Trump's popularity on the rise

[T.Lex]

I view the war powers act as something to be used to protect Americans, not people in foreign lands.

Ok. Still doesn't change whether it:
a) is actually constitutional;
b) supports the CINC's power to do military/foreign policy stuff wherever he wants.

Back to the story (its not hard to find), the RCP polling aggregator today suggests a plateau or possibly even a slip in the surging favorable numbers.

 

[jamil]

I don't need to make assumptions. I can take his words at face value. You're the one that is going to need to produce spin to make the words say something other than what is said.

No you can't. There is no face value facts without context. Language, especially colloquial language, which Trump uses all the time--he just talks--is ambiguous without knowledge of culture and context.

For example, my wife, her sister, and their mother, talk to each other in informal, every day language. Only they really know what they're saying because they seem to have this secret context which acts like a private encryption key to their conversations. They say English words, and form mostly grammatically correct sentences, but you can't take words at face value to figure out what the hell they're they're saying. It's really weird to hear them talk, because it sounds like they're talking, but aren't really saying anything. Yet they seem to derive meaning from talking. And then they laugh and look at me.

Your request is reasonable.
Here's what he said:


https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v..._dealers_and_rapists_are_crossing_border.html

Like I said, he poses as fact, that Mexican immigrants are rapist, drug dealers, and crime prone.... then, he assumes which is an indication not of fact, but possibility, that there may be some good people in that group. An no time does, he use the word "illegal." One might want to believe that's what he meant, but he doesn't ever actually say it.

That's an assumption. You're not inferring the meaning from the full context, nor from follow-up statements. You're ignoring that so that you can assume the scope is all Mexicans. But Trump framed the context when he talked about border agents supporting how "bad" they were. Also, in part of the context, he qualified that "some" were good. He later qualified the bad ones in another speeches as "some". But you didn't consider the full context or later clarifications in your assumption. You used absolute terms without acknowledging the qualifiers.

Since the context is the border, that strongly implies "illegal" border crossing. He's talking about illegals crossing the border. I'm not saying anything about the truthfulness of his statements. I'm just talking about the obvious scope. You have to ignore the stuff about borders, and ignore later more clarifying statements, to get that he was disparaging EVERY Mexican immigrant, legal or not. And if you really believe he meant EVERY one, I can imagine why you hate him so much.

His words are a type of synatic ambiguity, which is a convention that seasoned persuasive speakers use. It allows the listener to interpret a sentence, or speech, in a way that conforms with their worldview and see the speaker as agreeing with them.

Syntactic ambiguity is also common in colloquial speech, which requires some assumptions based on culture and context. You have to assume that his use is nefarious. Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't. But you have to assume either way unless you have something that reasonably points to one or the other.

Do we have something that points to one or the other? Well, the only time I've ever heard Trump speak with non-colloquial, non-ambiguous language, is when someone else writes a speech for him. He almost always speaks informally, and ambiguous if you don't have the full context. And you can tell when he's trying to speak formally on his own. He sounds like someone who doesn't know the subject well enough to speak formally about it.

I infer from what's known from other facts that he doesn't know how to say it. That's what best explains it to me, given all the inputs. Or, you prefer to infer something more nefarious...from what? You're going to infer that from what? Assumptions. You have to assume that he's [STRIKE]literally Hitler[/STRIKE] using syntactic ambiguity nefariously.

To the biased person in agreement, it's clear he's speaking about all Mexican immigrants. To the non-biased person in agreement, it's inferred he's speaking of illegals. Both positions are satisfied.

No, both positions are not satisfied if you're paying attention to the context. Because, thinking all Mexican immigrants is the scope requires the most assumptions as described above.

If called on the former, then an amendment can be made, a "I didn't mean it that way, because..." However, at that point, the cat is already out of the bag. Those who saw the bias in the original statement will continue to do so, and believe that the speaker only recanted because of being forced to be PC... but still they think the speaker believes what was originally said.

