November 16, 2016

Trump's speech would look a lot more coherent if the transcripts were properly punctuated.

I was watching Bill Maher's show last Friday, and was struck by this mockery of Trump:
BILL MAHER: I have seen this guy change his position from the beginning to the end of a sentence.

DAVID AXELROD: With no punctuation.
That got a big laugh, but what does it mean to say that spoken word lacks punctuation? Unless you're Victor Borge, you don't voice the punctuation. Occasionally, people say "period" to stress a sentence, but the great bulk of what we say has no punctuation. Only when words are written down does punctuation enter the picture.
Sidetrack: Punctuation had to be invented, and early written word was not punctuated. Greeks and Romans got some punctuation ideas and experiment, but the serious work in punctuation came with the spread of Christianity:
Whereas pagans had always passed along their traditions and culture by word of mouth, Christians preferred to write down their psalms and gospels to better spread the word of God. Books became an integral part of the Christian identity, acquiring decorative letters and paragraph marks (Γ, ¢, 7, ¶ and others), and many were lavishly illustrated with gold leaf and intricate paintings.

As it spread across Europe, Christianity embraced writing and rejuvenated punctuation. In the 6th Century, Christian writers began to punctuate their own works long before readers got their hands on them in order to protect their original meaning. Later, in the 7th Century, Isidore of Seville (first an archbishop and later beatified to become a saint, though sadly not for his services to punctuation) described an updated version of Aristophanes’ system in which he rearranged the dots in order of height to indicate short (.), medium (·) and long (·) pauses respectively....
Much more at the link, which goes to a BBC.com article.

Punctuation developed out of the idea of preserving the meaning that a speaker would naturally convey if he were speaking from his own thoughts. And, of course, that is what Trump has been doing as he has successfully reached the minds even of "poorly educated" people as he speaks extemporaneously, tumbling out phrases, often inserting ideas inside ideas.

But the transcripts! Some speakers might end up looking clear and coherent in a verbatim transcript cranked out with no intelligent effort at punctuation, but Trump has all these phrases within phrases. The transcripts make the speaking look like a mess — changing his position from the beginning to the end of a sentence as Maher put it and with no punctuation as Axelrod quipped fancifully but aptly. Or... I should say: Axelrod's quip is aptly applied to the transcript but not to the live speaking, which does have the voiced quality that good punctuation would capture — at least in the ears of a sympathetic listener. If you don't like Trump, when you hear him speak, you might think Ugh! Word salad!

Hey, but salad can be good, even salad that's not salade composée. Sophisticated people are supposed to understand recursion:
In linguistics, the core application of recursion is phrase embedding. Chomsky posits an operation, unbounded Merge, that recursively merges words to create larger phrases. For example, given, “Jane said Janice thought June was tired and emotional,” merge would construct something like: {Jane, {said, {Janice, {thought, {June, {was, {tired and emotional}}}}}}}. In Chomsky's view, the evolution of unbounded Merge is the genesis of language:
Within some small group from which we are descended, a rewiring of the brain took place in some individual, call him Prometheus, yielding the operation of unbounded Merge, applying to concepts with intricate (and little understood) properties … Prometheus's language provides him with an infinite array of structured expressions. (Chomsky, 2010)
Wouldn't it be a kick in the head if Trump's rhetoric is the leading edge of evolution?

We are going somewhere, and social media is affecting our brains. Trump is a master of social media, perhaps the greatest master of social media the world has ever seen. The man leaped over traditional media, stodgily written, to wow us — some of us! — with a combination of tweeting and old-time blabbermouth rallies. It's too late to cower in fear of schizophasia (AKA word salad).

Stop scoffing at the mess of a transcript and start visualizing the missing punctuation. Yesterday, I was blogging about how the internet and social media were restructuring our brains and how I'd said, before the election, that "Trump may seem weird by old standards" but that he deserves credit for figuring out how to speak in this new culture that has emerged.

