Let me set this up. The article purports to analyze Trump's use of language:
The dark power of words has become the defining feature of Mr. Trump’s bid for the White House to a degree rarely seen in modern politics, as he forgoes the usual campaign trappings — policy, endorsements, commercials, donations — and instead relies on potent language to connect with, and often stoke, the fears and grievances of Americans.Now, we were already laughing, because the NYT is obviously using the very devices it's criticizing in Trump's speech. The phrase "The dark power of words" ironically utilizes the dark power of words. And the Times continually uses "potent language to connect with, and often stoke, the fears and grievances" of its readers. (See, for example, the front-paged editorial on gun control today, decrying the "moral outrage" and "national disgrace" that citizens can buy guns that are useful in self-defense.)
Anyway, Healy and Haberman consulted Jennifer Mercieca, an academic expert in "American political discourse," and she said: Trump's "entire campaign is run like a demagogue’s — his language of division, his cult of personality, his manner of categorizing and maligning people with a broad brush": "If you’re an illegal immigrant, you’re a loser. If you’re captured in war, like John McCain, you’re a loser. If you have a disability, you’re a loser. It’s rhetoric like Wallace’s — it’s not a kind or generous rhetoric."
This got Meade singing: No time for losers...
“And then there are the winners, most especially himself, with his repeated references to his wealth and success and intelligence,” said Ms. Mercieca, noting a particular remark of Mr. Trump’s on Monday in Macon, Ga. (“When you’re really smart, when you’re really, really smart like I am — it’s true, it’s true, it’s always been true, it’s always been true.”)No time for losers, 'cause we are the
Here's the final version of the parody:
I’ve paid my dues
Time after time
I’ve voted GOP
Almost straight, straight down the line
Bad candidates
I’ve picked a few
Clinton and John McCain
Bob Dole but now
With RINOs I’m through
And the wall will go on and on and on and on
We are the Trumpions - my friends
And we'll keep on fighting
Till the end
We are the Trumpions
We are the Trumpions
No time for losers
'Cause we are the Trumpions... of the World
I’ve taken my shots
At Carly and JEB
And I’ve knocked out Scott
And Huck, Rick Perry but no
Not Ted Cruz
It’s been no simple deal
Though I'm rich and smart
And wealthy and smart
And did I tell you — that I am really really quite smart?
This race is huuuuge
And I ain't gonna lose
And the wall will go on and on and on and on
We are the Trumpions - my friends
And we'll keep on fighting
Till the end
We are the Trumpions
We are the Trumpions
No time for losers
'Cause we are the Trumpions... of the World
We are the Trumpions - my friends
And we'll keep on fighting
Till the end
We are the Trumpions
We are the Trumpions
No time for losers
'Cause we are the Trumpions
पोस्ट्स
७१ टिप्पण्या:
Trump: "I never attacked him [Rand Paul] on his looks, and believe me, there's a lot of subject matter right there."
Yes, yes, yes. Still laughing - you've made my day. Thanks!
The New York Times at its most fatuous. We're solemnly informed that saying "we need to build a wall" instead of "I need to build a wall" is a "threatening dynamic," rather than the kind of trope any politician, or for that matter, anyone in any organization, uses to describe joint action. Trump is a jerk and a fool, but if the NYT and other media keep at it, I'll vote for him just to give them indigestion.
This is funny now but I wonder what will happen next November and October when it looks like the GOP may win the election. It wooden;t have to be Trump and I would as soon he is not the nominee as I think he is bumptious.
I think the left will try very hard, behind the usual cheating, to stop the GOP from ending the party at the White House and the rest of Obama's regime.
Riots ? Maybe.
Trump is making these incompetents nervous because he may just say "You're fired" to each one of them. Do you know who Obama's national security adviser is? Some guy called Ben Rhodes who has a degree in English lit and fiction writing. You wonder how in the hell he got the job? He is the brother of CBS's news president.
Ha ha ha! The NYT should print that and give readers something worth reading.
The first executive order of President Trump should be to obligate those to threaten to move to Canada if he's elected to make good.