Just because you can find a possible convenient "out" doesn't mean you can assume he's using it. Shouldn't you have some other evidence than that? What context makes you think it HAS to be all Mexicans? Much can explain ambiguous language. What makes you assume it's intentional when there's plenty of evidence that this is how he talks normally?

Every point I commented on contains assumptions you made. I don't fault you for making those assumptions because the media, in how they reported it, made the easy assumptions for you. But I'm under no delusion that I can change your mind.

 

[Kutnupe14]

No you can't. There is no face value facts without context. Language, especially colloquial language, which Trump uses all the time--he just talks--is ambiguous without knowledge of culture and context.

For example, my wife, her sister, and their mother, talk to each other in informal, every day language. Only they really know what they're saying because they seem to have this secret context which acts like a private encryption key to their conversations. They say English words, and form mostly grammatically correct sentences, but you can't take words at face value to figure out what the hell they're they're saying. It's really weird to hear them talk, because it sounds like they're talking, but aren't really saying anything. Yet they seem to derive meaning from talking. And then they laugh and look at me.



That's an assumption. You're not inferring the meaning from the full context, nor from follow-up statements. You're ignoring that so that you can assume the scope is all Mexicans. But Trump framed the context when he talked about border agents supporting how "bad" they were. Also, in part of the context, he qualified that "some" were good. He later qualified the bad ones in another speeches as "some". But you didn't consider the full context or later clarifications in your assumption. You used absolute terms without acknowledging the qualifiers.

Since the context is the border, that strongly implies "illegal" border crossing. He's talking about illegals crossing the border. I'm not saying anything about the truthfulness of his statements. I'm just talking about the obvious scope. You have to ignore the stuff about borders, and ignore later more clarifying statements, to get that he was disparaging EVERY Mexican immigrant, legal or not. And if you really believe he meant EVERY one, I can imagine why you hate him so much.



Syntactic ambiguity is also common in colloquial speech, which requires some assumptions based on culture and context. You have to assume that his use is nefarious. Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't. But you have to assume either way unless you have something that reasonably points to one or the other.

Do we have something that points to one or the other? Well, the only time I've ever heard Trump speak with non-colloquial, non-ambiguous language, is when someone else writes a speech for him. He almost always speaks informally, and ambiguous if you don't have the full context. And you can tell when he's trying to speak formally on his own. He sounds like someone who doesn't know the subject well enough to speak formally about it.

I infer from what's known from other facts that he doesn't know how to say it. That's what best explains it to me, given all the inputs. Or, you prefer to infer something more nefarious...from what? You're going to infer that from what? Assumptions. You have to assume that he's [STRIKE]literally Hitler[/STRIKE] using syntactic ambiguity nefariously.



No, both positions are not satisfied if you're paying attention to the context. Because, thinking all Mexican immigrants is the scope requires the most assumptions as described above.



Just because you can find a possible convenient "out" doesn't mean you can assume he's using it. Shouldn't you have some other evidence than that? What context makes you think it HAS to be all Mexicans? Much can explain ambiguous language. What makes you assume it's intentional when there's plenty of evidence that this is how he talks normally?

Every point I commented on contains assumptions you made. I don't fault you for making those assumptions because the media, in how they reported it, made the easy assumptions for you. But I'm under no delusion that I can change your mind.

Basically you're saying that the words that come out of people's mouths, don't really mean what the words say they mean. I don't subscribe to that. If it's said I'm able to understand it exactly how it was said, without the addition of what I "think." Obviously, you see that differently that I.

 

[Trigger Time]

I don't believe that at all. I think he sees the military from the perspective of fame seeking general, than a person with a legitimate concern for it's members. Time will tell which one of us is right, and for the record, I hope you're right.

Well his personal and official actions even away from the cameras dont agree with your assessment. I am right and there is no doubt in my mind on this issue at all.
There has been a noticeable night and day possitive difference in the way our veterans and military members have been treated by this president vs. Obama.
It's like when Clinton left office and Bush took office, there was a parting of the storm clouds and the light instantly came out. It wasnt slow, it was instant.
The Democrat party of today is NOT pro military or pro veteran. Anything they do as a party is token lip service. Kind of the same way they treat the black community.

