Is does sound like that, yes. But since it’s not what you said, I wouldn’t report your words to someone else as, “Czarcasm falsely claimed that American citizens from your town are thieves, rapists and murderers.” Because that’s not a false claim.
I would almost certainly challenge you: “Czarcasm, do you mean ‘some American citizens…?’” and let you clarify.
Maybe we need to go back and relook at Obama’s “you didn’t build it” comment. When it was a current “controversy”, I was more than willing to interpret it in the full context of what he said, and not immediately go the worst possible interpretation one could imagine. But we are now presented with a new way of parsing statements from politicians, so perhaps it’s time to relook at that.
We can discard the parts that don’t fit the narrative we are pushing, and go right to the least charitable interpretation imaginable. Sounds like fun!
Or, we can agree to use the same, fair standard for interpreting all statements by politicians, whatever their political stripes, and take the full statement into account, and not trying to infer things that were not actually said.
It seems reasonable to me to say that if someone implies something with their words, they have said it. They may have said it implicitly, or said it stealthily, or said it cleverly, but so far as they have communicated the idea with their speech it seems reasonable to me to say they said it. Whether perceived implications actually exist is of course something to debate about, but I don’t think it’s a line to draw across whether it’s been “said” or not.
Now, while you didn’t exactly say it directly, it certainly sounds like you are implying that that is what we are doing here with what Trump said.
Would you mind clarifying whether this is a correct implication?
Yes. Emphasis added in the first quote.
If I were to describe one of the posters on this board as a fine, upstanding member of society that I would be proud to call my friend, but a video was available show that I was rolling my eyes and miming gagging while saying it, should that poster just take what I said as honest praise and ignore the context of the video, John Mace?
By doing this, I think we can reasonably infer that Trump was saying that there are a very high number of rapists among Mexican immigrants, and I think that is reasonably criticized as both false and bigoted.
Are you trying to say that trump only looks bad if you take his words out of context? That if you put his words in the full context, then it makes him look better, that it explains the meaning of his words in a way that is different from the context?
I would mostly disagree, except that often times, taking his words out of context actually makes them look better, and putting them into the context they were originally spoken in makes him look worse.
It’s not looking for the worst possible interpretation. I actually generally look for the best possible interpretation of anyone’s statement, in relationships, with my employees, with my peers, with my family, even with public figures.
But, I have to look for the realistic interpretation, and there is no realistic interpretation of these comments that he was not implying that most of the people coming in from mexico illegally were violent criminals.
In Trump’s case, the video was all over the news.
Except Trump didn’t do that. Here’s the video. Look right around the 0:30 mark.
What do you think?
I didn’t say he did.
Looking at the entire video, you can see the difference in tone and seriousness between when he was describing why they were so bad, and the last bit where does the “I suppose” toss off.
Or can you?
There were lots of things Trump said that were false, starting with his claim that the Mexican Government is somehow complicit in sending criminals over the border. That’s how he led off with his tirade. But yes, I pretty much agree with what you posted there, and I don’t think we need to infer that at all. That’s what he said. The “bigoted” part might be hard to prove… I’d have to go back and read or see the whole thing again, but I don’t think that matters all that much.
If so, then your analogy is irrelevant. Take your pick.
No, I don’t see any marked change in tone or body language. I don’t see anything that I would describe as “a smirking shrug”. But then, I’ve been saying this whole thing is largely subjective. Not everyone is going to see what you see.
I take it back then and my post was not sloppy/loose language.
I said Trump called Mexican immigrants rapists which he did. I also provided a link to a story about him saying that.
Your nitpick was to point out that there are indeed some Mexican immigrant rapists so therefore Trump was right.
This is on you being pedantic to the extreme in order to win some internet points.
What Trump said was widely reported and common knowledge. His meaning in that statement and obvious animus towards Mexican immigrants is not in dispute. Not even Trump disputes it. It is disingenuous of you to suggest that Trump was really only telling the obvious truth as if you were unaware of Trump’s comments on this topic or his desire to build a wall.
I notice we’re not even talking about all those unborn children that were killed. Even if we were to all agree that Trump called every Mexican a rapist, how does that compare to killing unborn children?
N.B.: I’m pro-choice. But I accept that the other sides sees abortion as murder, and that’s the argument they are going to make. Again, subjective.
What unborn children?
On the matter of Charlottesville, that may have been true. But in a broader sense, Antifa is a group known to throw excrement, urine, and bricks at people and encourage stabbings. It isn’t unreasonable for a third-party observer to think, “Well, Antifa is promoting a hate of their own, too.”
Right. Some posters think that words mean whatever he or she says they mean, similar to Humpty Dumpty.