Just watched those two African-Americans sisters steal the show at a Trump event.
Strange days, indeed.
Tonight in line at the grocery store, an older man saw that I had just one item. The following exchange ensued:
"Would you like to go ahead of me?" he said.
"Yes, thanks" I replied.
"We're not all Republicans" he added.
"I'm a registered Independent" I offered back.
"I was Republican for 31 years" he continued.
"I was for Trump until he said that about Muslims" he added.
"Said what?" I asked.
"He said he wanted all Muslims to wear a badge...like they did to Jews in Germany" he replied.
I didn't have a come back. There are a lot of lies and liars out there.
Heh. Made me smile. Thank you.
Perhaps you can get a few friends and record this like Jimmy Kimmel and Adele did with her song "Hello" on Kimmel's show. I think this song is better than Kimmel'a.
"Perhaps you can get a few friends and record this like Jimmy Kimmel and Adele did with her song "Hello" on Kimmel's show. I think this song is better than Kimmel'a."
It could be done by one person.
"95,000 Words, Many of Them Ominous, From Donald Trump’s Tongue"
I am sure Hillary has spoken enough that I can -- by word count -- make her have said whatever my intentions might be.
In this context, Helen Keller: less to work with, yet Electable. I think.
Yes: a Helen Keller joke.
Hillary has only been Blind Drunk. She still keeps talking.
I am Laslo.
@Althouse: If you and Meade are up to it you can overdub a karaoke version of the song with your own singing. Here is the music you will need . You will have to sing your own lines cued by the real ones. It's really not hard. I did one a couple years ago poking fun at Inga: link.
Ace of spades had a whole "talk like trump" thread. It was hilarious
Why are you not linked to the two of you singing this on Youtube?
I'd watch that more than Bloggingheads.
I am Laslo.
This is the problem with Moderation.
I might ask if Meade sings in the shower.
And then get an answer.
Then I might ask if Meade is naked in the shower when he is singing.
And then get an answer.
Then I might ask what parts are most soapiest when he is singing in the shower?
And then get an answer.
Then I might ask if he gets on his tippy-toes for high notes.
And then get an answer.
Then I might ask if shaving your balls changes the sound timbre.
And then get an answer.
Then I might ask does he light scented candles when he shaves his balls.
And then get an answer.
But now I have to ask everything at once.
Meade: what is the preferred scent of scented candle when you shave your balls?
I bet I won't get an answer to that, either, because someone will write something smart and insightful before morning comes.
But I like to think that the scented candle is Vanilla. Cinnamon is not a testicle-oriented scent.
I am Laslo.
Ya know......that just might catch on. We already have an indication that the Trump campaign reads Althouse.
Doesn't Weird Al Yankovich (sp?) get away with copyright infringement because it's a parody? I think Meade may have a parody as well.
And I do now have "We are the Champions" in my head, dammit.
If it had to be Queen couldn't have been:
We Will
We Will
Trump You!
Guitar solo.
I am Laslo.
My personal favorite hysterical Trump headline:
President Trump would've killed San Bernardino suspects baby by now
It's one thing to sing like Roger Miller, quite another to ape Freddie Mercury.
Ann Althouse said ...
See, for example, the front-paged editorial on gun control today, decrying the "moral outrage" and "national disgrace" that citizens can buy guns that are useful in self-defense.
This is such a bullshit sentence. No one is suggesting that you can't buy a gun for self-defense, if you feel the desperate psychological need to do so. No one needs a semi-automatic for self-defense. Reducing the arms race within our society will make us all safer. The alternative, the escalating acquisition of ever more powerful weaponry and the corresponding increasing paranoia of some of our citizens is not a particularly attractive future for our children. Time to grow up and accept some responsible limits.
"Why are you not linked to the two of you singing this on Youtube?"
We're more dancers than singers.
The first executive order of President Trump should be to obligate those to threaten to move to Canada if he's elected to make good.
Well if he promises that he sure as heck would have my vote! Sorry Carly. It was great while it lasted. No, it's not you, it's me.
