U.S. Politics

[StefanAVFC]

2 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I simply don't agree that his syntax is 'a complete joke'. If you look at samples of unplanned speech, transcribed as they were spoken, you will find that lots of people speak like this. It's not weird or abnormal. 

I disagree.

He speaks at a year 5 level (4th grade level in the States) If you're correct, then multiple people speak at a 4th grade level when asked a question.

And anyway, if what you're saying is true, then I apologise for wanting to hold the most powerful in the world to a higher standard than 'lots of people'. Even blokes like Farage, who I absolutely detest, don't speak in the same incoherent syntax that Trump does. In fact, if you studied answers by the likes of Le Pen, Farage, Wilders etc, they won't speak the same way.

The thought of Trump's awful behaviour continuing to be normalised makes me nauseous.

[StefanAVFC]

14 minutes ago, jon_c said:

His presidential press conferences (if he ever actually does one) are going to be total car crashes. 

He did one a few days ago with Don King (convinced murderer) holding American, Israeli and Russian flags.

It was a total car crash.

14 minutes ago, Chindie said:

That kind of repetition is a very common oratory technique.

Trump uses it with absolutely no subtlety though which should dishonourable diminish it's effectiveness, but it seems to tie into his talking like a complete simpleton.

 

The repetition is one aspect of his syntax that makes it a joke. The repetition, the going off on a tangent, most sentences making no sense, the terrible grammar. In every answer he gives.

A man who can't speak like an adult is going to be the POTUS in less than 3 weeks. Scary.

[Chindie]

6 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

It's both. Repetition doesn't need subtlety to be effective (see jingles) and the chaos of the rest of his speech makes your brain reach out for the words that you think will make sense of it, he structures sentences so that you have to find the word, and he often positions that word so that it's the only thing you take away.

 

Theres a difference between the use in 'jingles' and the rhetorical device though. A jingle or any advertising campaign or similar just needs to lodge in your brain a few words. A politician is using it to argue, the repetition is there to persuade and reinforce a point, and drawing attention to it undermines how well it works. A jingle doesn't need to worry about that because your brain isn't really being engaged, it just accepts what it knows is an advert or whatever, it doesn't require thought at all, whereas the politician is effectively trying to win an argument with the help of a trick and to do that it can't be obvious what they're doing. The fact that it's so obvious it makes him sound stupid should also undermine it.

He's an awful orator. The worst I can think of.

[HanoiVillan]

Just now, StefanAVFC said:

I disagree.

He speaks at a year 5 level (4th grade level in the States) If you're correct, then multiple people speak at a 4th grade level when asked a question.

And anyway, if what you're saying is true, then I apologise for wanting to hold the most powerful in the world to a higher standard than 'lots of people'. Even blokes like Farage, who I absolutely detest, don't speak in the same incoherent syntax that Trump does. In fact, if you studied answers by the likes of Le Pen, Farage, Wilders etc, they won't speak the same way.

The thought of Trump's awful behaviour continuing to be normalised makes me nauseous.

In other words, he hasn't had the same training in public speaking that professional politicians usually have. 

Doubtless that's true, but that's part of his appeal. 

And your initial point was that it was impossible to follow what he's saying. It's not only not impossible, it's easy. Aren't you troubled by a thesis that he's a shit communicator when he's clearly persuaded millions and millions of people, at packed rallies, to vote for him and believe in his message?

[StefanAVFC]

Chindie has said it better than I could.

I'm not convinced 'millions and millions of people voted for him' because he's a good communicator. 

People at packed rallies, all he had to do was shout shit like 'lock her up' and 'build the wall' and they all would have screamed and shouted and voted for him so I'm not so sure it's a valid point. Also millions voted the way they did because they always vote Rep and a lot voted to upset Dems.

The only people that mattered in this election was voters in swing states. I read that, if something like 70k votes across 3/4 states had gone the other way, then Hillary would have won. 

Also I didn't say he's a shit communicator. I said that he has god awful syntax when answering questions and giving speeches which often leads to incoherent rambles. However, as many have said, those rambles have key words in them which appeal to certain demographics. I don't think it's a ploy, it's just the awful level of syntax he displays.

I strongly dispute that 'lots of people speak like this'. Especially when giving speeches.

Edited January 1, 2017 by StefanAVFC

[chrisp65]

Is there a suggestion here that you need to pass some sort of exam set by the establishment before you're allowed to stand for election?

 

[StefanAVFC]

Not sure where that's being suggested.

I just feel that the person who will be the most powerful man on the planet very soon should be able to give an answer to a question without sounding like a rambling moron. Not exactly a high standard to hold somebody in his position to.

He is the face of the nation. He goes all round the world and gives speeches to members of the public, representing the States. He needs to be held to a higher standard than 'lots of people speak like that' and 'you can understand him'.

