Are You Ready For The First Presidential Debate?

[abaddon]

What does Trump saying

"Sure .... Sure, I'm willing to do that"

in reference to Chris Wallace asking him if he is willing to denounce white supremacy mean?

Failing to follow that up with a full denunciation means that Trump is reluctant to spell it out and thereby alienate any of his supporters. That's what it means.

The actual tactic is that Wallace is playing on Trump's asshole stubbornness and after getting that declarative statement about the question he makes a brilliant move to ask it again and tap into this Trump personality defect and get him to be defensive, In Trump's mind and in reality he already said "Sure, I'm willing to do that".

What is really wanted is for Trump to say "Sure, I'm willing to do that" six ways from Sunday until he gets annoyed.

A politician is rightly expected to give much more than "yes" and "no" answers while on a debate stage. "Yes I'm willing to do that" can't serve an answer because an actual answer entails a full and convincing description of one's stance on that matter.

So the moderator asking for that fuller explanation was the only reasonable response to the inexcusably lame "Sure I'm willing to do that".

 

[Politesse]

What does Trump saying

"Sure .... Sure, I'm willing to do that"

in reference to Chris Wallace asking him if he is willing to denounce white supremacy mean?

The actual tactic is that Wallace is playing on Trump's asshole stubbornness and after getting that declarative statement about the question he makes a brilliant move to ask it again and tap into this Trump personality defect and get him to be defensive, In Trump's mind and in reality he already said "Sure, I'm willing to do that".

What is really wanted is for Trump to say "Sure, I'm willing to do that" six ways from Sunday until he gets annoyed.

What good is it to say you're willing to do something, when aren't, in fact, willing to do so?

 

[Copernicus]

What does Trump saying

"Sure .... Sure, I'm willing to do that"

in reference to Chris Wallace asking him if he is willing to denounce white supremacy mean?

Failing to follow that up with a full denunciation means that Trump is reluctant to spell it out and thereby alienate any of his supporters. That's what it means.

The actual tactic is that Wallace is playing on Trump's asshole stubbornness and after getting that declarative statement about the question he makes a brilliant move to ask it again and tap into this Trump personality defect and get him to be defensive, In Trump's mind and in reality he already said "Sure, I'm willing to do that".

What is really wanted is for Trump to say "Sure, I'm willing to do that" six ways from Sunday until he gets annoyed.

A politician is rightly expected to give much more than "yes" and "no" answers while on a debate stage. "Yes I'm willing to do that" can't serve an answer because an actual answer entails a full and convincing description of one's stance on that matter.

So the moderator asking for that fuller explanation was the only reasonable response to the inexcusably lame "Sure I'm willing to do that".

When Trump said "Sure-sure. I'm willing to do that", he appeared to be brushing off the question as if it went without saying. Wallace had asked him for an unequivocal answer, and he got a weak one with an elaboration that changed the topic to something not asked. Being willing to denounce white supremacy doesn't mean that you actually want to. Trump acted like it was an unfair question. So Wallace naturally came back for an unequivocal denunciation. Biden chimed in with the same demand--"Do it!" Biden himself was totally comfortable with denouncing any and all violence. When Trump told the Proud Boys to "Stand back and stand by", that was not a denunciation. It was a call for a temporary truce. Nobody missed the message except those who thought that only they could hear the dogwhistle.

 

[repoman]

I agree with everything you just said, except if you follow body language and verbal emphasis, Trump is saying that the Proud Boys ARE already standing back and standing by with no input from him. Trump is making an incorrect observation, not an order here. Then he launches into Antifa who in his opinion is not.

Watch it again...

Granted, Trump is not seeing the dustups that the Proud Boys get into, with a very healthy fraction of those being initiated by them.

 

[Deepak]

I agree with everything you just said, except if you follow body language and verbal emphasis, Trump is saying that the Proud Boys ARE already standing back and standing by with no input from him. Trump is making an incorrect observation, not an order here. Then he launches into Antifa who in his opinion is not.

Watch it again...

Granted, Trump is not seeing the dustups that the Proud Boys get into, with a very healthy fraction of those being initiated by them.