In the comments, prompted by gadfly, wildswan took a transcription of Trump speech that Slate had presented as "Help Us Diagram This Sentence by Donald Trump!"
Look, having nuclear—my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart—you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the smartest people anywhere in the world—it’s true!—but when you're a conservative Republican they try—oh, do they do a number—that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune—you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged—but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me—it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are (nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what's going to happen and he was right—who would have thought?), but when you look at what's going on with the four prisoners—now it used to be three, now it’s four—but when it was three and even now, I would have said it's all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don't, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years—but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us.
Wildswan wrote it this way (intending some additional indenting that didn't show up on publication):
My uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT;
good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart,
the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart—

You know, if you’re a conservative Republican,
if I were a liberal, if, like,
OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat,
they would say I'm one of the smartest people anywhere in the world—

it’s true!—
but

When you're a conservative Republican
they try— oh, do

They do a number—
That’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune—

You know I have to give my, like, credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged— but

You look at the nuclear deal. The thing that really bothers me [is that]
—it would have been so easy, and

[The nuclear deal is not] as important [to us] as these lives are.

Nuclear is powerful;
my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and
that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what's going
to happen and he was right—who would have thought?),

But when you look at what's going on with the four prisoners—
now it used to be three, now it’s four—
but when it was three
and even now,

I would have said
It's all in the messenger, fellas.
and it is fellas because,
you know, they don't, they haven’t figured
that the women are smarter right now than the men, so,
you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years—but

The Persians are great negotiators; the Iranians are great negotiators;
so, and they, they just killed,
They just killed us.
Wildswan said:
So this is how I would diagram what Trump said. When he was speaking he puts in verbal cues that he is making a digression, making a joke, going back to the point. I've heard him speak and he is perfectly clear. As here: For thirty years the incredible power of nuclear weapons has been clear to me since it was explained by an MIT professor. (People say the conservative Republican are stupid whereas if I had run as a Democrat they would be saying I'm the smartest person in the world as Valerie Jarret said about Obama. It would happen!! But being a Republican, I have to explain credentials over and over as I just did.) Anyhow I know this about the nuclear deal (I won't be heard because what gets heard depends on who is saying it) but I know this - we gave the Iranians nuclear power in exchange for four hostages - and that was a bad deal for America.

Now why does Trump throw in all the side comments? I think they make the speech more interesting when you hear it because it resembles inner thought. When I write I strike out side issues but speaking isn't writing and maybe the internet is making speaking more important than writing. Also on the internet you do jump to little informational bits and sidebars.
And let me add this passage from Janet Malcolm's great book "The Journalist and the Murderer":
When we talk with somebody, we are not aware of the strangeness of the language we are speaking. Our ear takes it in as English, and only if we see it transcribed verbatim do we realize that it is a kind of foreign tongue. What the tape recorder has revealed about human speech — that Molière’s M. Jourdain was mistaken: we do not, after all, speak in prose — is something like what the nineteenth-century photographer Eadweard Muybridge’s motion studies revealed about animal locomotion. Muybridge’s fast camera caught and froze positions never before seen, and demonstrated that artists throughout art history had been “wrong” in their renderings of horses (among other animals) in motion. Contemporary artists, at first upset by Muybridge’s discoveries, soon regained their equanimity, and continued to render what the eye, rather than the camera, sees. Similarly, novelists of our tape-recorder era have continued to write dialogue in English rather than in tape-recorderese, and most journalists who work with a tape recorder use the transcript of an extended interview merely as an aid to memory—as a sort of second chance at note-taking—rather than as a text for quotation. The transcript is not a finished version, but a kind of rough draft of expression. As everyone who has studied transcripts of tape-recorded speech knows, we all seem to be extremely reluctant to come right out and say what we mean—thus the bizarre syntax, the hesitations, the circumlocutions, the repetitions, the contradictions, the lacunae in almost every non-sentence we speak. The tape recorder has opened up a sort of underwater world of linguistic phenomena whose Cousteaus are as yet unknown to the general public.
I've quoted that on this blog before. Back in 2012 — before Trump became a candidate — I said:
Now, I think some people do speak in unbroken, well-structured sentences that are free of grammatical errors that could be transcribed directly into excellent writing, but I don't think those stuck listening to them are very happy with it. We need the backtracking and disfluencies to feel comfortable.

Similarly, most good writers "hear" their words and think about them as if they were speech — it feels speech-like as you go along — but it's actually different from speech.

