Writes Susan B. Glasser, in "I Listened to Trump’s Rambling, Unhinged, Vituperative Georgia Rally—and So Should You/The ex-President is building a whole new edifice of lies for 2024" (The New Yorker).
Below is the speech Glasser watched in full. I've watched it. It's a standard Trump rally speech. Is Trump "vituperative"? Why not "fiery" or "feisty" (the words used to describe Biden's loud, angry SOTU)? Is he "rambling" and "unhinged" or a marvel of stamina and spontaneity? But Glasser is convinced — or poses as convinced — that watching the whole 2 hours will persuade voters who might vote for Trump that he's as awful at Trump haters insist he is:
Posts
74 comments:
"The ex-President is building a whole new edifice of lies for 2024"
It's true. Trump just said this week that one time he was asked to provide a 10 minute synopsis of a tort when he was in law school that received a standing ovation. This was after he let everyone know that his son died in combat with Houthi rebels in Iraq while he was busy defending Earth's moon from a martian invasion and dating Marie Curie. He helped her coalesce her theories on radioactivity when he told her, "Hey sugartits get over here and check out this glowing rock!"
What a liar he is.
Another opinion devoid of insight from Glasser. Thanks.
Trump exudes 1970s Vegas.
He’s got a 50/50 shot to pull a Grover Cleveland.
Trump isn’t running against Biden. Biden isn’t a worthy adversary. He’s decrepit.
Trump is running against the Susan Glassers
"vituperative" - bitter and abusive.
That aptly describes my feelings towards the deep state bureaucracy and the current administration. Thanks, Susan B. Glasser, for solidifying my support for Trump!
"watching the whole 2 hours will persuade voters who might vote for Trump that he's as awful at Trump haters insist he is"
Have any Trump haters ever watched him for 2 hours? Or even his free-to-kill bit?
But let's take progs up on the experiment, and pay subjects to watch DJT. But to make it fair, require them to watch a similar 2-hour speech by Joe, in a similar arena, with a similar-size audience, without a teleprompter. Then measure before vs. after. Hey, Dems: deal?
Susan Glasser is AWFLL and can be dismissed.
I would be happy if people watched both Trump's and Biden's speeches and made their decisions upon what they saw and heard. Being more informed is a good thing. I think Trump would be the winner in that contest. Sure, he phrases things weirdly, but, while it leaves the comments open to misinterpretation, they make sense in context. I prefer the conversational tone over a bunch of pre-written buzzwords that the media tries to tell us is more presidential.
Self comfort. Bolstering the lie that everybody in country except for loyal WaPo readers have gone nuts in case Trump wins in November.
"We're lefties, we went to good schools, we can't be out of touch! We're on the right side of History! It's them, it's those crazy MAGA hillbillies! Pass the Chardonnay, dear!"
BTW, "as", not "at" in the last sentence before the embed.
Just out of curiosity, did he talk about his car and make vroom-vroom-vroom noises, like our current commander in chief?
My thought is a simpler and definitely cheaper one: watch his speeches. Share them widely. Don’t look away."
Be careful what you wish for. The Left has maintained a lot of it's cultural power over the last two decades or so through a pervasive practice of intimidation through fear of canceling or othering. Because of this the left is particularly vulnerable to confusing silence with agreement on their side. Glaser may discover that many of the people she is sure would be aghast at the speech might share some of the same ideas or sentiments expressed by Trump. When one actually unpacks most of the policies supported by Trump they look an awful lot like those of a centrist, Anti-NAFTA Democrat from the 90's.
I am curious as to whether he ever took the fifth by reminiscing for an hour about the car that was kept in an unlocked garage next to a cardboard box full of classified documents he was not supposed to have, complete with engine noises, instead of answering the question. His senility seemed to come on every time a tough question was asked.
“Vroom, vroom!” - Joe Biden
The misreading is connected with having no sense of humor.
Good Dog!
It's what she was hired to do.
Paid by the "word".
On the links to these articles written by elites suffering from TDS and a hatred of the working class, the first thing I do is look up the author of the article if I am unfamiliar.
Susan Glasser didn't disappoint. Harvard educated Generation X, who was once the managing editor of the Harvard Crimson. In 2022 she published The Divider: Trump in the White House, 2017-2021 ...(how original).
Also, she is married to Peter Baker, White House Chief correspondent for the New York Times.
1) Harvard Education
2) "Journalist"
3) Wrote a negative book about Trump.
4) Married to a NYT's propagandist
I could write her opinions just from those four points. The people don't live in a bubble. They live in a vacuum.
