09-30-2016, 12:10 AM | #2326 | ||
Foot, meet mouth.
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Spoiler: show |
||
09-30-2016, 12:17 AM | #2327 |
Snackin'
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,754
|
Gonna point out that the only thing Trump every said before the war was "Yeah, I guess so" in response to a question on the war in Iraq. Given his only comment was tepid SUPPORT for the war, to say he did not support it is absolutely false.
Aside from that, the "half-true" rating you cite I would argue is actually rather harsh. Trump said he hoped Russia would be able to find Hillary Clinton's E-Mails on her private server. That is hacking into an American's E-Mail. The American is Hillary Clinton, yes, but just because she's an international public figure doesn't make her any less of an American. Besides, on the very page you're citing, it shows that Hillary has 1 mostly incorrect statement of 15, while Trump had 9 of 18. Holt fact-checked him on 6 things throughout the entire debate. Given half of the things sampled Trump said were false, while only ~7% of Hillary's sampled statements were mostly false, I would argue that Trump getting fact checked all six times was definitely fair. The fact of the matter is the more bullshit you spew, the more you should get fact checked. And Trump spewed a helluva lot more bullshit than Clinton at that debate. |
09-30-2016, 12:19 AM | #2328 |
Problematic Fave
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
|
So, to be clear Rangeet:
1. You think that the first quote is Trump saying, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Russia should hack "America"? 2. You think that Trump saying "Yeah, I guess so" is firm support of the Iraq invasion AND that it contradicts what Trump argued during the debate? I just need to make sure that those are the exact positions you are holding. I'm frequently accused of trying to twist people's words and I really want to make sure that you are saying what I think you are saying. Aaaaand here comes Snorby. If your statement is false, but gets bogged down by a technicality (such as "Yeah I guess so" instead of "I don't know, maybe"), it's not "Half True." It's "Mostly False." Both of Clinton's statements are falsehoods and deliberate misrepresentations of the facts. End of story.
__________________
Last edited by Shuckle; 09-30-2016 at 12:24 AM. |
09-30-2016, 01:11 AM | #2329 |
Foot, meet mouth.
|
Yes. I think that statement, coming from a Presidential candidate, is not only completely irresponsible, but in a typical Trump manner it's dressed up in a sarcastic manner. It's clearly strongly implying "Hey, Russia should totally hack into Hillary's emails, wink wink, nudge nudge."
If, in reply to a question asking "Do you support the Iraq War?" you answer "Yeah, I guess so," the only reasonable conclusion is that you, in fact, do so. Also, Hillary has gotten literally a 10 point bump(edit: on the 538 chances of winning) from the debate and most of the post-debate polls are not even out yet. In the eye of the public, Hillary definitely won the debate. And now that many otherwise uncommitted voters who didn't really follow politics have seen what exactly Trump is, it's an unmitigated disaster for Trump. Oooooh...and also, Trump said that Lester Holt did a great job and the questions were fair. Now he's crying that the debates were rigged.