I'd tend to be suspicious of anyone who seemed to be trying too hard to speak like writing or to write like speaking. I'd wonder what's up? What's the motivation? A speaker who strains to sound like writing might have an inferiority complex or a pompous, arrogant nature. A writer who affects an overly speech-like style may be padding or talking down to us.
A speaker who strains to sound like writing might have an inferiority complex or a pompous, arrogant nature. So maybe I should deduce that Trump does not have an inferiority complex or a pompous, arrogant nature. Oh, but his haters sure think he does. I'm just saying the man is going to be President. Your snorting about his character and coherence have gotten, suddenly, very old.

How can you get up to speed? Sit down with a Trump transcript and engage in the meditation practice called Punctuation.

47 comments:

Unknown said...

It the complete wreackage of their dubious belief system. Mockery is all that have.

Henry said...

Much of our

of borEdom

Toward talks in

it misled Him

diplOmatic skill to

place to place but Does it look

at present Most

fivE Iranian fishermen

cuTbacks would not

John Cage. Eharles Eliot Norton Lectures,. Harvard.

Comanche Voter said...

Any bright eyed young lawyer fresh out of law school will find---after taking his or he first deposition--that people (the lawyer included) do not speak in grammatical English.

Reading that first deposition transcript is a shock. The cruelest thing a court reporter can do is include every "uh" and "ah" the lawyer speaks. Been there done that, so I know. I'd love to see some transcripts of Obama depositions (whether he was the lawyer or the defendant).

Maher and Axelrod don't get out much.

Hunter said...

A speaker who strains to sound like writing might have an inferiority complex or a pompous, arrogant nature.

The subtext here need not be converted to text.

Achilles said...

They lose arguments on merits So they go after differences.

It may also be he talks in cell phone autocomplete. We may never know.

Michael K said...

"the nineteenth-century photographer Eadweard Muybridge’s motion studies revealed about animal locomotion. "

Gilbreth did the same thing with work. He took photographs of simple things like bricklaying. This led to Taylor's efficiency fixation but Gilbreth had other insights. He also had a sense of humor. He named the smallest effort in any activity, a "Therblig" his name spelled backwards.

All actions can be broken down into smaller and smaller components until you get to a Therblig.

All this led to quality improvement efforts, a ,lot of which come from Walter Shewhart who started the statistical analysis of quality control.

From Shewhart we got W Edwards Deming who was sent to Japan to assist them in a population census after World War II and who ended up teaching them the quality processes that led to Toyota being the best car maker in the world.

Educated initially as an electrical engineer and later specializing in mathematical physics, he helped develop the sampling techniques still used by the U.S. Department of the Census and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In his book The New Economics for Industry, Government, and Education,[1] Deming championed the work of Walter Shewhart, including statistical process control, operational definitions, and what Deming called the "Shewhart Cycle"[2] which had evolved into PDSA (Plan-Do-Study-Act). This was in response to the growing popularity of PDSA, which Deming viewed as tampering with the meaning of Shewhart's original work.[3] Deming is best known for his work in Japan after WWII, particularly his work with the leaders of Japanese industry. That work began in August 1950 at the Hakone Convention Center in Tokyo when Deming delivered a speech on what he called "Statistical Product Quality Administration". Many in Japan credit Deming as one of the inspirations for what has become known as the Japanese post-war economic miracle of 1950 to 1960, when Japan rose from the ashes of war to start Japan on the road to becoming the second largest economy in the world through processes partially influenced by the ideas Deming taught:[4]

I'll bet Trump knows who Shewhart and Deming were,.

CJinPA said...

There's a difference between "speaking" and "communicating."

We all know when someone is speaking to us but not communicating actual thoughts.

EDH said...

Part of Trump's appeal, embedded in all these public speaking digressions, is the suggestion to his listeners that he's going to share a little "inside information" with you outside of any prepared remarks he's delivering.

Trump likes to tout how he's been every where, seen and done everything. Hell, he's busting open with worldly insider info. A go-to guy who knows the score from all angles. From the Ivy League to the boardroom to the street corner. And he'll share that experience with you because he likes you and hopes you're one of the great people.