NEXT!!!
But Glasser is convinced — or poses as convinced...
Ooh, B! I choose B! Is it B? She's posing, right?
None of these leftist media twerps believe anything they write about Trump. It's all just ego-stroking comfort sludge, meant to keep the cocoon nice and warm and fact-free. I doubt she even watched the speech, or if she did, it was with the sound off while she did other things like scream at the screen things like, "I hate your stupid face and your stupid hair!" and "I can tell you're LYING!"
I thought infinite Pinochios were invented for Biden, who lies (er, misremembers) in every speech every comment.
for whom the "bottomless Pinocchio" was invented
The Bottomless Pinocchio was coined by the Washington Post. Supposedly for anyone who repeats false claims like "the 2020 election was rigged" or "mask don't do shit" or "there are two genders".
Glasser is a waste of time. This bullshit turn of phrase isn't and invention. It's a delusion. She sites it as if it is some type of absolute truth...gravity.
55 Year Old elite college educated white woman...
Women like here make me wish I were gay...
100% projection
Does anyone really believe Glasser actually watched the 2 hour rally speech? Anyone?
Glasser seems blind to the possibility, much less the reality, that Trump's "condemnation [by] his critics, up to and including the current President, can sound shrill or simply partisan."
Ya’ know……Trump is the coherent guy with orange hair!
I’ve said here before: the Left doesn’t see Trump as he is is, but instead see Strawman Trump, a product of their own creation. If the Left truly wants to see Trump, they need to take those Trump Hate glasses off first.
Thank god we have the option of a truth telling savior like Joe Lieden in 2024
Is Trump "vituperative"? Why not "fiery" or "feisty"
Good guys are fiery/feisty, bad guys are vituperative. (They're counting on Trumpsters to not know what that word means.)
A standard meme from the early 70's is applicable to Ms. Glaser--at least in the limiting sense. "What You See Is What You Get". And if you have a bad case of TDS, well you'll applaud the fact that people are going to spend a billion dollars to see that Trump doesn't happen again.
OTOH you can look at Slow Joe and see a senescent doddering old corruptocrat--and oddly enough, that's also what you get.
A pox on both party's houses. The country deserves a better political class. Trump is slightly preferable because he was only dipped in the swamp for four years. That water sticks to you and stinks.
Chuck Schumer--in politics since the age of 25--and now aged 73. Teddy Kennedy--in Washington for his entire life--after being tossed out of the University of Virginia law school for cheating. Joe Biden--in Washington D.C. since the age of 29. Really it's time for term limits. 12 years in Washington and you have to leave and go live in flyover country!
Glasser has such an acute case of TDS that she believes everyone sees what she imagines.
Pro-Trump ads, gratis...just like 2016. No such thing as bad publicity as long as there's no creative editing.
Demonizing Trump, and by extension his supporters, is unlikely to persuade anybody. In 2016 Hillary spent most of her effort in demonizing Trump, and how did that work out for her?
I consider all political speeches to be background noise not worth my time. I won't take the bait this time either, especially from a source as boring as The New Yorker. I understand some prefer boring.
But she is okay with bumbling Biden's incoherent speeches?? I guess she realizes that her Messiah, Hussein really IS running things, and she doesn't want Trump in his way.
They are deathly afraid people will listen to Trump and like what they hear.
Thus, the continuing campaign to taint his words as "lies", and anyone who listens as "deceived".
it's not "two Movies"
It's two different theater complexes
It's that New Yorker cover art that represents the Upper West Side as all of America.
mccullough said...
"Trump isn’t running against Biden. Biden isn’t a worthy adversary. He’s decrepit.
Trump is running against the Susan Glassers"
Excellent point.
So, more wishcasting by the usual suspects.
I haven't watched more than a few snippets of Trump's rallies, but I know that 10s of thousands of people attend them. They wait in long lines, sometimes overnight, just for the chance to participate in them. And from the clips I have seen I don't consider Trump to be a great orator, but he does something that no other politician seems to be doing right now. He is credibly presenting himself as someone who recognizes the issues middle-Americans are facing right now and is willing to fight for them. Yes, I know the usual suspects are going to show up and say that Trump is a conman fooling the rubes and so on, but even if that was true, so what? Who else even appears to have any interest or respect for middle-America. The Democrats who want to sexually mutilate children and arrest fathers for objecting to the anal rape of their daughters in a high school girl's restroom? Who want to flood the country with illegal aliens to force down wages and ensure continued electoral supremacy? Who are obviously stealing elections and are incredibly corrupt? Who scheme to censor speech? Who use the justice system to suppress their political opponents?
