The Political & Philosophy Thread

[Einherjar86]

No, he doesn't--which is why that's clearly not the meaning behind his comment. It's a ridiculous thing to say, so why say it?

Again, plausible deniability. His comment was a virtual promise that Russia would receive fair treatment from America, i.e. from Trump.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Or, alternatively, you could stop being illiterate and realize that 'promise' has more than one meaning, including meanings which allow the statement to make perfect sense.

 

[The Ozzman]

Or, alternatively, you could stop being illiterate

I lost it there

 

[CiG]

Dumbest conspiracy theory ever.

 

[Einherjar86]

Or, alternatively, you could stop being illiterate and realize that 'promise' has more than one meaning, including meanings which allow the statement to make perfect sense.

Or, alternatively, you could stop being illiterate and realize that "promise" has more than one meaning, including meanings that allow Trump to claim semantic ambiguity, which also makes perfect sense. See how that works too??? omg, it's like your point made my point.

It's funny to watch you try and argue about language and meaning.

Dumbest conspiracy theory ever.

It's not really a conspiracy theory. A conspiracy theory projects outlandish causes for actual effects with minimal circumstantial evidence. In this case, it's simply a matter of reading what's on the surface. Most if not all of Trump's comments operate in this way--that is, they assume a surface appearance of ambiguity and multiplicity of meaning. He's able to explain his words one way to one group of listeners and entirely differently to another group. So in this case, it's just a matter of realizing what his comment implies for Russian listeners. It's clear he adores Putin, so it's not a stretch to assume he wanted the comment to be interpreted a certain way by Russian ears.

EDIT: to put this another way, I don't there was any conspiracy when Trump made this comment because it didn't involve any conspiring. It involved a medium in the form of an ambiguous comment that Trump (maybe) hoped would deliver a particular message, while being defensible in other contexts. It's a pretty fascinating linguistic phenomenon, honestly.

 

[CiG]

Okay Mr. Red Scare 2.0 lmao.

Well, if it turns out to be true that Trump colluded with Russia to secure the election you'll at least be able to say "told you so" as everything falls apart.

 

[Einherjar86]

That's all I ever wanted...

 

[Dak]

Well, supposedly Cohen implicated him for violating campaign finance laws, which every major media site save Fox is tripping over themselves to explain 400 different ways about how THIS IS IT. They've been doing this monthly for approaching two years no, so consider me not convinced. I have no doubt he knowingly had some women paid off, just not sure how that contributes to impeachment proceedings. Billy set the precedent here; if you can't get kicked out for adultery and lying about it, why for campaign finance?

Vox ran an article pointing out that the investigations of Manafort and Cohen show how bad the US legal system is concerning white collar crime. I agree, and it's a huge shame that bankers in 2008 pretty much all got off scot-free. But discovery of illegal financial doings when looking for "collusion" is a different sort of miscarriage of justice.

 

[Dak]

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-08-20/why-trump-s-extreme-politics-will-outlast-him

If Tyler Cowen is to be believed, better buckle up for politics in the coming years, Trump or no Trump (I agree but have some additional reasons):

All of a sudden, Americans are getting used to the idea that extreme political change is possible, for better or worse, and that means many of them will demand it. In the Trump Era, if I may call it that, it is harder to tell your base that big changes just don’t happen that easily.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Or, alternatively, you could stop being illiterate and realize that "promise" has more than one meaning, including meanings that allow Trump to claim semantic ambiguity, which also makes perfect sense. See how that works too??? omg, it's like your point made my point.

It's funny to watch you try and argue about language and meaning.

Except you explicitly excluded the possibility of multiple meanings, you lying illiterate.

Making promises and saying the press will reward you are practically completely different things. Trump has no ability to make the press reward anybody for anything.

No, he doesn't--which is why that's clearly not the meaning behind his comment.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

@Dak The exact opposite seems likely save for some monumental Great Depression-esque event. The more polarized the parties become, the less they accomplish anything. Trump couldn't/wouldn't even pass funding for The Wall(tm) when he had all the cards in his hand to do so in terms of Repubs in Congress. The issue too, of course, is that neither party is a homogeneous suite and only a small percentage of Republicans really want what Trump promised, as do Dems and what Sanders promises.

It's actually remarkable how weak, meaning willingness to use all their power and work on the cutting-edge of politics, that most American presidents have been since Nixon. Reagan tried for a bit but after his first two years, he was basically neutered as well. If/when Congress turns blue, Trump will probably have a legacy of the most impotent full-term presidency in a really long time. Like, I don't even know how long, I was going to say Hoover but he actually made and pushed some then-striking tax increases and public works programs in huge contrast to Harding/Coolidge, even though FDR ultimately made him look like Ron Paul.