Even in private.

Trump's hot mic exchange with Billy Bush was exactly that: trying to impress Bush and the Access Hollywood crew that he knows women and star power.

Sebastian said...

Trump as master of the unbounded Merge, Trump as triumph of evolution: the science is settled.

Sure, someone speaking in complete grammatical sentences (heck, in cohesive paragraphs) might sound strained and pompous, but it ain't either/or. The pros can make it look easy. Been watching Leonard Bernstein videos: he's a master of fluid public speech. Ronald Dworkin, to mention someone closer to AA's professional home, was pretty good. Not too many people of the caliber in American public life, though.

Anyway, no offense to anyone here, but Trump's prose poems make more sense than Dylan's.


EsoxLucius said...

If it were just punctuation I might agree but the sentences seem to come out of blender, with no semblance of structure, just piles of unverified statements. What is the topic sentence or supporting ideas of his victory speech?

"This is the first of what I expect will be many, many conversations. And, in a Trump administration we're going to go about creating a new relationship between our two countries, but it's going to be a fair relationship. We want fairness.

But to fix our immigration system, we must change our leadership in Washington and we must change it quickly.

Sadly, sadly there is no other way. The truth is our immigration system is worse than anybody ever realized. But the facts aren't known because the media won't report on them. The politicians won't talk about them and the special interests spend a lot of money trying to cover them up because they are making an absolute fortune. That's the way it is.

Today, on a very complicated and very difficult subject, you will get the truth. The fundamental problem with the immigration system in our country is that it serves the needs of wealthy donors, political activists and powerful, powerful politicians. It's all you can do. Thank you. Thank you.

Let me tell you who it does not serve. It does not serve you the American people. Doesn't serve you. When politicians talk about immigration reform, they usually mean the following, amnesty, open borders, lower wages. Immigration reform should mean something else entirely. It should mean improvements to our laws and policies to make life better for American citizens.

Thank you. But if we're going to make our immigration system work, then we have to be prepared to talk honestly and without fear about these important and very sensitive issues. For instance, we have to listen to the concerns that working people, our forgotten working people, have over the record pace of immigration and it's impact on their jobs, wages, housing, schools, tax bills and general living conditions.

These are valid concerns expressed by decent and patriotic citizens from all backgrounds, all over. We also have to be honest about the fact that not everyone who seeks to join our country will be able to successfully assimilate. Sometimes it's just not going to work out. It's our right, as a sovereign nation to chose immigrants that we think are the likeliest to thrive and flourish and love us.

Then there is the issue of security. Countless innocent American lives have been stolen because our politicians have failed in their duty to secure our borders and enforce our laws like they have to be enforced. I have met with many of the great parents who lost their children to sanctuary cities and open borders. So many people, so many, many people. So sad. They will be joining me on this stage in a little while and I look forward to introducing, these are amazing, amazing people.

Countless Americans who have died in recent years would be alive today if not for the open border policies of this administration and the administration that causes this horrible, horrible thought process, called Hillary Clinton."

And this is just one example of his hucksterism to the detriment of persuasion. If he's going to convince half the population who didn't vote for him, he's got to argue his cause. The reason I voted for President Obama was that he was a professor and could explain big concepts to adults. I don't know why he didn't have a fireside chat to roll out the ada, middle east policy, or Cuba. I didn't vote for the marmalade hairball, but I wish him success in knitting this country back together.

Nonapod said...

I forget who first said something like "Liberals and NeverTrumpers take what Trump says literally not seriously, while Trump fans take what he says seriously but not literally." And accusing a politician of changing a position is like accusing the Sun of rising.

It's strange. Usually I associate emotional content trumping literal content with the left. Personally when it comes to political leaders, I prefer when they're being clear, direct, unambiguous and generally not overly emotive, but I know I'm in the minority and probably being unrealistic. Liberals traditionally put a great deal of stock in interpretations of the feeling behind that are said. It certainly seems a little disingenuous of them to suddenly take a politician more literally.

Kate said...

I'm just here for the Victor Borge reference. I haven't thought of him since I was a child. Big smile to start the morning.

rhhardin said...

