They said trump supporters because it was a group of trump supporters. There was no need to specify "some" because its inherently obvious that its not all of his supporters
I disagree. That's why communications is an actual major, and why so many executives have it. The words we use or don't use change the emotional response and interpretation of a statement. This is used to give factual statements which are intentionally misleading for a purpose. In this case the purpose is clearly politically motivated. "Muslim terrorists" vs "Isis" for instance. Both are factually correct, the latter gives more precise information without relying on or building bias, and by and large the inclusion of the term "Muslim" wouldn't provide any useful information in understanding the immediate event being discussed- it serves to implicate Muslims in the act and lead the reader. It's at best sensationalist and at worse divisive to write it as "Trump supporters" hurting credibility for unbiased facts and creating an "us vs them" where "they" are idiots and racists. Reducing people to caricature is a propaganda tactic to indoctrinate the small minded.
Thank you. I do agree with you that sometimes generalities are used for the sake of expedience/simplicity and not subversion. If he wasn't a professional writer or media/public figure I would be just as likely to chalk it up to unintentional phrasing or sub conscious bias. It was mainly his training and the fact that his job is to carefully choose his words to influence and engage an audience that I feel it's likely not a mistake.
I suppose time is a factor. If a 21yo says: "I was in my moms privates 21 years ago" vs that same person saying "I was in my moms privates yesterday" They are essentially the same statement and location, but by talking about distant history versus more recent history we change implications greatly. We are all human and related yes. But since migrating we have developed distinct cultures and changes. Context is key.
1. Not everyone whose ancestors were here 300 years ago is from the area now within the borders of the United States.
2. Native American "reservations" are administered differently than the state/counties that surround it. The US and state taxpayers have to fund their roads and water, etc., but cant tax them. So, it's not necessarily a given that someone from that area is allowed to represent the state or whatever non-reservation government entity that contains the reservation on which he lives.
3. Thank you Democrats for running such a criminal, excuser and defender of sexual assault, and dishonest ex-Secretary of State who sold access to State Department resources that Trump was the less terrible choice.
Holy balls @guest. Not only do you solidly reinforce miniwheats point but somehow manage to turn this into a tirade against Hillary? Ok...
1. Derp. Mexico is part of North America, and much of America was Mexico a few hundred years ago. But he’s Navajo. The Navajo aren’t “everyone” they are the Dine, they come from inside what is established US territory. If he was born on the Navajo reservation after 1924 he is a citizen.
2. No. It is actually a given. All native peoples born within the United States have full citezenship and rights to vote or serve in office. Law 280 governs the jurisdiction of Federal law over natives acting off the reservation and other legislation covers specifics of jurisdiction between tribal and federal powers over members of a tribe.
3. Glass houses. But I suppose in your mind it’s worse to defend assault than to pay people hush money over it and advocate it? But that isn’t a debate I would have here as I’m not going to argue she’d be any better or worse.
eyy im just gonna throw this out there because im not sure but arent the reservations part of their own countries? So if you were born in one would you not automatically be a legal american. They do have their own laws and do their own things because they are separate from us.
They're not considered a separate country but instead a separate principality that falls under Federal authority/jurisdiction. So if you are born in one you are considered a "legal American" citizen just like anyone else born in the country.
Yeah. It's sort of the consolation prize for the whole "stole your land and wiped out your people" thing. The United States grants lands and administrative rights to tribes, but they aren't recognized internationally or federally as their own sovereignties. The government can take or override as they see fit. Disney World actually is about as close to being its own country (not hyperbole- look into it) than most tribes are.
They're...American...
2. Native American "reservations" are administered differently than the state/counties that surround it. The US and state taxpayers have to fund their roads and water, etc., but cant tax them. So, it's not necessarily a given that someone from that area is allowed to represent the state or whatever non-reservation government entity that contains the reservation on which he lives.
3. Thank you Democrats for running such a criminal, excuser and defender of sexual assault, and dishonest ex-Secretary of State who sold access to State Department resources that Trump was the less terrible choice.
1. Derp. Mexico is part of North America, and much of America was Mexico a few hundred years ago. But he’s Navajo. The Navajo aren’t “everyone” they are the Dine, they come from inside what is established US territory. If he was born on the Navajo reservation after 1924 he is a citizen.
2. No. It is actually a given. All native peoples born within the United States have full citezenship and rights to vote or serve in office. Law 280 governs the jurisdiction of Federal law over natives acting off the reservation and other legislation covers specifics of jurisdiction between tribal and federal powers over members of a tribe.
3. Glass houses. But I suppose in your mind it’s worse to defend assault than to pay people hush money over it and advocate it? But that isn’t a debate I would have here as I’m not going to argue she’d be any better or worse.