Though once Trudeau gets a look at who's being sent, we might find ourselves at war with out northern neighbor. If they invade Vermont I vote we make them keep it. Ditto with Washington, and Oregon.
Have the Solidarity Singers in Madison moved on to caroling?
I heard a radio talker mention a Trump Bump.
Which led my brain to alter The Little Drummer Boy lyrics.
Terrrump a bump bummmp.
"The phrase "The dark power of words" ironically utilizes the dark power of words"
You mean, the comic power of self-mockery?
Sir Spatula,
All that talk of Meade's balls seems kinda rapey.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3auKMHkZJnQ
well, well, well, Looks like Trump was right about Muslims celebrating 9/11 in New Jersey. and the left claimed nobody was celebrating such.
"No one is suggesting that you can't buy a gun for self-defense, if you feel the desperate psychological need to do so"
Do you even know what a "semi-automatic" is ? I doubt it.
If someone comes into my house he will be sorry. I live in a safe neighborhood and one reason is that I suspect most of my neighbors, black and white, have guns in the bedside table.
I have a left wing son who is almost as obnoxious as you are. His wife was telling her sister-in-law, my other son's wife, how she is worried about their neighborhood in Alameda, the Bay Area. They have two small daughters. My son has spent years, sort of like you do, ridiculing Orange County where people feel " the desperate psychological need to" own guns and live in peaceful neighborhoods.
It would be the height of irony to see him move down here for the safety of his children.
Pretty funny!
So tell us ARM. What sort of firearm can we buy for self-defence and how will restricting us to that make society more or less safe? In my pocket sits a semi-automatic that holds fewer rounds than some revolvers. In the fevered imaginings of bubble liberals, am I more or less of a threat to society than someone armed with a revolver? I'm guessing your reply will be either evasive snark or an appalling display of ignorance.
Less than five percent of the NYT readership is voting for Trump. Furthermore, Trump is running against the media.
That being said, Trump is the only GOP candidate who can't beat Hillary. And Hillary Clinton must be defeated. Carthage must be destroyed.
Glad ARM is here to tell us ask exactly what our individual security needs are.
That about sums it up. Trump expects to win.
AReasonableMan: No one needs a semi-automatic for self-defense.
Oh, goody, another goddamned mindless anti-gun twit who doesn't know that "semi-automatic" means "fires only one round (bullet) each time the trigger is pulled."
I don't care that you're anti-gun. You are free not to buy any or even visit a firing range every, say, decade. However, you really should visit a firing range once and ask for a glossary before deigning to inform those who know more than you what they do or do not need for self defense.
Yo, reasonable!
ref: Such bullshit...No one needs a semi-automatic for self-defense.
I so totally agree! Since the offending perps are likely to be using single-shot flintlock pistols, a cap-and-ball revolver (Sturm Ruger used to make a really nice one in stainless steel) should more than suffice.
Okay ARM, you've got me convinced. I'll take Joe Biden's advice and buy a pump 12 gauge pump action shotgun for "self defense". Saw the barrel off, make it easy to carry, and load it up with buckshot. It won't be an assault rifle, or even a semi automatic rifle, but it will splatter blood and brains from here to Amarillo. Now are you happy?
Having carried (and sneered at) the M-16 "Mattel Machine Gun" with its plastic stock back in the late 1960's when I was temporarily in the Big Green Machine, I was never terribly impressed with its potential use in civilian life. If I wanted to hunt deer or even varmints, there were a lot better rifles for that purpose. But there's something about the M-16 and its AR-15 clones that gets modern day gun buyers all het up. And so there are a lot of M-16 semi automatic "look alikes" that attract buyer interest in today's gun shops and gun shows.
But look at the actual facts of the San Bernardino attack. The husband and wife had two AR 15/M-16 look alikes--apparently purchased by someone "legally" two or three years ago. There had been attempts to modify each weapon. One attempt--to convert one of the guns to fully automatic fire (aka "rock 'n roll" where the gun will fire continuously until the magazine is exhausted) failed. So that shooter had a semi-automatic rifle, i.e. had to pull the trigger each time a shot was fired.
