Scary Trump: Fails Basic Literacy Test; Way Of Speaking Is "Oddly Adolescent"

[Falvlun]

Judging political speech, (i.e. rhetoric), by comparison to a normative concept of what it 'should be' rather than with regards to what is effective (i.e the purpose of rhetoric) seems to be a bit mistaken.

Rhetoric can be effective and eloquent (e.g. Obama), or effective and blunt (e.g. Trump), ultimately for a politician, effectiveness is the yardstick.

(Also an obsession over Trump's mental capabilities, while it may be cathartic, already lost the Dems one election.)

Trump’s effectiveness has much more to say about conservative voters than his speech patterns.

Describing his speech as merely “blunt” is charitable, to say the least. Where do incoherent ramblings fit in?

 

[Augustus]

Trump’s effectiveness has much more to say about conservative voters than his speech patterns.

Describing his speech as merely “blunt” is charitable, to say the least. Where do incoherent ramblings fit in?

I'm still unable to see how being able to connect with the voters that exist in reality is a political weakness. Obama could do it in a completely different way, but ultimately a vote is a vote.

Simple memorable messages. Repetition. Connection on an emotional level. These are standard features of effective rhetoric. His strange turn of phrase can actually help in this regard.

 

[Falvlun]

I'm still unable to see how being able to connect with the voters that exist in reality is a political weakness. Obama could do it in a completely different way, but ultimately a vote is a vote.

Simple memorable messages. Repetition. Connection on an emotional level. These are standard features of effective rhetoric. His strange turn of phrase can actually help in this regard.

Poop on a stick would have connected with voters if it hated Hilary and laughed at Obama.

I really think you are giving him way too much credit here.

If making up schoolyard nicknames connects with voters— and that’s literally what propelled him forward in the Republican primaries— that says more about them. In other words, third grade rhetoric is still third grade rhetoric even if it appeals to people.

And what of those inchoherent ramblings? The cyber? And the nuclear? These are also typical Trump speech.

I’m calling a spade a spade. Whether other people happen to like spades is beside the point.

 

[Father Heathen]

That's an insult to Palpatine, who was actually cunning.

 

[Mindmaster]

And how many news outlets are there? Only Fox attracts those who want "conservative" propaganda, which is why Murdock said he was creating it in the first place.

IMO, people should make certain that they check many different news outlets so as to not allow themselves to get brainwashed by the talking-heads at Fox that claim all other outlets broadcast "fake news".

People have the choice of what they watch, and I consider it just a like a vote. It doesn't matter if there is propaganda if there are facts, the two are easily discernible by most people. Honestly, I think it's the anti-Trump position that most people are sick of and it's causing the migration. Most people aren't still angry about his election win, and they're expecting Congress (regardless of the political party) to work with him to get things done. They're leaving the other networks because they're tired of the hit pieces and constant whining... I am too, lol.

 

[Falvlun]

People have the choice of what they watch, and I consider it just a like a vote. It doesn't matter if there is propaganda if there are facts, the two are easily discernible by most people. Honestly, I think it's the anti-Trump position that most people are sick of and it's causing the migration. Most people aren't still angry about his election win, and they're expecting Congress (regardless of the political party) to work with him to get things done. They're leaving the other networks because they're tired of the hit pieces and constant whining... I am too, lol.

Constant whining and obstructionism and fake investigations by conservatives gave them everything they ever wanted: Congress and the Presidency. Why shouldn’t the Democrats follow this winning template?

 

[Mindmaster]

How nice that Trump may not have broken the law. Thing is, it takes more to be the President of the United States than simply remain within the law. Hell, my eight year-old nice qualifies under that criterion, as do I. But I understand your standards: Trump deserves our respect and support as President because

1. He does what he promised, which still remains to be seen.
2. He's not in jail.
​

Forget the many, many un-presidential transgressions he's committed, as long as

1. He does what he promised, which still remains to be seen.
2. He's not in jail.​

He's A-Ok in your book.

​

He's not perfect in my view, but no one is. The things that people complain mostly about are style or presentation, or are personal, and in total that means nothing to me. He's never going to be in jail or be impeached, it's just isn't going to happen because there is nothing there. It's also not whether a law or policy was broken, it's all on intent. Intent is what convicts you, and it's a stretch to think that anything Trump has done could be tried. If he does what he promised he's doing his job, and I'll be satisfied with that. The only difference between myself and others here is I am willing to give him the shot and withhold my judgement until then.