It started with Megyn Kelly's period.

dreams said...

I like to hear Trump talk, no need for the mute button with Trump but I muted George W often even though I voted for him and wanted him to be successful.

Lance said...

Remember Bushisms? And Rumsfeld's poetry?

rhhardin said...

Most sentences can't be diagrammed, at least not producing an analysis from it. That is, the sentence does not work the way that the diagram suggests.

Mostly grammar is made a convenience of.

William said...

English began life as a blue collar language. It was not the language of the court, nor of the clergy. It's purpose was not to communicate eloquence or courtesy but simply to communicate. Its grammatical rules are simpler than other languages, and it is welcoming of new words from other tongues. Trump speaks English........Obama speaks Ivy. The Ivy patois is a derivation of the English language where large, sonorous words are arranged in curlicues of dependent clauses and laid upon a lattice work of grammar to mask and prettify an underlying brick wall of obstinacy. Obama speaks excellent Ivy. The point of the Ivy language is not to persuade or cajole but rather to communicate the superiority of the speaker. I suppose it's a form of persuasion. You defer to the speaker because his speech proves he's superior. Hey, it worked for all those Oxbridge graduates for hundreds of years.

Johnny Sokko said...

I've got no problems making fun of the President Trump by the mainstream media and comedians, it would be a refreshing change of the mainstream media and most comedians who declared President Obama "off-limits."

buwaya puti said...

Obama could pretend to explain big concepts to those willing to accept his assumptions. He was rhetorically persuasive to those susceptible to that rhetoric. But not to me, as my preferred rhetoric is mathematics.
Obama, to those inclined to the hardest of hard analysis, was always a con man.

Darrell said...

Deming was a proponent of testing every piece, every component, when finished. That helped Japan avoid the debacle that hit Texas Instruments where at one point 30-40% of their microprocessors were defective. TI only used statistical QC sampling, which missed the problems. Those TI parts found their way into US military systems and it cost a fortune to remove and replace them. That's why Japanese TVs and other electronics took over the market--they were reliable.

Darrell said...

Perhaps we should be avoiding the Media until they fire every employee that lied to us, distorted the facts, and colluded with the Democrats. Why aren't they held accountable? Why aren't people demanding it?

Boxty said...

NPR will edit out vocal pauses (the likes, uhs, and ums) in both transcripts and audio sound bites if they like you. But not for conservatives. It's an old trick to make your friends look or sound smarter while making your enemies look dumb.

Darrell said...

Obama sounds like a moron when he leaves the script--either the teleprompter or a memorized bit. Bring up a topic out of the blue and he does worse than Trump--by far.

clint said...

"William said...
11/16/16, 10:10 AM"

Bravo!

Owen said...

Nice discussion here. I like William's take on the origins and purpose of English as a "working language." It began that way but it kept growing, and here we are, with Ivy growing all over the robust Anglo-Saxon frame.

I think one of the core ideas in argument is to present a falsifiable hypothesis. If A, then B. Let's attack and defend the logic of if/then, but let's also attack and defend the premise A.

Politicians spend most of their time disguising and avoiding this. It's hard, dangerous and unprofitable. Much easier to paint beautiful pictures of unicorns laden with saddlebags full of gold.

EsoxLucius said...

Is it Ivy to want points backing up your topic sentence included in its paragraph? If you start a thought off with:
"Thank you. It’s true, and these are the best and the finest. When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."
shoudn't you include some statistics on border migration, rape, and how you define "the best and the finest"? Remove the unsubstantiated talk and you've got nothing but dog whistles. Admittedly a way to win, but not to govern.

furious_a said...

Trump's speech today is the best persuasion I have ever seen. Game over. Now running unopposed:

Scott Adams' Trump-takes throughout the campaign were fascinating and as instructive as anyone else on the beat.

Hillary: "I'm with Her"
Trump: "I know it's all about you"

More here, but forewarning the site owner is pitching books.

EsoxLucius said...

Were did this crazy "media in cahoots with the democrats" meme get started? They were pestering Clinton about her foundation, which is the largest donor of AIDS medication in Africa, and her e-mails for the last month. Meanwhile, the Trump Foundation, which appears to have helped no one but himself, is in the back of the paper, without his server being hacked by Russia. I'm not saying that the election was thrown by anyone but, when you win, this conspiracy stuff has to stop.