I bet you none of our navy ships will be surrendering to Iran or China or north Korea under this president. The oppology presidency is over

 

[Goodguy]

I used to work in the television industry at a level where I did programs for governors and senators. I got to see the good and bad in them up close. If I have anything to pass on from the experience, it's this: be just as tough on the person you voted for as you are on the opposition. Demand the highest standard from everybody. Ask yourself the age-old question "who benefits?" from the decisions they make. When they make a decision that's clearly just pandering to the masses, ask yourself what the ripple effects of that decision might be; "why didn't someone do this years ago if it's obviously so popular?" This great country demands great leaders, and our job is to hold them all accountable to the highest standards.

 

[Dead Duck]

I used to work in the television industry at a level where I did programs for governors and senators. I got to see the good and bad in them up close. If I have anything to pass on from the experience, it's this: be just as tough on the person you voted for as you are on the opposition. Demand the highest standard from everybody. Ask yourself the age-old question "who benefits?" from the decisions they make. When they make a decision that's clearly just pandering to the masses, ask yourself what the ripple effects of that decision might be; "why didn't someone do this years ago if it's obviously so popular?" This great country demands great leaders, and our job is to hold them all accountable to the highest standards.

So you want me to call Trump An Old ****ing **** like I did to Hillary?

 

[Kutnupe14]

I used to work in the television industry at a level where I did programs for governors and senators. I got to see the good and bad in them up close. If I have anything to pass on from the experience, it's this: be just as tough on the person you voted for as you are on the opposition. Demand the highest standard from everybody. Ask yourself the age-old question "who benefits?" from the decisions they make. When they make a decision that's clearly just pandering to the masses, ask yourself what the ripple effects of that decision might be; "why didn't someone do this years ago if it's obviously so popular?" This great country demands great leaders, and our job is to hold them all accountable to the highest standards.

Dont look for any such consistency...at least not here. Wise words though.

 

[jamil]

Basically you're saying that the words that come out of people's mouths, don't really mean what the words say they mean. I don't subscribe to that. If it's said I'm able to understand it exactly how it was said, without the addition of what I "think." Obviously, you see that differently that I.

No. I'm saying the words that come out of people's mouths, mean what THEY think they mean. It's not what YOU think it means. It's what THEY think it means. And I'm actually saying a lot more than that even. I'm also saying that when the speaker doesn't specify the scope, you get the scope from the context, if it's there. And it was. The context identified the scope as "illegals", given that he talked about it in terms of the border. And that's consistent with his proposed fix, the wall, as well as other statements later saying only "some" are bad.

 

[Kutnupe14]

No. I'm saying the words that come out of people's mouths, mean what THEY think they mean. It's not what YOU think it means. It's what THEY think it means. And I'm actually saying a lot more than that even. I'm also saying that when the speaker doesn't specify the scope, you get the scope from the context, if it's there. And it was. The context identified the scope as "illegals", given that he talked about it in terms of the border. And that's consistent with his proposed fix, the wall, as well as other statements later saying only "some" are bad.

Wait what? So there's a problem when I interpret the presidents words exactly as they are spoken, but you get to infer things not said? Last I knew ALL immigrants (legal and illegal) crossed the border at some point. Again, words mean things. I'm going to listen to what people say, exactly as the say, and take the meaning exactly as it was said. I'm not going to try and create wiggle room and offer up something not said, to justify my support of someone.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I think there is a misconception here.

IIRC, she clerked for appellate judges (which means doing the grunt work of research and writing) and was nominated for a judgeship by Clinton (but not confirmed). Under Obama, she was solicitor general, which means she practiced exclusively in front of the Supreme Court. (Well, the SG gets input on cases that appear destined for SCOTUS, but that's kinda inside baseball stuff.) Her work as SG meant that she had to recuse herself from a fair number of SCOTUS cases after she was nominated.

And that ignores her work in academia.