The other shooter had a rifle that had been modified to take a high capacity magazine--but it was still semi-automatic.
They killed 14 people and injured 17--so their bullets hit 31 people. Apparently they only fired 65 rounds. So they used an average of 2 bullets to kill or wound each victim. That's pretty good and effective shooting. These people had been trained.
The late 60's M-16 had a magazine that would supposedly hold 20 rounds--except that it was prone to jamming if you put more than 19 in. It was easy to change magazines. Ignorant twit Congress critters like Loretta Sanchez can call for more regulation of "round magazine ammunition" [whatever that is]but if you have trained Jihadi shooters it won't make much difference. The real training is getting the shooter to overcome his or her natural reluctance to kill some other human being. These two were well beyond that point.
Whose "we" frenchy?
and the corresponding increasing paranoia of some of our citizens So what are you planning to do about that ARM? Moree diagnoses and more prescriptions? Those have gone up as much as weapons sales, if not many times more. That's not teaching people how to cope. Go ahead and hire a bunch of folks to go around collecting them. House by house. Start in your town and by the time they get to mine, we'll know how its working.
Re demagoguery, I'm actually starting to look forward to the shit hitting the fan. Hoarding my bullet stash, buying raincoats now.
Hillary demonizes the 5 million members of the NRA, most of whom are rural white men. Obama called them bitter clingers. Now the NY Times worries that these folks and other working class white men, most of whom don't vote for Dems, will do what? Stop joining the military? Stop joining urban police forces.
It would be enjoyable to watch the emerging democrat coalition of upper middle class and upper class whites, Asians, blacks, and Latinos fill the 220,000 combat positions in the US military and the police forces in all cities with a population of more than 250,000.
it's very, very clear that Hillary fears Trump much more than any other candidate.
How do I conclude this? Anyone who believes the NYT editorial staff and the HRC campaign staff do not collude is not paying attention. Why does she dread Trump over any other candidate? Probably from the results of private polls conducted in several key "must-win" states like Ohio and Florida. Why this concentration on Trump, whose support continues to hover in the mid-30s, over Cruz, Carson, or Rubio? I surmise that those same private polls are showing an increasing margin for Trump as "second choice." This means that as the primaries proceed and the marginals fall away Trump will garner the lion's share of the spoils. Therefore attacks on Trump by the the usual suspects is more effective in the long game.
I'm not even going to comment on this song being a "great... song."
Oops.
"We're not all Republicans" he added.
"I'm a registered Independent" I offered back.
"I was Republican for 31 years" he continued.
Yep, a liar hoping to influence you. The airwave and bitstreams are full of "I was a Republican" poseurs.
ARM wrote: "No one needs a semi-automatic for self-defense."
So what are you suggesting ARM, a ban on everything but muzzle-loaders?
ARM said -- 'No one needs a semi-automatic for self-defense.'
Do you have any idea what a semi-automatic is?
I love the scenes from the Here's Althouse and Meade! sitcom that is on some obscure cable channel I can never find. It really should go prime time and mainstream.
Said someone above: "No one needs a semi-automatic for self-defense." You presume to know what folks might feel the need to defend themselves from. I'm reminded of a prizewinning photo of one Elian Gonzalez.
The way the NYT put it: "It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency."
But what one has a Second Amendment right to is a weapon to use in self defense. If I am armed inside my house because I don't want to be overtaken by a home invader, why is it a disgrace and an outrage for me to choose something that will serve that purpose, something "designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency"?
The Times is deploying "The dark power of words" as if I'm some lunatic killing machine, but it's just the historic right of a householders in the United States of America.
"I love the scenes from the Here's Althouse and Meade! sitcom that is on some obscure cable channel I can never find. It really should go prime time and mainstream."
Ha ha. That scene would involve me trying to read to the end of the article before we arrived home and Meade interrupting after just about every 2 sentences with lines from possible song parodies and other jokes. The most memorable one was when he translated Trump's anti-loser rant to "No time for losers."
