Bollocks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Ok I'll play -
1) diplomacy (obviously, but this is a personality trait, not something you learn at college or on the job),
2) a solid knowledge base of Middle East history and current affairs.
Printable View
Bollocks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Ok I'll play -
1) diplomacy (obviously, but this is a personality trait, not something you learn at college or on the job),
2) a solid knowledge base of Middle East history and current affairs.
Try harder.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
And where does he have the time to do this while he's solving the Middle East problem? Fuck he is one busy initiate.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Don't know for sure, but probably not the guy who's working day and night to solve the MidEast.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Pretty sure diplomacy in the real world is not just about following your instincts. There's protocol, etc. that has to be followed. I agree though there's a heavy dose of personality in it. Any reason to think JK is better qualified in this way than anyone else?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Same question.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Don't need toQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Cmon now, his father in law is twice his age and juggling a hell of a lot more problems.Quote:
And where does he have the time to do this while he's solving the Middle East problem? Fuck he is one busy initiate.
Don't forget China!Quote:
Don't know for sure, but probably not the guy who's working day and night to solve the MidEast.
TRUMP TRUSTS HIM!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Right. You need to have the right sort of personality. It's not about following your instincts, it's about knowing when to follow your instincts and when to follow protocol in spite of your instincts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I have no idea, I'm not qualified to make that determination. I certainly don't have any reason to not think he's qualified, other than he doesn't have formal experience. But I'm not the one appointing a Middle East diplomat, I'm not the one deciding whether trust or experience is a more important trait to consider.Quote:
Any reason to think JK is better qualified in this way than anyone else?
And neither are you. I dunno what your problem with this is, other than "omg Trump employs his family". Even though they're not actually on the payroll, as far as I can tell, which means Daddy pays them out of his own pocket.
How hard is it to study? How long does it take before one has sufficient knowledge to begin working?Quote:
same question
I don't know, nor do I care. If he has a poor knowledge, then he better brush up quick. If he fails, it looks bad for Trump, I won't dispute that. But I have no problem with the appointment, so long as Trump is prepared to fire him if it goes wrong. Which I don't really doubt.
I'm really surprised Poop hasn't tried to claim that Trump put Kushner in charge of the middle east hoping he'd get killed there so he could have Ivanka all to himself.
I'm really surprised you're not crouching down under your desk in the fetal position after your embarrassing failure to find a video of Trump looking coherent for more than 20 seconds straight.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Ya ok, i don't really care let JK be the Minister of Defense if you want. I'm just saying there's a reason why most presidents don't trust young inexperienced family members to do important government jobs. Actually two reasons: 1) it stinks of swamp material and 2) they're not qualified no matter how loosely you define it.
And ya, it's sad if Trump has to scrape that low in the barrel to find someone willing to work for him. Doesn't exactly say a lot for his amazing executive skills that banana keeps bragging about does it?
I didn't failQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
It's ok, we'll let you off the hook.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Now I'm tuning out for the day. You can go back to having sex with your Trump blow up doll, and dream about the day he hires you to manage the Ministry of Silly Handshakes.
Again, you really don't understand what "drain the swamp" means.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
If Trump's style alienates some people...so be it. He wouldn't be president if he acted any other way. If his attitude is toxic to swamp-monsters, that's ok. We're better off without them. If it means someone else has to learn the job fast....fine. There will be some growing pains, but what else would you expect when you elect a TV star and real estate hustler as President.
I find it hard to blame Trump for being himself.
:tsk:Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
You are also well capable of recognizing where the line is and when you've crossed it.
If you're not clear on where the line is, it's personal attacks, and this is dangerously close.
Keep it in check, everyone.
Hey....maybe you didn't catch on, in this thread we maintain skepticism until definitively proven otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
You don't know for sure whether or not I have a Trump blow up doll, so you can't say definitively that his statement was an attack.
You know damn well I have no sound on my work computer. Now that I'm home it didn't take very long to find thisQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/...speech-sot.cnn
Do you need help with any of those words?
I would most definitely be Secretary of SaltQuote:
Now I'm tuning out for the day. You can go back to having sex with your Trump blow up doll, and dream about the day he hires you to manage the Ministry of Silly Handshakes.
Pay attention, man.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
It's like you're daring me to say something disparaging about you.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
You're the greatest!!
So classic that after months of prodding to show Trump being coherent you find a speech where he a) reads off a teleprompter and b) misreads off a teleprompter.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
http://metro.co.uk/2018/01/20/trump-...peech-7244934/
So classic that in your mind, yesterday = months agoQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
So classic that you suddenly move the goal post and disqualify it because there was a teleprompter.
So classic that you equate the misreading of a single letter as incoherence.