The people who hate Trump are going to see what they expect to see when they view his speeches. What other people whose paycheck is not dependent on upholding the deep state see probably won't be what those people expect.
Two Hours?
My father often said that the church needed a good ten-minute sermon. My vote is for five minutes.
So is Glasser going to be on the receiving end of parf of that billion dollars of Democrat largesse, or is she putting out for free?
"When one actually unpacks most of the policies supported by Trump they look an awful lot like those of a centrist, Anti-NAFTA Democrat from the 90's."
I have on occasion brought that up to my lefty friends. I swear, its like they don't hear me. They don't deny it. They don't respond to it in any way. Its like they simply can't process such a statement. So the conversation continues as if the statement had not been made.
We can't see what she does because we're watching with dog whistles turned "off".
As opposed to Bidens' "they'll put y'all back in chains" comment of Mitt Romney.
“Teddy Kennedy--in Washington for his entire life--after being tossed out of the University of Virginia law school for cheating. “
To be fair, my recollection is that Teddy was thrown out of Harvard for cheating and his father had to buy a building at the UVA LS to get him admitted there. Law Schools tend, or at least back then tended, to not admit those who are unlikely to pass the bar based on character, and that typically includes being thrown out of college for cheating.
But Glasser is convinced — or poses as convinced — that watching the whole 2 hours will persuade voters who might vote for Trump that he's as awful at Trump haters insist he is:
It's like he learned nothing from 2016, when journalists stuck in their bubble of provincial groupthink innocently believed that airing Trump speeches would hurt him.
Jersey Fled: "I’ve said here before: the Left doesn’t see Trump as he is is, but instead see Strawman Trump, a product of their own creation."
Just "the Left"?
Its amazing just how many "conservatives"/"republicans" have internalized The New Soviet Democratical strawmen...right down to using the same terms, tone and debunked nonsense.
We see that on this blog as well.
The absurdity thing here is that Trump really is funny. He can work a crowd like almost no one else. Most middle of the road people watching an entire speech, and esp live, are probably going to come out of it favorably impressed. He can roll for 45 minutes without a teleprompter, and his imitations of FJB are hilarious. For most everyone else, that would be off the table, but Trump can go there because Biden is his opponent, and, yes, he is Trump.
Their best move would be to cut and paste from a number of speeches. That way they could highlight Trump’s zaniness.
My thought is a simpler and definitely cheaper one: watch his speeches. Share them widely. Don’t look away."
Sure, that's why (e.g.) MSNBC won't cover Trump live even for short announcements. They don't want Trump to look bad. /sarc
I do agree her "... thought is simple[r]..."
I wish someone would lay out what was wrong with the Peace and Prosperity of Trumps first term.
The fear must be, The second term, with Trump knowing some of the pitfalls, he will double down on exposing the Incompetence of The DC Swamp. Trumps ability to cut through the DC crap and get things done. Like he did with the Abrahams Accords
madAsHell said...
“Ya’ know……Trump is the coherent guy with orange hair!”
When someone says orange hair, I think of the Heatmeister first.
Keep using words like “vituperative” and see where it gets you.
I am always amazed when people of the Jeffrey Goldberg type loudly assert that they cannot even understand what Trump's sentences mean, when literally thousands of people seated in front of Trump have no problem at all, and they think that this confessed incapacity shows how smart they are.
Well, right from the start Trump essentially impeaches his trustworthiness or presumption of good will by declaring without support Biden as "...the worst president in history making the worst State of the Union speech in history..." and "miserable nightmare of Biden's presidency...the worst president, the most incompetent, the most corrupt president..." etc., etc. He behaves like a 14-year boy, spewing unmediated nonsense with no attempt to provide specific criticisms tied to Biden's actions and their specific consequences. Even if I had never heard of Trump or knew anything about him I would spot him as a "non-serious" demagogue, vomiting up the sugared shit that only other 14-year old mentalities might find anything other than acrid wasted wind. He's basically the former and would be future Troll-in-chief.
I skipped ahead and sampled random bits of his unending hot air and it did not improve. By virtue merely of its monotonous vacancy of serious ideas or adult thought it only got worse. The prospect of listening to every minute of two hours of this vapid drivel is unimaginable.
"I wish someone would lay out what was wrong with the Peace and Prosperity of Trumps first term."
There is never a rational response when asking that. Some time ago on this blog, I asked that question and received a response claiming that Trump's accomplishments were really continuations of Obama's policies. I then asked, if that's really so, why does the left hate it when those things are being done? Crickets.