If I said repoman shut up, and stop lying would you interpret that as an imperative statement or a declarative one? If you want to be pedantic, then the sure I'm willing to do that part is that doesn't communicate what's being claimed: specifically he's stating a willingness to condemn without an actual condemnation.

https://www.rev.com/transcript-edit...iGtB9X5rpo?loadFrom=PastedDeeplink&ts=2517.15

Chris Wallace: (41:33)
You have repeatedly criticized the vice president for not specifically calling out Antifa and other left wing extremist groups. But are you willing tonight to condemn white supremacists and militia group and to say that they need to stand down and not add to the violence in a number of these cities as we saw in Kenosha and as we’ve seen in Portland.

President Donald J. Trump: (41:57)
Sure, I’m will(sic) to do that.

Chris Wallace: (41:59)
Are you prepared specifically to do it.

President Donald J. Trump: (42:00)
I would say almost everything I see is from the left wing not from the right wing.

Chris Wallace: (42:04)
But what are you saying?

President Donald J. Trump: (42:06)
I’m willing to do anything. I want to see peace.

Chris Wallace: (42:08)
Well, do it, sir.

Vice President Joe Biden: (42:09)
Say it, do it say it.

President Donald J. Trump: (42:10)
What do you want to call them? Give me a name, give me a name, go ahead who do you want me to condemn.

Chris Wallace: (42:14)
White supremacist and right-wing militia.

Vice President Joe Biden: (42:14)
Proud Boys.

President Donald J. Trump: (42:18)
Proud Boys, stand back and stand by. But I’ll tell you what somebody’s got to do something about Antifa and the left because this is not a right wing problem this is a left wing…

 

[repoman]

Watch it yourself, fuck these transcripts.

"will(sic)"

He clearly said "willing".

Use your own brain, dammit.

 

[Treedbear]

Failing to follow that up with a full denunciation means that Trump is reluctant to spell it out and thereby alienate any of his supporters. That's what it means.


A politician is rightly expected to give much more than "yes" and "no" answers while on a debate stage. "Yes I'm willing to do that" can't serve an answer because an actual answer entails a full and convincing description of one's stance on that matter.

So the moderator asking for that fuller explanation was the only reasonable response to the inexcusably lame "Sure I'm willing to do that".

When Trump said "Sure-sure. I'm willing to do that", he appeared to be brushing off the question as if it went without saying. Wallace had asked him for an unequivocal answer, and he got a weak one with an elaboration that changed the topic to something not asked. Being willing to denounce white supremacy doesn't mean that you actually want to. Trump acted like it was an unfair question. So Wallace naturally came back for an unequivocal denunciation. Biden chimed in with the same demand--"Do it!" Biden himself was totally comfortable with denouncing any and all violence. When Trump told the Proud Boys to "Stand back and stand by", that was not a denunciation. It was a call for a temporary truce. Nobody missed the message except those who thought that only they could hear the dogwhistle.

Biden came out a little too ready to confront Trump. He was the first one to interrupt when the other was trying to answer Wallace's question. On this little exchange he should have just stayed out of it and trust that Wallace wouldn't let Trump get away with a derail. I watch Wallace every Sunday morning (the only Fox News I watch) and he never lets his guests get away easy. Never. That's why Trump and his supporters don't like him even more than CNN. He'll tell the audience point blank when he doesn't get an answer. Biden gave Trump an out (at least in the eyes of his supporters) by creating the diversion that Trump needed, and so Wallace had to let Trump off the hook. Of course it's possible Trump would have given an unequivocal denunciation. Personally I doubt that. And maybe Biden didn't want to take that chance. But I rather doubt Biden thinks that strategically. So it was very unsatisfying. Just like the rest of the spectacle. It's like WWI trench warfare. Only the armchair generals see any value in it.

 

[Deepak]

Watch it yourself, fuck these transcripts.

"will(sic)"

He clearly said "willing".

Use your own brain, dammit.

There's a video that plays right next to the transcript. It literally highlights the words.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sic

Your reading of the text, and your hearing of the audio should be prosecuted as a war crime if you think that stand back and stand by quote was anything other than a command. There's no sentence in the history of the English language has had that construction and meant that the subject was already engaged in the thing.