Now. I think the best appellate judges have experience as trial and/or appellate practitioners. By my own standards, she is... less experienced than I prefer. But, it isn't fair to say that she "worked as an attorney for a couple years and handled a handful of lawsuits." In particular, her work as SG was directly relevant to SCOTUS.

She clerked for one year for an appellate judge, and less than a year for a SCOTUS justice. She was solicitor general for again one year. During her private practice years she handled a handful of lawsuits in court. Not much experience in a courtroom. And whats that saying those than can do, those that can't teach? Yes I know that is not always true, but still... Warren had 14 yrs as DA of Alameda Co., and 4 yrs as the Attorney General of CA. Again neither had previous stints as a judge, but Warren had a heck of a lot more courtroom experience.

I have wanted to address this with you but never had a good chance. What do you mean by "Divisive"?

I'm having a hard time framing my perception is such a way where I can see Trump as less divisive than Obama, and I can't get there...and Obama as the most divisive president ever? More divisive than Lincoln?

I think this may be one of those times where defining and agreeing on terms may be necessary. How do you frame the idea of "Divisive"?

Lincoln was devisive, but IMO not in the same way.

Divisive stuff like...
-calling for a ban of all Muslims
-saying that Jewish people are "good negotiators"
-saying that he prefers soldier that weren't captured
-referring to NFL players as SOBs because they didn't stand for the anthem
-calling Mexican immigrants rapists, drug dealers, and generally crime prone
-referring to nations that a number of Americans have heritage ****holes
-"good people" on both sides
-Calling the FBI "a disgrace" (only using this one because of the Obama "act stupidly")
-recounting the Pocahontas story while "honoring" a group of Native Americans

...This is from candidacy to present... still have potentially, 6.5 years to go. I sure this list will expand a fair bit.

-He called for a halt of all Muslims until they could get things figured out.
-He didn't say that Jewish people are "good negotiators", he said the people he was speaking to were good negotiators. He was speaking to businessmen who were Jewish.
-As stated that was a jab at a specific person.
-Yep perhaps a bit divisive, but so were their actions.
-I'll address this farther down.
-Do you do deny that compared to America they are?
-Are you disputing this? Were the protesters on both sides entirely white supremacists/racists or antifa?
-IMO they have acted disgracefully. Not quite sure how divisive that statement is though.
-He was making fun of someone who claims to be of Indian descent for her own gain without proof and refuses to verify. Says that the stories her family told her were proof enough. Would you find fault with a President who made fun of a Senator used stolen valor for gain when honoring a group of veterans?

I completely disagree. Trump called Mexican immigrants rapists and drug dealers. He called for the ban of an ENTIRE religion. He's repeatedly spoken disparagingly of women. The guy is uncouth. He stoked the flames over and over and over. Once he has a target, he always comes back to it. It one thing to say something stupid once, and not do it again, but when you keep going back to that well, you're doing it because you believe it and your want to divide people.

See below. See above. I remember one comment that applied to women, a few that applied to a specific woman slight difference. I'll agree he's uncouth.

That's the hitch. he didn't say illegal immigrants.

Nope he didn't say it, but it was implied. His next sentence was "But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we're getting. And it only makes common sense." And he didn't limit it to Mexicans. And why do you always leave off the last part of that quote. "And some are good people"

 

[BugI02]

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/trump_favorableunfavorable-5493.html
Thought it was worth re-visiting the original assertion to help explain my point.

Trump's narrowest delta (unfavorable/favorable) since inauguration appears to be May 7, 2017:
Unfav-52.8
Fav - 43.5
D - 9.3

(This aggregator appears to always have higher unfav ratings than fav.)

His worst, Dec. 13, 2017:
57.3
37.9
19.4

Current:
55
41.6
13.4

The current appear to be "normal" for both groups.

Your observed "spike" appears to have started on May 2 or so.

That looks like the same day Rudy confirmed Trump paid off the porn star and tweeted that celebrities and rich people do that kind of thing.

There would be a natural lag for the news to make its way to the polls, so the surge over the following days would make sense.

