Quantcast
The US Politics |OT|

Forums - Politics Discussion - The US Politics |OT|

SpokenTruth said:
EricHiggin said:

Are you saying ST is wrong above? It seemed pretty clear to them that I don't understand Elon, yet do understand Trump, because Trump apparently speaks in a way that might as well be considered another language. Yet somehow I understand both, which wasn't contested.

Do you not see the point I was making?

Incoherent means confusing and unclear. You really think that everyone clearly understood everything Elon was saying in that tweet, and beyond that, the deeper meaning behind it?

It should also be apparent, based not only on how Trump speaks now compared to his past, and how other Presidents have spoken, that it's not coincidence that there's a pattern of shorter sentences with pauses in between, more often than not. It's been made clear by many, especially in this thread, that what a President says is about as meaningful as it get's. It's almost like whoever is President, would want to speak in that type of manner, to give them time to think things through, before saying something that will be seen as extremely unacceptable.

Before you point out what Trump always says is 'unacceptable', if Trump went around saying he thinks it's highly unlikely this is base reality, do you think the media and people in general would say it's because he's a genius, or would he get the same negative treatment he always does?

I can't speak Chinese, but that doesn't make me think that everything Chinese people say is incoherent nonsense. Who's to say it's not though?

Coherent as in properly formulated sentence structure, grammar and syntax with complete thoughts. Not coherent as in the ability to comprehend a complex, intellectual subject. 

It's not just the content itself that is incoherent but the manner in which Trump delivers it. It's disjointed, filled with run-on sentences, non-sequiturs and half thoughts.

I really just had to explain that to someone.

I can't believe you are equating Trump's random incoherent word salad babble with Musk's coherent statement on simulation theory.  

40:15-40:45. There's plenty more if you want to watch it all.

This one is more coherent, but it's full of pauses and useless things that have nothing to do with the point, which he has a hard time getting out.



The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.

I don't see the connection here. Are talking about the pauses between sentences? Or when he was paraphrasing the conversations the women were having?



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

The first is basically Chinese, even to him.
Second:
"People who you are fighting..... may love their kids." lol WTF? Ya so what?
"Yara goes to school with my daughter." lol WTF? Ya so what?
"If all you're doing is casting stones..uuuhhh......" lol.

It's almost as if before and after the Presidency, he wasn't such a great speaker, which he is so well known for, yet is praised for that by some.
Trump is himself for the most part, which obviously works based on how things are going, yet he's hated by some and should be more 'Presidential'.

I thought it was progressive to be all about being yourself. So why do progressives seem to hate when that actually happens?



The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.

EricHiggin said:

Do you not see the point I was making?

Incoherent means confusing and unclear. You really think that everyone clearly understood everything Elon was saying in that tweet, and beyond that, the deeper meaning behind it?

It should also be apparent, based not only on how Trump speaks now compared to his past, and how other Presidents have spoken, that it's not coincidence that there's a pattern of shorter sentences with pauses in between, more often than not. It's been made clear by many, especially in this thread, that what a President says is about as meaningful as it get's. It's almost like whoever is President, would want to speak in that type of manner, to give them time to think things through, before saying something that will be seen as extremely unacceptable.

Before you point out what Trump always says is 'unacceptable', if Trump went around saying he thinks it's highly unlikely this is base reality, do you think the media and people in general would say it's because he's a genius, or would he get the same negative treatment he always does?

I can't speak Chinese, but that doesn't make me think that everything Chinese people say is incoherent nonsense. Who's to say it's not though?

I can't speak Chinese, but that doesn't make me think that everything Chinese people say is incoherent nonsense. Who's to say it's not though?

That's not what incoherence is about.  

It's not about understanding what is being said, it's about things like logical meaning behind what is being said.  Whether the logic and the grammar flow.  

> if Trump went around saying he thinks it's highly unlikely this is base reality, do you think the media and people in general would say it's because he's a genius

Smart people can say dumb things and dumb people can say smart things every once in a while.  The difference is you can look at their history. 

>Do you not see the point I was making?

You're trying to make the point that coherence is based off who is reading.  Person A might not be able to understand person C, but person B can understand.  So person C seems incoherent to A, but they make perfect sense to B.  

The problem is, you're basically arguing "hey, maybe neither of us can understand it, but someone out there could".  

And when you take that stance you're basically arguing by nullifying what words mean.  Because you can't call anything incoherent, unless you can show no one can understand something, and it's not possible to show that every person is incapable of understanding a statement.  