I'm used to this reading in the car routine (and have done it with other people in different ways). It's kind of like blogging. You're reading something out loud partly to pass the time but also to set up whatever conversation might happen. The reader has to be tolerant of the listener and not too fixated on maintaining the coherent flow of the text.
So what are you suggesting ARM, a ban on everything but muzzle-loaders?
Yes, but only a musket. There's absolutely no reason for a mere common citizen to possess a personal firearm more technologically advanced than your typical Hessian mercenary.
Happy news Trumpions! The huge undulating roll Freddie Mercury just did in his grave threw up a ten foot wall of dirt at both borders, mostly because you CANNOT do 'Champions' without 'We Will Rock You'. Good god! I'll get you started Meade..
Chico you're a boy make a big noise
Rapin' in the street gonna be in a big van some day
You got mole on yo' face
You big disgrace
Kickin' you and Ramos right outta this place
Singin'
We will we will truck you
We will we will truck you
They need a Trump safe-space.
madAsHell, I don't know if he has to but Weird Al actually asks permission for every parody he does. As I recall, only Prince has refused to give it. Many are happy for the publicity. Charmillionaire has even said that Weird Al's parody "White and Nerdy" may have had something to do with their "Ridin' Dirty" getting a Grammy in 2007.
Michael K said...
My son has spent years, sort of like you do, ridiculing Orange County where people feel " the desperate psychological need to" own guns
You should be proud, sounds like you have raised a son with his head screwed on properly.
JournoLists in the news.
"That being said, Trump is the only GOP candidate who can't beat Hillary."
What's your special insight that allows you to make such an ironclad assertion? I don't see it that way at all. In fact I see Trump having a broad crossover appeal to many sectors of the population, excluding elitists and brain dead liberals of course.
There's been talk of Trump's imminent demise for months but his poll numbers keep going up. It's almost as if current events are being orchestrated to "garner" more and more support for him. He's on track to the nomination, and unlike you and AA I think he'll beat Hillary handily.
Paul: What's your special insight that allows you to make such an ironclad assertion [Trump is the only GOP candidate who can't beat Hillary].
Anybody got an any recent poll data on Hillary v. GOP candidate [X]?
Honest question - I don't follow these things closely, but from what I've seen from cursory glances I don't get where all this "vote for Rubio 'cause he can beat Hillary and Trump absolutely can't" is coming from. Happy to be corrected, but I ain't seeing this great Rubio (or whomever) cross-over appeal some people are claiming.
The censorship of my posts shows with striking clarity that there are always limits to gun 'rights' that are ultimately arbitrary and unrelated to either the sacred parchment or the ideologues sitting on the Supreme Court. The unwillingness to concede this point is what distinguishes fundamentalists from rational thinkers.
Just to clarify Weird Al's stance, he doesn't have to get permission to do anything. A parody song comes under the "fair use" provision of copyright law. It's been covered ever since the Irving Berlin estate lost its suit against Mad magazine for using his songs (which were simply printed lyrics with the suggestion "Sung to the tune of...").
I believe that the song's owner is compensated for the use of the music, much in the same way as a band recording a cover song of someone else's work. That compensation, I believe, is a standard rate.
Weird Al prefers getting permission because he's a nice guy. Case in point: In 1980, Weird Al did a cassette demo version of "Yoda," based on "Lola." To get it published, he had to get permission from George Lucas and the Kinks. Lucas agreed, but the Kinks management team refused. Then Al ran into Ray Davies and asked why he turned it down. Ray said he was never asked, and immediately said yes. It took five years for the song to appeared.
(Note: I'm a writer with some experience in copyright law, but I'm not a lawyer; I can be wrong.)
"You should be proud,"
I'm sure you would like him. Besides, he's a trial lawyer.
" I was never terribly impressed with its potential use in civilian life."
I think it is liked because of the ability to tinker with it and modify it. i've been looking at You Tube videos since I bought one yesterday. I was not that impressed but it's growing on me.
A big reason why a lot of us are buying these guns is because the left is determined to tell us we can't.