Like I said, too, though - the Korea thing could be accounting for it.

Regardless, I don't think you can say there are any "converts" based on those numbers. There may be other data to support that - and I'd be interested to see that - but the RCP thing doesn't.

First, wondering what graph your looking at. The interactive graph yields up several much narrower deltas than you cite. Specifically:

Jan 27, 2017 Dis 44.2 App 44.3 +0.1
Jan 28, 2017 Dis 44.5 App 43.8 -0.7
Feb 4, 2017 Dis 48.3 App 46.0 -2.3
May 3, 2017 51.3/43.6 -7.7
May 5, 2018 52.1/44.4 -7.7

Oh! We are using different numbers, by the way. I am using overall presidential approval, the second subheading in the pulldown polls menu. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html

According to your link you are using the 'direction of the country' polling. That narrow of a focus is skewing your numbers. In response I could just as easily cite 'job approval on the economy' where he is above water at +6.2
I think its better to take the more holistic polling data

Given that, go into the individual polling data below the interactive graph. If you look at polling that repeats in a one week or two week churn (like Economist/YouGov, Rasmussen, Gallup, Reuters/Ipsos etc) he is up cycle to cycle in ALL of them. I think that indicates more than you are willing to credit. Personally I think that it is the persuadable 20% being persuaded (discounting the 40% Trump is Hitler and the 40% Trump is the Buddha factions that I don't think move much). But it's BugI02, not BugI14. I don't ask questions I already know the answer to to facilitate argument therefrom. I genuinely want to know peoples opinions or peruse data they post that I have not encountered

 

[churchmouse]

HHhhhhhmmmmmmmm......Exciting.

 

[jamil]

Wait what? So there's a problem when I interpret the presidents words exactly as they are spoken, but you get to infer things not said? Last I knew ALL immigrants (legal and illegal) crossed the border at some point. Again, words mean things. I'm going to listen to what people say, exactly as the say, and take the meaning exactly as it was said. I'm not going to try and create wiggle room and offer up something not said, to justify my support of someone.

Knock off the coy ****. It don't play. You know the context of the border. It wasn't legal border crossings.

And I don't support Trump. I support policies I like, and I disparage policies I hate. I haven't an axe to grind, nor a hero to worship. You're justifying your righteous indignation. I'm just using the whole context to figure out what the GLOCK he meant.

But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we’re getting. And it only makes common sense. It only makes common sense. They’re sending us not the right people.

It’s coming from more than Mexico. It’s coming from all over South and Latin America, and it’s coming probably— probably— from the Middle East. But we don’t know. Because we have no protection and we have no competence, we don’t know what’s happening. And it’s got to stop and it’s got to stop fast.

What the **** do you think he's talking about here? Hmmm? I guess if you just assume, you think he's talking about legal border crossings? Really?

C'mon, man. You're smarter than that. I know you have a college degree. Did they not require communications 101 for freshmen at UF?

"But we don't know." What don't we know? Who's coming in? We seriously don't know whose coming in, because what? We don't man our own border gates? You really want to go with that? The context makes a lot more sense if he's talking about illegal border crossings. Sheesh.

I was trying to let you see the context for yourself but it seems you're more interested in justifying your indignation. Context isn't hard, man.

Next?

 

[churchmouse]

I almost hate to intervene in this one. WWF cage match...

 

[Kutnupe14]

-He called for a halt of all Muslims until they could get things figured out.
-He didn't say that Jewish people are "good negotiators", he said the people he was speaking to were good negotiators. He was speaking to businessmen who were Jewish.
-As stated that was a jab at a specific person.
-Yep perhaps a bit divisive, but so were their actions.
-I'll address this farther down.
-Do you do deny that compared to America they are?
-Are you disputing this? Were the protesters on both sides entirely white supremacists/racists or antifa?
-IMO they have acted disgracefully. Not quite sure how divisive that statement is though.
-He was making fun of someone who claims to be of Indian descent for her own gain without proof and refuses to verify. Says that the stories her family told her were proof enough. Would you find fault with a President who made fun of a Senator used stolen valor for gain when honoring a group of veterans?