Even if we say that "yeah fair enough Donald, you spoke like that deliberately to get people to vote for you", why is he continuing with it? He doesn't need to appeal to people now. He's won. Surely he should pivot away now and start acting presidential? Instead he has doubled down.

Edited January 1, 2017 by StefanAVFC

[chrisp65]

6 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

Not sure where that's being suggested.

 He needs to be held to a higher standard than 'lots of people speak like that' and 'you can understand him'.

There's a constant 'liberal' stream of people saying he's a moron and makes no sense and is just basically, thick.

He's doing alright for a thicko. I don't like him or trust him, he's just plain horrible. But I'd suggest neither him or his supporters will be overly worried about the educated middle classes continuing a ranting narrative about him being thick or speaking like someone that lacks an education in public speaking.

[tonyh29]

Didn't I read in this thread a few months back that one of the advantages Trump had over Hilary was that his TV work (apprentice etc) meant he was more media savvy and it was helping him come across better (paraphrasing , I can't recall the exact wording )

i didn't watch any of the TV debates in America but I don't recall reading that Trump was an incoherent rambling moron in the media afterwards

so , I dunno on this one , you may be right but equally you may just be looking at an issue that isn't really there 

[HanoiVillan]

3 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

Chindie has said it better than I could.

I'm not convinced 'millions and millions of people voted for him' because he's a good communicator. 

People chose to vote for him. There are of course multiple reasons why people chose to vote for him, but one obvious one is that he persuaded them to. 

4 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

People at packed rallies, all he had to do was shout shit like 'lock her up' and 'build the wall' and they all would have screamed and shouted and voted for him so I'm not so sure it's a valid point.

Obviously there's more to it than simply shouting buzzwords, though I agree that helped. If he'd just shouted 'build the wall' over and over again, people wouldn't have known what wall or why it was a good idea. And it isn't a fair reflection of the range of subjects he talked about at rallies anyway.

33 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

The only people that mattered in this election was voters in swing states. I read that, if something like 70k votes across 3/4 states had gone the other way, then Hillary would have won. 

 Those are the people who were decisive, not the only people who mattered (ie, if lots of people who voted for him in Texas voted for Hillary instead, then he'd have lost Texas and that would have mattered). Regardless, he started the primary campaign as a rank outsider and joke candidate, dismissed by everyone in the media (and me) as a no-hoper. He only got people to vote for him by persuading them. 

36 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

I strongly dispute that 'lots of people speak like this'. Especially when giving speeches.

In the last example you quoted, he wasn't giving a speech, he was answering a question. 

[mjmooney]

Social media (specifically, Facebook) has opened my eyes about rednecks. I think I had previously thought of them as almost fictional characters. But now I know they are out there in large numbers, and far, far beyond the most extreme parodies. 

[tonyh29]

4 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

Social media (specifically, Facebook) has opened my eyes about rednecks. I think I had previously thought of them as almost fictional characters. But now I know they are out there in large numbers, and far, far beyond the most extreme parodies. 

[StefanAVFC]

3 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

People chose to vote for him. There are of course multiple reasons why people chose to vote for him, but one obvious one is that he persuaded them to. 

I disagree. I think a majority of people vote GOP regardless of who the candidate is for a multitude of reasons. The percentage of people he would have persuaded is small. Exactly the same as for Obama.

4 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Obviously there's more to it than simply shouting buzzwords, though I agree that helped. If he'd just shouted 'build the wall' over and over again, people wouldn't have known what wall or why it was a good idea. And it isn't a fair reflection of the range of subjects he talked about at rallies anyway.

He ran on a ticket of anti-Muslim, anti-Mexican, anti-PC. He was a 'refreshingly honest' candidate who didn't care who he offended. I think it really is as simple as shouting build the wall. Did you see his rallies? As an example:

"I'm going to build a wall!!!! *CHEER* Who's going to pay for the wall? "MEXICO!" "WHO?" "MEXICO!". Any sort of actual policy discussion was a footnote at that point. The chanting and the rhetoric got them on side. The 'policy' disclosure just kept them there. 

8 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

(ie, if lots of people who voted for him in Texas voted for Hillary instead, then he'd have lost Texas and that would have mattered). 

That would never happen in a million years and has nothing to do with Trump. Texas will always vote go red regardless of his message. Same with New York going blue. A Dem is never going to win Texas. The simple fact of every election is that only 4/5 states actually matter. Trump appealed to 70k more people across those 4/5 states and won. Texas had nothing to do with it so your point is moot.

10 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Regardless, he started the primary campaign as a rank outsider and joke candidate, dismissed by everyone in the media (and me) as a no-hoper. He only got people to vote for him by persuading them. 

