Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yes. It means nonsense. The sentence quoted was not nonsense it simply had a superfluous word. That is not word salad even by its colloquial use.
Is this what we're going to do? Dismantle any given speech by each candidates sentence by sentence, phrase by phrase and word by word? Looking for a grammatical faux pas or a semantic slip up? Some nonsensical utterance? Really?The superfluous word is what makes the sentence nonsense. Everyone knows the current definition of the word deadline to be something like: the time by which something must be finished or submitted. So when people hear Kamala saying "we should apply metrics that include deadlines around time." To them she's basically saying 'we should apply standards for measuring or assessing something that include finish times around time.' Which is a nonsense statement. i.e. Makes no sense.
The superfluous word is what makes the sentence nonsense. Everyone knows the current definition of the word deadline to be something like: the time by which something must be finished or submitted. So when people hear Kamala saying "we should apply metrics that include deadlines around time." To them she's basically saying 'we should apply standards for measuring or assessing something that include finish times around time.' Which is a nonsense statement. i.e. Makes no sense.
That's not what the interviewer said....
She said, "Do you believe that VP Kamala Harris is only on the ticket because she's a black woman?"
Not "People in your camp have suggested/argued/claimed that Harris is only on the ticket because she's a black woman, do you agree?"
Nope. I even checked the transcript before I made my previous response.You pointed out that I made a bad faith claim in the OP of another thread not long ago....don't make me do the same here.
Is there something either of them said prior to the question that justifies this rather unique frame you're placing around the question? Or can we just remove the frame as just something you personally read into the question?
I listen to alot of WORD conservative radio.It seems everyone on there hosts and callers thought she was reading.I wouldnt doubt it.Furthermore, I wouldnt doubt it if The liberal station did everything they could to help her.They have all made it very clear for the last 20 plus years that would do almost anything to get liberals elected.I noticed throughout Harris' interview with CNN, that she kept looking down; as she was answering the scripted questions; as if she herself was reading a script.
Where do you suppose the teleprompter was hidden from camera view?
Is this what we're going to do? Dismantle any given speech by each candidates sentence by sentence, phrase by phrase and word by word? Looking for a grammatical faux pas or a semantic slip up? Some nonsensical utterance? Really?
Do you imagine any given Trump supporter thinking that this would be a good tactic?
I listen to alot of WORD conservative radio.It seems everyone on there hosts and callers thought she was reading.
Well Ide rather listen to them than NPR who sold their soul to democrat party decades ago. And if you watched bits of the interview, you could see she looks down alot sitting low at the table . Its quite sad that democrat voters didnt actually get to pick their candidate this time around .Conservative talk radio hosts and their idiotic bloviating are part of the reason we have absurd threads like this. Talk hosts aren't incentivized to be correct; they're incentivized to be agitating.
The full broadcast showed that Harris had notes to refer to. Most speakers have some preparation. It is just far too risky not to. I have done a fair bit of public speaking and I would never do it without notes.Well Ide rather listen to them than NPR who sold their soul to democrat party decades ago. And if you watched bits of the interview, you could see she looks down alot sitting low at the table . Its quite sad that democrat voters didnt actually get to pick their candidate this time around .
Well Ide rather listen to them than NPR who sold their soul to democrat party decades ago.
And if you watched bits of the interview, you could see she looks down alot sitting low at the table .
Its quite sad that democrat voters didnt actually get to pick their candidate this time around .
She undoubtedly prepared for the interview, but it is not correct that Harris had notes. Bash had them, not Harris:The full broadcast showed that Harris had notes to refer to. Most speakers have some preparation. It is just far too risky not to. I have done a fair bit of public speaking and I would never do it without notes.
Yes, I've seen that. The Daily Show makes a point of poking fun at all politicians. And if one of them says something vaguely new agey then it's all grist for the mill. And if you do poke around and listen long enough to any speech by literally anyone there'll be an opportunity for some light hearted fun 'n' games.These aren't grammatical faux pas or a semantic slip ups as you're trying to spin it, this how Kamala normally talks.
Here's a compilation by a left leaning satire show mocking Kamala's nonsensical ramblings.
