I do pay my debts, but I’m not making this bet. I’m not sure if you think I’m a fool, or if you genuinely misunderstood my stance this badly.
First of all, yes: of course “males” (by which I assume you actually mean “men”, since half of *children *are male) will ultimately be among the refugees she lets in. She will never explicitly say they will *not *be let in, so no one will be able to accuse her of breaking a promise.
Secondly, her statements in these two debates are likely to be the last time she says *anything *on the subject before the election. But saying what she did in two debates with huge audiences is more than good enough for me.
But if you want to bet that she’ll explicitly promise (perhaps in response to a reporter’s question asking for clarification on the subject due to her saying “women and children” twice), before the election, to take adult male Syrians as well, then I’ll absolutely take that bet. That will not happen: you can take it to the bank.
When a candidate repeatedly talks about women and children, or as Obama did, widows and orphans, it’s definitely an attempt to give a certain misleading impression. I think we’re all well aware that Democrats pursue policies quite different from the rhetoric they use to sell them.
“Democrats.” Because Republicans *never *“spin” anything. They always use rhetoric that paints the most accurate picture of their policies, even if they know it is not the most flattering one. Do you *hear *yourself? :rolleyes:
I wouldn’t know, since Republicans haven’t been at odds with public opinion much in recent years, and when they have they haven’t bothered too much with spin.
The GOP argument on Syrian refugees is pretty plain and pretty accurate: our vetting system is not actually adequate enough.
As proven by the numbers of Syrian refugees we let in who subsequently commit terrorist acts. Remind me: How many Trojan horse terrorists have we let in so far, exactly?
I am shhhhhhhocked. My monocle just fell out! I offer terms that are twice as hard for me to win, and wager twice the money, and it’s a bad bet. Yeah.
ETA: My understanding of your point resides in post number one, in which you say Democrats should tell voters (primarily low information voters, apparently) that they will reject Syrian men and let in women and children. And so, Clinton uses the words “women and children” while talking about refugees and you claim she’s adopted your position. Sure.
Oh jeez. :rolleyes: That you can say that right now in 2016, with Kellyanne Conway and Mike Pence roaming about spinning like I’ve never seen, is just…as Obama would say: “C’mon, man.” :dubious:
Raven Man, while Snarky Kong is brushing up on what ad hominem actually is, I would suggest you look up the “No True Scotsman” fallacy, because that is the game you are playing with me and it is tiresome and fruitless to contest. As long as you can find some slight detail to point to that is superficially non-identical, you’ll say that what Hillary did in the two debates is completely different from what I proposed. I’m not going to waste my time continually trying to rebut your nitpickery.
Trying to follow you here: is your proposal actually that the US should take refugees regardless of sex but shouldn’t actually mention that in public? Because if that’s your proposal, you should have mentioned that in the OP. And if that’s not your proposal, you should get that shoulder looked at and sheepishly apologize.
You’re claiming victory based on your inferring meaning from a statement that is not actually in the statement. That isn’t nitpicking, that’s you trying to prove yourself right at all costs.
If you say Clinton should like apples and bananas but hate pears, and she merely says that she likes apples and bananas, you don’t get to claim that she indeed hates pears. It’s a silly, silly claim. I think you’re so wrapped up in declaring victory that you aren’t reading the plain text of her remarks correctly.
You obviously don’t know anything about the U.S. refugee resettlement system. No one’s life is more thoroughly scrutinized than a refugee’s. If they can’t do it, then they don’t let them in. I have worked in refugee resettlement, and I’ve never seen so much ignorance and misinformation bandied about in public discourse–by all the media, but especially by Trump and his party. Compared to all the people coming in by other official statuses, refugees are a very minor risk.
“a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.”
Attacking me as sputtering with rage is 100% an ad hominem.
My proposal was quite clearly principally about politics, not policy. That’s clear from the title, and from its location in Elections. Hillary improved on it by being even more devious and disingenuous (adaher is partly right) in a way she can’t technically be called on later, so brava to her. But the basic thrust is, I think any honest observer would have to acknowledge, in line with what I was advocating.
Clinton didn’t propose that Syrian men be barred from coming here as refugees, nor did she link the issue to Latin Americans to make the latter seem less dangerous. So, as another honest observer, I wouldn’t say her remarks were “in line with” your proposal.