Fido go outside and sit down

No emphasis can change the meaning of that to be Fido is already outside and sitting down. It's absurd - you might as well begin a sentence with In July and emphasize the in.

 

[repoman]

2:45



Will-ING clear as day.

you put sic after the ACTUAL words that were said in a malapropism.

Trump is a fucking maniac, so why do you need to lie about what he says?

It can backfire against you, seeing the media lie about this fuckhead liar will gain him some unearned sympathy.

 

[Deepak]

2:45



Will-ING clear as day

you put sic after the ACTUAL words that were said in a malapropism.

I put sic because the source I'm quoting has the transcription error, and it's not mine.

Again, the video is right there. Your preposterous point is that I'm trying to bamboozle you as to whether he said will or willing? One of those clearly is a grammatical error without any meaning, Just to save you having to scroll:

...pedantic, then the sure I'm willing to do that part is that doesn't...

The part that's clearly in contention which is stand back and stand by seems to be the part you're not responding to.

If I said repoman stop acting dumb and prevaricating would you interpret that as a command?

 

[Elixir]

Okay, I'm ready for the first Presidential debate now.

 

[Politesse]

Okay, I'm ready for the first Presidential debate now.

Hey, Zoom exists for a reason. Perhaps if the President is on a ventilator, Biden can get a word in edgewise without being interrupted.

 

[repoman]

ok, I see that you noted an incorrect transcript.

I have already previously made my statement that it seemed to be very clear that it was an incorrect or even willfully untrue statement (lie) by Trump that the Proud Boys standby and stand back while Antifa ONLY do violence.

 

[Deepak]

ok, I see that you noted an incorrect transcript.

I have already previously made my statement that it seemed to be very clear that it was an incorrect or even willfully untrue statement (lie) by Trump that the Proud Boys standby and stand back while Antifa ONLY do violence.

Yeah, see I'm not interested in the statement proffered by your PR manager. Your statement doesn't cut muster, because it's purposefully misinterpreting plain English.

Would you interpret repoman stop acting like a fool and quit avoiding the question to be a directive or a statement about general behavior?

Show me one example from literature where a sentence like that exists in the work and should be read as anything other than a command.

 

[repoman]

Prouds Boys are plural in the grammatical sense.

a plural subject can indeed "stand back and stand by" or "twiddle their thumbs" or "fiddle as Rome burns. Whereas the singular "Nero fiddles as Rome burns.

Or "These fucking coworkers stand by and don't do shit while I bust my ass working" The italicised part is like the reverse of the deflective tangent that Trump went on about Antifa.

 

[Deepak]

W: Do you condemn the bad emperors?

T: Who? Give me a name.

B: Nero

T: Nero fiddles and stands by, but Rome really is burning because of the Carthaginians.

...

T later: I don't know who Nero is.

What insane Moon logic. He asks for the name of a specific group, which he later claims to know nothing about, but authoritatively declares what the behavior of said group generally is (again because he said he doesn't know who they are).

So he's being asked, what do you say to X, he asks for a specific instance of X, they offer him Nero, he knows nothing about Nero, divines Nero's nature without knowledge of Nero - say through tasseomancy, geomancy, or augury? And you'd have us believe this rather than the plain reading of the sentence that fits the context of the conversation and the generally accepted methods of acquiring empirical knowledge?

 

[lpetrich]

The Vice Presidential debate is coming up: Kamala Harris vs. Mike Pence. Both of them have tested negative for the COVID-19 virus.

Sen. Kamala Harris, in Utah early ahead of vice president debate, visits This Is the Place monument - The Salt Lake Tribune - "Democratic Sen. Kamala Harris has arrived in Utah, where she’ll take a quick tour of the state and then spend the next few days preparing to square off in the vice presidential debate in Salt Lake City"

They will be debating next Wednesday at the University of Utah.

 This Is the Place Monument - "The This is the Place Monument is a historical monument at the This is the Place Heritage Park, located on the east side of Salt Lake City, Utah, at the mouth of Emigration Canyon. It is named in honor of Brigham Young's famous statement in 1847 that the Latter-day Saint pioneers should settle in the Salt Lake Valley."

