7 ms·

http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/06/25/exp-presidential-candidate-donald-trump-immigration-intv-erin.cnn http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/06/25/exp-presidenti

by norikki 10y ago

http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/06/25/exp-presidential-candidate-donald-trump-immigration-intv-erin.cnn http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/06/25/exp-presidential-can... "Trump doubles down on calling Mexicans rapists". Trump did not call Mexicans rapists. That is an outright lie which is as much fake news as this hackathon project. It's not bias, it's not selective reporting, it's fake news that we're expected to believe as our only source of truth because sometimes people share Macedonian clickbait on their facebook. A lie is deliberately making someone believe something that you know is false. When George W. Bush made everyone think Iraq had nukes, that was a lie. You can't say it wasn't lying because it was merely 'tricking people into believing something false.' That is literally the definition of lying.

edblarney 10y ago
Here are Trump's words: "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." Trump is absolutely 'calling Mexicans rapists'. This is undeniable. Now - you can argue that the way CNN presents it lacks context, because Trump could be referring to 'Mexican migrants to the USA as rapists' - and not 'Mexicans in general' - or even more specifically 'some of them as rapists' - and not all of them. But this would be a little absurd - it would be like saying: "Canadians that visit America are rapists" ... and then trying to imply that you meant to say 'some Canadians who come to America are rapists' - which theoretically is probably be true, but the implication is basically absurd. CNN may not provide the right context for this fact - but it is a fact. Trump called Mexicans rapists.
- insickness 10y ago
  "When Mexico sends its people" was in reference to illegal aliens. You can't simply say, "you can argue it was out of context." That's idiotic. I can quote you as saying 'Canadians that visit America are rapists' above as well, just like you can quote me as saying it. It doesn't mean I was saying that all Canadians that visit America are rapists.
  - edblarney 10y ago
    ""When Mexico sends its people" was in reference to illegal aliens. " A) He did not refer to illegals. He clearly said 'When Mexico sends it's people'. That's pretty clearly referring to 'Mexicans that come to America'. B) Even if he was referring to people that cross the border illegally - he's still calling illegal migrants 'rapists'. This is super bigoted. CNN is not out of line here. Listen: + I do think that the press treats Trump unfairly, but he also does some things that give the press all the ammunition they need to mock him without needing to lie about it. + Trump is not stupid. He's calling 'Mexicans' rapists, and didn't use the term 'illegals' because he's trying to inflame populist bigotry among the population. It's a really, really sleazy thing to do, and it's basically bigoted. Listen - I am 100% against illegal migration, 100% against sanctuary cities, and fully realize that the press is biased on this issue - and the press purposefully conflates 'legal' and 'illegal' migrant and tries to infer that 'anyone who is against illegals is racist'. So yes - the press is totally unfair. BUT - that doesn't mean Trump didn't make a very racist statement, to purposefully incite bigotry. Which I believe he did. His statement does not gain validity because the press is also biased and wrong about him, and immigration as well. His statement is fairly bigoted, even if the press do misrepresent the truth.
    - insickness 10y ago
      Huffington Post: 80% Of Central American Women, Girls Are Raped Crossing Into The U.S. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/12/central-america-migrants-rape_n_5806972.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/12/central-america-mig...
      - nl 10y ago
        Are you are simultaneously arguing that he didn't say it, and that what he didn't say was right?
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
        10y ago
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  Look, Trump is not a lawyer. Linguistic semantics are not his forte, and he doesn't have a committee of operatives review his every word for semantic accuracy and soundbite-proof-ness. That's how you end up sounding like a robot, like Romney and Clinton. Trump, like most adult humans, expects the listener to glean the relevant information and tense from the context of the discussion (or at least, he wants us to believe he expects this). For example, when Trump says "they're sending", we know he knows that Mexico isn't literally sending these people. They don't pick them up and bus over the border so that they'll become America's problem. Illegal immigrants run the border primarily because the wages in America are so much better than the wages in Mexico, not because someone "sent" them over, except in the metaphorical sense where the country either cannot or does not provide the desired standard of living for its residents, and thus they "send" them away to a place that can and/or does. Your quote is selectively edited. What is the VERY NEXT sentence after your quote cuts off? "And some, I assume, are good people." How can Trump say they're ALL rapists and then literally in the next sentence say "And some are good people"? Pretend like you're talking to someone you respect about his position on immigration. Are you going to listen to him say this and take his verbatim statement as his literal meaning, especially when he offers a direct contradiction of that verbatim statement less than one second later? No, you'll do what normal people do, and bridge the gap. You'll know he doesn't think that EVERY Mexican is a rapist. You'll know he meant that a disproportionate quantity of illegal immigrant are criminals of all sorts, including thieves and rapists. You are free to disagree with this all you want, but it's not worth the time to speak to someone who insists on taking the least-charitable possible interpretation. If Trump spoke a bit more quickly and these soundbites were harder to extract, this whole trick would've collapsed a long time ago. This is really the crux of the matter. Those who are disposed to hate Trump take the crudest possible interpretation, say the surrounding context is irrelevant because it's just trying to throw some ambiguity into the mix so he can pull people off the scent. Those who are disposed to like Trump take the most moderate possible interpretation and look for contextual cues that can exonerate him from the literal meaning, which are available in abundance, because Trump is just a normal guy with an imprecise way of speaking ... ... right? "Objectivity" is a foreign concept to the human decision apparatus. Humans base decisions almost entirely on the credibility they attribute to the relevant carriers/advocates. That's why intense hostility is not really justified by either side. The election was really a question of "Which candidate do you feel is more deserving of the benefit of the doubt?", since taken at face value, both candidates were embarrassingly unqualified. Clinton's campaign strategy was straight up fear-mongering. Legalistically parsing the words of a non-lawyer, stripping context and meaning wherever possible, and using these soundbites to try to frighten minorities into believing that Trump hated them. The American people were not fooled by that strategy, but there are many confused and disgruntled people left in the dust by HRC's divisive methodology. It is now incumbent upon Hillary Clinton to come out and admit that the fears she's planted in the hearts of religious and ethnic minorities are unfounded and were manufactured as a failed political strategy to scare people out of voting for the person they believed could bring them economic prosperity.
- nl 10y ago
  I'm going to jump in here and point out that this is exactly why the claims in the linked story are impossible. Both parses of the English that Trump spoke and unfalsifiable. Even the completely made up posts (eg "The Pope endorses Trump") are going to be extremely difficult to distinguish from a piece of actual breaking news. An algorithm will end up having to look at the source - and yet many in this election campaign argue that many of the traditional media outlets post false news too. I disagree with this: they may have their slant on news ("Trump did/not say Mexicans were rapists"), but they generally don't post complete fabrications. I still aren't at all convinced that actual false news is a real problem - I'd say there was a much bigger issue with differing interpretations of events.
- bluecalm 10y ago
  Man, he was talking in context of illigal immigration from Mexico. He didn't call Mexican rapists, he said there are more rapists/criminals/drug dealers among illigal immigrants than among Mexicans in general (that is among people they "send"). This is intuitively true: among illegal immigrants you will have more criminals because the selection process of becoming illegal immigrant results in people from poor/troubled backgrounds and those with incentives to run from a country (as well as those willing to break the law in the first place to cross the border illegally). I mean your conviction on this and the language you are using is exactly what put off a lot of people this election season from liberal side and "respected" news organizations. You are aggressively refusing to see the meaning of his message and you are using a language which suggest the other side is dumb for not seeing it. It's really is huge mental gymnastics to find a position from which you can't see the statement is about illegal immigrants and not Mexicans in general.
dingo_bat 10y ago
Also, CNN said it's illegal to look at wikileaks and only CNN can read them and then tell it to people. This is literally what their announcer said. If this is not fake, I dunno what is.