So classic for a media site to shit on Trump for what even they admit is an "obvious" mix up that could happen to anyone
So classic to create a story out of a non-story, just to create an opportunity to bring up some 2 year old bullshit about Trump
So classic for that media site to find a so-called "expert" to debunk Trump's claim even though Trump's claim is undeniably true.
You think it's a point of pride to be able to read most of a speech off a teleprompter? Lol, ya that's a sign of intelligence for sure. the guy can read most of the words put in front of him, wp gg.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
The challenge remains: find two minutes of Trump speaking on a policy issue in a coherent manner without assistance.
He let cameras come into legislative talks on gun control this week. Did you catch that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Are you saying you have a video to show me or not?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
You know I don't have sound during working hours! Check this link out. There's a whole playlist under the main video window of short videos that show Trump talking about all kinds of stuff. The subtitles made sense to me, but I'm sure you'll just call it all incoherent drivel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/28/polit...ing/index.html
And honestly, to find a president talking off teleprompter for more than a few seconds, you'd almost have to go back to a time before the teleprompter was invented.
Why don't you just say what your point is hmmm??
I can't imagine why you think Trump has trouble communicating. The guy uses a 4th grade vocabulary. Are there words you don't understand??
The guy fucked up one god damn letter in the first video I posted and you just bathed yourself in confirmation bias. I really don't see any value in fighting you through this juvenile "challenge" you've initiated.
Actually if you recall my original argument was he is an incoherent idiot when it comes to policy matters.
Your response was to post a video of him reading off a teleprompter, which only goes to show he can read, not that he's erudite when it comes to policy.
So when you get home from work, go through your playlist and find two minutes of him speaking off the cuff about policy in a coherent manner. Should be easy if he's as smart as you claim he is. I've provided plenty of examples of him being incoherent, you're only being asked to provide one example of the opposite. And you're failing miserably.
And fyi, there are things called interviews where presidents get asked questions about policy, and they're not reading off a teleprompter. And invariably Trump rambles on incoherently in those as well. Would you like me to post a few transcripts of interviews to prove it, or are you happy to accept his general incoherence as a given?
We're just gonna go down a rabbit hole debating "what is incoherent". Count me out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I feel like I understand everything he's saying. Yes, it's happened that he's thought three sentences at once, swished them all together in his mouth, and spat them out on phrase at a time. He does that alot. That doesn't mean he's an incoherent idiot. The only people that seem to have trouble understanding him are the media shitheads who have financial/career incentives to mock soundbytes and pass it off as political commentary.
Perfect example, the link you posted earlier today mocked Trump for thinking that babies shouldn't be born at 9 months. Trump knows how long it takes for a baby to be born. No sensible person actually thinks that Trump thinks it's wrong for a baby to be born after 9 months gestation. Yet there it is, in black and white. A 70 year old misread one friggen letter within some small print, and suddenly we're accusing him of not knowing 2nd grade biology.
I really have no interest in engaging with people like that. Let me know when you want to have an adult conversation..
https://d24bnpykhxwj9p.cloudfront.ne...9305_giphy.gif
Well done, you've just identified something that pretty much every world leader (*) can do and does regularly... read an autocue.Quote:
Your response was to post a video of him reading off a teleprompter, which only goes to show he can read, not that he's erudite when it comes to policy.
Next you'll be pointing out that it's normally someone other than Trump that actually writes what's on the autocue.
(*) citation needed
What you can or can't imagine is a statement about yourself, and not the topic of conversation.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Or is that more snowflake melodrama?
Are you really suggesting that using a 4th grade vocabulary is indicative of superior communication skills?
What's holding you back from being a great orator yourself, then? A lack of Dr. Seuss to practice at home?
Your ability to take a sentence and contort it into something other than its literal meaning is exceptional, I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
That is not indicative that what meaning you have divined is his intended meaning.
Maybe it is, and maybe it isn't. There's more than one way to interpret his stream-of-consciousness speaking style.
OMFG, this need you have to be the most philosophically deep person here, while still saying nothing of substance is no longer cute.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
No I'm saying that it shouldn't be hard to understand.Quote:
Are you really suggesting that using a 4th grade vocabulary is indicative of superior communication skills?
To quote one of the great philosophers of our timeQuote:
What's holding you back from being a great orator yourself, then? A lack of Dr. Seuss to practice at home?
You are also well capable of recognizing where the line is and when you've crossed it. If you're not clear on where the line is, it's personal attacks, and this is dangerously close. Keep it in check
I have no idea what you're referring to.Quote:
Your ability to take a sentence and contort it into something other than its literal meaning is exceptional, I agree.
Dude...even the article that Poop linked said that "of course he meant to say 'torn'". They said it was "apparent".Quote:
That is not indicative that what meaning you have divined is his intended meaning.
