"Believe me," he says...Why believe one who routinely equivocates on their own words and themes?

[Wyatt earp]

How is it deflection when someone points out that of only two candidates for POTUS, one is a liar, while ignoring the fact that the

other choice is a much bigger liar? It is not deflection. It is logic...something you apparently lack.

You really don't know what deflection is. It's remarkable.

It's simple. In a thread about Trump lying, talk about Trump lying.....or present an opposing viewpoint. Don't try to change the subject to Hillary lying. That is deflection. And.....it is fucking boring.

Really. It is that simple.

Its not deflection bits What Obama and Hillary did ir not do.

What tais ir the first time yo u heard empty campan promises?

 

[LoneLaugher]

How is it deflection when someone points out that of only two candidates for POTUS, one is a liar, while ignoring the fact that the other choice is a much bigger liar? It is not deflection. It is logic...something you apparently lack.

You really don't know what deflection is. It's remarkable.

It's simple. In a thread about Trump lying, talk about Trump lying.....or present an opposing viewpoint. Don't try to change the subject to Hillary lying. That is deflection. And.....it is fucking boring.

Really. It is that simple.

Again you must try to understand logic...I know it is difficult.

Two choices, condemning one while ignoring the other much worse choice, is the act of a dumb-ass partisan.

Do you comprehend?

We aren't discussing partisanship. We are discussing deflection.

The act of discussing Trump is not by necessity the act of ignoring Hillary. Sit back and watch threads for a while. Watch how every Trump thread is met immediately with comments that say "but what about her?" Every one. It is boring.

The same pattern exists for Hillary threads. It is equally boring.

You deflected in this thread. It is as if you are incapable of criticizing Trump without pointing out how horrible Clinton is. It's lame. It's boring. Get it?

 

[LoneLaugher]

How is it deflection when someone points out that of only two candidates for POTUS, one is a liar, while ignoring the fact that the

other choice is a much bigger liar? It is not deflection. It is logic...something you apparently lack.

You really don't know what deflection is. It's remarkable.

It's simple. In a thread about Trump lying, talk about Trump lying.....or present an opposing viewpoint. Don't try to change the subject to Hillary lying. That is deflection. And.....it is fucking boring.

Really. It is that simple.

Its not deflection bits What Obama and Hillary did ir not do.

What tais ir the first time yo u heard empty campan promises?

Great post.

 

[Wyatt earp]

How is it deflection when someone points out that of only two candidates for POTUS, one is a liar, while ignoring the fact that the other choice is a much bigger liar? It is not deflection. It is logic...something you apparently lack.

You really don't know what deflection is. It's remarkable.

It's simple. In a thread about Trump lying, talk about Trump lying.....or present an opposing viewpoint. Don't try to change the subject to Hillary lying. That is deflection. And.....it is fucking boring.

Really. It is that simple.

Again you must try to understand logic...I know it is difficult.

Two choices, condemning one while ignoring the other much worse choice, is the act of a dumb-ass partisan.

Do you comprehend?

We aren't discussing partisanship. We are discussing deflection.

The act of discussing Trump is not by necessity the act of ignoring Hillary. Sit back and watch threads for a while. Watch how every Trump thread is met immediately with comments that say "but what about her?" Every one. It is boring.

The same pattern exists for Hillary threads. It is equally boring.

You deflected in this thread. It is as if you are incapable of criticizing Trump without pointing out how horrible Clinton is. It's lame. It's boring. Get it?

Come on trump up to this point ran the Barnum and Bailey type of campaign, that the only ones who would believe is the folks on the ultra right or left.

If by a miracle he gets elected it will be business as usual in the white house.

Sure you will hear gaffes now and then, just like you heard them from obama, hillary, Joe and Kerry over the years.

 

[Fenton Lum]

From the first time Trump talked about bringing manufacturing jobs back to the U.S., it was clear that nothing Trump says should be believed. I have pointed this out numerous times on USMB.

• CDZ - This is what you get when you believe and rely on Donald Trump....
  
• CDZ - Why I used to be keen on Mr. Trump and why today I am not
  
• CDZ - Why I used to be keen on Mr. Trump and why today I am not
  
• CDZ - Why I used to be keen on Mr. Trump and why today I am not
  
• CDZ - Why I used to be keen on Mr. Trump and why today I am not
  
• CDZ - Why I used to be keen on Mr. Trump and why today I am not
  
• CDZ - Why I used to be keen on Mr. Trump and why today I am not
  
• Trump claims he understands and will be a boon to working class Americans....Baloney!
  