__________________
Spoiler: show Last edited by Rangeet; 09-30-2016 at 01:50 AM. |
09-30-2016, 07:20 AM | #2330 | |
Snackin'
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,754
|
Quote:
Let me stop you right there and remind you that it isn't a false statement :^) Unless you're actually suggesting that "Yeah, I guess" is an equivalent to "No" or even "I'm not sure". If that's the case, then suddenly Clinton becomes a candidate who doesn't change her positions especially often- there are many cases where her support of something is fairly tepid, and then when she changes her view she gets called out for flip-flopping. If Trump can candidly give an affirmative answer, then just make that answer go away by screaming loud enough when it no longer suits him, the vast majority of arguments you, he, or anybody else makes against Hillary for flip-flopping are all but invalid. You know what is a falsehood? Trump claiming he was against Iraq before the war started. That's not even a deliberate misinterpretation of the facts. That's deliberately ignoring the facts. In regards to the Russian thing, if you publically reach out to an enemy foreign power and ask for them to tamper with your opponent to be the next President's private server, SARCASTICALLY OR OTHERWISE, then yes, you're asking for Putin's country to hack an American citizen. That's an objective fact, though I suppose it's hard to listen to those when you're arguing Trump's side of pretty much any debate :^) |
|
09-30-2016, 10:44 AM | #2331 | ||
Problematic Fave
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
|
Quote:
Honestly to me it's such a logical stretch just to hunt for a Trump lie. All the evidence says that: 1. If you interpret Trump's statements as saying specifically that he opposed the war in an informed way before it began on all public forums 2. And interpret all of Trump's statements on his support of the war as informed stances 3. And ignore the fact that he was actually opposing the war very early into the conflict 4. While also tossing out any negative statements he made about the war early on because they were too weak - tepid, even then Trump definitely lied about supporting Iraq. If you want to go ahead and take that exact stance, be my guest! In the same way, you know that Trump actually lied about how Hillary called black youth "superpredators" if you: 1. Interpret Trump as saying, specifically, that Hillary Clinton called young black men "superpredators" 2. Reason away that Clinton did not actually call young black men "superpredators" 3. Ignore any implication that Clinton was referring to any specific group of people by race, sex, or age Then there you go! A nice outright lie. (politifact rated it "mostly true" because of "the nuance") Quote:
__________________
|
||
09-30-2016, 10:53 AM | #2332 |
Snackin'
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,754
|
>implying encouraging Russian hackers to tamper with the election isn't just as bad
|
09-30-2016, 11:37 AM | #2334 |
Double Dragon
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,776
|
Just dropping in to say that if any of you make a snide comment ending with ":^)" again I will literally end your life.
__________________
|
09-30-2016, 11:39 AM | #2335 |
Fog Badge
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
|
In this thread or in general? Because I'm pretty sure Shuckle is the only one doing that in this thread, but I do that shit in general all of the time (I've always interpreted as signaling trolling/smugness. League has ruined me)
|
09-30-2016, 11:50 AM | #2336 |
Double Dragon
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,776
|
I mean Snorby picked up on it too this page. And I was really only talking about this thread. I dunno I don't make the rules or anything but to me it takes away from serious debate when someone is like "HMMM LOOK HOW SMUG I AM, I'M VERY SMART WITH MY POLITICAL COMMENTARY :^)"
__________________
|
09-30-2016, 11:54 AM | #2337 |
A New and Original Person
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 949
|
All my thoughts on this thread rn:
|
09-30-2016, 03:48 PM | #2338 |
Flashbacker
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 9,068
|
The English language is a powerful thing and a lot of the time the things that you don't say can hold as much weight as the things that you do say.
However, I feel it needs to be said without any sort of doubt that if you are claiming that "yeah, I guess so" can be taken to be any sort of a negative response to a question aimed to assert positive or negative attitude towards something then you need to stop and reassess the fact that you are telling other people that they are making "logical stretch(es)". If you want to argue the difference between I guess so and maybe - then we don't need to, I'll save you that kettle of fish. He used the word 'yeah'. This is the word we need to attribute importance to. It is what gives the next few words their importance. If he had said "yeah, maybe" instead of "yeah, I guess so" this makes no bit of a difference. He used the word 'yeah' and this immediately asserts agreement on some level. If he had used the words "I don't know", or even at a stretch, "possibly" or something similar thereof, then sure, you could argue what you're arguing. But he didn't. So you can't. |
09-30-2016, 03:49 PM | #2339 | |
Fog Badge
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
|
Quote:
|
|
09-30-2016, 06:37 PM | #2340 |
Snackin'
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,754
|
>phoopes