 

[Mindmaster]

Constant whining and obstructionism and fake investigations by conservatives gave them everything they ever wanted: Congress and the Presidency. Why shouldn’t the Democrats follow this winning template?

There is a difference between election time and the time to work. All of the elected officials are ultimately scored by how successful they are at getting things accomplished, and taking a militant anti-President stance accomplishes nothing for Trump or themselves. Whether they realize that or not, they're just screwing themselves... I don't support any political foot dragging regardless of who is doing it. All the grandstanding just hurts _us_ as a people, it doesn't help anyone. Trump's opposition should be working with Trump to make sure what they want is addressed and included, not simply refusing to play like some angry child.

 

[Falvlun]

There is a difference between election time and the time to work. All of the elected officials are ultimately scored by how successful they are at getting things accomplished, and taking a militant anti-President stance accomplishes nothing for Trump or themselves. Whether they realize that or not, they're just screwing themselves... I don't support any political foot dragging regardless of who is doing it. All the grandstanding just hurts _us_ as a people, it doesn't help anyone. Trump's opposition should be working with Trump to make sure what they want is addressed and included, not simply refusing to play like some angry child.

Yes, YES! Let the frustration experienced by Democrats for 8 years flow through you!

 

[metis]

They're leaving the other networks because they're tired of the hit pieces and constant whining... I am too, lol.

Then maybe you should stop it.

 

[metis]

Trump's opposition should be working with Trump to make sure what they want is addressed and included, not simply refusing to play like some angry child.

You don't seem to be following the news much because this is exactly what the Dems have been trying to do, and even McConnell and Ryan made it clear a few weeks ago that they don't even know where Trump stands when debating prior to the shutdown. Schumer and Trump supposedly had a deal, but the next day Trump pulled it off the table, for just one example.

 

[Mindmaster]

Then maybe you should stop it.

I'm not doing that to anyone, merely judging them by their actual actions/achievements or results. If we're talking about the Presidency we're talking about a job description, and I'm talking about the work done not the people doing the work. Besides, if I wasn't here who would you argue with?

 

[Mindmaster]

You don't seem to be following the news much because this is exactly what the Dems have been trying to do, and even McConnell and Ryan made it clear a few weeks ago that they don't even know where Trump stands when debating prior to the shutdown. Schumer and Trump supposedly had a deal, but the next day Trump pulled it off the table, for just one example.

It's just impossible to know the reasons for these things, but in the end the shutdown was resolved and rather promptly. I didn't feel this was much of a Trump win just that neither side had much to gain from continuing the stalemate. I still think that the Democrats should take the DACA deal as well because it does give them most of what they want - the minute points of contention they have with it could be resolved with bills later. I think it's much more important to end the limbo status of these people, so they can at least plan appropriately in their lives.

 

[Skwim]

He's not perfect in my view, but no one is. The things that people complain mostly about are style or presentation, or are personal, and in total that means nothing to me. He's never going to be in jail or be impeached, it's just isn't going to happen because there is nothing there. It's also not whether a law or policy was broken, it's all on intent. Intent is what convicts you, and it's a stretch to think that anything Trump has done could be tried. If he does what he promised he's doing his job, and I'll be satisfied with that. The only difference between myself and others here is I am willing to give him the shot and withhold my judgement until then.

Curious, what's your stand on habitual liars? Think they're presidential material?

Here's a graphic I posted last December 14th.

Here's another.

If your interested in the accompanying remarks (not mine, but those of the source) please click HERE

And considering Trump's incredible propensity for lying, if I were you I would be banking on him keeping any of his promises.

.

 

[Mindmaster]

Curious, what's your stand on habitual liars? Think they're presidential material?

Here's a graphic I posted last December 14th.

Here's another.

If your interested in the accompanying remarks (not mine, but those of the source) please click HERE

And considering Trump's incredible propensity for lying, if I were you I would be banking on him keeping any of his promises.

.

Do you think it's the Presidents job to tell you the truth? I don't, because I know the truth sometimes cannot be told or has to be amended to reflect current realities. The better question is do you think he's telling these "lies" to deceive you, or he's being honest from his perspective but the evidence is against him? The truth that he states may not be the truth you accept, but it is still the truth.

Someone isn't necessarily deceitful when they're wrong, they just may be stating what they honestly feel they know.

 

[Skwim]

Do you think it's the Presidents job to tell you the truth?