If you watched Charlie Brooker's 2016 wipe, he does a good job of describing exactly why Trump got to power. Being dismissed as a joke actually helped him. If the media had just simply ignored him, he wouldn't have won. Even by mocking him, the media gave him the platform to deliver his rhetoric. The media made a grave error that people would be turned off by his comments on women, muslims, mexicans etc so reported them expecting people to be outraged. In fact, the opposite happened. People liked Trump because of his comments. His crowds' reactions to certain comments support that assertion I believe. 

15 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

In the last example you quoted, he wasn't giving a speech, he was answering a question. 

I have mentioned both speeches and answering questions. He is the same for both.

24 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

But I'd suggest neither him or his supporters will be overly worried about the educated middle classes continuing a ranting narrative about him being thick or speaking like someone that lacks an education in public speaking.

 I'd suggest 'speaking like someone that lacks an education in public speaking' is a reach. After Hanoi's comments that 'lots of people speak like that' I went on Youtube and found examples of non-public speaking trained people and how they did speeches and answered questions. Nobody I've seen speaks like Trump. A total mess of bad grammar, going off on a tangent and repetition. The worst somebody who isn't trained in public speaking will do is use non-verbal fillers, or maybe lose track of themselves. Trump is the opposite. He continues on a rapid pace, flying off on all sorts of tangents, he repeats himself so often it's silly.

I find it disturbing that the way he speaks is either being dismissed as 'lots of people speak like that' or 'he isn't educated in public speaking' (which I think is incorrect anyway considering he has been in the public eye for decades) 

I feel we need to hold the most powerful diplomat in the world to a much high standard than that. Instead millions of people are excusing and normalising his behaviour. Look at the GOP, vehemently anti-Russia until Trump. Now Putin's approval ratings are above Obama's within the GOP. Party over country. Trump knows this so he continues to double down.

[OutByEaster?]

3 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

I'd suggest 'speaking like someone that lacks an education in public speaking' is a reach. After Hanoi's comments that 'lots of people speak like that' I went on Youtube and found examples of non-public speaking trained people and how they did speeches and answered questions. Nobody I've seen speaks like Trump. A total mess of bad grammar, going off on a tangent and repetition. The worst somebody who isn't trained in public speaking will do is use non-verbal fillers, or maybe lose track of themselves. Trump is the opposite. He continues on a rapid pace, flying off on all sorts of tangents, he repeats himself so often it's silly.

And it works. It's genius, there's a big argument to be had about whether he's smart enough to be doing it deliberately (he's not) but the way in which he constructs sentences, the way in which he gets words to stick, his ability to connect with voters/viewers is genius.

Is it 'smart'? No. Is it 'intelligent'? No. We live in a world where intellectuals are actually mistrusted, where thinking is discouraged, abs not books; You've seen the car advert - "thinkers think, doers get things done" he's reflecting the voters, he's the personification of a number of values and principles, he's a monster, he's horrible, and he's the future of how things will be.

 

 

[StefanAVFC]

4 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

Is it 'smart'? No. Is it 'intelligent'? No. We live in a world where intellectuals are actually mistrusted, where thinking is discouraged, abs not books; You've seen the car advert - "thinkers think, doers get things done" he's reflecting the voters, he's the personification of a number of values and principles, he's a monster, he's horrible, and he's the future of how things will be.

 

 

You're right.

It's in the UK too and it's gross. People who deliberately place mistrust in intellectuals are disgusting (looking at you Pob)

[tonyh29]

38 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

And it works. It's genius, there's a big argument to be had about whether he's smart enough to be doing it deliberately (he's not) but the way in which he constructs sentences, the way in which he gets words to stick, his ability to connect with voters/viewers is genius.

Is it 'smart'? No. Is it 'intelligent'? No. We live in a world where intellectuals are actually mistrusted, where thinking is discouraged, abs not books; You've seen the car advert - "thinkers think, doers get things done" he's reflecting the voters, he's the personification of a number of values and principles, he's a monster, he's horrible, and he's the future of how things will be.

 

 

I'm struggling here to think of this campaign against intellectuals , What sort of people / examples do you have in mind ?

i know Gove referred to experts and not trusting them but I'm not sure experts automatically equate to intellectuals

 

Edited January 1, 2017 by tonyh29

[Awol]

Trump didn't win because he shouted about building a wall, he won because he promised to bring back jobs from abroad to the post-industrial areas of the US. 

Whether he can or not is a different question, but that's why he won. 

[StefanAVFC]

Just now, Awol said:

Trump didn't win because he shouted about building a wall, he won because he promised to bring back jobs from abroad to the post-industrial areas of the US. 

Whether he can or not is a different question, but that's why he won. 

I often wonder how he will bring jobs back to the rust belt from robots.

[blandy]

3 hours ago, StefanAVFC said:

We should be holding the POETUS than it just making sense.

Ahem!

[blandy]

3 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

This a good example.

 

Is it ever! I had a feeling the way he talks is kind of deliberately simple, like a "normal" person, but with selected "message bombs" within, but had no idea of the level of technique he was using.