• When one's words and deeds do not align, it's very hard to come off as credible

This past weekend, in response to a direct question whether Trump's immigration policy will include a deportation force, the campaign's manager Kellyanne Conway says, "To be determined."

WTH!!!???!!!

November 2015

​

Okay, so independently of what Trump has averred he will do, I certainly understand why she said "to be determined." Quite simply, it's very likely she's got more sense than does Trump about what it'd take to deport ~11M people.

​

But that's not the point. What is the point? Literally millions of Americans have backed Trump precisely because of his promise to deport undocumented immigrants in the U.S. When asked how flexible he is about that during one of the GOP debates in March, Fox host Megyn Kelly asked Trump whether he told the New York Times editorial board in an off-the-record interview that he was "flexible" on his deportation plan. Trump said, "Not very flexible. No, not very flexible. ...


The reality is that just as last week Trump put effort into trying to appeal to blacks, this week he's doing the same re: Latinos. For some reason this man thinks that Latinos are going to believe that he's suddenly changed his views regarding them and immigration issues. Who's more naive? Them or Trump?

And now, yet again, we voters are going to have to listen to a week of Trump surrogates trying to explain how Ms. Conway's "to be determined" remark is not a "flip flop" on his illegal immigration policy.

And just what do I think is Trump's "fair and humane" way of treating illegal immigrants? I suspect it means they'll be given food and water, maybe even blankets, as they are shipped, bused, flown, marched, etc. out of the U.S. and dropped off on the other side of our borders.


Sidebar:

Why is Ms. Conway even a part of the Trump campaign? I happen to think it's all about two things:

1. The paycheck
2. Conway has also been a long-time employee of Trump's running mate Indiana Gov. Mike Pence.

Over the years, I've come to find that lots of folks will for enough money discard whatever principles they had. I've never doubted that Trump is one of those types. I see now that Conway is too; Mike Pence isn't running for President.

Want more proof that Conway just outright lied? Listen to her remarks this past weekend about what she claims she didn't' know when she made her tax return transparency comment.



Well, Trump had already stated by March 31st of 2016, if not before, that being under audit is why he won't release his tax returns. At the time, she was Ted Cruz's campaign manager, so you know just as I do that woman was well aware when she made the comment that Trump was under audit.​

End of sidebar.

Goodness, all those lies!!

He['s more of a politician than I thought.

Ranks right up there with the Clintons and Obama

What? Deflection? No way!

Deflection?

I agreed he is a liar, and named a few of his peers.

How is that deflection?

The master of deflection accuses others of deflection.

It must be some kind of communicable disease lefties have....to always accuse others of exactly what they do.

Nah, you see it on all sides, it is as american as apple pie.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Takeaway: lying is bad, except when it's done by a Democrat

 

[320 Years of History]

Okay...so Trump is a liar. Then what does that make Hillary?

A candidate running against a liar.

 

[320 Years of History]

We aren't discussing partisanship. We are discussing deflection.

Actually, neither of those things is the thread's topic. The believability of Donald Trump and the integrity he and his staff exhibit are the topics/themes of the thread...Not Hillary Clinton, not Barack Obama, not deflection or partisanship.

What you've observed is that not one of the folks who favor Trump is willing or able to speak to or provide one single coherent argument for why anyone, themselves included, should:

• believe Trump will follow through with anything he's said, or
• believe there's any sincerity in what Trump says.

 

[Auld Phart]

A candidate running against a liar

Wrong

a liar running against a liar

 

[flacaltenn]

Moderation Note:

Started cleaning this thread to CDZ standards and gave up.. This is NOT a CDZ debate. It's routine retail partisan crap. Do NOT start threads like threads like this in CDZ and do not VIOLATE CDZ rules when they are in here.

2 folks warned. Thread goes to politics where it belongs. Have fun in the mud...

 

[Holos]

"Believe me," he says...Why believe one who routinely equivocates on their own words and themes?

To believe in someone who is routinely equivocated is to foster their ability to improve cooperative work.

