Understanding Trump's Use of Language

[Steve3007]

This appears to be another interesting (if that's the right word) test of the different schools of thought about the way to interpret the US Constitution, that you mentioned in a previous post.

As far as I can gather from the News, Trump has consulted his lawyers, they've told him that he can do this via an executive order, so he's said he is going to go ahead. I guess he believes what his lawyers tell him and, as you say, he thinks it's going to play well with a section of his base.

I presume it's part of the campaign to try to ensure that the midterm elections are all about the dangers of immigrants. It goes along with the other main theme - the millions of "middle easterners" who are streaming across Mexico towards the southern border of the US, their swords held aloft, ready to invade the country and slaughter the populace unless the president comes to the rescue with troops.

[Georgeanna]

I'm not sure that Lakoff's metaphor of the Republicans as big daddy,pater and the Democrats as good nurturing mater with pater is particularly helpful.

And as discussed previously, it is open to the charge of generalization.

Further criticism of Lakoff from Steven Pinker in his review of 'Whose Freedom ? ( 2006)

https://newrepublic.com/article/77730/b ... rge-lakoff

There is much to admire in Lakoff's work in linguistics, but Whose Freedom?, and more generally his thinking about politics, is a train wreck. Though it contains messianic claims about everything from epistemology to political tactics, the book has no footnotes or references (just a generic reading list), and cites no studies from political science or economics, and barely mentions linguistics. Its use of cognitive neuroscience goes way beyond any consensus within that field, and

its analysis of political ideologies is skewed by the author's own politics and limited by his disregard of centuries of prior thinking on the subject. And Lakoff's cartoonish depiction of progressives as saintly sophisticates and conservatives as evil morons fails on both intellectual and tactical grounds.

We just can't seem to get away from metaphors - 'his thinking about politics is a train wreck'.

Wonder if Pinker has anything interesting to say about current situation. Trump as a Steamroller...

[Georgeanna]

Fooloso4 wrote:

Trump said he is going to end birthright citizenship by executive order. What this means in short is that he holds his authority above that of the Constitution.

Trump thinks he is above the law. Full stop. Steamrolling on...as per plan.

[Georgeanna]

This appears to be another interesting (if that's the right word) test of the different schools of thought about the way to interpret the US Constitution, that you mentioned in a previous post.

As far as I can gather from the News, Trump has consulted his lawyers, they've told him that he can do this via an executive order, so he's said he is going to go ahead. I guess he believes what his lawyers tell him and, as you say, he thinks it's going to play well with a section of his base.

I presume it's part of the campaign to try to ensure that the midterm elections are all about the dangers of immigrants. It goes along with the other main theme - the millions of "middle easterners" who are streaming across Mexico towards the southern border of the US, their swords held aloft, ready to invade the country and slaughter the populace unless the president comes to the rescue with troops.

All played out in glorious technicolour. But wait up. Someone at Fox, no less, is ready with a spoiler...

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/ ... t-fox-news

This week, a clip of Smith debunking the Honduran migrant “human caravan” went viral. “Tomorrow is one week before the midterm election, which is what all of this is about,” he orated, from his weekly afternoon show, Shepard Smith Reporting. “There is no invasion. No one is coming to get you. There’s nothing at all to worry about.” Smith went on to inform his viewers that there are over 2,000 miles between Mexico’s southern border and the US. And that a similar previous incident had resulted in only 14 arrests: “We’re America. We can handle it.

This was galling to the station’s loyal fans. Accustomed to a hyper-partisan diet of Tucker Carlson at eight, Sean Hannity at nine and Laura Ingraham at 10 Smith feels like an anachronism. One aggrieved viewer tweeted: “Excuse me, Fox News. If I want more of Shep Smith, I’ll tune into CNN.”

Increasingly, Smith has been waging a one-man crusade against the flotsam of conspiracy that attaches itself to the Trump project. Take his recent chummy interview with a correspondent from the New York Times, in which he calmly plotted out the holes in Trump’s “great businessman” narrative, climaxing in the revelation that Trump “had lost over $900m”.
------
Liberal interpretations tend to assume that Fox executives have placed Shepard in the middle of the schedules in order to create a backbone of “real news” around which they can stitch the infotainment: an Emmanuel Goldstein of internal opposition. The station certainly has a lively tradition of putting up low quality liberal avatars, ready to be knocked out of the park by a Bill O’Reilly or a Tucker Carlson. But perhaps the more prosaic answer is that Smith is too much of a station stalwart to be downsized. He has, after all, 22 years of loyal service, until 2013 anchoring their version of a nightly news bulletin, The Fox Report.

In recent years though, Smith has become more open about his displeasure at the rest of the network. During the 2016 election he called Fox News “both ‘the craziest conservative network on Earth’ and ‘the freaky place where I’m working right now’.

Shortly after he voiced doubts to interviewers over how long he would be able to continue at the channel into the future but in March 2018, he signed up for another three years. He spoke to Time magazine about his decision, saying: “I wonder, if I stopped delivering the facts, what would go in its place.”

[Fooloso4]

Steve3007:

As far as I can gather from the News, Trump has consulted his lawyers, they've told him that he can do this via an executive order, so he's said he is going to go ahead. I guess he believes what his lawyers tell him and, as you say, he thinks it's going to play well with a section of his base.

