Trump on undocumented immigrants: 'These aren't people. These are animals.'

[hollodero]

(05-22-2018, 12:17 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Trump does not think that all illegal immigrants are animals, but he has been demonizing them in order to get funding for the Wall.  He is clearly painting a picture where a majority of illegal immigrants are violent criminals, and this just is not true.

Exactly. Which is why I'd strongly advocate to leave it at that. And not add the cherry that he said "all undocumented immigrants aren't people, but animals" when he quite clearly did not do that.

There's nothing irrational with pointing that out either.

[*bfine32*]

(05-22-2018, 12:03 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You mean get funding to build a wall?

No doubt. It's as if he's asserting that crossing the border illegally is a crime. Keep up the good work.

[fredtoast]

(05-22-2018, 12:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No doubt. It's as if he's asserting that crossing the border illegally is a crime. Keep up the good work.

That is not what he is doing at all.  US citizens don't live in fear that they will be the victim of an illegal border crossing.  That is why Trump is calling them murders, rapist, and things like that.  Just calling them "illegal border crossers" does not strike fear into people, so Trump has cooked the facts in order to do some fear mongering.

[*bfine32*]

(05-22-2018, 12:36 PM)fredtoast Wrote: That is not what he is doing at all.  US citizens don't live in fear that they will be the victim of an illegal border crossing.  That is why Trump is calling them murders, rapist, and things like that.  Just calling them "illegal border crossers" does not strike fear into people, so Trump has cooked the facts in order to do some fear mongering.

...and it appears there is a population out there unwittingly assisting him. Keep it up.

[fredtoast]

(05-22-2018, 12:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: ...and it appears there is a population out there unwittingly assisting him. Keep it up.

How am I assisting him by claiming he is wrong?

[*bfine32*]

(05-22-2018, 12:52 PM)fredtoast Wrote: How am I assisting him by claiming he is wrong?

I won't give you that answer; as I am a conservative. I'd be handicapping myself. You could probably look back through this thread at some other left-leaners for clues.

I will throw you a bone: Don't read Dino's or Dill's.

[fredtoast]

(05-22-2018, 12:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I won't give you that answer; as I am a conservative. I'd be handicapping myself. You could probably look back through this thread at some other left-leaners for clues.

I will throw you a bone: Don't read Dino's or Dill's.

Doesn't apply to me because I am not so distracted by this that I don't see all the other dirty shit he is pulling.

[Dill]

(05-22-2018, 12:25 AM)hollodero Wrote: Something among these lines, yes. "When the media and the liberals are so eagerly out to slam Trump as often as they can - and here's an actually convincing example of that - why believe all these Russia stories then. They're just out to get him, as evidenced by example." That connection is made.

These exaggerations actually help Trump. Bels said it, bfine said it, and I think they're spot on.

Not as the lesser evil, no. Trump might just appear more tolerable. Because, everyone exaggerates.

Lol, might as well throw Lucy, Neb and SSF in there too. 6-1.

You are worrying about a segment of the electorate unable to determine, by their own lights, whether Trump's public statements, behavior and policies are the cause of his bad press, or whether some people just "hate" him in some incomprehensible, acontextual sense, and so just write mean things.  You yourself remarked on this disconnect between cause and effect last week, didn't you?  Suddenly the relation between claims and evidence matters for this audience--but only regarding press for one side?  They can sort out "these people are animals" but not "witchhunt"?

Everyone exaggerates?

Last night I heard Tucker Carlson say that MS-13 is now a constituency of the Democratic party. That was followed by a Hannity interview with Newt Gingrich about the greatest political scandal in US history which is finally coming out--meaning the conspiracy among the top leadership of the FBI and OBama's White House staff to help Hillary and defeat Trump. In several posts in this very forum you, Hollo, have put together the best compendium of Trump "exaggerations" I have seen anywhere, and recognized their unprecedented character. 

So yes, 6-1. Guess I'll remain the lone wolf --at least until someone can explain why we should expect people presumed sensitive to exaggeration to remain unaffected by the daily whoppers from Trump and his surrogate news organizations, but be put out of sorts by a rare "exaggeration" of Trump's xenophobia authorized by his own rhetorical imprecision.

Always good to critique exaggeration from whatever corner, but in the current conjuncture there is no reason to believe that liberal media exaggeration is common and/or extreme enough to meaningfully sway undecided voters. If Dem strategists really think that is a problem, then they have failed to grasp how the US public sphere has altered and cannot accurately target voters they can move. Best I could give you on this is that Trump and surrogates exaggerate liberal exaggerations to reaffirm their base's alternative reality. But I see no evidence that sort of thing is drawing voters away from the Dems, nor any reason why it should. 

[GMDino]

(05-22-2018, 01:26 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Doesn't apply to me because I am not so distracted by this that I don't see all the other dirty shit he is pulling.

I'm with you.  Somehow I have the capacity to follow more than one thing at once.

Some are even more important that others.