Is it that inconceivable that someone who is a trained and experienced lawyer and who has been seeking (successfully) political office for more than a decade is capable of speaking a complex and coherent sentence without it being written down ahead of time? What will you say when she has only a pen and a blank note pad for the debate next week and speaks similarly for most answers. (I will not exclude the possibility that one or more answers will "get out of hand" grammatically, as also happens for experienced politicians and lawyers.)I listen to alot of WORD conservative radio.It seems everyone on there hosts and callers thought she was reading.I wouldnt doubt it.Furthermore, I wouldnt doubt it if The liberal station did everything they could to help her.They have all made it very clear for the last 20 plus years that would do almost anything to get liberals elected.
Tu quoque much?Yes, I've seen that. The Daily Show makes a point of poking fun at all politicians. And if one of them says something vaguely new agey then it's all grist for the mill. And if you do poke around and listen long enough to any speech by literally anyone there'll be an opportunity for some light hearted fun 'n' games.
But if you want to compare the rhetorical abilities of the two candictates...then we're talking chalk and cheese. Pointing out the odd faux pax by one only emphasises the inabilities of the other.
According to the transcript I checked, that’s exactly what was asked:
“Some of your own supporters, including Republicans on Capitol Hill, have labeled Vice President Kamala Harris, who is the first Black and Asian American woman to serve as vice president and be on a major party ticket, as a DEI hire. ”
Trump Addresses National Association of Black Journalists
Speaker 1 : Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the 49th Annual National Association of Black Journalists Convention and Career Fair. We are about to begin a ...www.rev.com
Nope. I even checked the transcript before I made my previous response.
Is it that inconceivable that someone who is a trained and experienced lawyer and who has been seeking (successfully) political office for more than a decade is capable of speaking a complex and coherent sentence without it being written down ahead of time?
Tu quoque much?
You keep lowering the bar. It's good to see. You keep concentrating on her laugh, the rest of us will listen to policy statements and discuss politics.
You only consider people worthy of the position. If the policies of whoever is left are those with which you disagree then you have nobody to vote for.
This is pretty simple. It's Politics 101.
In this campaign? I keep saying that if you are derogatory about the aspect of one candidate's abilities, and it's generally accepted, then you have to be prepared to have it compared to the other candidate.Tu quoque much?
I don’t know the specific complaints about him to which you were referring. What I will say is that regarding a general critique of him being “obsessed with race”, I think that it’s unfair to levy that charge merely for answering a question about race. However, I think that it is fair to levy it in response to the comments that initially prompted the question, and in response to his comments about her flipflopping racial identity.Fair enough, I do appreciate that you went as far as providing the actual context and here's the bone I'll throw you...
Yes, since she was speaking specifically about the statements of his Republican colleagues, he definitely chose to make the answer about Harris' race when he simply could have addressed the statements of his colleagues instead.
The one point I'd add is that the interviewer makes it clear this is a follow up question to either his previous answer or her previous question....let's take a look at what that was....
"Mr. President, we so appreciate you giving us an hour of your time. I want to start by addressing the elephant in the room, sir. A lot of people did not think it was appropriate for you to be here today. You have pushed false claims about some of your rivals, from Nikki Haley to former President Barack Obama saying that they were not born in the United States, which is not true. You have told four Congresswoman women of color who were American citizens to go back to where they came from. You have used words like animal and rabid to describe Black district attorneys. You’ve attacked Black journalists calling them a loser, saying the questions that they ask are, quote, “stupid and racist”. You’ve had dinner with a white supremacist at your Mar-a-Lago resort. So my question, sir, now that you are asking Black supporters to vote for you, why should Black voters trust you after you have used language like that?"
Are we pretending that these are somehow not racial questions? That these are part of an interview that's uninterested in anything racial and instead merely a discussion of Trump's rhetoric and then his colleagues' rhetoric and Trump decided to take a racial angle on his answers?
Yes, I'll agree that the second question is definitely not about Trump's statements or rhetoric and it's definitely about Republican rhetoric on Harris....it's directly linked (by the interviewer) to the first question, which is moreof a series of accusations of racism framed as an interview.
Pretending that the President somehow made his answers racial as if that wasn't the entire focus of the interview isn't just dishonest...it's stupid (and I'm talking about the media response to this answer, nor yours or the many people who implicitly trust the media).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?