Maybe it is, and maybe it isn't. There's more than one way to interpret his stream-of-consciousness speaking style.
Are you suggesting that it's remotely possible that Trump is against babies being born after full gestation??
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Then are you suggesting that it's remotely possible that Trump doesn't know how long full gestation takes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
So what's your point?
There's plenty of examples of Trump speaking off the cuff in an incoherent manner - I posted several of them myself.
So then the question was asked, "Given all the examples of him being incoherent provided here, is he actually capable of speaking coherently about policy without assistance?", and the response to that question was to post a video of him reading off a teleprompter.
Do you not see how that doesn't address the question that was posed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I guess that's your way of saying "No, I can't find anything with him speaking coherently for 2 minutes straight on policy without assistance from notes and/or a teleprompter. But here's a gif of him saying something stupid again because deep down inside I know you're right."
I'd say the chance of banana admitting to or conceding anything is close to nil. He's here to "win" arguments, not debate.
Fair enough, it's just using an autocue is non indicative of his oration skills one way or the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
And banana has a point when he says that speaking like a 4th grader should not be "incoherent", since coherence is the ability to be "logical and consistent", it has nothing to do with the actual words you're using. For example, if he said "capaciously", dumb people have no idea what he meant and therefore he's being "incoherent" in the context of difficult to understand. But would you nod in approval because you know what he means and it's a big word?
You're discriminating against dumb people if you expect him to stop using language that both dumb people and smart people understand, in favour of language that only smart people understand. You're a hater.
OMG Fuck the fuck off sir.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
This was the question(s) you asked
Quote:
Now I'd like to see you post anything up to 5 minutes long of him speaking intelligently on the issues.
Quote:
Still waiting for that video of Trump waxing eloquent on the issues of the day.
That question was answered with a 75 minute example from about two days before. Your response was to sayQuote:
Find some reels where he's speaking intelligently so we can compare.
I posted the pro-life speech as another exampleQuote:
Can't be bothered
...and then you moved the goalpost by whining about teleprompters [even though huge portions of the CPAC speech were off-prompter]. AND reiterated your claim of 'incoherence' because the guy misread ONE FUCKING LETTER. So fuck off man.. what kind of idiot would I be if I kept trying to convince you??
BTW, the videos you posted of him allegedly being "incoherent" are bunk. That first one about how he has 5 different positions on minimum wage in 45 seconds is just re-fucking-tarded. Are you really telling me that you watched that video, and don't know Trump's stance on minimum wage. If so, you're re-fucking-tarded too.
Maybe there's a reason that David Pakman isn't on real TV.
The second video he is clearly talking about Iran. But the video seems to have snipped that part out. They removed the context, then added subtitles to say "what's he talking about". RE-FUCKING-TARDED.
The third video....I don't even know why you posted that. Everything he says in that video is totally understandable and makes sense. Are there words in that video that you don't understand? What specifically do you need help with?
In fact, consider that video my final submission to your "challenge"
After that I gave up on the rest of the videos. You just so badly want to believe that the guy is dumb, crooked, and a russian spy that you will confirmation-bias yourself into interpreting everything he does as folly.
one fucking letter.....proof that he's an ignoramus........nice troll.
Which is what makes posting a video of it so irrelevant. Which is why I ridiculed banana for doing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
It's not that he's simplifying the message to reach a wider audience, it's that he's babbling nonsense. There's a clear difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
No, I'm pointing out that if one possesses no coherent thought process on an issue, it's impossible to express a coherent thought without some kind of outside assistance (e.g. teleprompter). If he did have a coherent thought, you'd expect him to be able to express that at an adult level at some point.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
E.g., do you think a lot of dumb people read the WSJ? I doubt it. But when they interview him, he still babbles incoherently.
The argument that he could speak coherently like an adult but chooses to speak at a fourth grade (i.e., incoherent) level is silly. It's not that he's trying to get across complicated issues to dumb people but rather that he's using inflammatory rhetoric with very little substance to rabble rouse. That's not evidence of any knowledge about the issues, it's evidence of knowing how to manipulate dumb people into chanting things like 'build the wall!' and 'lock her up!'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Cry foul all you want, the challenge stands. And no, proof that he can read off a teleprompter is not proof of erudition. Nice try though.
Getting him to publicly concede is not the goal. He's never going to do that, he'll resort to name-calling and all sorts of other accusations instead. The goal is to demonstrate that it's impossible to find an example of Trump speaking intelligently on an issue, at least not since he became president. If banana, the biggest Trump supporter and apologist on this forum, can't find one, then there's a good chance it doesn't exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT???Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Your assertion that I am unable or unwilling to make concessions is beyond stupid. Like extra extra extra fucking dumb.