[*bfine32*]

(05-22-2018, 01:26 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Doesn't apply to me because I am not so distracted by this that I don't see all the other dirty shit he is pulling.

Of course it doesn't apply to you; as you think you are brilliant. But there may be those a little less cognitively aware than you that get distracted by the white noise. None of which changes the responses in this thread. But as I have continually said: Keep it up. 

[hollodero]

(05-22-2018, 02:09 PM)Dill Wrote: Lol, might as well throw Lucy, Neb and SSF in there too. 6-1.

Yeah come on, don't be unfair. I mentioned a person from the left and a person from the right to underline bipartisan agreement on that. :)

(05-22-2018, 02:09 PM)Dill Wrote: You are worrying about a segment of the electorate unable to determine, by their own lights, whether Trump's public statements, behavior and policies are the cause of his bad press, or whether some people just "hate" him in some incomprehensible, acontextual sense, and so just write mean things.  You yourself remarked on this disconnect between cause and effect last week, didn't you?  Suddenly the relation between claims and evidence matters for this audience--but only regarding press for one side?  
 
Everyone exaggerates?

Last night I heard Tucker Carlson say that MS-13 is now a constituency of the Democratic party. That was followed by a Hannity interview with Newt Gingrich about the greatest political scandal in US history which is finally coming out--meaning the conspiracy among the top leadership of the FBI and OBama's White House staff to help Hillary and defeat Trump. In several posts in this very forum you, Hollo, have put together the best compendium of Trump "exaggerations" I have seen anywhere, and recognized their unprecedented character.   

So yes, 6-1. Guess I'll remain the lone wolf --at least until someone can explain why we should expect people presumed sensitive to exaggeration to remain unaffected by the daily whoppers from Trump and his surrogate news organizations, but be put out of sorts by a rare "exaggeration" of Trump's xenophobia authorized by his own rhetorical imprecision.

Hey I'm not argueing any of that. But it's not about me. It's maybe about the cynical independent who might or might not vote the next time. Or the all-life republican who might reconsider. Or one of the many others whose vote is on the balance now for whatever reason. That don't look at it from a neutral standpoint to begin with, that have brought themselves to look at Trump way more favorably as you or I think he deserves. But gettable votes liberals can win or lose.

Me, I agree with you on FOX and Trump and how crazy that all is. I just can't bring myself to say in this climate, a misleading anti-Trump headline doesn't bother me. How's that saying - two wrongs don't make a right? Doesn't this still apply if it's just a little wrong against a huge wrong?

Is this particular exaggeration equally bad as what FOX/Hannity/Breitbart does? Of course not, not by any stretch. That doesn't make it immune to critizism. I do not approve of exaggerations and I additionally think they are a very common strategical error the left makes. The spin machines are fueled by things like that.

(05-22-2018, 02:09 PM)Dill Wrote: Always good to critique exaggeration from whatever corner, but in the current conjuncture there is no reason to believe that liberal media exaggeration is common and/or extreme enough to meaningfully sway undecided voters. If Dem strategists really think that is a problem, then they have failed to grasp how the US public sphere has altered and cannot accurately target voters they can move. Best I could give you on this is that Trump and surrogates exaggerate liberal exaggerations to reaffirm their base's alternative reality. But I see no evidence that sort of thing is drawing voters away from the Dems, nor any reason why it should. 

Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. I think it does, but who knows. But putting that aside, there's nothing wrong to critique exaggeration, and that's what's happening.

[Dill]

(05-22-2018, 02:52 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah come on, don't be unfair. I mentioned a person from the left and a person from the right to underline bipartisan agreement on that. :)

Very asymmetrical. Only one "liberal" in the group.  And his motivations are rather different from the others. One reason righties jump on this incident is the hunger for parity, for the right to claim "both sides do it." That will have wide circulation in the bubble, not necessarily a bad sign. But no reason to suppose there will be much perception of parity outside it.

(05-22-2018, 02:52 PM)hollodero Wrote: Hey I'm not argueing any of that. But it's not about me. It's maybe about the cynical independent who might or might not vote the next time. Or the all-life republican who might reconsider. Or one of the many others whose vote is on the balance now for whatever reason. That don't look at it from a neutral standpoint to begin with, that have brought themselves to look at Trump way more favorably as you or I think he deserves. But gettable votes liberals can win or lose.

Me, I agree with you on FOX and Trump and how crazy that all is. I just can't bring myself to say in this climate, a misleading anti-Trump headline doesn't bother me. How's that saying - two wrongs don't make a right? Doesn't this still apply if it's just a little wrong against a huge wrong?

Is this particular exaggeration equally bad as what FOX/Hannity/Breitbart does? Of course not, not by any stretch. That doesn't make it immune to critizism. I do not approve of exaggerations and I additionally think they are a very common strategical error the left makes. The spin machines are fueled by things like that.

Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. I think it does, but who knows. But putting that aside, there's nothing wrong to critique exaggeration, and that's what's happening.

