What are you on about? Words often have several meanings. Just because ass can literally mean a backside doesn't mean that it also can't literally mean a donkey. If I was to say "Randomizer's worst enemy was literally an ass", I could well mean that you were hated by a donkey with a grudge, or you have a nasty case of IBS. If i was to say your worst enemy was an ass, I could well be talking about someone like krellin.

"I get the definition from a basic understanding of English."

Idiomatic expressions don't mean the same thing as a literal interpretation of the words that make up the expression. My brother was an early software developer in computerized language translation and natural language query processing, so I got a detailed explanation on how phrases like "out of sight, out of mind" get misinterpreted when considered word by word instead of in groups. This applies to most natural languages because phrases have other meanings than just basic meanings.

A game played on a website I visit was to take a sentence and translate it using Google translate or another computerized language translator through 5 different languages and back into the original language. The goal was to see how different the sentence's meaning had changed in the process.

It's why definition of terms is so important.

"There is truth and there is what you want to be true, and it's important to know the difference."

This is the difference between what Trump said and verifiable facts. Trump lives in a world where he is always right and what he said is always true. It isn't the truth. For instance, "China will pay the tariffs," isn't the truth because by tariff law China and its companies don't pay tariffs. Importers pay the tariff and pass along all or part of them to the US customers that buy the goods. So the truth is that US companies and customers pay tariffs.

Trump can do many things, but speak in capital letters isn't one of them. Also somewhat mystified by your comment on out of sight, out of mind. It has a very literal meaning. I'm not sure how it could be more literal, to be honest. And just because you don't like the idea of Trump being chosen by the people people doesn't mean he wasn't. There is truth and there is what you want to be true, and it's important to know the difference.

To clarify, "Chosen One" is an idiomatic expression which isn't translated literally word for word. Much like "Out of sight, out of mind," doesn't mean "invisible, insanity."

"Chosen One" when expressed in capital letters as a proper noun or in quotation marks takes on a different definition. It is taken to mean chosen by god and not the people. Much like Jews are called the Chosen People.

Trump wasn't chosen by people. He was elected by a minority of the US voters. Even if you believe his false claim of millions of fraudulent votes, there were even millions more that didn't vote for anyone, so they didn't chose Trump.

To answer OP yes I think Trump is the Chosen One

You really need to work on the definition of lies, Random. I am not making up anything. Indeed the only source I have on the chosen one thing is that provided by Jamie. It reads:

"Mr Trump later spoke to reporters about his trade dispute with China.

"Somebody had to do it," he said, before looking to the sky and adding: "I am the chosen one. Somebody had to do it, so I'm taking on China."

I think you read far too much in people looking up. It might be possible Trump said it deliberately to wind people like you up, or he might have simply been searching for the words. The conclusion that he thinks he's appointed by God is pretty far down the order of liklihood.

In what sense is the President not the chosen one, by the way? I get the definition from a basic understanding of English. The people chose him to be President.

Octavious wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 28, 2019 9:34 pm

As opposed to the fucking lies that made up the rest of your posts?

Of course, "chosen one" is pretty much the literal definition of President, so I'm not entirely sure what you're so upset about. He was indeed the one chosen by the people to take on China. Taking on China was a big theme of his election campaign.

Now you are making up lies to change the context from what was happening at the time Trump said in front of the media that he was the "chosen one" and looked up to heaven. There was no mention of China at that time. There is no correlation between China and being "King of the Jews" or anything with Jews.

Where do you get the definition of president being a chosen one?

As opposed to the fucking lies that made up the rest of your posts?

Of course, "chosen one" is pretty much the literal definition of President, so I'm not entirely sure what you're so upset about. He was indeed the one chosen by the people to take on China. Taking on China was a big theme of his election campaign.

He declared himself the "Chosen one". He attacked Jews who don't vote republican and proclaimed them disloyal to Israel.

These are FUCKING FACTS

Octavious wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 25, 2019 8:37 pm

I think it's somewhat ridiculous and a tad embarrassing, but nothing that's out of step with the new normal in American politics. In terms of being a news worthy event I'd say it was pretty small beer, and I tend to be more annoyed by people trying to blow it out of proportion than I am by the tweets themselves.

The new normal is for Trump to constantly spew so much crap on twitter that the 24 hour news cycle doesn't hfave time to address any of it beyond reporting the most recent outrage; while ig oring the real news, eg:https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out ... s-n1045971

OK, NBC is covering this story. But how many other stories are we missing because of distraction tactics. The media should have stopped reporting on Trump years ago.

EDIT: And I should say, the new normal is not OK.