Words often have more significance than we are accustomed to receive, and thus context and syntax (semantics) must have priority when analyzing speech.

Belief then is simply applying yourself to comprehend with greater detail that which is apparently flawed but that nonetheless has rules that are flexible, and laws that are constant, in order to allow any linguistic or communicative manifestation for circumspection and tangibility (within mathematics) of the whole group exchanging and continuing their development.

 

[Holos]

A candidate running against a liar

Wrong

a liar running against a liar

That is still a candidate.

No one can make it through entire months of rallying without having in mind their regular rest, even while they apply themselves to the fullest.

 

[320 Years of History]

"Believe me," he says...Why believe one who routinely equivocates on their own words and themes?

To believe in someone who is routinely equivocated is to foster their ability to improve cooperative work.

Words often have more significance than we are accustomed to receive, and thus context and syntax (semantics) must have priority when analyzing speech.

Belief then is simply applying yourself to comprehend with greater detail that which is apparently flawed but that nonetheless has rules that are flexible, and laws that are constant, in order to allow any linguistic or communicative manifestation for circumspection and tangibility (within mathematics) of the whole group exchanging and continuing their development.

Right, I get what you're saying, but if one wants my vote, one must speak in terms that "box oneself in" enough that I can tell where one stands and what policy one wants to implement.

• "Build a wall" -- Sure, the nature of the wall isn't clearly stated, but the context in which the remark was presented indicates one should interpret that the speaker has no intent to build, say, a three foot wall or a wall that can be easily scaled or knocked down. The statement also implies that what will be build is solid and opaque rather than flexible, as is a fence.
• "Bring back manufacturing" -- The context in which sentiments of that sort were uttered implies that the speaker, Trump, firmly believes manufacturing of goods offered for sale in the U.S. by U.S. companies should be produced in the U.S. Thus when one sees that Trump's own garments are made abroad, one can only wonder just how committed Trump is to that belief/principle.
• "58% of your teens are unemployed" -- The context in which that that statement was delivered implies that 58% of "your teens are also looking for work. When examining the accuracy of the statement, if one discovers that the only way for 58% of "your" teens to be unemployed is if one counts middle school, high school and collegiate teens who are looking for work and who are not seeking employment. Accordingly, one finds that the speaker, Trump, was not wholly clear. Upon finding out that only 14% of "your" teens seeking employment, one can only conclude that the reason for citing "58%" is malfeasant/prevaricating in some way.
• "We're going to have a deportation force/we're going to deport them all" -- That's pretty "black and white." Now we hear that the deportation force and deporting them all is "to be determined."

So, yes, there's some room for flexibility, and everyone with any sense will allow for that to some degree, but given that, it's only fair that one, Trump, draw the line clearly about where the flexibility stops. Moreover, with Trump, for over a year, he's made remarks that don't leave room for flex, and the inflexible nature of many of those remarks are what inspired millions to favor him. Now, he's flexing what he presented as "rock solid" using the words "believe me" to boot. How does one believe him? Why should one believe him given the context, lack of clear lines, and, where applicable, flex in what was presented as inflexible?

 

[Holos]

• "Build a wall" -- Sure, the nature of the wall isn't clearly stated, but the context in which the remark was presented indicates one should interpret that the speaker has no intent to build, say, a three foot wall or a wall that can be easily scaled or knocked down. The statement also implies that what will be build is solid and opaque rather than flexible, as is a fence.

How is the nature of the wall not clearly stated? It's a politician speaking, therefore it is a political wall besides whatever other kind of wall it also is - less so important when it is a politician addressing it. Politics is always integrating a variety of national aspects into a single advancing progress.

If the indication that the candidate would not build an actual wall with stucco, brick, concrete, wood, whatever material that makes a wall not simply political and not simply metaphorical, but analogous by factual existence, and yet speaks of the building of a wall, it must then be relating to an event that has already occurred, and that now is being used as a linking, associative reference from which the discourse is proceeding.

Of course, the assumption is that the majority of people are actually following politics for a consistent period of time to know exactly what wall Trump is talking about besides the wall that comes out of his throat and from there progressing to make the respective presentation of relevant policy and proposing improvement.

