A note on Forbes.com, via Wikipedia: [INDENT][INDENT] Forbes.com uses a “contributor model” in which a wide network of “contributors” writes and publishes articles directly on the website.[24] Contributors are paid based on traffic to their Forbes.com pages; the site has received contributions from over 2,500 individuals, and some contributors have earned over US$100,000, according to the company.[24] Forbes currently allows advertisers to publish blog posts on its website alongside regular editorial content through a program called AdVoice, which accounts for more than 10 percent its digital revenue.[25] Forbes.com also publishes subscription investment newsletters, and an online guide to web sites, Best of the Web. [/INDENT][/INDENT] For future reference, a link to an opinion piece at Forbes.com should not be considered definitive. As seen above, they are not vetted.
You know what, I’ve changed my mind about this. Up thread, I said it was ambiguous whether he meant “they’re” or “their” (but that either represented a reprehensible attitude.)
Nope. He said “they’re rapists.” No “and,” not “their.”
Of course you did. No bias there whatsoever, right?
No, because he did say “they’re rapists”, or at least there’s as much reason to believe that he did as to believe that he said “their rapists”.
Admittedly I would view the quote from Trump’s prepared Presidential announcement speech if he walked it back or clarified that he didn’t mean what he said. Or that he was wrong to say what he did. But AFAIK, he hasn’t done that in a meaningful way, or in a way that’s consistent with observed evidence of US immigration.
Old news: Mexicans bash Trump pinata, call him imbecile.
This is the sort of guy that some Republicans believe is best qualified to carry out US foreign policy.
Terr: Have you viewed the video of Trump’s Presidential announcement? Here, I’ll provide the link again. It’s a CNN piece where they show the offending statement in the beginning. I do not hear the word “and”. Do you?
“They’ve lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us [should be “to us” but I guess he misspoke]. They’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime, their rapists…”
The flow of the sentence rules out “they’re rapists”. It’s “they’re bringing this, they’re bringing that, that”.
But I don’t expect to convince you. You will hear what you want to hear.
Ok, then this transcription is accurate then. Terr concedes that the word “And” is missing and that Terr’s quotes were incorrect.
In terms of pronunciation, “They’re”, “Their” and “There” are usually indistinguishable.
Here’s Terr’s interpretation, as I understand it. [INDENT][INDENT] 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. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime, their rapists. And some, I assume, are good people. [/INDENT][/INDENT] It doesn’t flow very well: a standard oratorical technique uses repetition: They’re this, they’re that. Is Terr saying a dangling clause was used in these prepared remarks? And what does that last sentence even mean in this presentation?
You’re basing your defense on the assumption that Trump would only employ well-crafted parallel sentence structure?
It’s not “they’re this, they’re that”. It’s “they’re bringing this, they’re bringing this, this.”. Flows perfectly well.
It’s the structure of “they’re bringing this, they’re bringing that, they’re this” that doesn’t flow. But again, you will read it as your biases direct you.
In followup interviews, one of which you linked to, Trump said (about the illegal Mexican immigrants) “Some are rapists, some are killers”. Are you going to “interpret” this as “illegal immigrants are rapists and killers” as well?
As opposed to Terr, who is entirely immune from bias and other petty human failings.
To be clear, no. I noted ambiguity. I’m arguing that in a prepared Presidential announcement speech that standard techniques such as parallel sentence structure are more probable. And if they are more probable… they are also plausible. Right?
I accept the official transcript as presented by the Wall Street Journal and CBS news. If Trump issues a clarification though, I would probably give him the benefit of the doubt. It’s not like there’s a huge substantive difference anyway.
I admit that I do like to work off of a grounding of fact. Mic.com’s presentation with the word, “And” is simply false.
To be honest, neither is exactly Cicero.
If Trump says, “Some are rapists, some are killers”, he’s not claiming at that point that “Most are rapists, most are killers.” He doesn’t need to. Translation: a retraction is a retraction. I accept that he has doubled and tripled down on his attacks on undocumented workers.
No, but one is a hell of a lot more plausible than the other. And Trump has made no attempt to say that he was really saying that Mexicans were bringing in their rapists (not that it would help in the slightest to suggest that people were bringing in rapists like pets).