"The fear must be, The second term, with Trump knowing some of the pitfalls, he will double down on exposing the Incompetence of The DC Swamp. Trumps ability to cut through the DC crap and get things done. Like he did with the Abrahams Accords"
Aside from the things they're currently doing which require secrecy and the cover of darkness, The Swamp doesn't want to get things done- not the sort of things normal people care about, anyway. Trump actually doing so clearly demonstrates The Swamp's inability or unwillingness to solve problems. For The Swamp, a problem solved is a problem that is no longer useful for raising campaign funds and distributing graft to Washington insiders and their associated DC remora. Flyover country? Fuck 'em.
"... Trump essentially impeaches his trustworthiness or presumption of good will by declaring without support Biden as "...the worst president in history ..."
Absolutely while Biden is shown to be the picture of honesty for his even handed statements on Trump. /sarc
I have begun to believe Cookie and Rich type Orange Man BAD and the topic de jour into an AI and then print the resultant output. But you do you, Pop Corn.
Stick with the demented Cookie, it suits your style.
Cokkie sez "....Well, right from the start ...He behaves like a 14-year boy, spewing unmediated nonsense...."
So on and so forth. I guess one man's opinion is another man's vitriol, eh Cook? Do you wonder what Donald Trump says about you? If he's not entitled to vent an opinion, why would you be?
Seems like a lot of easily bruised Democrat egos out there, so tender & afraid that the voting public might act in unapproved ways...
Sad !
Democrat: Passionate
Republican: Unhinged
Democrat: Folksy
Republican: Stupid
Democrat: Sophisticated
Republican: Elitist
Democrat: Fiery
Republican: Crazy
"e behaves like a 14-year boy, spewing unmediated nonsense with no attempt to provide specific criticisms tied to Biden's actions and their specific consequences"
We have been providing you with evidence and criticisms of the Biden presidency for years now. What are the odds that you would listen this time? Zero. There are mountains more actual evidence for Biden's corruption than any that might exist regarding Trump, where all of the charges depend on tenuously stretched readings of the law, where the crimes that we have proof that Biden committed are simple black and white infraction.
As for incompetence, he bragged about ignoring Europe's concerns about getting involved in Ukraine, has led them by the nose into economic ruin, and has led us to the brink of WW3. We are running a $3 trillion deficit as he gives away trillions to one cause or another in a bald-faced attempt to buy votes. Both of those actions speak to a deep recklessness such as we have never seen in a president before this.
Robert Cook - if Trump gave speeches that rivalled those of Cicero, you would still degrade and ridicule him. Why? Because he espouses thoughts and beliefs that are irreconcilable with your thoughts and beliefs. But instead of recognizing this you proceed to use verbose drivel simply to degrade Trump the man. Admit it. You can't stand Trump so you turn to a simple ad hominem attack. We expect better from you.
I don't like Trump, and I would never go to one of his speeches ("shows" might be more apt), but my retirement funds did a lot better under Trump (not withstanding Covid) than under Biden. You've got to ask whether style or substance is more important to you (if it's style, you've got to sit this one out).
I agree with Robert Cook.
Trump's ability to talk lucidly for over 90 minutes eliminates him from presidential contention.
As described Cook sees only what he wants in a Trump speech. Skipping ahead of course. LOL.
I always find Trump's remarks refreshing. Take him seriously but not literally - thank you Salena Zito. Amazing stamina, greta connection with the audience.
Why are Trump's speeches so long?
Simple, Trump spends time with the people who expended so much effort to see him.
A good explanation of Trump's natural instinct is in this video from Erin Brokovich.
"Have a fucking cup of coffee, Ed."
With most politicians, nobody even wants to spend much time with other.
The thing about Trump's speeches is that you get the feeling that is really trying to communicate with his supporters on a personal level. That's something that Biden can't do.
"We expect better from you."
"Hope" and "expect" are two different things.
I don’t care how awful Trump is. I am not voting for any modern Democrat and I’m wasting my vote by abstaining. Nothing is more dangerous to the Republic than the modern Democrat party.
I only watched the first few minutes, but didn’t see anything that was so obviously “disqualifying”. Maybe if you disagree, give us a time stamp (for example 1:30).