That's the "box" for the wall speech: analogous factual reference, relevant policy already existing, and proposal for improvement. In a realistic political approach you can't just tune in to the speech without prior political research and expect the box to be built for you at that very moment, while the candidate already speaks on improvement, since the past factual event and the policy are established constants. The voter must then contribute to provide themselves access to a speech that is focused on improvement by doing their appropriate research prior to the speech, otherwise they will struggle to make associations and often will project their lack of preparation onto the presenting speaker because of unrealistic expectations.

"Bring back manufacturing" -- The context in which sentiments of that sort were uttered implies that the speaker, Trump, firmly believes manufacturing of goods offered for sale in the U.S. by U.S. companies should be produced in the U.S. Thus when one sees that Trump's own garments are made abroad, one can only wonder just how committed Trump is to that belief/principle.

Supporting U.S. manufacturing doesn't require devaluing international manufacture.

The words "bring back manufacturing" actually means there are currently no manufactures. That's why he has to use garments from elsewhere, because there is none being made in the U.S., although he would like to get his clothing being manufactured in the U.S.

Those words with their political framework, despite the sentiment, are actually very liberal, although they seem to carry a conservative aspect. I find them especially interesting because the Republican party and its candidates have always been associated to conservative measures while I was yet overwhelmed by the media information I was receiving on politics in approaching and making my personal political discrimination.

"58% of your teens are unemployed" -- The context in which that that statement was delivered implies that 58% of "your teens are also looking for work. When examining the accuracy of the statement, if one discovers that the only way for 58% of "your" teens to be unemployed is if one counts middle school, high school and collegiate teens who are looking for work and who are not seeking employment. Accordingly, one finds that the speaker, Trump, was not wholly clear. Upon finding out that only 14% of "your" teens seeking employment, one can only conclude that the reason for citing "58%" is malfeasant/prevaricating in some way.

It seems to me that the accuracy in the first statement is more so in the freedom teens are given than in the seeking position you have assumed by the second statement.

Unemployed people refers to people that are not being employed by other people. In other words, free people that are able to employ themselves and their chosen tools for their chosen professions without another person burdening them.

People seeking employment refers to people that already have tools but that yet are analyzing the market in how to proceed with their chosen professions as a result from their tools, otherwise assessing the market's conditions to apply the tools they already have in specific jobs, relations, activities, investments.

There is nothing contradictory about the numbers - they are simply being attributed to two different groups of people, although those two groups are groups of teens (those that are free to employ or to be leisurely, and those who are only interested in employing and employment).

• "We're going to have a deportation force/we're going to deport them all" -- That's pretty "black and white." Now we hear that the deportation force and deporting them all is "to be determined."

If you understand the service provided by the Office of Immigration in the Homeland Security Department, then you know that deportation is a liability to be reinforced at any given time if there are individuals or groups that are not cooperating with the State nor with the Federal Government.

So the first comment is on a group that surely is to be deported because of their transgressions, following the appropriate bureaucratic procedures at their due time. The second comment is on a group that might still be exonerated of the deportation penalty, and that has not transgressed as the group in the first comment has to have already evoked the deporting decision from the Department of Homeland Security.





For any candidate to gain the support of so many people, they must both be able to inform about what is generally proceeding in the nation within politics, either with candidates, officials, or petitioners, and also to continue making proposals for improvement so that citizens interested in politics may promptly maintain their participating engagements.

 

[320 Years of History]

Politics is always integrating a variety of national aspects into a single advancing progress.

What the hell does that mean? I literally have no idea of what you are attempting to communicate to me with that statement. What the heck is a "single advancing process" and into which "single advancing process" do you aim to say that politics integrates a "variety of national aspects?" Also, what "national aspects?'

If the indication that the candidate would not build an actual wall with stucco, brick, concrete, wood, whatever material that makes a wall not simply political and not simply metaphorical, but analogous by factual existence, and yet speaks of the building of a wall, it must then be relating to an event that has already occurred, and that now is being used as a linking, associative reference from which the discourse is proceeding.

I don't know what that sentence means either.

What I do know is that Trump isn't talking about a wall that's already been built or that is currently being built. How do I know that? I know that because when Trump talks about building a wall in an immigration policy context, he conjugates his verbs in the future tense not in the past, past perfect, present, present perfect, or future perfect tense.

Of course, the assumption is that the majority of people are actually following politics for a consistent period of time to know exactly what wall Trump is talking about

What do you mean "what wall?" Who doesn't know "what wall" Trump is talking about? Do you think he may mean a bedroom wall or something?