I'm not talking about the veracity of the statements. I only pointing out that they are divisive. I doubt American Muslims looked to fondly on the suggestion that people who shared their religion be banned from entering the county. Also, Trump was not talking to a group of Jewish Businessmen, he was simply speaking to a group of Jewish Republicans. So how would he know if they were good negotiators or not? He didn't know if they were businessmen or unemployed playing video games in their mother's basement... but he did know they were Jewish. As far as the ****hole comment, as I said earlier, I'm not addressing the veracity, only the divisiveness. Lots of Americans come from these places he calls ****holes. But it is part of who they are, even if they think it, themselves. Look at it this way. If you know a guy, and his mother is a whore, do you think it's a good idea to publicly call her a whore?

Nope he didn't say it, but it was implied. His next sentence was "But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we're getting. And it only makes common sense." And he didn't limit it to Mexicans. And why do you always leave off the last part of that quote. "And some are good people"

No, it's not implied. Here, lets go back to his original statement:

When do we beat Mexico at the border? They’re laughing at us, at our stupidity. And now they are beating us economically. They are not our friend, believe me. But they’re killing us economically.

The U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else’s problems.

Thank you. It’s true, and these are the best and the finest. 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. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we’re getting. And it only makes common sense. It only makes common sense. They’re sending us not the right people.

It’s coming from more than Mexico. It’s coming from all over South and Latin America, and it’s coming probably— probably— from the Middle East. But we don’t know. Because we have no protection and we have no competence, we don’t know what’s happening. And it’s got to stop and it’s got to stop fast.

He clearly says "When Mexico sends it people, they're not send the best" does one infer that Mexico is actually sending illegals across the border, or is just "Trump Speak" where he doesn't quite craft his words right? You tell me.

But here's the hitch, he's made comments after that of a similar notion:

"I mean we actually have lottery systems where you go to countries and they do lotteries for who comes into the United States. Now, you know they are not going to have their best people in the lottery, because they're not going to put their best people in a lottery. They don't want to have their good people to leave. ... We want people based on merit. Not based on the fact they are thrown into a bin and many of those people are not the people you want in the country, believe me."

Now, the above is patently false. Countries do not conduct their own lotteries for who will be granted entry into the US; we do. The idea that of a "lottery" would imply legal immigration, or I guess if someone wants to be difficult, the belief that counties hold lotteries that determine which people can attempt to enter the US illegally. I believe the former. Again, he makes mention, like he did in the first quote, of the "best" people, and how they are being sent by their home nations. The first comment, was silent on the issue of legality. The second comment addresses it directly, and strengthens the notion presented in the first - that it's not just illegal immigrants he's talking about, but legal ones as well.
AP FACT CHECK: Trump twists visa lottery program - Chicago Tribune

There's absolutely no way that an intellectually honest person, can take the two statements, and see his comments in the first instance as applying solely to illegal immigrants.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Knock off the coy ****. It don't play. You know the context of the border. It wasn't legal border crossings.

And I don't support Trump. I support policies I like, and I disparage policies I hate. I haven't an axe to grind, nor a hero to worship. You're justifying your righteous indignation. I'm just using the whole context to figure out what the GLOCK he meant.



What the **** do you think he's talking about here? Hmmm? I guess if you just assume, you think he's talking about legal border crossings? Really?

C'mon, man. You're smarter than that. I know you have a college degree. Did they not require communications 101 for freshmen at UF?

"But we don't know." What don't we know? Who's coming in? We seriously don't know whose coming in, because what? We don't man our own border gates? You really want to go with that? The context makes a lot more sense if he's talking about illegal border crossings. Sheesh.

I was trying to let you see the context for yourself but it seems you're more interested in justifying your indignation. Context isn't hard, man.

Next?

See my above post. You can spin it any way you like, but it will still be spin. He totally included legal immigrants.

 

[jamil]

See my above post. You can spin it any way you like, but it will still be spin. He totally included legal immigrants.

