Polls Closing in South Carolina; Trump Declared Winner, Battle Between Rubio and Cruz for Second

Follow the results as they come in at Decision Desk, if you like.

Fox News says late-breakers are breaking for Cruz and Rubio. Some are speculating that while Trump might win, it might be a lot closer than previously predicted.

I don't want to say I predicted that, but as a matter of fact, I predicted that. (DON'T COMMENT ON OLD POSTS, THE SYSTEM WILL BAN YOU!)

And I'm not one of those guys who has kept claiming "This will sink Trump," either.

I have no idea what will happen, personally. I'm worried that Trump's and Rubio's constant answer to Cruz's accurate claims about their records -- that Cruz is a "liar," though they never specify in what way he's lying -- might hurt him.

Fox News, which Mickey Kaus has pointed out "makes amnesty easy" for the GOP by never asking many questions about it, has been very careful about not asking Rubio about Cruz's accurate claim that he told Univision he wouldn't cancel DACA for some time -- continues not asking Rubio about this.

If they did ask about this, they'd find out Cruz was right, and in fact could have gone much further than he did.

Jake Tapper did ask Rubio about this. Rubio, get this, lied once again:

MARCO RUBIO: Univison has consistently reported that, right after that interview, that I said DACA has to go away. That is because it is unconstitutional, I opposed it when the president did it, I remain against it now, it can not be permanent policy, and I have said that repeatedly.

And even Univison who conducted the interview, said that the interview was about me saying that DACA had to go away.

So again, another example of [Cruz] misleading people.

Um, that's not all you said, buddy. Let's look at the Spanish and the English translation. "JR" is Jorge Ramos and "SMR" is Senator Marco Rubio.

I've bolded the key sentences in both Spanish and English. Accent marks and inverted question marks omitted, as they would become undefined characters on the comments page.

JR: Como usted sabe, a los Republicanos siempre les ha costado mucho trabajo conseguir el voto hispano. Y le queria hablar de temas muy concretos que afectan directamente a los hispanos. Quisiera empezar primero con el tema de la accion diferida y DACA. Si usted llegara a la Casa Blanca, usted mantendria el programa de DACA, es decir, De Accion Diferida para los Dreamers, y mantendria la accion ejecutiva del Presidente Barack Obama que beneficiaría más de cuatro millones de indocumentados?

SMR: Bueno, DACA va a tener que terminar en algun momento determinado. Yo no lo desharía inmediatamente. La razon es porque ya hay personas que tienen ese permiso, que estan trabajando, que estan estudiando, y no creo que sería justo cancelarlo de un momento al otro.

Pero si creo que va a tener que terminar. Y si Dios quiere va a terminar porque va a pasar una reforma migratoria. DAPA todavia no esta en vigor, y pienso que ha impedido el progreso en lo que es la inmigracion, en la reforma migratoria. Y como ese programa no esta en vigor y ese sí lo cancelaria. Pero DACA, yo creo que es importante, no se puede cancelar de un momento al otro porque ya hay personas que estan beneficiando. Pero si va a tener que terminar. No puede ser la política permanente de Estados Unidos. Y no creo que eso sea lo que estan pidiendo tampoco. Yo creo que todos prefieren una reforma migratoria.

Let's look at the translation. And no, Spinners, this isn't a "mistranslation." This is Univision's own translation, and they know Spanish pretty well. I've also gone through the key language myself.

JR: As you know, it has always been hard for Republicans to get the Hispanic vote. I wanted to talk with you about very concrete issues that affect Hispanics directly. I would like to start with the issue of deferred action and DACA. If you made it to the White House, would you keep the DACA program; that is, Deferred Action for the Dreamers, and would you keep President Barack Obama's executive action, which would benefit more than four million undocumented people?

SMR: Well, DACA is going to have to end at some point. I wouldn't undo it immediately. The reason is that there are already people who have that permission, who are working, who are studying, and I don't think it would be fair to cancel it suddenly.

But I do think it is going to have to end. And, God willing, it's going to end because immigration reform is going to pass. DAPA hasn’t yet taken effect, and I think it has impeded progress on immigration, on immigration reform. And since that program hasn’t taken effect yet, I would cancel it. But DACA, I think it is important; it can't be cancelled suddenly because there are already people who are benefiting from it. But it is going to have to end. It cannot be the permanent policy of the United States. And I don't think that's what they’re asking for, either. I think that everyone prefers immigration reform.

So yes, he says it is going to have to end at some point -- that's the soundbite he makes sure English-speakers hear -- but he doesn't tell you he also said he would not terminate it right away because people are already "benefiting" from it and he "do[esn't] think it would be fair" to take it from them. Then he says, the reason it will go away is because it will be replaced by comprehensive immigration reform, that is, a legislative amnesty instead of an executive-order one.

Si Dio quieres. If God wants/God Willing.

So yeah, Rubio says one thing for English speaking Republicans, but says something different for Spanish speakers.

In English, he only talks about border security and DACA "ending." In Spanish, he says it will have to end at some point to be determined, and also says that won't matter much anyway, because we'll have a permanent legislative amnesty in place by then. (He also speaks of it ending in the third person -- he won't end it. It will just "end" itself, somehow. If we're doing a close parsing.)

That's not a "lie" by Cruz, nor is it, as some would claim, a "mistranslation." Anyone who wishes to claim this is a mistranslation -- point to the words or phrases you dispute, and we can go through them with a dictionary. As I said, I'm learning Spanish this weekend, so that's a fun time for me. (Seriously, it is.)

But anyway, Rubio gets to shout that Cruz is "lying" about what he said and no one challenges it. I'm not sure if no one at Fox speaks Spanish, or if Fox is just deliberately shilling for their amnesty golden-boy.

So that's why I think Cruz could lose: Trump is saying Cruz "lies" when he says Trump previously supported even partial birth abortion (!!!) as he did, and is on tape saying so, and Rubio is saying Cruz "lies' when he accurately quotes his Univision interview, even though that's on tape too.

But the Establishment has an interest in eliminating Cruz so that it's just Trump and Rubio ( a contest they then plan to win, thus getting their establishment amnesty candidate nominated), so it's not worth pointing out that every charge Cruz made was true.

Anyway, I do fear that. I do see the power of the Establishment juggernaut.

It's not just what they report, or what questions they ask. It's more what they won't report, and what questions Chris Wallace deliberately avoids.

We'll see if my fears as usual come to pass.

The "Mistranslation." When you hear people claiming mistranslation, keep in mind they base this claimed "mistranslation" on this single word:

Pero DACA, yo creo que es importante, no se puede cancelar de un momento al otro porque ya hay personas que estan beneficiando.

In English, that's "But DACA, I believe it's important, it is not possible to cancel it immediately because there are already persons benefiting from it."

The claimed "mistranslation" is that some take "important" to refer to DACA, whereas Rubio's spinners say it should refer to "there are people already benefiting from it."

I would suggest that 1, the difference between these two possible translations is so slight as to be hallucinatory, and 2, this isn't an error in translation anyway, but simply one of logic and parsing, as this ambiguity exists in both Spanish and English, and has nothing to do with some sort of an imaginary nuance of the Spanish language itself, and most importante, 3, this one minor quibble over what "importante" refers to in this one sentence does not render everything else a "mistranslation."

But that's how this claim is being deployed -- bring up any of Rubio's Univision appearances (where he frequently talked about amnesty in a different way than he did on, say, Mark Levin), and Rubio's spinners cry "mistranslation," all regarding this one insignificant quibble over what importante refers to.

I would humbly suggest No es muy importante.

posted by Ace at 07:39 PM

| Access Comments