 

[Einherjar86]

Except you explicitly excluded the possibility of multiple meanings, you lying illiterate.

My comment isn't suggesting that his remarks have only one meaning, but that their contradictory and ambiguous nature inevitably renders certain meanings nonsensical and logically incomplete.

I'd call you an illiterate, but you're really tarnishing the word.

 

[Dak]

Ein proving his favorite theory that interpretation of a statement doesn't have to take into consideration the intended meaning of the author/speaker. Trump means whatever liberals want him to mean, whether it's that the press means himself, or statements about specific people or groups apply to whoever they want. They can't be wrong!

@HamburgerBoy Well the neutering of radical candidates can only occur when other politicians aren't afraid. I think that's underlying his point.

 

[Einherjar86]

Ein proving his favorite theory that interpretation of a statement doesn't have to take into consideration the intended meaning of the author/speaker.

Intended meaning is virtually and practically worthless when the remarks make no sense in the first place.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

My comment isn't suggesting that his remarks have only one meaning, but that their contradictory and ambiguous nature inevitably renders certain meanings nonsensical and logically incomplete.

I'd call you an illiterate, but you're really tarnishing the word.

But it's not remotely contradictory or ambiguous if you remember that promise doesn't only mean what you initially claimed it only meant. If you can't understand what Trump meant, it means your English comprehension is below even the 4th grade level at which Trump speaks.

@HamburgerBoy Well the neutering of radical candidates can only occur when other politicians aren't afraid. I think that's underlying his point.

Congressmen have much less to fear though. They market themselves to their immediate state/district, and as long as they say the right words for their local constituency and deliver enough pork, they're good. The only ones that have to fear are those in purple areas, which naturally means replacing one milquetoast suit with another. It's true that the trend is towards increasingly left-wing politicians in blue areas and increasingly right-wing ones in red areas, but save for the aforementioned cataclysm, fringe people will never make up a majority.

 

[Einherjar86]

But it's not remotely contradictory or ambiguous if you remember that promise doesn't only mean what you initially claimed it only meant.

If promise can mean more than one thing, then that makes the remark ambiguous.

When did I claim that the word "promise" only means one thing?

 

[HamburgerBoy]

If promise can mean more than one thing, then that makes the remark ambiguous.

When did I claim that the word "promise" only means one thing?

I'm curious how you can even function within the English language using only words with only a single definition.

Your entire case against Trump rested on the use of a single word, 'promise', along a single definition of that word. The only alternative you presented to his use of said word along the definition that you think he meant was that he was joking: "if he can turn right around and say 'But I wasn't being serious--I can't help it if they wanted to interfere!'" You repeatedly refused to acknowledge multiple meanings of the word, and acted as if none such thing existed. If you're not just being completely intellectually dishonest, all signs point to you being unaware of alternative meanings of the word. Since every single argument with you boils down to semantic masturbation and backtracking, rather than say factual or logical backtracking, I've come to the conclusion that you are not intellectually dishonest, but simply illiterate.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm curious how you can even function within the English language using only words with only a single definition.

Your entire case against Trump rested on the use of a single word, 'promise', along a single definition of that word. The only alternative you presented to his use of said word along the definition that you think he meant was that he was joking: "if he can turn right around and say 'But I wasn't being serious--I can't help it if they wanted to interfere!'" You repeatedly refused to acknowledge multiple meanings of the word, and acted as if none such thing existed. If you're not just being completely intellectually dishonest, all signs point to you being unaware of alternative meanings of the word. Since every single argument with you boils down to semantic masturbation and backtracking, rather than say factual or logical backtracking, I've come to the conclusion that you are not intellectually dishonest, but simply illiterate.

When did I define the word promise? When did I do anything other than propose a hypothetical dichotomy between one ambiguous word ("promise") and an ambiguous denial ("that's not what I meant")? How, from any of this, are you deriving the notion that I'm precluding the possibility of multiple meanings? My "entire case" is based on the idea that Trump's comments can have multiple meanings. That's what makes them ambiguous.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

You proposed two meanings of Trump's statement: (1), the direct by-the-book definition interpretation, which you admitted was nonsense, or (2), that Trump said the word out loud as a kind of winkwink nudgenudge to deliver on things he could logically promise. The "ambiguity" was not you analyzing the word's meaning itself, but rather your own invented false dichotomy, which both rely on the only definition of the word you acknowledged. The multiple meanings both refer to the same meaning of the word as you used it.

 

[Einherjar86]

Posing a dichotomy is one means of demonstrating ambiguity. That doesn't automatically mean that those are the only two options. I was merely highlighting that the appearance of the remark allows Trump to be able to deny certain meanings. As far as I can tell, he purposefully avoids clarity and consistency at all costs. My dichotomy isn't false because it never presumed to be exhaustive.