It's a ludicrous argument.  



EricHiggin said:

The first is basically Chinese, even to him.
Second:
"People who you are fighting..... may love their kids." lol WTF? Ya so what?
"Yara goes to school with my daughter." lol WTF? Ya so what?
"If all you're doing is casting stones..uuuhhh......" lol.

It's almost as if before and after the Presidency, he wasn't such a great speaker, which he is so well known for, yet is praised for that by some.
Trump is himself for the most part, which obviously works based on how things are going, yet he's hated by some and should be more 'Presidential'.

I thought it was progressive to be all about being yourself. So why do progressives seem to hate when that actually happens?

You absolutely do not get it.  Let me try an experiment.  Which of these examples is incoherent?

Example 1:
"Purple wind ran into a fire...that wind...fire...it took 3 days.  But only solo because he didn't carry trash bags. It's great though.  The fire was dry the whole time.  I like buttermilk tacos."

Example 2:
"OSPF is an open routing protocol for IPv4 that uses the Link State Routing algorithm for path determination.  It is an interior gateway protocol that was defined in RFC 2328 in 1998."

Last edited by SpokenTruth - on 16 January 2020

Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

EricHiggin said:

The first is basically Chinese, even to him.
Second:
"People who you are fighting..... may love their kids." lol WTF? Ya so what?
"Yara goes to school with my daughter." lol WTF? Ya so what?
"If all you're doing is casting stones..uuuhhh......" lol.

It's almost as if before and after the Presidency, he wasn't such a great speaker, which he is so well known for, yet is praised for that by some.
Trump is himself for the most part, which obviously works based on how things are going, yet he's hated by some and should be more 'Presidential'.

I thought it was progressive to be all about being yourself. So why do progressives seem to hate when that actually happens?

>The first is basically Chinese, even to him.

Has absolutely nothing to do with what coherence is.

>"People who you are fighting..... may love their kids." lol WTF? Ya so what?

He's talking about how people can have good and bad qualities.  He's giving examples of how just because you're fighting with someone doesn't mean they're monsters.  

>"Yara goes to school with my daughter." lol WTF? Ya so what?

One random comment in the middle isn't the same as making an entire incoherent 2 minute interview question.  He still went back to what he was talking about before.  

>It's almost as if before and after the Presidency, he wasn't such a great speaker, which he is so well known for, yet is praised for that by some.

Obama is a decent public speaker.  Even at his worst moments during those speeches, nothing was as agonizing as Trump going off about something, something else, some third thing.  

I thought it was progressive to be all about being yourself. So why do progressives seem to hate when that actually happens?

Accepting that people are going to be themselves doesn't mean we should deal with people being bigots or idiots.  

Honestly sometimes, I wonder if you live in a different world from me where words have very different meanings.  Where the study of logic looks basically inside out from this universe's point of view.  



the-pi-guy said:
EricHiggin said:

Do you not see the point I was making?

Incoherent means confusing and unclear. You really think that everyone clearly understood everything Elon was saying in that tweet, and beyond that, the deeper meaning behind it?

It should also be apparent, based not only on how Trump speaks now compared to his past, and how other Presidents have spoken, that it's not coincidence that there's a pattern of shorter sentences with pauses in between, more often than not. It's been made clear by many, especially in this thread, that what a President says is about as meaningful as it get's. It's almost like whoever is President, would want to speak in that type of manner, to give them time to think things through, before saying something that will be seen as extremely unacceptable.

Before you point out what Trump always says is 'unacceptable', if Trump went around saying he thinks it's highly unlikely this is base reality, do you think the media and people in general would say it's because he's a genius, or would he get the same negative treatment he always does?

I can't speak Chinese, but that doesn't make me think that everything Chinese people say is incoherent nonsense. Who's to say it's not though?

I can't speak Chinese, but that doesn't make me think that everything Chinese people say is incoherent nonsense. Who's to say it's not though?

That's not what incoherence is about.  

It's not about understanding what is being said, it's about things like logical meaning behind what is being said.  Whether the logic and the grammar flow.  

> if Trump went around saying he thinks it's highly unlikely this is base reality, do you think the media and people in general would say it's because he's a genius

Smart people can say dumb things and dumb people can say smart things every once in a while.  The difference is you can look at their history. 

>Do you not see the point I was making?

You're trying to make the point that coherence is based off who is reading.  Person A might not be able to understand person C, but person B can understand.  So person C seems incoherent to A, but they make perfect sense to B.  

