-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@antipodean said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@antipodean said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@antipodean said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@antipodean said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
What? you are comparing it to what year 1975?
He was talking about his administration.
I should have mad that clear.How do you infer that?
A day after Trump’s speech, Barack Obama brought up the history of American steel during a joint appearance with the Canadian prime minister and the Mexican president, who were meeting for a summit in Ottawa.
Reporters asked the three leaders what they would do to counter the anti-free-trade sentiment exemplified by Trump. Obama acknowledged the shortcomings of trade agreements, but he argued that reverting to tariffs and a possible trade war was the wrong way to improve the situation. He pointed to technological change as an irreversible factor.
"This nostalgia about an era when everybody was working in manufacturing jobs, and you didn’t need a college degree, and you could go in and as long as you worked hard you could support a family and live a middle-class life -- that has been undermined far more by automation than it has been by outsourcing or the shift of jobs to ... low-wage countries," Obama said. "I mean, the steel industry is producing as much steel in the United States as it ever was. It’s just (that) it needs one-tenth of the workers that it used to."
I was talking about the fuel consumption lie
Yes and? I am just not sure what point you are trying to make.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? There are two ways to take the statement "we have doubled the distance our cars will go". The tweet shows which one he meant.
No.
Yes.
In his state of the nation address in late January he lied and said this
"We produce more oil at home than we have in 15 years. We have doubled the distance our cars will go on a gallon of gas and the amount of renewable energy we generate from sources like wind and solar, with tens of thousands of good, American jobs to show for it.""
It's fairly fucking simple to understand:
- Either a statement of fact about the capability that has already happened, or
- Expressing the future tense.
Without a shred of evidence to support your inference, you've chosen the later despite either could be true and the subsequent tweet clearly shows which it is.
Are you just completely ignoring the link I have provided?
From your link: 'in 2011, the EPA announced a plan, in partnership with a dozen automakers, to increase average fuel economy to 54.5 miles per gallon for cars and light-duty trucks.'
So combined with that statement and the tweet I linked to, the context is obviously 'we [the administration, as a result of partnership with a dozen automakers] have doubled the distance our cars will [in the future] go on a gallon of gas'.
-
@antipodean said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@antipodean said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@antipodean said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@antipodean said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@antipodean said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
What? you are comparing it to what year 1975?
He was talking about his administration.
I should have mad that clear.How do you infer that?
A day after Trump’s speech, Barack Obama brought up the history of American steel during a joint appearance with the Canadian prime minister and the Mexican president, who were meeting for a summit in Ottawa.
Reporters asked the three leaders what they would do to counter the anti-free-trade sentiment exemplified by Trump. Obama acknowledged the shortcomings of trade agreements, but he argued that reverting to tariffs and a possible trade war was the wrong way to improve the situation. He pointed to technological change as an irreversible factor.
"This nostalgia about an era when everybody was working in manufacturing jobs, and you didn’t need a college degree, and you could go in and as long as you worked hard you could support a family and live a middle-class life -- that has been undermined far more by automation than it has been by outsourcing or the shift of jobs to ... low-wage countries," Obama said. "I mean, the steel industry is producing as much steel in the United States as it ever was. It’s just (that) it needs one-tenth of the workers that it used to."
I was talking about the fuel consumption lie
Yes and? I am just not sure what point you are trying to make.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? There are two ways to take the statement "we have doubled the distance our cars will go". The tweet shows which one he meant.
No.
Yes.
In his state of the nation address in late January he lied and said this
"We produce more oil at home than we have in 15 years. We have doubled the distance our cars will go on a gallon of gas and the amount of renewable energy we generate from sources like wind and solar, with tens of thousands of good, American jobs to show for it.""
It's fairly fucking simple to understand:
- Either a statement of fact about the capability that has already happened, or
- Expressing the future tense.
Without a shred of evidence to support your inference, you've chosen the later despite either could be true and the subsequent tweet clearly shows which it is.
Are you just completely ignoring the link I have provided?
From your link: 'in 2011, the EPA announced a plan, in partnership with a dozen automakers, to increase average fuel economy to 54.5 miles per gallon for cars and light-duty trucks.'
So combined with that statement and the tweet I linked to, the context is obviously 'we [the administration, as a result of partnership with a dozen automakers] have doubled the distance our cars will [in the future] go on a gallon of gas'.
You are completely changing the tense to make your point. Obama said he had done it, your sentence says they plan to.
One is a lie/exaggeration/alternate fact the other is a campaign promise, and we know what they are worth.
-
@Kirwan said in US Politics:
@antipodean said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@antipodean said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@antipodean said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@antipodean said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@antipodean said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
What? you are comparing it to what year 1975?
He was talking about his administration.
I should have mad that clear.How do you infer that?
A day after Trump’s speech, Barack Obama brought up the history of American steel during a joint appearance with the Canadian prime minister and the Mexican president, who were meeting for a summit in Ottawa.
Reporters asked the three leaders what they would do to counter the anti-free-trade sentiment exemplified by Trump. Obama acknowledged the shortcomings of trade agreements, but he argued that reverting to tariffs and a possible trade war was the wrong way to improve the situation. He pointed to technological change as an irreversible factor.
"This nostalgia about an era when everybody was working in manufacturing jobs, and you didn’t need a college degree, and you could go in and as long as you worked hard you could support a family and live a middle-class life -- that has been undermined far more by automation than it has been by outsourcing or the shift of jobs to ... low-wage countries," Obama said. "I mean, the steel industry is producing as much steel in the United States as it ever was. It’s just (that) it needs one-tenth of the workers that it used to."
I was talking about the fuel consumption lie
Yes and? I am just not sure what point you are trying to make.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? There are two ways to take the statement "we have doubled the distance our cars will go". The tweet shows which one he meant.
No.
Yes.
In his state of the nation address in late January he lied and said this
"We produce more oil at home than we have in 15 years. We have doubled the distance our cars will go on a gallon of gas and the amount of renewable energy we generate from sources like wind and solar, with tens of thousands of good, American jobs to show for it.""
It's fairly fucking simple to understand:
- Either a statement of fact about the capability that has already happened, or
- Expressing the future tense.
Without a shred of evidence to support your inference, you've chosen the later despite either could be true and the subsequent tweet clearly shows which it is.
Are you just completely ignoring the link I have provided?
From your link: 'in 2011, the EPA announced a plan, in partnership with a dozen automakers, to increase average fuel economy to 54.5 miles per gallon for cars and light-duty trucks.'
So combined with that statement and the tweet I linked to, the context is obviously 'we [the administration, as a result of partnership with a dozen automakers] have doubled the distance our cars will [in the future] go on a gallon of gas'.
You are completely changing the tense to make your point.
I'm not. The tense depends on how you treat will, because if Obama was talking present tense, he would have said 'we have doubled the distance our cars go on a gallon of gas'.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
The Great Manipulator?
Some days I wish I had hair like that. But obviously I wouldn't leave it long like a fucking hippier.
-
Here is the direct quote;
"We have doubled the distance our cars will go on a gallon of gas".
Do that's what he did say...
Here is politifact link calling it a lie, and explaining why;
There is no context that makes that untruth more true. All you've done is post his backpedaling when he got caught.
-
@antipodean said in US Politics:
@Kirwan said in US Politics:
@antipodean said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@antipodean said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@antipodean said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@antipodean said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@antipodean said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
What? you are comparing it to what year 1975?
He was talking about his administration.
I should have mad that clear.How do you infer that?
A day after Trump’s speech, Barack Obama brought up the history of American steel during a joint appearance with the Canadian prime minister and the Mexican president, who were meeting for a summit in Ottawa.
Reporters asked the three leaders what they would do to counter the anti-free-trade sentiment exemplified by Trump. Obama acknowledged the shortcomings of trade agreements, but he argued that reverting to tariffs and a possible trade war was the wrong way to improve the situation. He pointed to technological change as an irreversible factor.
"This nostalgia about an era when everybody was working in manufacturing jobs, and you didn’t need a college degree, and you could go in and as long as you worked hard you could support a family and live a middle-class life -- that has been undermined far more by automation than it has been by outsourcing or the shift of jobs to ... low-wage countries," Obama said. "I mean, the steel industry is producing as much steel in the United States as it ever was. It’s just (that) it needs one-tenth of the workers that it used to."
I was talking about the fuel consumption lie
Yes and? I am just not sure what point you are trying to make.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? There are two ways to take the statement "we have doubled the distance our cars will go". The tweet shows which one he meant.
No.
Yes.
In his state of the nation address in late January he lied and said this
"We produce more oil at home than we have in 15 years. We have doubled the distance our cars will go on a gallon of gas and the amount of renewable energy we generate from sources like wind and solar, with tens of thousands of good, American jobs to show for it.""
It's fairly fucking simple to understand:
- Either a statement of fact about the capability that has already happened, or
- Expressing the future tense.
Without a shred of evidence to support your inference, you've chosen the later despite either could be true and the subsequent tweet clearly shows which it is.
Are you just completely ignoring the link I have provided?
From your link: 'in 2011, the EPA announced a plan, in partnership with a dozen automakers, to increase average fuel economy to 54.5 miles per gallon for cars and light-duty trucks.'
So combined with that statement and the tweet I linked to, the context is obviously 'we [the administration, as a result of partnership with a dozen automakers] have doubled the distance our cars will [in the future] go on a gallon of gas'.
You are completely changing the tense to make your point.
I'm not. The tense depends on how you treat will, because if Obama was talking present tense, he would have said 'we have doubled the distance our cars go on a gallon of gas'.
That is what he said!
-
@Kirwan said in US Politics:
Here is the direct quote;
"We have doubled the distance our cars will go on a gallon of gas".
Do that's what he did say...
I've already dealt with this.
Here is politifact link calling it a lie, and explaining why;
And I've explained why it's wrong. Simple English.
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@antipodean said in US Politics:
@Kirwan said in US Politics:
@antipodean said in US Politics:
So combined with that statement and the tweet I linked to, the context is obviously 'we [the administration, as a result of partnership with a dozen automakers] have doubled the distance our cars will [in the future] go on a gallon of gas'.
You are completely changing the tense to make your point.
I'm not. The tense depends on how you treat will, because if Obama was talking present tense, he would have said 'we have doubled the distance our cars go on a gallon of gas'.
That is what he said!
Today, no area holds more promise than our investments in American energy. After years of talking about it, we’re finally poised to control our own energy future. We produce more oil at home than we have in 15 years. (Applause.) We have doubled the distance our cars will go on a gallon of gas, and the amount of renewable energy we generate from sources like wind and solar -- with tens of thousands of good American jobs to show for it. We produce more natural gas than ever before -- and nearly everyone’s energy bill is lower because of it. And over the last four years, our emissions of the dangerous carbon pollution that threatens our planet have actually fallen.
-
@antipodean said in US Politics:
I'm not. The tense depends on how you treat will, because if Obama was talking present tense, he would have said 'we have doubled the distance our cars go on a gallon of gas'.
@antipodean said in US Politics:
Today, no area holds more promise than our investments in American energy. After years of talking about it, we’re finally poised to control our own energy future. We produce more oil at home than we have in 15 years. (Applause.) We have doubled the distance our cars will go on a gallon of gas, and the amount of renewable energy we generate from sources like wind and solar -- with tens of thousands of good American jobs to show for it. We produce more natural gas than ever before -- and nearly everyone’s energy bill is lower because of it. And over the last four years, our emissions of the dangerous carbon pollution that threatens our planet have actually fallen.
WTF??
That is exactly what he said!
Do you accept that he didnt say we 'will' in his speech, he said we 'have'.. which is the entire point?
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
I'm not. The tense depends on how you treat will, because if Obama was talking present tense, he would have said 'we have doubled the distance our cars go on a gallon of gas'.
Today, no area holds more promise than our investments in American energy. After years of talking about it, we’re finally poised to control our own energy future. We produce more oil at home than we have in 15 years. (Applause.) We have doubled the distance our cars will go on a gallon of gas, and the amount of renewable energy we generate from sources like wind and solar -- with tens of thousands of good American jobs to show for it. We produce more natural gas than ever before -- and nearly everyone’s energy bill is lower because of it. And over the last four years, our emissions of the dangerous carbon pollution that threatens our planet have actually fallen.
WTF??
That is exactly what he said!
Only the deluded think these two statements are the same:
- We have doubled the distance our cars will go on a gallon of gas
- We have doubled the distance our cars go on a gallon of gas
I've bolded the additional bit and I've already explained why this makes a difference in the English language.
Do you accept that he didnt say we 'will' in his speech, he said we 'have'.. which is the entire point?
He did say will. You've quoted it ad infinitum and I've linked to and quoted the transcript.
-
Baron your response to any proven lie by Trump is just to say that Obama has said something which is a lie or is made up in the past. This is just silliness. You seem to be saying that as soon as someone lies once, they are automatically as bad as someone who lies many more times. There is a very good reason why inventing an attack which is used to bar a group of people from entering a country is treated very differently to whether or not cars have become twice as efficient.
In this thread, several users routinely like to trash the "mainstream media". I also think the mainstream media in regards to CNN did a poor job in their election coverage. However, many of the users who have spent their time trashing the mainstream media have also made several obviously false claims (like about how few counties Clinton won or that Trump's immigration executive order was exactly the same as one passed by Obama). Furthermore, a quick google of these claims makes it clear that they originated on Breitbart. Criticising the MSM for being biased and then posting obviously false and misleading facts from Breitbart makes no sense to me. You are simply holding media organisations you don't use to higher standards than the organisations that you do use. If you want to criticise the standards in media then you should probably subscribe to the Economist, or the Atlantic, or even National Review.
The thing that is most striking about reading pro-Trump websites is the incredibly small world these people live in. If you read Breitbart there is nothing there about any important issues. Foreign issues are rarely touched upon unless it is to score political points or directly related to Trump. There is almost never an article about reforming the economy, or reducing corruption or overhauling the health system. Needless to say, dissenting opinions are never published on Breitbart (as they are in the Atlantic or New Yorker). If Breitbart is a look in to the world of a Trump supporter, then it is a scary place. It's scary because these are people who believe that the greatest threat to western civilisation comes from the left and that the primary motive of government should be to defeat those people. It's an exercise in futility because any attack on the left will just embolden them.
The mainstream media is not perfect and they should be doing a lot more to focus on the real issues that matter. I just can't take any criticism of the mainstream media seriously if it is coming from someone who believes that Breitbart is the solution.
-
@hydro11 said in US Politics:
that the primary motive of government should be to defeat those people. It's an exercise in futility because any attack on the left will just embolden them.
Like, say, the right takes its moral high ground from the screeching attacks of the left?
The thing @Frank said earlier about tribes is correct. There is going to be very limited dialogue in this environment from now on. Politics is marketing "'OBAMACARE' THREATENS YOUR LIBERTIES!" etc
-
@antipodean said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
I'm not. The tense depends on how you treat will, because if Obama was talking present tense, he would have said 'we have doubled the distance our cars go on a gallon of gas'.
Today, no area holds more promise than our investments in American energy. After years of talking about it, we’re finally poised to control our own energy future. We produce more oil at home than we have in 15 years. (Applause.) We have doubled the distance our cars will go on a gallon of gas, and the amount of renewable energy we generate from sources like wind and solar -- with tens of thousands of good American jobs to show for it. We produce more natural gas than ever before -- and nearly everyone’s energy bill is lower because of it. And over the last four years, our emissions of the dangerous carbon pollution that threatens our planet have actually fallen.
WTF??
That is exactly what he said!
Only the deluded think these two statements are the same:
- We have doubled the distance our cars will go on a gallon of gas
- We have doubled the distance our cars go on a gallon of gas
I've bolded the additional bit and I've already explained why this makes a difference in the English language.
Do you accept that he didnt say we 'will' in his speech, he said we 'have'.. which is the entire point?
He did say will. You've quoted it ad infinitum and I've linked to and quoted the transcript.
You just moved where you put the will, talk about moving the goalposts.
Regardless, he said "we have", which is lie for either sentence.
Note the lack of insulting terms like deluded in my reply.
-
this is amusing...the context of 'we have' is the key in this IMO, who is he talking about? America, as in historical? His administration? He mentions 15 years just prior, is it in that time?
Cracks me up the arguments on here!
-
@hydro11 said in US Politics:
Baron your response to any proven lie by Trump is just to say that Obama has said something which is a lie or is made up in the past. This is just silliness. You seem to be saying that as soon as someone lies once, they are automatically as bad as someone who lies many more times. There is a very good reason why inventing an attack which is used to bar a group of people from entering a country is treated very differently to whether or not cars have become twice as efficient.
In this thread, several users routinely like to trash the "mainstream media". I also think the mainstream media in regards to CNN did a poor job in their election coverage. However, many of the users who have spent their time trashing the mainstream media have also made several obviously false claims (like about how few counties Clinton won or that Trump's immigration executive order was exactly the same as one passed by Obama). Furthermore, a quick google of these claims makes it clear that they originated on Breitbart. Criticising the MSM for being biased and then posting obviously false and misleading facts from Breitbart makes no sense to me. You are simply holding media organisations you don't use to higher standards than the organisations that you do use. If you want to criticise the standards in media then you should probably subscribe to the Economist, or the Atlantic, or even National Review.
The thing that is most striking about reading pro-Trump websites is the incredibly small world these people live in. If you read Breitbart there is nothing there about any important issues. Foreign issues are rarely touched upon unless it is to score political points or directly related to Trump. There is almost never an article about reforming the economy, or reducing corruption or overhauling the health system. Needless to say, dissenting opinions are never published on Breitbart (as they are in the Atlantic or New Yorker). If Breitbart is a look in to the world of a Trump supporter, then it is a scary place. It's scary because these are people who believe that the greatest threat to western civilisation comes from the left and that the primary motive of government should be to defeat those people. It's an exercise in futility because any attack on the left will just embolden them.
The mainstream media is not perfect and they should be doing a lot more to focus on the real issues that matter. I just can't take any criticism of the mainstream media seriously if it is coming from someone who believes that Breitbart is the solution.
I could not disagree with your post much more. You are just making up a position and assigning it for me, I said that Conway was incompetent, and I made it perfectly clear that I was referring to Obama only in the context in how it was treated by the media. I at no stage said that it didn't matter if Trump or his spokespeople lied because Obama did. So don't assign that position to me, because you just decided to make it up.
This is how the personal bullshit starts, posters make up stuff about other posters and what they supposedly said. ... based on nothing but the desire to rant about a straw man. So dont fucking tell me what my response was unless you actually take the time to portray it accurately.As for Breitbart, your argument simply holds very little water. Breitbart tackles plenty of international issues... and its readers live in no more narrow world than those who frequent many other news outlets.
And who exactly is to say that is wrong to think that the biggest threat to the world isnt the left? I think the current left wing ideologies are bloody terrible!And the mainstream media are most certainly not doing much on the issues that matter to most people. They cannot even analyse properly the current mood of the country.... I would have thought that was the single biggest issue. I would have thought how the chattering classes are so disconnected would be an issue. Breitbart covers this... most left wing organisations do some sort of feeble attempt.
I find it more disturbing that sites like Breitbart et al are smeared and derided because they swim against the prevailing left wing media tide. The left find them incredibly threatening. It used to be the same with Fox. There is a sneering false superiority complex that has infected large swathes of the US amongst the left and its compliant media.
-
@hydro11 said in US Politics:
Baron your response to any proven lie by Trump is just to say that Obama has said something which is a lie or is made up in the past. This is just silliness. You seem to be saying that as soon as someone lies once, they are automatically as bad as someone who lies many more times. There is a very good reason why inventing an attack which is used to bar a group of people from entering a country is treated very differently to whether or not cars have become twice as efficient.
In this thread, several users routinely like to trash the "mainstream media". I also think the mainstream media in regards to CNN did a poor job in their election coverage. However, many of the users who have spent their time trashing the mainstream media have also made several obviously false claims (like about how few counties Clinton won or that Trump's immigration executive order was exactly the same as one passed by Obama). Furthermore, a quick google of these claims makes it clear that they originated on Breitbart. Criticising the MSM for being biased and then posting obviously false and misleading facts from Breitbart makes no sense to me. You are simply holding media organisations you don't use to higher standards than the organisations that you do use. If you want to criticise the standards in media then you should probably subscribe to the Economist, or the Atlantic, or even National Review.
The thing that is most striking about reading pro-Trump websites is the incredibly small world these people live in. If you read Breitbart there is nothing there about any important issues. Foreign issues are rarely touched upon unless it is to score political points or directly related to Trump. There is almost never an article about reforming the economy, or reducing corruption or overhauling the health system. Needless to say, dissenting opinions are never published on Breitbart (as they are in the Atlantic or New Yorker). If Breitbart is a look in to the world of a Trump supporter, then it is a scary place. It's scary because these are people who believe that the greatest threat to western civilisation comes from the left and that the primary motive of government should be to defeat those people. It's an exercise in futility because any attack on the left will just embolden them.
The mainstream media is not perfect and they should be doing a lot more to focus on the real issues that matter. I just can't take any criticism of the mainstream media seriously if it is coming from someone who believes that Breitbart is the solution.
I generally agree with that, but does Breitbart claim to be anything other than a conservative news source? That to me is the key difference, i.e. being totally upfront about your biases and how your reporting will be slanted vs pretending to be impartial but being absolutely nothing of the sort.
What I find stupid with the media right now is that they're desperate to "destroy" Trump over even the tiniest most inconsequential thing. They should calm down and play the long game. Being such a loose cannon, it's almost inevitable that a major scandal will erupt at some stage during the Trump presidency. If they're going to blast him every time he uses an apostrophe in the wrong place then people will be completely numb when he actually does seriously fark up. There's also the risk that he might actually do something good and then sites like Breitbart will be able to claim with some justification that the mainstream press never gave him a fair chance.
-
@NTA said in US Politics:
@hydro11 said in US Politics:
that the primary motive of government should be to defeat those people. It's an exercise in futility because any attack on the left will just embolden them.
Like, say, the right takes its moral high ground from the screeching attacks of the left?
The thing @Frank said earlier about tribes is correct. There is going to be very limited dialogue in this environment from now on. Politics is marketing "'OBAMACARE' THREATENS YOUR LIBERTIES!" etc
Both sides are living ins their own worlds it would seem. And both think the other one is small. See Hydros post. And then mine when I talk about the bubble that the left live in. Different sides of the same coin.
-
Just watched the One News report on COnways comments.. think from ABC?
Holy shit.... it was almost bloody balanced?? What happened?
Ripped into Conway a bit for what she said... and then said what her response was...I feel unnerved,
-
@Kirwan said in US Politics:
@antipodean said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
I'm not. The tense depends on how you treat will, because if Obama was talking present tense, he would have said 'we have doubled the distance our cars go on a gallon of gas'.
Today, no area holds more promise than our investments in American energy. After years of talking about it, we’re finally poised to control our own energy future. We produce more oil at home than we have in 15 years. (Applause.) We have doubled the distance our cars will go on a gallon of gas, and the amount of renewable energy we generate from sources like wind and solar -- with tens of thousands of good American jobs to show for it. We produce more natural gas than ever before -- and nearly everyone’s energy bill is lower because of it. And over the last four years, our emissions of the dangerous carbon pollution that threatens our planet have actually fallen.
WTF??
That is exactly what he said!
Only the deluded think these two statements are the same:
- We have doubled the distance our cars will go on a gallon of gas
- We have doubled the distance our cars go on a gallon of gas
I've bolded the additional bit and I've already explained why this makes a difference in the English language.
Do you accept that he didnt say we 'will' in his speech, he said we 'have'.. which is the entire point?
He did say will. You've quoted it ad infinitum and I've linked to and quoted the transcript.
You just moved where you put the will, talk about moving the goalposts.
No, I removed the word will.
Regardless, he said "we have", which is lie for either sentence.
How so?
I can see how people mistakenly attribute an event that has happened because of the use of "we have", but the sentence structure goes from action -> result. So "we have [...] will go" means will result in as opposed to resulted in.
Note the lack of insulting terms like deluded in my reply.
I call it as I see it. delude /dɪˈl(j)uːd/ believe something that is not true
-
That's a very good point. How small is the bubble the so-called normal media live in when they can so pathetically fail to gauge the mood of massive parts of the country. To me the best analysis of what was going on was in that article from cracked. Cracked ffs.
-
US President Donald Trump's nominee for Army secretary, businessman Vincent Viola, has withdrawn his name from consideration for the post. - See more at: http://www.skynews.com.au/news/world/nthamerica/2017/02/04/trump-s-army-secretary-drops-out.html#sthash.rVXrcb27.dpuf
US Politics