I don't care how long one has been following Trump, that's not going to do one any good as goes knowing exactly "what wall" or what kind of wall Trump has in mind and aims to build. The amount time following Trump's remarks about building a wall won't aid in one's having that level of knowledge because Trump's never stated what kind of wall or "what wall" he wants to build. He's only stated he wants to erect one between the U.S. and Mexico.

I don't even know for sure if he's stated he wants it to be effectively on the border. I also don't know what side of the Rio Grande he intends to put it on. I bet a lot of Americans will be pissed when they can't get to the Rio Grande because there's a wall marchin' along Texas' southern edge. Maybe he intends to build it in the middle of the river?

If you know of more details about Trump's wall, please point me to them.



Okay...that's enough for now...

 

[Holos]

What the hell does that mean? I literally have no idea of what you are attempting to communicate to me with that statement. What the heck is a "single advancing process" and into which "single advancing process" do you aim to say that politics integrates a "variety of national aspects?" Also, what "national aspects?'

"Single advancing process" = History, built and maintained by a calendar standard spanning millennia (1000s of years). The applicability of your username and its own trajectory in this forum are an example of a single national process within the larger singularity of History's whole, which isn't only strictly national.

It is into History's whole that politics integrates national aspects. That's not just 320 years, not just double of it, not just triple of it, not just a lack of vocabulary to represent unique mathematical operations in the English language, but thousands of years that if acknowledged can be perfectly represented in any use of English.

You are asking what "national aspects" I am referring to, but implicit in your question is a more fundamental question of how nations are formed (to the extent of millennia, and not simply to the establishment of the United States of America).

What I do know is that Trump isn't talking about a wall that's already been built or that is currently being built. How do I know that? I know that because when Trump talks about building a wall in an immigration policy context, he conjugates his verbs in the future tense not in the past, past perfect, present, present perfect, or future perfect tense.

Trump's discourse about the wall is in the past perfect, not in the future.

The past perfect necessarily assumes a future parting from that past event, but it is only within the perspective of the persons in that past perfect that their future is still undecided, a future that already happened, therefore not the same future we will yet experience as persons living in the present moment (possibly to be described in any verb tense at any moment in time - past, present or future).

The key to differentiate is knowing that as a person in the present, any form of language cannot determine your future, except by your own decision.

The way Trump is conveying that past perfect conjugation isn't in a traditional narrating standard of narrator and characters made apart. Trump, as narrator, takes also the position of characters to make the speech narrative more personal to his listeners who can also make use of emotional, personal awareness. That's why Trump's discourse on the wall may come as confusing and misunderstood as being in the future tense of a wall yet to be built, because he is converging and compressing within his singular narrative those people of the past that influenced the past perfect future in question, with the whole passing event (from past perfect to past perfect future) in his perception, often authentically capturing the position of those many people as a free narrator, and conveying it to the public who comes to assess the situation from yet another, more informed, future perspective (to confirm knowledge of the relevant "past perfect" situation presented and also to advance current political participation).

 

[320 Years of History]

Trump's discourse about the wall is in the past perfect, not in the future.

The past perfect necessarily assumes a future parting from that past event, but it is only within the perspective of the persons in that past perfect that their future is still undecided, a future that already happened, therefore not the same future we will yet experience as persons living in the present moment (possibly to be described in any verb tense at any moment in time - past, present or future)

Red:
??? Really? No you didn't just write that!!! All those somewhat syntactically Elizabethan sentences you string together and you actually don't understand the difference between the past perfect and simple future tenses?

English verb conjugation:

• Past perfect
• Future

Donald Trump on building a wall

• We're gonna build the wall.
• "We're going to do a wall; we're going to have a big, fat beautiful door on the wall; we're going to have people come in, but they're going to come in legally," Trump said at the third Republican debate."
• 
  

Blue:
Oh, Lord, have mercy...That's really what you were thinking? I get it....time and Theory of Relativity, the "light cone" (pp. 401ff), and what not...All of that is positively gripping stuff, but this forum, and with regard to anything Trump says, is neither the place nor context for that discussion.

...We're simple Newtonian beings here....and Trump most certainly is.