Yup, but obviously you don't. So why bother caring about what he promises if, in light of his penchant for lying, his promises pretty much mean zilch?

"He either does what he promises, or doesn't. In the end, that's all I care about."​

.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Are you a socialist? I know the socialists hate him.

Little to do with Socialism, and I don't 'hate him'. I hate that his ideas should run rampant in society and be given a platform. I actually pity that the man will probably never be a good person in this lifetime. He appears to be a self-centered narcissist.

 

[Mindmaster]

Yup, but obviously you don't. So why bother caring about what he promises if, in light of his penchant for lying, his promises pretty much mean zilch?

"He either does what he promises, or doesn't. In the end, that's all I care about."​

.

Your expectations are unrealistic and exist in the mythological realm of your own biases, I can't do anything about that. It's obvious that bothers you because you perceive me as a combatant rather than considering my views in full, and that's fine. Pardon me if I decide to diverge where the discussion is no longer about the reality of his actions and focuses on emotional outbursts or character assassinations because I'm not interested on either count. Whether the target of your commentary is Trump or me personally is irrelevant, the phantoms of your own mind are your problem to deal with not mine.

So far I think he's been doing his best to keep his promises, so that's just a difference of opinion. I realize many other elements are at play that affect his ability to get things done according to his plan, so I don't hold him responsible for that which isn't in his wheelhouse in the first place. While he certainly leads and holds an influence over Congress, the real changes happen there and anything that doesn't work out rest mostly on their shoulders.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not doing that to anyone, merely judging them by their actual actions/achievements or results. If we're talking about the Presidency we're talking about a job description, and I'm talking about the work done not the people doing the work.

Yours is the minority view, ie, judging based upon what a prez effects in office.
For most people, it's all about tribalism.
He's an abrasive abusive boor, & because he's on the other side, this is what matters.
They'll insult him, misquote him, misjudge him because it's personal.
But by & large, his critics don't oppose his policies so much.
If a Democrat had won, & pursued the same agendas, there'd be massive support for...
- Tax policy which curbs housing bubbles & attracts corporations back here from overseas.
- Fed tax revenue increasing in 2017.
Who Really Pays Uncle Sam's Bills?
- Immigration policy which lets DACA types become citizens, gives priority
to skilled workers, ditches the lottery, & allows immediate family to immigrate.
(This is a position similar to what Hilda has stated before.)
- Massive infrastructure spending plan.
- Continued wars & foreign adventurism.
- Moving the embassy in Israel.

For the tribalists, he's already judged to be the worst or greatest president in history.
But for the rest of us, we can only look at things which have actually happened where
he is the procuring cause. Only one year into his record, there's not much to go on.

 

[Falvlun]

But by & large, his critics don't oppose his policies so much.
If a Democrat had won, & pursued the same agendas, there'd be massive support for...

The devil’s in the details, my friend.

- Tax policy which curbs housing bubbles & attracts corporations back here from overseas.

Actually this one’s really not a detail. That tax bill was essentially anathema to everything the Dems stand for.

As for these two specific things you chose to highlight, I suspect the Dems would agree those are good things to strive for, but disagree that this tax bill will be an effective way to achieve those goals. You might as well say that Republicans support financial regulations since they are meant to avoid another housing bubble too.

- Fed tax revenue increasing in 2017.
Who Really Pays Uncle Sam's Bills?

If tax revenue is up for 2017 (can’t find info), I’m not sure how the Trump tax bill could be credited with that. It wasn’t passed til the end of the year so people couldn’t have made decisions about it yet. I think this one is solidly in the “remains to be seen” category.

- Immigration policy which lets DACA types become citizens, gives priority
to skilled workers, ditches the lottery, & allows immediate family to immigrate.
(This is a position similar to what Hilda has stated before.)

Absolutely for DACA, but it’s coming with strings attached, like funding a border wall- which Dems find plain stupid.

You’ll have to support that Clinton wanted to ditch the lottery. Here’s her immigration platform.

As for immediate family, of course Dems want immediate family— as well as extended family. Trump’s plan allows only for minor children and spouses to be considered. That’s much narrower than Dems.

- Massive infrastructure spending plan.

Dems want it government funded and led. Republicans want it funded by private partnerships.

- Continued wars & foreign adventurism.

That one is such a mixed bag. Not gonna touch it.

- Moving the embassy in Israel.

... as a bargaining chip in the Palestinian-Israeli peace negotiations. Certainly not done in such a cavalier manner.