It's at  This Is the Place Heritage Park - This Is The Place Heritage Park has lots of pictures of it.

 

[repoman]

W: Do you condemn the bad emperors?

T: Who? Give me a name.

B: Nero

T: Nero fiddles and stands by, but Rome really is burning because of the Carthaginians.

...

T later: I don't know who Nero is.

What insane Moon logic. He asks for the name of a specific group, which he later claims to know nothing about, but authoritatively declares what the behavior of said group generally is (again because he said he doesn't know who they are).

So he's being asked, what do you say to X, he asks for a specific instance of X, they offer him Nero, he knows nothing about Nero, divines Nero's nature without knowledge of Nero - say through tasseomancy, geomancy, or augury? And you'd have us believe this rather than the plain reading of the sentence that fits the context of the conversation and the generally accepted methods of acquiring empirical knowledge?

Yes, I have already admitted Trump is a liar, and he lied about not knowing who the Proud Boys were (a common type of Trump lie).

You have a thousand things that Trump lies about or is ignorant about. Why push what is clearly an 'observation' into a command? Fence sitters will focus on this instead of his denial of knowing them the next day.

Attack Trump on rock solid Trump garbage and not this TDS induced phantom.

Whrn dealing with a scumbag like Trump, ironically YOUR reliance on being extremely honest with reality is very important. His side will use your uncharitable TDS statements very effectively for him.

 

[southernhybrid]

I just heard that the latest poll has Biden up by 14% due to the debates. Better yet, men over 50, who used to be Trump's biggest followers went from supporting Trump by 13 percent to supporting Biden by 1%. I guess it's fair to say that Trump really fucked up in that debate.

I don't have a link because this was reported on tv. But, people are saying that Trump is going to lose bigly.

 

[Deepak]

W: Do you condemn the bad emperors?

T: Who? Give me a name.

B: Nero

T: Nero fiddles and stands by, but Rome really is burning because of the Carthaginians.

...

T later: I don't know who Nero is.

What insane Moon logic. He asks for the name of a specific group, which he later claims to know nothing about, but authoritatively declares what the behavior of said group generally is (again because he said he doesn't know who they are).

So he's being asked, what do you say to X, he asks for a specific instance of X, they offer him Nero, he knows nothing about Nero, divines Nero's nature without knowledge of Nero - say through tasseomancy, geomancy, or augury? And you'd have us believe this rather than the plain reading of the sentence that fits the context of the conversation and the generally accepted methods of acquiring empirical knowledge?

Yes, I have already admitted Trump is a liar, and he lied about not knowing who the Proud Boys were (a common type of Trump lie).

You have a thousand things that Trump lies about or is ignorant about. Why push what is clearly an 'observation' into a command? Fence sitters will focus on this instead of his denial of knowing them the next day.

Attack Trump on rock solid Trump garbage and not this TDS induced phantom.

Whrn dealing with a scumbag like Trump, ironically YOUR reliance on being extremely honest with reality is very important. His side will use your uncharitable TDS statements very effectively for him.

I'm being honest. You're not being honest. Know how I know: any time someone trots out the TDS bullshit it's a declaration that they can't actually support their own argument. Specifically it's https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem and more generally is a non-statement.

I'm using the reading that fits the context of the conversation, that doesn't require that I believe any of Trump's lies but instead takes his comments at face value, and doesn't necessitate acausal time-loops. Look again at the Nero example, asking for the name for a particular person after being asked to condemn a group then describing the behavior of that particular makes no sense. Again, if he was simply describing the behavior of the right versus the left then not only would he not need a name, but by accepting the name of a group that only puts more burden on him to know the specific behavior of that group.

Judge Judy has a line: if it doesn't make sense it's not true. That's how you deal with liars, not by accepting the most favorable interpretation as the truth since statistically anything they say is a lie.

Again - it's not a reliance on extreme honesty, it's reading a statement at face value.

If you disagree then you clearly suffer from DDS. If you deny you have DDS then that's an indication you have DDS.