I'm not the guy on the forum who rushes to see and discuss complex topics from the most simplistic of perspectives, far from it, but I'm not in any way going to engage in discussing the temporal intent of Trump's remarks as seen through the lens and principles of general and special relativity. Not here.

 

[Holos]

Trump's discourse about the wall is in the past perfect, not in the future.

The past perfect necessarily assumes a future parting from that past event, but it is only within the perspective of the persons in that past perfect that their future is still undecided, a future that already happened, therefore not the same future we will yet experience as persons living in the present moment (possibly to be described in any verb tense at any moment in time - past, present or future)

Red:
??? Really? No you didn't just write that!!! All those somewhat syntactically Elizabethan sentences you string together and you actually don't understand the difference between the past perfect and simple future tenses?

English verb conjugation:

• Past perfect
• Future

Donald Trump on building a wall

• We're gonna build the wall.
• "We're going to do a wall; we're going to have a big, fat beautiful door on the wall; we're going to have people come in, but they're going to come in legally," Trump said at the third Republican debate."
• 
  

Blue:
Oh, Lord, have mercy...That's really what you were thinking? I get it....time and Theory of Relativity, the "light cone" (pp. 401ff), and what not...All of that is positively gripping stuff, but this forum, and with regard to anything Trump says, is neither the place nor context for that discussion.

...We're simple Newtonian beings here....and Trump most certainly is.

I'm not the guy on the forum who rushes to see and discuss complex topics from the most simplistic of perspectives, far from it, but I'm not in any way going to engage in discussing the temporal intent of Trump's remarks as seen through the lens and principles of general and special relativity. Not here.

To me, the reason you have included any bit of an explanation on physics in the discussion (without physics being at all elicited as confusing) is because you have not clearly comprehended the explanation I provided on language (or linguistics), which was the only and primary subject I explained in my post.

Yes, I see you now comprehend physics. I thank you for also reminding me of how simple it is. But your insistence on the verb conjugation and its syntax is not considering the continuing and layered narrative of "living literature" (Trump's, or any endeavoring politician's speech), beyond the fundamentals of modern, scholar acting and educational meta-linguistics (both acting and linguistics fully comprehended and applied for a non-restricted number of public citizens interested in participating politically through televised, online broadcasting or local events).

No you didn't just write that!!!

Your surprised interjection means you need to read it again, whatever part of my writing you were referring to.



Here is a simple reference to understand conceptual construction of language, which in politics is usually applied first in writing (preparation) and then in speech (often spontaneous but still following a clearly established and developed written framework).

Stylistic device - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[320 Years of History]

To me, the reason you have included any bit of an explanation on physics in the discussion (without physics being at all elicited as confusing) is because you have not clearly comprehended the explanation I provided on language (or linguistics), which was the only and primary subject I explained in my post.

Blue:
Perhaps; indeed that's not only plausible but probable. You write all sorts of things that I have no idea of what you are talking about. Once in a while you write something that seems to me clearly stated, but not often. I'll note that I do not mean your posts don't in fact make sense for the may, but rather that given your contemporary-ish Elizabethan writing style, a style that strikes me as at once Faulknerian and Miltonian, I don't much attempt to discern whether they do or don't. Once in a while you write something that's syntactically modern, and I'll read it, but when I see that archaic diction, I stop reading, which, of course, usually also means I won't respond either.

Red:
I am sure that was your intent.

I can say only that when I hear/see folks raise "past is prologue" idea in a literal way, that is they aren't discussing The Tempest theme of the past's irrelevance due to the future's grand promise, -- or even the modern evolution of that theme (know history so as not to repeat it) -- my mind goes to to physics not linguistics. Your language on the matter -- "only within the perspective of the persons in that past perfect that their future is still undecided, a future that already happened, therefore not the same future we will yet experience as persons living in the present moment (possibly to be described in any verb tense at any moment in time" -- is one such example.