I think WInce makes a good point "Trump spends time with the people who expended so much effort to see him.” But i think it’s even more true of BIden — that he has lived since his late 20s in a world where people say, “Yes Senator (VP, Pres). That’s so insightful. You should say that more often.” Nobody can tell Biden “that doesn’t sound good.” “That thing you said can’t be fact checked, and will come back to bite you.” “Don’t say that , it never happened, and your claim will make you look stupid.” Dr. Jill could say these things (in my opinion) but she loves him and has the short sighted view that deny deny deny is the best way to deal with bad things.
Good guys are fiery/feisty, bad guys are vituperative
=================================================================
one has smoke coming out of nose and ears : the other sprays spit
I suspect it is the Pledge of Allegiance and National Anthem that first turns the left off from Trump's campaign rallies. Or, maybe it is the comparison of Trump speaking without note cards for 1 1/2 or 2 hours versus Biden's mumbling bumbling whispering/yelling speeches that are thankfully few and far between. However, it could be the large, very large, cheering, happy, engaged crowd of attendees.
However, I suspect any leftist who says they have watched an entire rally with Trump speaking, is lying.
The 'historic mistake' will be to elect any democrat.
Sheridan said...
"Robert Cook - We expect better from you."
No. No we don't. When it comes to conservative in general and Trump in particular Cooke looses all reason. It's an emotional state particular to the left.
"When one actually unpacks most of the policies supported by Trump they look an awful lot like those of a centrist, Anti-NAFTA Democrat from the 90's."
I have on occasion brought that up to my lefty friends. I swear, its like they don't hear me. They don't deny it. They don't respond to it in any way. Its like they simply can't process such a statement. So the conversation continues as if the statement had not been made.
Same experience here. Generally with an immediate change of subject.
Trump sounds like one of Michael Moore’s rants — it sounds worse than Michael Moore’s shtick. It sounds like Glen Greenwald like these far-far leftists that hate America from a different era. It’s alarming to me that this kind of message resonates with people.
The thing about Trump is that he equates people being mean to him — making jokes and laughing about him towards America. He’s in bad shape right now — it kinda sucks to be Donald Trump right now. You lost, you don’t have any money to fund your next campaign. And the future doesn’t look especially bright for him.
Meanwhile, Trump’s speeches are increasingly incoherent. Confuses Obama with Biden, forgets names (even his own family!), increasingly chaotic paragraphs. His mental health should clearly be a concern for his handlers. Trump is starting to make Biden look good!
Rich? Shut up.
cfs said "maybe it is the comparison of Trump speaking without note cards for 1 1/2 or 2 hours versus Biden's mumbling bumbling whispering/yelling speeches that are thankfully few and far between."
To explain why so many of the tier-three 'intellectuals' in media hate Trump's rally speeches.
That's true, and all the other things cfs say in that comment are true also, but I think there's one factor missing. Up thread one of commenters whose job (or, even sadder, hobby) seems to be to rephrase talking-points said something about Trump's talk being "unmediated," and the implication was that this is a bad thing.
For reasons that I can't understand, there are people who really LOVE the idea of "message discipline," and become positively giddy when their side just numbly recites whatever talking points have been distributed that day. They seem to forget that "message discipline" was invented for Bush the First because he was somewhat stupid and inarticulate and would get himself in trouble ("Message: I care"). Democrats bitched endlessly about people mindlessly reciting the talking points then, but as soon as Clinton got into office they embraced the practice (especially during the Clinton Lewinsky scandal). Obama did nothing BUT recite talking points (when he got off script he stuttered and mumbled for real, unlike someone else we know...)
Message discipline by public officials is terrible for the country because it reduces all public debate into useless Kabuki theater. No one is actually debating: they are just acting like they are debating. And message discipline plus talking point prevents us from judging both how intelligent someone is and how much they understand the issues they're talking about. If "explain it in your own words" is impossible for an official, he or she probably doesn't actually believe in whatever is being recited. That would be good to know.
We'd be much better off if EVERYONE were "unmediated" like Trump is. Notice how Trump's supporters don't fall for "OMG WTF BBQ Trump said 'ForbiddenWord' Eleventy!" When you have a good sense of what a person actually believes, the one-liner "gaffe" attack doesn't really stick, because normal people mis-speak sometimes in extemporaneous interactions. It's only in a "media discipline" environment that a one-line "gaffe" could really mean something (because it would have been thoroughly considered and workshopped).
People who hate the "unmediated" Trump are the same people who have internalized the idea that smart, educated people--like they think they are--believe in and say all the same things in the same words and never think for themselves. That's our current "intellectual" class in a nutshell: 'just tell me what to say so I can say it....Now look how smart I am! Reward me! I deserve it!'
Post a Comment