Of course we agree there is nothing wrong with critiquing exaggeration. And you've not heard me argue "If they do it then it's ok if we do it." Where we part ways is at the claim that a liberal media exaggeration here and there by some journalists--generated in the OP from Trump's own clumsy speech and previous demonization of immigrants--will somehow harm the Democrats in the face of Trump's daily blizzard of lies and distortions.

People bothered by exaggerations are already anti-Trump. Your cynical independents are likely not all that independent if they can't see the disturbing difference between exaggerations from a few journalists and those which daily come from the highest office in the land. Trumpsters either don't see Trump's exaggerations (lies) as exaggerations (lies), or as they sometimes say, they just don't care. I am not dismissing your independents; I just don't see a few exaggerations here and there coming to define the opposition to Trump for them, or for anyone whose vote could, realistically, successfully, be targeted in a campaign.

Given how talk of "animals" in the context of immigration upsets many minorities, not just Hispanics, one could argue that some/many of them may be less clear to whom Trump is referring in the OP than you are. Given Trump's previous statements and policies, they may not much care. That particular exaggeration may draw more voters than it pushes away--if it pushes away any.

We saw an upsurge in Trump enthusiasm in the forum (Nobel prize anyone? lol) when Trump agreed to meet with Kim before reviewing the possible outcomes with his advisors.  The impending failure of this overture ("Libyan model" anyone?), and consequent spin, will have more effect on that fraction of undecideds you refer to above, as will the accruing fallout of the broken Iran Deal. Not to mention the emerging constitutional crisis around the Russia investigation, with its many faceted revelations of corruption, incompetence and risk to national security. These have the potential to undermine Fox authority and the bubble, upon which the alternative Trump reality so depends.  For those who live in that reality, we can't really move them with rational arguments. They aren't impressed when anti-Trumpers maintain journalistic standards, if they even notice.

I do think it possible that if liberal media types make exaggeration a norm it could suppress potential Dem voters, though.   But I doubt it will become their norm.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-22-2018, 02:09 PM)Dill Wrote: Lol, might as well throw Lucy, Neb and SSF in there too. 6-1.

You are worrying about a segment of the electorate unable to determine, by their own lights, whether Trump's public statements, behavior and policies are the cause of his bad press, or whether some people just "hate" him in some incomprehensible, acontextual sense, and so just write mean things.  You yourself remarked on this disconnect between cause and effect last week, didn't you?  Suddenly the relation between claims and evidence matters for this audience--but only regarding press for one side?  They can sort out "these people are animals" but not "witchhunt"?

Everyone exaggerates?

Last night I heard Tucker Carlson say that MS-13 is now a constituency of the Democratic party. That was followed by a Hannity interview with Newt Gingrich about the greatest political scandal in US history which is finally coming out--meaning the conspiracy among the top leadership of the FBI and OBama's White House staff to help Hillary and defeat Trump. In several posts in this very forum you, Hollo, have put together the best compendium of Trump "exaggerations" I have seen anywhere, and recognized their unprecedented character. 

So yes, 6-1. Guess I'll remain the lone wolf --at least until someone can explain why we should expect people presumed sensitive to exaggeration to remain unaffected by the daily whoppers from Trump and his surrogate news organizations, but be put out of sorts by a rare "exaggeration" of Trump's xenophobia authorized by his own rhetorical imprecision.

Always good to critique exaggeration from whatever corner, but in the current conjuncture there is no reason to believe that liberal media exaggeration is common and/or extreme enough to meaningfully sway undecided voters. If Dem strategists really think that is a problem, then they have failed to grasp how the US public sphere has altered and cannot accurately target voters they can move. Best I could give you on this is that Trump and surrogates exaggerate liberal exaggerations to reaffirm their base's alternative reality. But I see no evidence that sort of thing is drawing voters away from the Dems, nor any reason why it should. 

Would you label the ISIS fighters animals?

[Dill]

(05-23-2018, 01:04 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Would you label the ISIS fighters animals?

No.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-23-2018, 01:21 AM)Dill Wrote: No.

So raping children, setting people on fire and lining streets with severed heads doesn't reach animal status for you?


Interesting.

[StLucieBengal]

(05-23-2018, 01:21 AM)Dill Wrote: No.

Are they savages?

[Dill]

(05-23-2018, 02:33 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Are they savages?

"Savage" but not savages.

[Dill]

(05-23-2018, 01:24 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So raping children, setting people on fire and lining streets with severed heads doesn't reach animal status for you?

No.

[StLucieBengal]

(05-23-2018, 02:38 AM)Dill Wrote: "Savage" but not savages.

So which definition of savage are you going with...... the one where you just called them primitive, bloodthirsty, sadist, or you know animals.

[Dill]

(05-23-2018, 02:48 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: So which definition of savage are you going with......  the one where you just called them primitive, bloodthirsty, sadist, or you know animals.  

The second one under 1. : cruel and vicious; aggressively hostile.