I have highlighted the phrases/terms that drove my thoughts to physics, not linguistics, in spite of the fact that I was well aware that I'd asked for a linguistic/grammatical reply. I even considered your comments and tried to apply them to something grammatical. For better or worse, I will remain mired in the modern mode of English composition that mandates one adhere to the fundamental conjugation conventions that allow the greatest number of audience members to distinguish WTF I'm trying to communicate. I'm going to hope that your metacognition allows you to understand the meta-linguistic implications of the preceding sentence. <winks>

You see, yes, I'm capable of deciphering your prose; I just don't feel the impetus to do it because it's a nuisance to do so when your entire post's style is that of the 16th and 17th centuries. It's one thing for you toss in an unfamiliar term; I can look up terms, and it's no trouble to do so. It's entirely another matter when the entire structure of nearly every sentence is of another era and I have to read it as though I'm reading Hooker's Of the Lawes of Ecclesiastical Politie. (For those who are not familiar with the Elizabethans to whom I refer, see a few excerpted passages at the end of this post.)

You wrote:

[Y]our insistence on the verb conjugation and its syntax is not considering the continuing and layered narrative of "living literature" (Trump's, or any endeavoring politician's speech), beyond the fundamentals of modern, scholar acting and educational meta-linguistics (both acting and linguistics fully comprehended and applied for a non-restricted number of public citizens interested in participating politically through televised, online broadcasting or local events).​

Following the verb conjugation and syntax of modern English, I interpret (rewrite) that passage as:

You've overlooked the multiple layers of meaning found in Trump's statement "we're gonna build a wall." There is, of course and unquestionably, the denotational message that Trump will in the future build a wall. There is also, however, the implied message that reminds the audience of the past and extant ills the wall, once built, aims to end.​

I don't think I misunderstood what you wrote. Do you? I just don't feel like sifting through Elizabethan forms to make sense of it. That's why I asked you what you were talking about. I had some hope that you'd explain yourself, or even just rephrase your ideas using modern syntax, so that I could participate in a conversation with you.



Passages by a few Elizabethan writers:

Richard Hooker: Of the Lawes of Ecclesiastical Politie (spelling adjusted to modern standards)

It is both commonly said, and truly, that the best men otherwise are not always the best in regard of society. The reason whereof is for that the law of men's actions is one, if they be respected only as men; and another, when they are considered as parts of a [body politic]. Many men there are, then whom nothing is more commendable when they are singled. And yet in society with others none lesse fit to answer the duties which are looked for at their handes. Yea, I am persuaded, that of them with whom in this cause we strive, there are whose betters.​

John Milton: "Paradise Lost"

The first sort by their own suggestions fell,
Self-tempted, self-depraved: man falls deceived
By the other first: man therefore shall find grace,
The other none.
​

Christopher Marlowe: "Dr. Faustus"

Within the bowels of these elements,
Where we are tortured and remain forever.
Hell hath no limits, nor is circumscribed
In one self place, for where we are is hell,
And where hell is must we ever be.
And, to conclude, when all the world dissolves,
And every creature shall be purified,
All places shall be hell that is not heaven.
​

Philip Sidney: An Apology for Poetry

The answer is manifest: that if he stand upon that was —as if he should argue, because it rained yesterday, therefore it should rain today—then indeed it hath some advantage to a gross conceit; but if he know an example only informs a conjectured likelihood, and so go by reason, the poet doth so far exceed him, as he is to frame his example to that which is most reasonable, be it in warlike, politic, or private matters; where the historian in his bare was hath many times that which we call fortune to overrule the best wisdom. Many times he must tell events whereof he can yield no cause: or, if he do, it must be poetical. For that a feigned example hath as much force to teach as a true example (for as for to move, it is clear, since the feigned may be tuned to the highest key of passion), let us take one example wherein a poet and a historian do concur.​

 

[Holos]

To me, the reason you have included any bit of an explanation on physics in the discussion (without physics being at all elicited as confusing) is because you have not clearly comprehended the explanation I provided on language (or linguistics), which was the only and primary subject I explained in my post.

Blue:
Perhaps; indeed that's not only plausible but probable. You write all sorts of things that I have no idea of what you are talking about. Once in a while you write something that seems to me clearly stated, but not often. I'll note that I do not mean your posts don't in fact make sense for the may, but rather that given your contemporary-ish Elizabethan writing style, a style that strikes me as at once Faulknerian and Miltonian, I don't much attempt to discern whether they do or don't. Once in a while you write something that's syntactically modern, and I'll read it, but when I see that archaic diction, I stop reading, which, of course, usually also means I won't respond either.

Red:
I am sure that was your intent.