Pay attention, I'm gonna walk you through this one more time...slowly.
I have stated, clearly, verbosely, and in extensive detail what information supports my opinions, conclusions and positions. If you would like to persuade me otherwise, then you need to present some credible information, or objective fact that is MORE compelling than the information that currently supports my position. You have not done that.
You even admit that you haven't done that
So how the fuck can you say that I am unwilling to debate?????Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
False. See the post above. I've given you explicit instructions what it takes to persuade an intelligent person. If that's hard for you, then I guess I'm not surprised that your opinion has de-volved into "Banana is stubborn".Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Incorrect. If you post retarded idiocy, it's not name-calling to address it as retarded idiocy.Quote:
he'll resort to name-calling and all sorts of other accusations instead.
You have failed at that goal. At least one of your examples to the contrary actually demonstrates the opposite.Quote:
The goal is to demonstrate that it's impossible to find an example of Trump speaking intelligently on an issue, at least not since he became president.
Apologist?? Really?Quote:
If banana, the biggest Trump supporter and apologist on this forum, can't find one, then there's a good chance it doesn't exist.
If he fucks up, I'll say he fucked up. Want an example? I think Trump is fucking up this gun stuff. There ya go.
The challenge has been satisfied. If you don't recognize that, it's because you're the kind of person who will never concede anything and resort to name-calling and all sorts of other accusations instead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
me: Prove Trump can speak intelligently about the issues.
banana: Here, look at him read words off a teleprompter.
me: that's not proof.
banana: zomfg what are you talking about?
lool
Major portions of the CPAC speech were off-prompter. Watch it. Oh wait....you can't be bothered. WTF is that about?? You issue a challenge, the challenge is answered, but for some reason you reserve the right to dismiss the answer with a chintzy excuse of "can't be bothered"Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
You claimed that what you did watch just sounded like rabble-rousing from the campaign.
Except that can't logically be true. Follow me here. That exact same crowd REJECTED his campaign rabble-rousing in 2016. Now, that exact same crowd is licking Trump's balls.
So he must be doing something different.
I've already pointed out a few times that this recent conversation was not a debate about the issues, and certainly not about my personal opinions, but an observation about the people having differing opinions about them. This is a bit meta, I'll try to explain in more detail if it still wasn't clear.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
newsweek:
NBCQuote:
TRUMP GOES 'OFF-SCRIPT' AT CPAC
Some other cuck-rag that came up in my google resultsQuote:
Trump went off-script at CPAC.
Please look up the definition of "extempore"Quote:
Trump dumps 'boring' script, goes extempore at 2018 CPAC to kick off campaign for midterms
Poop
To find a President speaking without a prompter in the room, or without a prepared speeech, or giving an interview without pre-prepared talking points, you'd probably have to go back to the Coolidge administration.Quote:
There was a teleprompter in the room, doesn't count. Plus, it's too long and listening to conservatives make sense hurts my bleeding heart
Don't bother.. I'm not really interested in your dodges.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Face it Bill. You're a bleeding heart liberal who hates Trump. You're only interested in information that supports your anti-Trump bias. You ignore objective facts and verifiable information to the contrary. You do so by citing some kind of fanatical agnosticism that you ironically believe makes you smart.
Re: the Trump intelligence video, I initially asked you to provide proof, either in video, text or whatever medium, where his words demonstrate intelligence and a deep understanding of an issue. From any time in the history of the universe, on any topic. The only criteria was that it needs to be his words, not a written and rehearsed speech. We're still waiting for you to find a single intelligent sentence that he's ever uttered.
The point isn't whether you can find one or not, just the fact alone that it really seems to be a non-trivial task shows that he's not exactly spewing out wisdom. Why the hell should anyone automatically assume a person who speaks like a 4th grader and rarely ever utters anything intelligent that makes you go hmm, he actually does have a brain, and whose gaffes could already fill a library by themselves, is a super intelligent person? All you have going for that theory are that some angry white folks voted for him, he's continued his father's business legacy and he's headlined a reality TV show. For most people being intelligent means something more than being able to "acquire skills and knowledge".
Now please ignore the whole point here and start arguing how his gaffes would actually barely fill at most half a library, 2 of his voters actually were merely peeved, not angry and how I'm in your opinion leftist which would clearly nullify everything I say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
My point is I shouldn't be required to watch a 45 minute video based on your claim that parts of it are both off-prompter and coherent. It's not my job to sift through your evidence to find proof for your case based on some vague claim of yours that 'it's in there somewhere'.
If you can post the video and indicate which two-minute segment meets the criteria I stated, I'll happily skip to that point.