Trump has an odd, choppy, ungainly and grammatically incorrect way of speaking and always has. Some of it is his native New York-ese and some of it is a sort of verbal shorthand that doesn’t waste time on grammatical conventions, and some of it is crude exaggeration to get a point across.
I have no trouble imagining him as intending to say ‘their rapists’, but at the same time I can easily see how most people would take it as ‘they’re rapists’. That’s how I took it as a matter of fact, but having read and followed Trump for a long time I pretty well knew what he meant even though it didn’t sound that way.
As far as why he hasn’t tried to walk it back, generally guys like Trump adhere to the old adage, “Don’t complain, don’t explain”. Trump complains a lot about America’s state of affairs and other things he doesn’t like, but you don’t hear him complaining about his private difficulties or misfortunes and you don’t hear him taking pains to make sure people understand him correctly, or understand and accept whatever it is he’s up to.
Trump is a brilliant guy. He always knows what he’s doing and it’s rarely what everyone thinks it is. He’s always got something up his sleeve and is usually working to achieve things about three or four levels beyond what he appears to be doing on the surface.
I’m reminded of something his ex-wife Ivana once said about him after they’d split. Remember, this is a woman who worked side by side with him for many years and was a high-powered executive in her own right within his companies. She was worried about the outcome of their divorce and said of him, “You can’t win. He will always find a way to outsmart you!” In the end he did the right thing and took care of her financially, but the point remains that he’s an exceedingly smart and clever guy.
People who dismiss Trump as a fool or a dolt or an idiot and who tend to dismiss his business success as due to inherited wealth and serial bankruptcy show by their very words they don’t know what they’re talking about. They remind me of the sort of people who belittle Ringo Starr’s drumming ability. True musicians and true money men (i.e., the bankers and investors who finance Trump’s ventures) know where the talent really lies and you don’t hear them running down the abilities or either Ringo Starr or Donald Trump.
I’m far from convinced that Trump is serious about becoming president. It could be that business has become boring and mundane and he relishes the idea of negotiating with politicos and foreign leaders as being more challenging. But you can pretty well bet that whatever he’s up to, he knows damn well what he wants to accomplish by it. And you can lay pretty good odds that he will.
“Can I keep him? He followed me home.” :eek:
I agree partly with SA. Except for “Brilliant guy”, I’d substitute “Bullshit showman”. And I disagree with the contention that Trump is widely lauded in the business world. I understand that the structure of his deals changed markedly after his first bankruptcy in the early 1990s. He was once a developer. Over time he evolved into a showman. Hey, it’s a living and a pretty good one.
I do disagree with the contention that Trump is a skilled businessman:
What if somebody said that Trump was brilliant at sales? I think that could be argued objectively.
Given the number of his investments that have gone south, I doubt whether Trump is all that good at divine prescience. I’m guessing that he has a decent sense of his ability to improvise: the downside of alienating most of Latin America is manageable, if not necessarily optimal. I would also speculate that Trump knows very well that no battle plan survives contact with the enemy. So you work with decision trees (implicitly) not fixed plans.
But yeah: not a fool, dolt or idiot: he only appears that way. And his persona is shaped with intent. And moving beyond his rapist comments rather than clarifying or backpeddling serves his goals I assume.
Sorry, mine was in response to Terr.
Oh, so all the ‘undocumented’ (and why is that, again?) immigrants in this country are ‘workers’, eh? None of them are children or minors or mothers who don’t work? None of them are unemployed? None of them need taxpayer funded assistance of any kind?
And more importantly, none of them are criminals?
I’m reminded of a post I made in one of the other Trump threads the other day. To wit:
I’d imagine the rates are similarly high at the state and county level, since such crimes are more numerous and generally carry lesser sentences.
People, people - you’re missing all the action, here. I give you
I’ll just hammer the facts. Native born Americans have a higher incarceration rate than immigrants by a wide margin. Crime has declined as illegal immigration has increased. Trump was engaging in ethnically loaded slurs.
More generally, I’m not sure how you drew your conclusions. But I don’t want to lose track of the main salient points.
ETA:
Actually they are not. The federal numbers are probably driven by immigration violations.