The problem is, you're basically arguing "hey, maybe neither of us can understand it, but someone out there could".  

And when you take that stance you're basically arguing by nullifying what words mean.  Because you can't call anything incoherent, unless you can show no one can understand something, and it's not possible to show that every person is incapable of understanding a statement.  

It's a ludicrous argument.  

So if two people have an understanding just by body language, like in a fight, but nobody else who's watching in the area does, is that communication incoherent or not? Is that fight nonsense because those others don't understand why it happened?

How much Musk history is available vs Trump history? How much positive vs negative pushed coverage is there of Musk vs Trump?

No they thought they understood something but were incorrect. Yet they keep arguing with me, even though they, or we, don't understand each other.

You've got and Englishman and a Chinaman arguing and neither speaks the other language.

Want to guess who wins the argument?



The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.

SpokenTruth said:
EricHiggin said:

The first is basically Chinese, even to him.
Second:
"People who you are fighting..... may love their kids." lol WTF? Ya so what?
"Yara goes to school with my daughter." lol WTF? Ya so what?
"If all you're doing is casting stones..uuuhhh......" lol.

It's almost as if before and after the Presidency, he wasn't such a great speaker, which he is so well known for, yet is praised for that by some.
Trump is himself for the most part, which obviously works based on how things are going, yet he's hated by some and should be more 'Presidential'.

I thought it was progressive to be all about being yourself. So why do progressives seem to hate when that actually happens?

You absolutely do not get it.  Let me try an experiment.  Which of these examples is incoherent?

Example 1:
"Purple wind ran into a fire...that wind...fire...it took 3 days.  But only solo because he didn't carry trash bags. It's great though.  The fire was dry the whole time.  I like buttermilk tacos."

Example 2:
"OSPF is an open routing protocol for IPv4 that uses the Link State Routing algorithm for path determination.  It is an interior gateway protocol that was defined in RFC 2328 in 1998."

This can't work unless you're suggesting that Trump is purposely being incoherent.



The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.

EricHiggin said:
SpokenTruth said:

You absolutely do not get it.  Let me try an experiment.  Which of these examples is incoherent?

Example 1:
"Purple wind ran into a fire...that wind...fire...it took 3 days.  But only solo because he didn't carry trash bags. It's great though.  The fire was dry the whole time.  I like buttermilk tacos."

Example 2:
"OSPF is an open routing protocol for IPv4 that uses the Link State Routing algorithm for path determination.  It is an interior gateway protocol that was defined in RFC 2328 in 1998."

This can't work unless you're suggesting that Trump is purposely being incoherent.

Like Trump and much of what you have said on this topic thus far, that doesn't make any sense.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

EricHiggin said:

So if two people have an understanding just by body language, like in a fight, but nobody else who's watching in the area does, is that communication incoherent or not? Is that fight nonsense because those others don't understand why it happened?

How much Musk history is available vs Trump history? How much positive vs negative pushed coverage is there of Musk vs Trump?

No they thought they understood something but were incorrect. Yet they keep arguing with me, even though they, or we, don't understand each other.

You've got and Englishman and a Chinaman arguing and neither speaks the other language.

Want to guess who wins the argument?

>You've got and Englishman and a Chinaman arguing and neither speaks the other language.


It's pretty clear you still have no clue what you're talking about.  Coherence has nothing to do with simply not understanding what is being said.  

I can read what Trump is saying in his answer above.  That doesn't mean it follows any kind of logic structure.  It doesn't mean he doesn't go off on tangents.  

>How much Musk history is available vs Trump history? 

You only need a few minutes of each to understand their intelligence or lack thereof.  Musk has plenty of negative coverage.  Trump has plenty of positive coverage if you go back far enough.  

Like usual, you're trying to argue through examples that you think are relevant, but they just show that you don't understand what issues are being brought up.  

Trump isn't speaking Chinese.  He's speaking English.  The problem is he's jumping from thought to thought mid-sentence.  Here's his most famous example.  

Doesn't finish his thought about having Nuclear, even though that could be made into a couple of paragraphs worth of sentences.

He interjected that thought about how he has good genes because of his Uncle.   And he interjects that thought with partisanship.  Interjecting that thought with some very incomplete thoughts about his uncle.  Interjecting again about how he has to give his credentials.  

Almost looks like he's returning to his thoughts about the nuclear, only to interject about the prisoners.  

This single sentence has like 40 different sentence fragments.