EsoxLucius said...

Didn't Scott Adams vote for Hillary? Talk about having it both ways.

furious_a said...

Didn't Scott Adams vote for Hillary? Talk about having it both ways.

"So I’ve decided to endorse Hillary Clinton for President, for my personal safety."
He was shining you on. Brilliant piece.

Clyde said...

I watched Maher for the schadenfreude factor, and was not disappointed. I did a lot of yelling at the TV, especially at Eric Holder, who lied repeatedly. All of Maher's guests, including the "liberal redneck", just didn't get it. Mostly, they blamed Hillary's loss on sexism, false consciousness by white women who voted for Trump, and of course, on a racist backlash against a black president. Only Maher seemed to figure out that liberal political correctness and a feeling of being ignored and condescended to by liberal Democrats tilted the balance for the white working class. The rest of them still haven't figured out why they lost.

Nonapod said...

Obama's detached pedagogical speaking style had the benefit of feeling authentic and accurate even when it wasn't. It gave whatever he said defensibility even when he was lying or equivocating. His staid tone and erudite mannerisms added a crystalline sheen of academic authenticity to whatever he was talking about. But that same tone could also work against him at times and make him seem condescending and patronizing if people sensed he was placating, or they found out that he had been factually inaccurate.

Conversely Trump's far more vulgar speaking style is more overt and emotionally honest if not always factually so. You never have to guess about what he's feeling. He doesn't condescend or patronize with his speaking style, but he can be extremely provocative. He seems to just say whatever is floating at the surface of his thoughts. It's all so perfunctory. He's so unpolished, and after 8 years of the condescending Professor I suppose he's refreshing.

Clyde said...

And, of course, the fact that many people just weren't comfortable voting for someone so blatantly corrupt and criminal. Maher's guests seemed to think that the case against Hillary was something that had been ginned up out of nothing by her political enemies, rather than actual misdeeds on her part. They thought that Hillary was smart and capable and good. I wondered what color the sky was on their goateed-Spock planet.

Birkel said...

EsocLuxius:

I'll bet you were just as confused by the talk in the 1970s about the Mariel Boatlift and Castro emptying his prisons to send to the U.S.

Like Freder Frederson, you fall off a turnip truck every night and demand we do the same.

We choose otherwise.

Hagar said...

English did not start as a blue-collar language, since there were no blue-collars yet; perhaps you could say grey-collars.

Obama is an actor who adapts his speaking style to the occasion, and he speaks quite fluently without a teleprompter when he does the South Chicago patois campaigning on the stump. Then the presidential style for formal occasions with irreproachable diction, and the thoughtful professor with long words interspersed with plenty of oh's and um's.

damikesc said...

I've got no problems making fun of the President Trump by the mainstream media and comedians, it would be a refreshing change of the mainstream media and most comedians who declared President Obama "off-limits."

I wouldn't care, either. But given the usual humor of Oliver, Maher, Bee, et al --- I don't expect anything terribly amusing.

shoudn't you include some statistics on border migration, rape, and how you define "the best and the finest"?

For a stump speech? Who in the world does that? Heck, Obama dealt with broad generalities --- and lied about those generalities in the process.

Were did this crazy "media in cahoots with the democrats" meme get started?

Any honest viewing of the media?

Let's start with an easy one. Her 9/11 collapse.

They wouldn't report a thing until her office admitted it.
They then sold that she was overheated. It wasn't hot by any rational measure.

When she changed that story, they didn't bat an eye. It was immediately that she doesn't drink enough water. Stories abounded about how even they, reporters, don't drink enough water.

Then the video linked. And she then had pneumonia. As did basically every female reporter out there.

Not once asking "Why do they keep changing their explanation?" No sign of incredulity to the newest claim. Nothing.

We can also track the reporting on the emails and how they treated all of her claims --- which were universally false --- as being gospel truth.

They were pestering Clinton about her foundation, which is the largest donor of AIDS medication in Africa, and her e-mails for the last month.