I think it's somewhat ridiculous and a tad embarrassing, but nothing that's out of step with the new normal in American politics. In terms of being a news worthy event I'd say it was pretty small beer, and I tend to be more annoyed by people trying to blow it out of proportion than I am by the tweets themselves.

@Octavious, ignoring Jamie's trolling, do you see the "King of Israel" tweet, the "ignorant and disloyal" thing and the "I am the Chosen One"...appropriate, inappropriate or just not a big deal?

I am assuming that you think it is OK (which is why I responded to you - I don't think any of this is OK)...but I may be misinterpreting you.

flash2015 wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 24, 2019 4:48 pm

Still not sure how Octavious's specific point here is relevant to the topic at hand.

It's got nothing at all to do with it. It was in response to the latest chapter in a years old disagreement with Jamie over the nature of truth. I'm surprised there's so much wider interest in it, truth be told.

The point is around the idea that things that are technically truths can be used to tell a lie, and that conversely things that are technically lies can tell a truth. Jamie has a very absolutist view on the matter. Things are either true or not, and that's the end of it. I disagree.

Hence the example. As you have correctly identified, unless all immigrants are saints then allowing immigrants into the country will increase the number of crimes that are committed. This truth can be used to tell the lie that immigration is bad. The parent telling their child that they're the best child a mother could have is a fairly trivial example of the reverse, being a lie that tells the greater truth that the child is deeply loved.

Randomizer got the wrong end of the stick, ran with it, and attempted a series of pole vaulting jumps.

Randomizer wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 24, 2019 4:30 pm

"I genuinely can't work out if you're being deliberately dense or you're sincere... "

I feel the same way about you since when you start with a lie, it doesn't matter which direction you go because it's still a lie. Calling it a truth doesn't make a lie the truth. It just means that you are repeating a lie to convince people that it is the truth.

To be fair, he just said more crime (which is true, unless all immigrants are perfect angels which never do anything wrong) not a higher rate of crime (which may not be). And of course some of that crime by recent immigrants may inevitably be directed against people who are citizens who won't care about stats saying the rate of crime has actually gone down, not up.

Still not sure how Octavious's specific point here is relevant to the topic at hand.

"I genuinely can't work out if you're being deliberately dense or you're sincere... "

I feel the same way about you since when you start with a lie, it doesn't matter which direction you go because it's still a lie. Calling it a truth doesn't make a lie the truth. It just means that you are repeating a lie to convince people that it is the truth.

@ flash

Tweeting a quote from someone claiming you're loved like you're the king of Israel neither means that you're proclaiming yourself king of Israel, nor that the person you're quoting is proclaiming yourself king of Israel. This is basic English comprehension. When people like Jamie make up these ludicrous lies about what Trump says all it does is confirm that Jamie isn't worth listening to on the topic.

Randomizer wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 24, 2019 12:20 am

"When a far right politician says that allowing immigrants into the country results in more crime, this is a truth, and again can be easily proven. But in this case the truth is told in the general direction of the greater lie that immigration is fundamentally bad."

This is not a truth unless you are Trump, who can't distinguish truth from fantasy. It is only a truth if you think having more people in the country will result in more crime. If that is the premise than you need more birth control and abortions to reduce the population and thereby reduce the chances of crime.

I genuinely can't work out if you're being deliberately dense or you're sincere...

Octavious wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 23, 2019 9:27 pm

flash2015 wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 23, 2019 4:18 pm

Shouldn't a president take at least some responsibility for what they say or what they publish though? Should "thuthiness" really be the new standard for political discourse?

People time and time again mistake me for a Trump supporter. If I had the ability to vote in US elections I would never have voted for Trump. I can't imagine any circumstances in which I would be tempted to vote for Trump. I happen to think his style of leadership via Twitter is appalling. But he's clearly a highly intelligent man, and I'm not going to pretend he has said things he hasn't said.

Don't you see though that this is a continuation of what he said a couple of days ago...that Jews were either "ignorant or disloyal" if they don't vote Republican? I don't believe he is dumb either...he is deliberately targeting these tweets to fire up a subset of his base. I don't know why we give him a pass here because he is quoting someone else - if he tweets it, he owns it.

"When a far right politician says that allowing immigrants into the country results in more crime, this is a truth, and again can be easily proven. But in this case the truth is told in the general direction of the greater lie that immigration is fundamentally bad."

This is not a truth unless you are Trump, who can't distinguish truth from fantasy. It is only a truth if you think having more people in the country will result in more crime. If that is the premise than you need more birth control and abortions to reduce the population and thereby reduce the chances of crime.