs, due to accident, disease, or birth defect. Perhaps some have more.
Some cats are albino. Some are not.
Some posters on the SDMB give every impression of being terrified of reading a dictionary. Some do not.
And which of THOSE quotes says “majority?”
I don’t care what you think.
I care that you defended the literal accuracy of your claims about what Trump said and thought, not your belief that your analysis of what he meant was most likely right.
If we’re going to abandon that topic and discuss our opinions of what Trump probably thought, then I agree Trump thought “most.” BUT THAT’S NOT WHAT HE SAID.
And you cannot transform your belief about his thoughts into a claim of factual accuracy.
“They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.” When you read this, if you do not think that the “And some, I assume, are good people” was just a slight concession meant to appease critics then I have to assume you are deluding yourself. Doubly so If you actually watched him say that last part with a smirking shrug, giving every indication that the number of “good people” was too small a number to give a fuck about.
This is some serious legal dancing. Right up there with wondering what the definition of “is” is.
As humans we parse what we hear to make sense of what is being said. It is no reach whatsoever to discern that Trump meant most Mexicans are criminals of one sort or another. Here is his quote again:
“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending the best. They’re not sending you, they’re sending people that have lots of problems and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bring crime. They’re rapists… And some, I assume, are good people.” ~Donald Trump
He is not saying when Mexico sends “some people”. He is saying when they send people. He does not qualify it. He only backpedals a bit at the end to suggest “some” of the people sent are good people.
You’re really not fooling anyone with this kind of nitpick on language when Trump’s plain meaning was understood by all. Understood so well in fact that countless articles were written about it and reporters asked Trump for clarification just to be sure and he did not back down from what he said even a little bit.
I’d submit that, if a person is trying to break into a career in acting/modelling, and they’re talking to a person with a lot of money, a lot of Hollywood connections, and his own TV show, that the distinction becomes largely trivial. “I have to let my boss touch me like this if I want to keep my job as a secretary,” and “I have to let this producer touch me like this if I want to get that role in that sit-com,” are functionally identical dilemmas.
Missed the edit window.
That should read:
…most Mexican illegal immigrants are criminals…
Do you understand the difference between “explicit” and “implication?”
I think, like you apparently do, that Trump implied most Mexicans immigrants were not good people. I’m perfectly happy to say that about Trump, because it’s clear to me that this implication was evident.
But I’m not going to report that Trump SAID it.
Because he did not.
I’m new here, this is actually my first post.
Both sides are definitely NOT the same. One was fighting hate, the other was spreading it.
I’ve cried puddles of tears over the past few days trying to explain that to hard-headed people around me.
Just stop the hate.
If you say that Trump’s meaning was plain, I don’t debate you.
If you say that Trump SAID something, then it needs to be what Trump said. I’m not sure why you can’t follow the distinction, or if you simply believe that you are permitted to transform your belief into a factual report of something that didn’t happen, or what else is going on with you that causes this odd symptom.
Most Mexican illegal immigrants are criminals. But most of their crimes relate to their immigration status and not to drugs or rape.
What Trump said has been quoted exactly by me and others in this thread. Then we argued its meaning.
Not sure what your complaint is.
Trump did not refer to their immigration status as regards their crimes. He did refer to them being rapists and drug dealers though.
Which is why you are spending most of your time here pushing the fact that what is important is what he heavily implied by his tone and body language, and not the exact words he used and their possible meanings, right?
Here:
Mexican immigrants are rapists: I can cite at least two cases. Agreed?
I don’t recall that as being mentioned as to why they are bad…if what he actually said is what matters.
You’re hanging your hat on some slightly loose/sloppy language used on a message board?
You really did not understand what I was after there? If you didn’t I’d be surprised but if you did not understand it then my apologies for the confusion. I think my follow-on posts should have cleared it up by now.
“American citizens from your town are thieves, rapists and murderers.” The words are there, clear as day…but without any qualifiers it certainly sounds like I am casting aspersions on most, if not all, of the residents of your town.
Whack:
In a thread about dogmatic positions immune from facts, you don’t get to post “sloppy language,” that is factually incorrect and then argue that you should get a pass because your intent was obvious. You certainly don’t get to indignantly defend the factual accuracy of your claim against a correction (as you did when John Mace pointed out error) and then fall back on a loose/sloppy language defense.
The whole point of being “immune to facts” is the idea that a person stakes out a position based on what he thinks he knows, and is then impervious to counterfactual examples, as you were here.
You could have simply said, “Fair point. Here are Trump’s words. I argue that their meaning is reasonably plain and my summary fairly encapsulates his intended meaning.” But did not, and still don’t – or maybe you are saying that now? It’s hard to tell.