Back in the 1950s when I was young, it was no big deal. If you wanted a gun, you bought one. Now, it has become a marathon with all the forms and background checks, that are obviously useless.
Michael K: A big reason why a lot of us are buying these guns is because the left is determined to tell us we can't.
Exactly. I grew up in a small Indiana town, but not a rural one. I never knew anyone who hunted. But as a Boy Scout I enjoyed going to the rifle range at camp and earning my Rifle and Shotgun Shooting merit badge. I had studied US history, so I knew about the 2nd amendment, what it means, and why it exists. Never in my adult life did it ever occur to me to take advantage of it, or that any... reasonable... American could be opposed to it, especially since the history of gun control in other countries is so clearly totalitarian, and the history of gun control in the US is so explicitly tied to racist fears of retribution from newly-freed slaves, retaliation upon the Klan, etc. Add the increases in violent crime in non-totalitarian jurisdictions with stringent gun control, and the extent to which mass shootings in the US occur in "gun free" zones such as schools, movie theatres, and (FML) military bases, and it's crystal clear that the call for more gun control is irrational at best, and much more often merely intellectually dishonest—a naked partisan power play to literally disarm the political opposition, as opposed to Muslim terrorists or the mentally ill.
Now I think the Sig Sauer P320 may be the right choice.
Paul Snively said...
I had studied US history, so I knew about the 2nd amendment, what it means, and why it exists.
Your screed bears very little relationship to the actual history of the 2nd amendment and its interpretation.
We want a video!! Must have video.
That song by Queen was popular when my younger son was a teen and I heard it over and over and over and over. Now I want the parody so I can have different words in my head at least.
ARidiculousMan: Your screed bears very little relationship to the actual history of the 2nd amendment and its interpretation.
But Jeffrey Toobin's screed in The New Yorker does. That's hysterical. Literally.
Here is actual legal writing on the Heller decision, including a number of citations to literature, pro and con, the court employed in arriving at its decision. It took about 30 seconds of Googling to find, vs. the stock revisionist history the left reliably writes and publishes to approving nods in echo chambers like The New Yorker. I don't expect you to actually read any of it. That would require you to live up to your self-refuting moniker.
Here is some commentary on the history of the 2nd amendment, including quotes from relevant historical figures. It's very telling that Toobin's New Yorker revisionism doesn't cite any argument at all, not even the last case the court decided, Miller 1939. It does, however, offer the howler that "Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, who was no liberal..." Not even the New York Times is willing to go that far. Burger was "conservative" compared to Earl Warren, a low hurdle to clear. And, of course, radio silence on pre-20th century, which is to say, pre-leftist-revisionist-history, constitutional scholarship.
Again: literally hysterical.
Paul Snively said...
It's very telling that Toobin's New Yorker revisionism doesn't cite any argument at all,
This is stupid complaint about something written for a general reader, who generally has not interest in the law. And, you failed, utterly, to make a well formed argument in refutation of Toobin's article. Also, you misused 'literally', twice, although you do sound a little hysterical.
Paul Snively said...
Michael K: A big reason why a lot of us are buying these guns is because the left is determined to tell us we can't.
Exactly.
It is incredible that two old men can be so petulantly childish. What happened to wisdom with age?
ARidiculousMan: And, you failed, utterly, to make a well formed argument in refutation of Toobin's article.
As expected: you offer no competing analysis to the material I linked to. No citations of legal arguments, not even links to pre-20th-century statements of opinion outside a legal context. Because you can't. Hell, I even threw you a softball in the first link, which includes contra-Heller literature the dissenters relied on to buttress their arguments. You're either lazy or intellectually dishonest—but, come to think of it, those aren't mutually exclusive, so I'll go with "both."
Also, you misused 'literally', twice...
Nope. Nailed it both times.
Paul Snively said...
As expected
You failed a second time to make a coherent argument, or any argument other than blather. You are not only lazy and intellectually dishonest, you seem to be clueless. But mainly you are just a big soft baby, wah wah wahhh!, those the nasty liberals want to take my gunsy wunsy's.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा