Yeah I was kinda confused. I thought it was a fairly intelligible statement, as far as my posts are concerned. And perhaps even grammatically accurate.ah! ok then! it just goes to show you Stan, im the only one who pays attention to anything you say. your only friend in the world.
I don't think it's about interpretation so much is it though? I think he misspoke so the question is no so much "what is the meaning of what he said?" but rather "how much does what he accidentally said by reveal about how he truly feels?".I've told you this in threads before Tea, your vision of what is "obviously" the "natural" interpretation is so hopelessly biased by your own partisan agenda that you misread things, jump to conclusions, and then claim it's inevitable.
Although I am of course making an assumption of my own in asserting that.I don't think it's about interpretation so much is it though? I think he misspoke so the question is no so much "what is the meaning of what he said?" but rather "how much does what he accidentally said by reveal about how he truly feels?".
It absolutely is a question of interpretation. The literal meaning of "Americans" is "Americans." Not "white Americans" or any other kind of Americans.I don't think it's about interpretation so much is it though? I think he misspoke so the question is no so much "what is the meaning of what he said?" but rather "how much does what he accidentally said by reveal about how he truly feels?".
Arguably its the central comparison to make, when considering voter suppression.It absolutely is a question of interpretation. The literal meaning of "Americans" is "Americans." Not "white Americans" or any other kind of Americans.
"in general" or "broadly" are nice clarifying notes, but it's normal for people to statistically contrast a subset with its superset. That's a very normal thing to do.
Actually listening back then maybe he didn't say it wrong at all "African-Americans are voting in just as high a proportion as Americans (as a whole)" does make sense although I think it would be an unwise line to come out with deliberately as - without the bit in brackets - it lays him open to the accusation that he doesn't consider African-Americans as Americans. I assumed that he meant to say "African-Americans area voting in just as high a proportion as white Americans (or Americans who are not from an ethnic minority or some such)" but... comparing them to the country as a whole actually makes more sense.Although I am of course making an assumption of my own in asserting that.
Yeah the "oh he doesn;t think of african-americans as americans!" I think is low-hanging fruit, even for raging partisans, but you're right that he's probably better off not even inviting such facile scrutiny.Actually listening back then maybe he didn't say it wrong at all "African-Americans are voting in just as high a proportion as Americans (as a whole)" does make sense although I think it would be an unwise line to come out with deliberately as - without the bit in brackets - it lays him open to the accusation that he doesn't consider African-Americans as Americans. I assumed that he meant to say "African-Americans area voting in just as high a proportion as white Americans (or Americans who are not from an ethnic minority or some such)" but... comparing them to the country as a whole actually makes more sense.
I'm thinking about this too much.
But you're missing my point, I thought that he had misspoken (although now I am not so sure) in which case spending ages analysing something he didn't meant to say to extract its meaning would be wasted effort.It absolutely is a question of interpretation. The literal meaning of "Americans" is "Americans." Not "white Americans" or any other kind of Americans.
"in general" or "broadly" are nice clarifying notes, but it's normal for people to statistically contrast a subset with its superset. That's a very normal thing to do.
And for the record, the fact that I can step up to defend McConnell indicates, to me, that I can step up to defend virtually anyone.
Plot twist: the copper was Sunni.I remember a few years ago some policeman giving a talk to "local communities" and he was supposed to discuss Sunni Muslims and Shi-ites but he called them "the shitties" - didn't go over too well.
It actually does matter quite a bit whether (your interpretation) of the statistical correlation he claims is "true or not," unless you're accusing him of blatantly manufacturing statistics.
@Clinamenic's interpretation is most likely the correct one here. Because non-hispanic, white turnout is significantly higher than non-hispanic black turnout, whereas black turnout is roughly equivalent to overall voter turnout.
So, if you're being remotely charitable to Mitch, it's clear his claim was referencing "Americans in general," not white people. Because that's the only way his statistical claim shakes out