I can say only that when I hear/see folks raise "past is prologue" idea in a literal way, that is they aren't discussing The Tempest theme of the past's irrelevance due to the future's grand promise, -- or even the modern evolution of that theme (know history so as not to repeat it) -- my mind goes to to physics not linguistics. Your language on the matter -- "only within the perspective of the persons in that past perfect that their future is still undecided, a future that already happened, therefore not the same future we will yet experience as persons living in the present moment (possibly to be described in any verb tense at any moment in time" -- is one such example.

I have highlighted the phrases/terms that drove my thoughts to physics, not linguistics, in spite of the fact that I was well aware that I'd asked for a linguistic/grammatical reply. I even considered your comments and tried to apply them to something grammatical. For better or worse, I will remain mired in the modern mode of English composition that mandates one adhere to the fundamental conjugation conventions that allow the greatest number of audience members to distinguish WTF I'm trying to communicate. I'm going to hope that your metacognition allows you to understand the meta-linguistic implications of the preceding sentence. <winks>

You see, yes, I'm capable of deciphering your prose; I just don't feel the impetus to do it because it's a nuisance to do so when your entire post's style is that of the 16th and 17th centuries. It's one thing for you toss in an unfamiliar term; I can look up terms, and it's no trouble to do so. It's entirely another matter when the entire structure of nearly every sentence is of another era and I have to read it as though I'm reading Hooker's Of the Lawes of Ecclesiastical Politie. (For those who are not familiar with the Elizabethans to whom I refer, see a few excerpted passages at the end of this post.)

You wrote:

[Y]our insistence on the verb conjugation and its syntax is not considering the continuing and layered narrative of "living literature" (Trump's, or any endeavoring politician's speech), beyond the fundamentals of modern, scholar acting and educational meta-linguistics (both acting and linguistics fully comprehended and applied for a non-restricted number of public citizens interested in participating politically through televised, online broadcasting or local events).​

Following the verb conjugation and syntax of modern English, I interpret (rewrite) that passage as:

You've overlooked the multiple layers of meaning found in Trump's statement "we're gonna build a wall." There is, of course and unquestionably, the denotational message that Trump will in the future build a wall. There is also, however, the implied message that reminds the audience of the past and extant ills the wall, once built, aims to end.​

I don't think I misunderstood what you wrote. Do you? I just don't feel like sifting through Elizabethan forms to make sense of it. That's why I asked you what you were talking about. I had some hope that you'd explain yourself, or even just rephrase your ideas using modern syntax, so that I could participate in a conversation with you.



Passages by a few Elizabethan writers:

Richard Hooker: Of the Lawes of Ecclesiastical Politie (spelling adjusted to modern standards)

It is both commonly said, and truly, that the best men otherwise are not always the best in regard of society. The reason whereof is for that the law of men's actions is one, if they be respected only as men; and another, when they are considered as parts of a [body politic]. Many men there are, then whom nothing is more commendable when they are singled. And yet in society with others none lesse fit to answer the duties which are looked for at their handes. Yea, I am persuaded, that of them with whom in this cause we strive, there are whose betters.​

John Milton: "Paradise Lost"

The first sort by their own suggestions fell,
Self-tempted, self-depraved: man falls deceived
By the other first: man therefore shall find grace,
The other none.
​

Christopher Marlowe: "Dr. Faustus"

Within the bowels of these elements,
Where we are tortured and remain forever.
Hell hath no limits, nor is circumscribed
In one self place, for where we are is hell,
And where hell is must we ever be.
And, to conclude, when all the world dissolves,
And every creature shall be purified,
All places shall be hell that is not heaven.
​

Philip Sidney: An Apology for Poetry

The answer is manifest: that if he stand upon that was —as if he should argue, because it rained yesterday, therefore it should rain today—then indeed it hath some advantage to a gross conceit; but if he know an example only informs a conjectured likelihood, and so go by reason, the poet doth so far exceed him, as he is to frame his example to that which is most reasonable, be it in warlike, politic, or private matters; where the historian in his bare was hath many times that which we call fortune to overrule the best wisdom. Many times he must tell events whereof he can yield no cause: or, if he do, it must be poetical. For that a feigned example hath as much force to teach as a true example (for as for to move, it is clear, since the feigned may be tuned to the highest key of passion), let us take one example wherein a poet and a historian do concur.​

Okay?