The same Foundation that took in tons of money to rebuild Haiti and then proceeded to specifically not rebuild Haiti. That provided investors easy access to the Sec of State. They also likely gave watered-down doses of the medication to Africa, given the corrupt firm they used to supply it.

Meanwhile, the Trump Foundation, which appears to have helped no one but himself, is in the back of the paper, without his server being hacked by Russia. I'm not saying that the election was thrown by anyone but, when you win, this conspiracy stuff has to stop.

Reality needs no holiday. The press was in the bag. You are one of the few who dispute that.

Hagar said...

making the interviewre - and the TV viewer at home - feel like a specially favored student being let in on his innermost thoughts.

Kirby Olson said...

Trump is more literate on every level than Bill Maher. He can modulate his sentences. He knew that to reach the basic voter he had to keep it simple, stupid. Hillary just talked to the feminist left and said rape, rape, rape, rape. There was never any rape. If there's rape, it's her husband raping people.

What's amazing is she got any votes.

FullMoon said...

EsoxLucius said...

Were did this crazy "media in cahoots with the democrats" meme get started? They were pestering Clinton about her foundation, which is the largest donor of AIDS medication in Africa, and her e-mails for the last month. Meanwhile, the Trump Foundation, which appears to have helped no one but himself, is in the back of the paper, without his server being hacked by Russia. I'm not saying that the election was thrown by anyone but, when you win, this conspiracy stuff has to stop.
11/16/16, 11:03 AM
EsoxLucius said... [hush]​[hide comment]

Didn't Scott Adams vote for Hillary? Talk about having it both ways.

Ahhh! Richly educated, poorly informed

Birkel said...

EsoxLucius:
They were pestering Clinton about her foundation, which is the largest donor of AIDS medication in Africa, and her e-mails for the last month.

Why, even George Stephanapoulos -- who donated $75,000 and did not disclose the donation until it was discovered by an outside source (in violation of all ethical standards and ABC's explicit requirement of disclosure) -- managed to criticize his ex-boss a time or two.

But totes not in the tank. Totes.

rightguy2 said...

Trump is a doer, not a talker. Keep that in mind if you want to understand him. Professional talkers like Maher and Obama think that talking is actually "doing" something. Criticizing Trump's words is (by definition) extremely superficial and pointless criticism.

Owen said...

EsoxLucius: "...they were pestering Clinton about her foundation..." Well, why not? It had assets in the 9 figures, and what exactly did it do with that? A handful of sub-potent AIDS drugs? Talk about the metaphorical power of a useless virtue-signal!

Meanwhile Donald's foundation is given as a contrast. Look at its balance sheet: barely out of six figures. It has about 1/10 of 1% of the financial power to do good in the world, and yet the Progs are claiming apples-to-apples competitive parity?

What a joke.

Drago said...

EsoxLucius: "Were did this crazy "media in cahoots with the democrats" meme get started?"

From all the evidence (included leaked) emails which proved that the media was in cahoots with the democrats.

Do you have any other self-answering questions to offer up?

mtrobertslaw said...

Obama's Big Concept was "White people bad, non-white people good." But it's a pity he never explained it.

Charles Lehardy said...

There was great fun on the left mocking George W Bush's "bushisms," too -- and relief when Obama was elected that he was able to speak eloquently. Mockery of Bush's speaking was a way of calling him a moron without saying the word. Ditto for Trump. The first rule of debate: If you have no substantive argument to make, attack the person.

Karen said...

"Now, I think some people do speak in unbroken, well-structured sentences that are free of grammatical errors that could be transcribed directly into excellent writing, but I don't think those stuck listening to them are very happy with it. We need the backtracking and disfluencies to feel comfortable."
You are sooo right, Ann! We went to a church for awhile where all the sermons were published after the morning service, so the pastors would write and edit the sermon for publication BEFORE they spoke it. Tremendously hard to follow 45 minutes of that - a little like drinking from a firehose, because there were no think pauses, no backtracking, no asides.

Quaestor said...

I have seen this guy change his position from the beginning to the end of a sentence.

The MSM used to call that nuance.

James Joyce is taught in every English department in every university in America, and presented as a genius for writing they way Trump talks.