It took me all of five minutes to find those half-dozen examples of Trump going off the prompter or without a prompter and babbling like an idiot. I can find another half-dozen in another five minutes, and so on ad nauseum until I exhaust the internet if you like, but I think I made my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Do you really think that Trump's prepared speeches contain none of his ideas, none of his words, and are no reflection of his own understanding of an issue?? You think there's some wizard behind the curtain telling Trump what to think, do, and say?Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
I did find one. It was 75 minutes long.Quote:
The point isn't whether you can find one or not, just the fact alone that it really seems to be a non-trivial task shows that he's not exactly spewing out wisdom.
Loaded question. I disagree with the premise that he "rarely utters anything intelligent". So I don't even know what you're asking here.Quote:
Why the hell should anyone automatically assume a person who speaks like a 4th grader and rarely ever utters anything intelligent that makes you go hmm, he actually does have a brain, and whose gaffes could already fill a library by themselves, is a super intelligent?
Hmmm, why didn't those "angry white folks" vote for Jeb, or Marco, or Ted?Quote:
All you have going for that theory are that some angry white folks voted for him,
And grew it by a factor of 50. You keep forgetting that part, lol.Quote:
he's continued his father's business legacy
You think that's easy? When is your TV show on??Quote:
and he's headlined a reality TV show.
this is more of your "duh, everything" juvenile rhetoric. You can't possibly presume to know what "most people" think. Furthermore, that is the dictionary definition of intelligence. I'm still not sure why you get to pretend it's not.Quote:
For most people being intelligent means something more than being able to "acquire skills and knowledge".
No thanks. I'd rather watch you continue this nonsense tantrum. Please, continue....Quote:
Now please ignore the whole point here and start arguing how his gaffes would actually barely fill at most half a library, 2 of his voters actually were merely peeved, not angry and how I'm in your opinion leftist which would clearly nullify everything I say.
I only watched the first three, and your statement above does not describe those three videos. DP is just being an ass hole in the first one. The second was edited to remove context. And the third makes perfect sense. Im not even sure why you posted that one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Again, I am submitting that third video, called "trumps 2 minute sentence" as my response to your challenge.
I also think the first one, with Trump talking about minimum wage, is fine.
This is the kind of video you're looking for.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEPs17_AkTI
Another short one
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-w47wgdhso
On Charlie Rose.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpZnPwLphOg
Watching these, it's striking the amount of gaslighting that has gone on since. He used to be adored, was considered one of the most brilliant businessmen of all time by nearly every "important" person (and casual). But like Floyd Mayweather said, that changed the moment he was branded politically, more specifically that changed the moment he went against the wishes of the media elite that try to control what people think about what they see and hear.
It's kinda funny how those media elites, and the people they control call themselves the "resistance" and label the other side "fascist"Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
^^Those are much more convincing than anything I've seen him say in the past decades. So what do you think changed? That's not how he talks and acts these days.
Banana, if you had linked to those clips you might have a bit of a case. But clearly you hadn't seen them (or forgot about them) and used them as basis for your idea of him.
He's angrier now. Believe me, I know how enraging it can be to have all the answers and watch the rest of the world fuck up. He's been boiling for 8 years under Obama.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
I also don't really agree that he doesn't act the same way now. Other than being a little angrier, I think he does act pretty much how he's always acted. He's also fatter and has less hair, so when he strikes the same tone it can be perceived differently. When he was younger and better looking, he came off as more smooth. Now that he's older, he comes off as grumpy. Even though his statements and tone are generally the same.
Also the posture is WAAAY different. Look how he's sitting in the old vids. He's leaning back and appears very cool. He never sits like that anymore. He's generally more hunched over. 30 years at a desk job will do that to you.
A case for what??Quote:
Banana, if you had linked to those clips you might have a bit of a case.
The most recent one is from 1992. Let's just say I didn't have my finger on the pulse of politics back then. The most heated debate in my life at the time was about which Ninja Turtle was the coolest.Quote:
But clearly you hadn't seen them (or forgot about them) and used them as basis for your idea of him
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
They're a good case that he WAS erudite at one time. Shit, I might even have an old video of me playing decent basketball 20 years ago. Doesn't mean I can do it today.
In fact I was aware such footage of Trump existed, which is why i added the stipulation 'since becoming president', as it's just as irrelevant to his fitness for office now to show he was erudite 20 years ago as it is irrelevant for my qualifications to play on a basketball team than I could play decently 20 years ago.
The question wasn't 'has he gotten older?' it was 'can he speak in complete sentences now like he did then?'Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Oh, and before you link to a video of him reading a restaurant menu, I should add the usual caveat 'without assistance'
Goalpost movedQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
EDIT: How come the videos you posted were allowed to come from a time before he became president? Maybe you just misspoke, and really meant to say "since becoming a politician" or "since running for president". I could forgive that, but I've been told that such babbling incoherence is a sign of donkey-brain stupidity.
A whole new question?? That's not just moving the goalpost. That's relocating it to another town.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
The answer though, is 'yes'
I cite the videos that you posted as evidence
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-bwXhts8ZgQuote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
One of the sad truths of aging is the cognitive decline that comes with it. The stark contrast between c. 1990 Trump and 2018 Trump is a textbook example.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RijB8wnJCN0Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I said 'incoherent', but insane is not too far off either.
I'm only a third of the way through this, but Trump is crushing it here. No teleprompter. But it's from before he became president, so I guess I fail again.
https://youtu.be/HTo7MHDhh18
I'm 100% positive Poopadoop is gonna call this 'incoherent' and admittedly, parts of it are a little sketchy. But I can't see how you could walk away from this not knowing what his policy ideas are.
I can't find it again, but I read a fantastic article a while back describing how his speaking pattern signals the opposite of cognitive decline and instead shows greater comfort in his natural mode of speaking.
Anyways, people are going to see what they want to see on this.
He has strong results in other intellectually challenging areas, he is well known for branding and sales (and his behavior can be explained by established practices therein), and for the last 40 years every top level Republican has been heavily attacked on intelligence grounds. Given the great lack of direct information about his intelligence, these factors can be helpful.
Nope, we won't know for sure until he croaks and we can weigh his brainQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
The irony is at the time, most people commented that he seemed incoherent in those debates. And yet you want to use a heavily edited version cut into dozens of sound bites to argue that he was coherent.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Ignoring the fact that he starts out by plainly lying about initially supporting the war in Iraq, he then goes on a rambling incoherent monologue.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7R7xN5kigqI
Also, that smug Hillary face almost makes me want to vote for Trump.
This is the exact opposite of what any expert in cognitive aging would argue.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Here we go again with semantics.
What does "incoherent" mean to you poop? I'm reading a trascript of his interview with WSJ, and his language comes across as "logical and consistent".
Babbling? Maybe, but I can follow him, I understand what he's trying to say. Logical? The words make sentences. Consistent? He's not contradicting himself.
You've got it in you head that he's "incoherent" but you're wrong. What you mean is he uses dumbed down language.
What did he lie about??Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
1:42
https://youtu.be/77P6fxa2KOs
That's the exact account he gave to Lester Holt. Literally zero embellishment or spin.
Can you explain what you think "incoherent" means? Because I understood every word that came out of his mouth, and I understand why he said each one.Quote:
he then goes on a rambling incoherent monologue.
No joking, it should. Re-watching them made me remember what a milque-toast-y pushover she was. She might have won if she was more of a bitch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Way off topic, but I will say that if that's what feminism produces, then it's no wonder women make 75% of what men make. Grow a pair ladies.
What's fascinating is that you can't nod your head and say "fair play" to a man that, depsite being at an age where "congnitive decline" is inevitable, he's still absolutely fucking killing it. As if being a successful billionaire wasn't enough, he became POTUS.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
All because he says things that you don't want to hear in a manner of speech that you find "incoherent" (which, if true, is your fault, not his).
I mean honestly, consider that you're taking pot shots at his physical health, despite him being in better shape than most 70+ people who have had a life of eating well and banging hookers, and you take pot shots at his "cognitive decline", depsite him being in better mental shape than the vast, vast majority of 70+ people. I know one thing, if I make it to 70, I'll be fucked if I take that amount of stress on board for literally any amount of money. He's fucking thriving on it.
Interesting factoid about DJT, he claims he's never had a drop of alcohol, smoked a cigarette, or done any illegal drugs.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Where do you rate that one on the truth-o-meter Poop?
To me 'coherence' refers to the degree to which you can follow someone's chain of thought, that ideas follow one another in some kind of logical order.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
It's actually a pretty low standard of communication because if you can't manage basic coherence, it doesn't matter if you are using a large vocabulary and have perfect grammar, etc. It's the bottom rung of communication.
Looking here:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/transcr...nal-1515715481
I'd say it's about 75% incoherent.
He can be sort of coherent when his answers are just bragging and not about policy:
Quote:
Mr. Trump: Well, I think more than anything else it’s the great success that we’ve had in the last year. And you know if you remember the first quarter was a very low GDP, when Obama’s last quarter. It was the slowest growing recovery, a very minor recovery, but it’s the worst recovery they’ve had since the Great Depression. And our country was headed in the wrong direction.
But get him on a topic of policy and he rambles with no apparent direction. Here's a sample of him talking about immigration. I don't know how anyone can read this without getting a headache. Starts off talking about dreamers, then mentions chain migration, then gets onto some guy who murdered people, then something about people with no legs, then ... etc. etc. There's no coherent message here, I mean wtf is he actually saying?
Quote:
WSJ: Speaking of being flexible it sounds as if there’s an immigration deal that has been struck amongst senators on the hill that’s been sent to the White House for approval?
Mr. Trump: Getting close.
WSJ: Have you—have you seen anything from the Senate yet?
Mr. Trump: No but it’s getting close. They—want, I feel, you know, I have great feeling for DACA. I think that we should be able to do something with DACA. I think it’s foolish if we don’t, they’ve been here a long time, they’re no longer children, you know. People talk of them as children, I mean some are 41 years old and older. But some are in their teens, and late teens, but nevertheless I think we should do something with DACA and I think we should do something to help people.
It wasn’t their fault, their parents came in, it wasn’t their fault. So we’re in the process of trying to work something out. I hope we can do it. I don’t think it has to take that long. The lottery system is a disaster, we have to get rid of the lottery system. The—as you know chain is—chain migration is a horrible situation. You’ve seen the ads, you’ve seen everything, you know all about chain.
This person on the west side that killed eight people and badly, you heard me say yesterday, badly, badly wounded about 12. I mean people losing arms and legs—nobody even talks about that. But they say killed eight and that’s it. I mean you have people—ones walking around without—missing two legs. And the person was running to stay in shape and now he’s missing two legs. Think of it.
But this person, who should’ve never been allowed into this country, came in through the lottery. When they interviewed his neighborhood, they say he was horrible. You’d say good morning to him and he’d start cursing at you. They didn’t want him so they sent him through the lottery, you know, congratulations United States.
So the lottery has to end, chain migration—he brought in they say 22 people through the chain. So we have 22 of his relatives, why? And I honestly think that the Democrats are with us on that. We’ll find out. I mean who wouldn’t be? Who wouldn’t be? Unless it’s somebody that didn’t love our country, and the Democrats love our country. We have different views but the Democrats love our country.
So yeah, I think, Michael, I think we have a good chance to make a deal. We have to have a wall. We don’t have a wall, we’re not doing the deal.
Trust me, language comprehension is something I'm well endowed with. If someone routinely makes no sense, that's not my fault, it's the speaker's.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I think the statement is likely true, but potentially very misleading. There are perfectly legal drugs that can be consumed in a way that would be much more worrying than someone that goes through a six pack or two a week.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Not saying it's the case that Trump consumes legal drugs in this way, but that carve out shouldn't be ignored.
On top of that, I'm not totally sure teatolling(being inclusive of illicit drugs as well as alcohol) is something that is necessarily praise or brag worthy. Altered states of mind offer potentially unique perspectives which can lead to innovative solutions/ideas.
I can't believe this is difficult for you. Maybe you just don't know all of the moving parts within the immigration debate. Or maybe you just don't understand english. But let me break it down, one paragraph at a time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
1. Yes I am optimistic about reaching a deal on legislation that protects immigrant children. Let me clarify, not just children, alot of these people are older, and they count too.
2. I want to help those people, and it really should be easy to make a deal. The things I'm asking for - eliminating lottery and chain migration - are common sense measures.
3&4 - Here's an example of why lottery and chain migration are such obvious problems. We get alot of ass holes who shit all over our country. I want to plug those ass holes, and so do the democrats. It's gonna be easy, 'cause I'm a negotiating master, and I'm fucking awesome. See how easy it is for me. In your fucking face Barry.
So in other words, I'm using the dictionary definition of coherence. Is that good enough for you, or do you want to use a different definition?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Quote:
coherence
kə(ʊ)ˈhɪər(ə)ns,kə(ʊ)ˈhɪərəns/
noun
noun: coherence; plural noun: coherences
1.
the quality of being logical and consistent.
"this raises further questions on the coherence of state policy"
synonyms: consistency, logicality, good sense, soundness, organization, orderliness, unity; More
clarity, articulacy;
intelligibility, comprehensibility
"this raises further questions on the coherence of state policy"
antonyms: incoherence
2.
the quality of forming a unified whole.
"the group began to lose coherence and the artists took separate directions"
Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
The fact that someone can piece together a hypothesis about someone's meaning by re-arranging the words they used is not evidence the initial message was coherent.
About somewhere between irrelevant and off topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I didn't seem to have a problem. Maybe I'm more well endowed than you when it comes to reeading comprehension.Quote:
There's no coherent message here, I mean wtf is he actually saying?
He's saying that the lottery system (whatever that is, I assume it means something to Americans) for immigrants isn't working, and he's using rather colourful references to recent events to support his argument. Fuck knows what DACA is but again, I imagine an American would immediately know. Based on context, I guess it's legislation he supports.
He's not incoherent, not to me. He's garrulous. There's a word you won't hear Trump use.
I'm sure you are.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Being coherent means the reader doesn't have to play detective, sift through irrelevant tangents, and reconstruct the meaning in a hit- and - miss manner by teasing out the phrases that are comprehensible from the ones that aren't.
So saying it's coherent because you can hazard a fairly decent guess as to what it means doesn't qualify, sorry.
Then by your definition, everything in that WSJ transcript was coherent. I don't think you have to play detective. I don't think there are irrelevant tangents. There's no need to sort incomprehensible from comprehensible. It's all comprehensible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
There's that fanatical agnosticism again. Every word, phrase, and sentence was relevant and understandable. But I guess, since I can't read his mind and know for sure what he meant, then I'm just hazarding a fairly decent guess. pffffffffttQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
There is some subjectivity to coherence, but not this much. Speaking in complete English sentences and understandable phrases is not the definition of coherence.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Allow me to demonstrate:
Coherent: The First World War began in 1914 and lasted for four years. It was initially fought between the Central Powers, which included Germany and Austria-Hungary, and the Triple Entente, which was comprised of Russia, France, and the UK. Other countries also entered into the fray after the war began, most notably the United States in 1917. The war cost millions of lives and led to widespread devastation in Europe. The war ended with the Treaty of Versailles, which was later seen as a largely punitive peace settlement, and a major factor leading to the rise of Nazi Germany and the outbreak of the Second World War in 1939.
Incoherent: There was a war once, the First World War they called it. Because it happened first. And they fought it in Europe, only, you know, it was a world war so the United States was also involved. And it caused great damage, and lots people died. I mean a lot of people died. Do you know how many? Me neither, but it was a lot, like millions, ok? And when the war ended, they all got together and made peace. And no-one was happy because it was not a real peace, but only temporary. And that's how Germany lost the First World War and started the Second.
THey're both totally coherent
Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I see. So because example 2 is a pretty damn good impression of how Trump might describe WW1, it's coherent.
But, if you asked two people on the street to describe WW1 and those were the answers you got, which one would you prefer teaching history to your kid? Which one seems to know wtf their talking about and which one is babbling?
Except no one is asking Trump to teach history. They're asking him to run the economy, kill terrorists, and drain the swamp. And in those regards Trump seems to have expressed himself coherently enough to convince people to vote for him over 18 other people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
It's coherent because it's logical and consistent.
Alow me to share my "subjective" view of coherence...
Coherent...
I'm going to roll myself a spliff and make myself a cup of tea.
Incoherent...
Ima get woosh anna brew.
Coherent (but somewhat garrulous) -
I am rolling myself a joint, because, y'know, I like to smoke, not much of a drinker, except for tea, ooh yes a cup of tea too, spliff and tea.
That's garrulous but not on Trump's level where it becomes incoherent.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Try: "Some people like spliffs. I have them sometimes because I like them. Some and times are also two separate words but here they're one word. You know what I like with a spliff? No? I do. I like a tea with a spliff. I know what I like. A tea with a spliff, because it's like another thing you can have with a spliff that is a drink, but not any drink. No, a tea drink, which is like a different kind of drink than say, a coffee drink or a wine drink or a water drink. Those are all different drinks, but I like tea. You know, the one you make with a teabag in a pot? Thats called tea. "
That's Trump babble-speak and it's also how five year old girls talk (except replace tea and spliff with milk and cookies). Are you saying an intelligent person talks like a five year old girl?
That's the most loaded question I've ever been asked.
fypQuote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
They try to say I'm incoherent. Can you believe that? Have you ever heard such nonsense? I use words, I have the best words, and when I talk I speak very clearly. Like this. Can you understand me right now. I'm talking, you're listening, we're communicating. What's hard to understand? Look at that guy, he's laughing. You alright buddy? You gonna be alright? Get this guy some water please. Someone...ok, we're good. See they say I'm a bad guy but here I am looking out for everybody. so they say I'm incoherent, that i don't know how to talk, but I'm talking right now. I'm talking in front of this great crowd. This is probably the best crowd there has ever been. When I talk to my friends about crowds, they tell their stories and act like they all have great audiences. But then I talk about you guys and they all just....let me tell you about this guy, he was sweating so much because his audience was so small. I said Fred, why are you sweating? And then I offered to send about two dozen people from this crowd, over to Fred's event, and now Fred's ok. Give Fred a call ok. Like him on facebook. Do you see what they're saying about me on Facebook? They're saying I'm incoherent. They're saying "this guy Trump..he can't even talk" But we all know I'm talking right now and everybody knows what I'm saying. We're gonna make America Great Again. We're gonna drain the swamp. And we're gonna make America Great again...Again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
tl;dr
I'm guessing the message is something along the lines of 'i can babble like a little kid and still be intelligent at the same time.'