Spin? You another one.

It's the full context. We learn this **** in school. You read a paragraph. Then you answer questions about the context. Pretty easy ****. Unless you're biased about the paragraph you just read.

I gave you the context which defined the scope. Now you connect the dots for me how he meant all immigrants. Or just don't. Whatever. But no more assumptions. Support your answer.

You can do it Kut, let the reality flow through you.

 

[jamil]

I'm not talking about the veracity of the statements. I only pointing out that they are divisive. I doubt American Muslims looked to fondly on the suggestion that people who shared their religion be banned from entering the county. Also, Trump was not talking to a group of Jewish Businessmen, he was simply speaking to a group of Jewish Republicans. So how would he know if they were good negotiators or not? He didn't know if they were businessmen or unemployed playing video games in their mother's basement... but he did know they were Jewish. As far as the ****hole comment, as I said earlier, I'm not addressing the veracity, only the divisiveness. Lots of Americans come from these places he calls ****holes. But it is part of who they are, even if they think it, themselves. Look at it this way. If you know a guy, and his mother is a whore, do you think it's a good idea to publicly call her a whore?




No, it's not implied. Here, lets go back to his original statement:



He clearly says "When Mexico sends it people, they're not send the best" does one infer that Mexico is actually sending illegals across the border, or is just "Trump Speak" where he doesn't quite craft his words right? You tell me.

But here's the hitch, he's made comments after that of a similar notion:


Now, the above is patently false. Countries do not conduct their own lotteries for who will be granted entry into the US; we do. The idea that of a "lottery" would imply legal immigration, or I guess if someone wants to be difficult, the belief that counties hold lotteries that determine which people can attempt to enter the US illegally. I believe the former. Again, he makes mention, like he did in the first quote, of the "best" people, and how they are being sent by their home nations. The first comment, was silent on the issue of legality. The second comment addresses it directly, and strengthens the notion presented in the first - that it's not just illegal immigrants he's talking about, but legal ones as well.
AP FACT CHECK: Trump twists visa lottery program - Chicago Tribune

There's absolutely no way that an intellectually honest person, can take the two statements, and see his comments in the first instance as applying solely to illegal immigrants.

There's absolution no way that an intellectually honest person can take the full context, and say his statement means all Mexican immigrants.

And look. I don't give a flying **** about Trump. I just hate sloppy logic justified by obvious bias. Makes me grumpy.

 

[BugI02]

" ...[NeverTrumpism] is the mind-killer. [NeverTrumpism] is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my [NeverTrumpism]. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the [NeverTrumpism] has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”

 

[Kutnupe14]

Spin? You another one.

It's the full context. We learn this **** in school. You read a paragraph. Then you answer questions about the context. Pretty easy ****. Unless you're biased about the paragraph you just read.

I gave you the context which defined the scope. Now you connect the dots for me how he meant all immigrants. Or just don't. Whatever. But no more assumptions. Support your answer.

You can do it Kut, let the reality flow through you.

Like I said, if you look at something with intellectual honesty you'll see that what was said, is what was meant.

It's as simply as reading.

When do we beat Mexico at the border? They’re laughing at us, at our stupidity. And now they are beating us economically. They are not our friend, believe me. But they’re killing us economically.

The U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else’s problems.

Thank you. It’s true, and these are the best and the finest. 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. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we’re getting. And it only makes common sense. It only makes common sense. They’re sending us not the right people.

It’s coming from more than Mexico. It’s coming from all over South and Latin America, and it’s coming probably— probably— from the Middle East. But we don’t know. Because we have no protection and we have no competence, we don’t know what’s happening. And it’s got to stop and it’s got to stop fast.

"I mean we actually have lottery systems where you go to countries and they do lotteries for who comes into the United States. Now, you know they are not going to have their best people in the lottery, because they're not going to put their best people in a lottery. They don't want to have their good people to leave. ... We want people based on merit. Not based on the fact they are thrown into a bin and many of those people are not the people you want in the country, believe me."