Yes I'm a petty shit who was annoyed by Shuckle's smug emoji for reasons you stated who instead of diverting attention from the topic at hand used the emoticon on him in hopes he'd see it, think "gosh, that's really rude", and cut it out sowe could move on. Evidently that didn't happen. Sue me. >Deo Wait I'm legitimately confused by your comment just now- "yeah, I guess" is something Trump said in an interview about supporting the Iraq war; unless I missed it 'cause lol mobile I don't see Shuckle using it to concede defeat anywhere? If he is that's different but I'm under the impression he has given no ground and continues to assert that yes means no in a fairly literal sense. |
09-30-2016, 07:03 PM | #2341 | |
Fog Badge
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
|
Quote:
|
|
09-30-2016, 07:19 PM | #2342 | |||||||
Problematic Fave
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
|
Quote:
Quote:
I honestly don't see why it's some huge argument over literally semantics. The spirit of Trump's message is preserved: That originally he had a very weak opinion on the war and once he gave it time and thought he considered it a bad thing that would destabilize the Middle East. "Yeah I guess so" is NOT anywhere in the same league as supporting the Iraq War, and Trump making a strong statement about his opinion against the war stands irrespective of the actual "yeah" that he used the very first time anyone asked him about it. Quote:
The factcheck article is claiming it was a lie because Trump's statement was specifically that he opposed it "Before the war began," and that's definitely correct! But trying to say the opposite, that he specifically supported it because of a "yeah I guess so," mmmmmmmm disagree. Especially since afterwards he was so vehemently against it. Honestly it seems like an innocent case of mixed-up timelines issued by a 70 year old. I think it's also definitely possible that he opposed the war in private and spoke in private (as he said during the debate). Again, if you argue semantics, he did say that he opposed it "loud and clear", and that turned out not to be true until later. But I would argue that the spirit, rather than the letter, of his statements stands: Trump opposed the war early and publicly. Quote:
Quote:
Ex. Sure, America can sue Saudi all they like, but we all know the truth: Bush did 9/11 :^) laugh with me, peasants Quote:
Do I need to put them in Comic Sans too? D: (I don't really mind the way Snorby used the :^) unless he ACTUALLY MEANT what he said, in which case I'm going to need to have a nice little heart to heart with him) Quote:
But Shuckle that's impossible unless you assume Trump is playing 80th dimensional tic tac toe! 1. Cybersecurity is a very important topic this election. Both candidates debated it and it's been all over the news. This joke was political satire aimed at this topic. 2. The email scandal is not something that Trump really does not want to leave alone, as it's possibly the single biggest argument against a Hillary presidency. I mean in general this is something I wasn't going to continue talking about in the thread since very few of you seem to be able to differentiate between "I think Trump is good with managing image and campaigning and some of his policies aren't batshit insane" and "TRUMP 2016 MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN VOTE TRUMP KILL ALL MUSLIMS AND VOTE REPUBLICAN." (See the response to Concept's posts above) Buuuuuuuuuuuut it's technically part of my "closing statement" on the subject of Hillary's solid political maneuvers so I'll go ahead and post it I guess. No more.
__________________
|
|||||||
09-30-2016, 07:21 PM | #2343 |
Fog Badge
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
|
I mean you do tend to use :^) not only after perceived jokes but things that one would assume are serious statements, which in turn sort of looks like the equivalent of a trollface in text form
|
09-30-2016, 07:29 PM | #2344 | |
Problematic Fave
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
|
Quote:
(First time was a quip about the email scandal and the second was pointing out a mild inconsistency in Blastoise's statements) (neither should have been taken seriously AND YET HERE WE ARE)
__________________
|
|
09-30-2016, 07:51 PM | #2345 |
ROASTY ROASTY
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: THE WORLD OF HOT POT
Posts: 2,791
|
We're in a thread where things are taken seriously, and your jokes are flying over our heads here, Shuckle. You've come across as just trying to troll at this point.
|
09-30-2016, 08:21 PM | #2346 |
Snackin'
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,754
|
(To clarify I meant what i said about the statement not being false. I did not mean that Trump supporters can't handle facts as a rule- though some of them absolutely cannot! *glares at basket case in my APUSH class*)
|
09-30-2016, 09:41 PM | #2347 |
A New and Original Person
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 949
|
Oh, the other night I mentioned that Trump did illegal business in Cuba. Here's the article on it that came out yesterday.
|
10-01-2016, 12:45 AM | #2348 |
Problematic Fave
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
|
God dammit stealthy
__________________
|
10-01-2016, 03:42 PM | #2349 |
Fog Badge
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
|
New debate forum rule: Boxxy is banned
|
10-01-2016, 09:45 PM | #2350 |
A New and Original Person
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 949
|
I see nothing to regret.
|
Lower Navigation | ||||||
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
|
|