by norikki 10y ago

edblarney 10y ago

Here are Trump's words: "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." Trump is absolutely 'calling Mexicans rapists'. This is undeniable. Now - you can argue that the way CNN presents it lacks context, because Trump could be referring to 'Mexican migrants to the USA as rapists' - and not 'Mexicans in general' - or even more specifically 'some of them as rapists' - and not all of them. But this would be a little absurd - it would be like saying: "Canadians that visit America are rapists" ... and then trying to imply that you meant to say 'some Canadians who come to America are rapists' - which theoretically is probably be true, but the implication is basically absurd. CNN may not provide the right context for this fact - but it is a fact. Trump called Mexicans rapists.

insickness 10y ago
"When Mexico sends its people" was in reference to illegal aliens. You can't simply say, "you can argue it was out of context." That's idiotic. I can quote you as saying 'Canadians that visit America are rapists' above as well, just like you can quote me as saying it. It doesn't mean I was saying that all Canadians that visit America are rapists.
- edblarney 10y ago
  ""When Mexico sends its people" was in reference to illegal aliens. " A) He did not refer to illegals. He clearly said 'When Mexico sends it's people'. That's pretty clearly referring to 'Mexicans that come to America'. B) Even if he was referring to people that cross the border illegally - he's still calling illegal migrants 'rapists'. This is super bigoted. CNN is not out of line here. Listen: + I do think that the press treats Trump unfairly, but he also does some things that give the press all the ammunition they need to mock him without needing to lie about it. + Trump is not stupid. He's calling 'Mexicans' rapists, and didn't use the term 'illegals' because he's trying to inflame populist bigotry among the population. It's a really, really sleazy thing to do, and it's basically bigoted. Listen - I am 100% against illegal migration, 100% against sanctuary cities, and fully realize that the press is biased on this issue - and the press purposefully conflates 'legal' and 'illegal' migrant and tries to infer that 'anyone who is against illegals is racist'. So yes - the press is totally unfair. BUT - that doesn't mean Trump didn't make a very racist statement, to purposefully incite bigotry. Which I believe he did. His statement does not gain validity because the press is also biased and wrong about him, and immigration as well. His statement is fairly bigoted, even if the press do misrepresent the truth.
  - insickness 10y ago
    Huffington Post: 80% Of Central American Women, Girls Are Raped Crossing Into The U.S. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/12/central-america-migrants-rape_n_5806972.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/12/central-america-mig...
    - nl 10y ago
      Are you are simultaneously arguing that he didn't say it, and that what he didn't say was right?
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - 10y ago
cookiecaper 10y ago
Look, Trump is not a lawyer. Linguistic semantics are not his forte, and he doesn't have a committee of operatives review his every word for semantic accuracy and soundbite-proof-ness. That's how you end up sounding like a robot, like Romney and Clinton. Trump, like most adult humans, expects the listener to glean the relevant information and tense from the context of the discussion (or at least, he wants us to believe he expects this). For example, when Trump says "they're sending", we know he knows that Mexico isn't literally sending these people. They don't pick them up and bus over the border so that they'll become America's problem. Illegal immigrants run the border primarily because the wages in America are so much better than the wages in Mexico, not because someone "sent" them over, except in the metaphorical sense where the country either cannot or does not provide the desired standard of living for its residents, and thus they "send" them away to a place that can and/or does. Your quote is selectively edited. What is the VERY NEXT sentence after your quote cuts off? "And some, I assume, are good people." How can Trump say they're ALL rapists and then literally in the next sentence say "And some are good people"? Pretend like you're talking to someone you respect about his position on immigration. Are you going to listen to him say this and take his verbatim statement as his literal meaning, especially when he offers a direct contradiction of that verbatim statement less than one second later? No, you'll do what normal people do, and bridge the gap. You'll know he doesn't think that EVERY Mexican is a rapist. You'll know he meant that a disproportionate quantity of illegal immigrant are criminals of all sorts, including thieves and rapists. You are free to disagree with this all you want, but it's not worth the time to speak to someone who insists on taking the least-charitable possible interpretation. If Trump spoke a bit more quickly and these soundbites were harder to extract, this whole trick would've collapsed a long time ago. This is really the crux of the matter. Those who are disposed to hate Trump take the crudest possible interpretation, say the surrounding context is irrelevant because it's just trying to throw some ambiguity into the mix so he can pull people off the scent. Those who are disposed to like Trump take the most moderate possible interpretation and look for contextual cues that can exonerate him from the literal meaning, which are available in abundance, because Trump is just a normal guy with an imprecise way of speaking ... ... right? "Objectivity" is a foreign concept to the human decision apparatus. Humans base decisions almost entirely on the credibility they attribute to the relevant carriers/advocates. That's why intense hostility is not really justified by either side. The election was really a question of "Which candidate do you feel is more deserving of the benefit of the doubt?", since taken at face value, both candidates were embarrassingly unqualified. Clinton's campaign strategy was straight up fear-mongering. Legalistically parsing the words of a non-lawyer, stripping context and meaning wherever possible, and using these soundbites to try to frighten minorities into believing that Trump hated them. The American people were not fooled by that strategy, but there are many confused and disgruntled people left in the dust by HRC's divisive methodology. It is now incumbent upon Hillary Clinton to come out and admit that the fears she's planted in the hearts of religious and ethnic minorities are unfounded and were manufactured as a failed political strategy to scare people out of voting for the person they believed could bring them economic prosperity.
nl 10y ago
I'm going to jump in here and point out that this is exactly why the claims in the linked story are impossible. Both parses of the English that Trump spoke and unfalsifiable. Even the completely made up posts (eg "The Pope endorses Trump") are going to be extremely difficult to distinguish from a piece of actual breaking news. An algorithm will end up having to look at the source - and yet many in this election campaign argue that many of the traditional media outlets post false news too. I disagree with this: they may have their slant on news ("Trump did/not say Mexicans were rapists"), but they generally don't post complete fabrications. I still aren't at all convinced that actual false news is a real problem - I'd say there was a much bigger issue with differing interpretations of events.
bluecalm 10y ago
Man, he was talking in context of illigal immigration from Mexico. He didn't call Mexican rapists, he said there are more rapists/criminals/drug dealers among illigal immigrants than among Mexicans in general (that is among people they "send"). This is intuitively true: among illegal immigrants you will have more criminals because the selection process of becoming illegal immigrant results in people from poor/troubled backgrounds and those with incentives to run from a country (as well as those willing to break the law in the first place to cross the border illegally). I mean your conviction on this and the language you are using is exactly what put off a lot of people this election season from liberal side and "respected" news organizations. You are aggressively refusing to see the meaning of his message and you are using a language which suggest the other side is dumb for not seeing it. It's really is huge mental gymnastics to find a position from which you can't see the statement is about illegal immigrants and not Mexicans in general.

dingo_bat 10y ago

Also, CNN said it's illegal to look at wikileaks and only CNN can read them and then tell it to people. This is literally what their announcer said. If this is not fake, I dunno what is.