Trump, following in his father’s footsteps, and mentored by Roy Cohn, has always sought to circumvent the law. He constantly pushes against it and when he loses in court he settles or pays his fine and moves on. He is attempting to exploit a vagueness in the wording of the Amendment in order to accomplish his own ends. One might wonder whether he thinks he can prevail on legal grounds, but this may be the wrong question to ask. I think he believes he can prevail because he is Trump and that even if he loses the battle it is still a victory in the war against immigration. It will play with the Trumpettes as evidence of the corruption and danger of the enemy, both within and without, attempting to destroy the country, and as evidence that something must be done.

I presume it's part of the campaign to try to ensure that the midterm elections are all about the dangers of immigrants.

He is stoking the fear by sending the military to the border now, ahead of the election, even though it is clear that if it reaches the border it will not be until after the election. What is not clear is how large it will be, or even if it will reach the border. But Trump wants to give the impression that we are in imminent danger and our only hope is the action of Republicans.

It goes along with the other main theme - the millions of "middle easterners" who are streaming across Mexico towards the southern border of the US, their swords held aloft, ready to invade the country and slaughter the populace unless the president comes to the rescue with troops.

This is what Trump said about this when asked for evidence:

There's no proof of anything. There's no proof of anything. But there could very well be.

In the pre-Trump era such a claim would have been seen as deeply troubling, but it has now become part of the new normal. No proof of anything could mean a) that there are no facts that stand as proof of anything, that b) we should not believe mainstream media because there is no proof of anything they say, or less broadly, c) we do not know who might be in the caravan. Even if this is taken in the more limited sense of the caravan, Trump moves from uncertainty to fear. Without any need for evidence he concludes: “there could very well be”. It may be that he is just waiving off the fact that he has no evidence to back up his claim, but it could very well be that his message is that evidence does not matter. Note that he repeats “there is no proof of anything”. It may be that repetition is just a habit of his speech but it it could very well be a way of emphasizing his message that “there is no proof of anything”.

As he said in a speech at a Veterans of Foreign Wars Convention in Kansas City, Mo.:

Just remember, what you are seeing and what you are reading is not what's happening. Just stick with us, don't believe the crap you see from these people, the fake news.

There is no proof of anything so stick with us.

[Georgeanna]

It's all very well analysing Trump's use of language - his rhetoric,repetitive speech patterns and all the rest of it - but he is still getting all the headlines, all the attention.
But where is the opposition - their steadying language; their positive message...
All I've got so far is Hillary Clinton being delusional and unhelpful.

Please tell me there is an intelligent, charismatic challenger out there. Someone with a chance in hell...

[Fooloso4]

I am surprised that Fox keeps Shep Smith on the air, but the simple answer may be that his show is popular. Why it is popular may be more difficult to ascertain. Perhaps he is like the villain in WWE wrestling matches, someone they love to hate - “Hannity vs. Smith. No holds barred match.” Maybe because he provides a degree of journalist integrity, even if his audience rejects everything he says they can still assure themselves that Fox is not just a propaganda machine and presents both sides. Many viewers have made their hatred of Smith clear, but are there some who are persuaded by anything he says? Does his viewership show that we should not be too quick to paint Fox viewers with a broad brush? Or do many of his viewers come to Fox only to watch his show?

Georgeanna:

It's all very well analysing Trump's use of language - his rhetoric,repetitive speech patterns and all the rest of it - but he is still getting all the headlines, all the attention.

This is true. It has been to his advantage, but in the long term it may not be. If the majority takes issue with more and more of what he says and does the attention will not work in his favor. While some feel vindicated by him and buy into his message, there are many who who have been galvanized to action against him. It should not be forgotten that he lost the popular vote. And, Clinton’s lack of popularity even with Democrats should not be overlooked.

Please tell me there is an intelligent, charismatic challenger out there. Someone with a chance in hell…

I think there will be several challengers who have much more than a chance in hell, but then again, I did not think that Trump had a chance in hell of winning. Right now it is a matter of Trump vs. not Trump and it is anyone’s guess which side is stronger. A candidate who is perceived as being too far to the Left might worry moderates concerned with bouncing from one extreme to the other without a middle. No doubt the Republicans will portray any Democratic candidate as an extremist, but that case will be easier to make against some than others. The Democrats may try to play to the middle or may decide they have a better chance of getting people to vote if they have a candidate who will bring change not just from Trump but from establishment politics. I think the election of a Democratic black woman governor in Georgia and a Democratic black man for governor in Florida will be important gauges for the presidential election.

[Jklint]

Trump sayings at brainyquotes.

https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/donald_trump

I was hoping to find a brainy quote somewhere among all the ones given. Most are simply vulgar and the best are at best conventional. To call these "brainy" defaults to fake news.

[Dachshund]

Greta,

Having recently analysed your use of the English language ( in terms of prose style) in a goodly sized, random sample of posts that you have published on this forum to date, I am now able to confirm, for a fact, that you are a racist, specifically, a white (Anglo-Saxon) supremacist. You do not realise this of course, and will automatically deny the charge most emphatically; but that is only because you are- idiomatically speaking- "Unable to see the Forest for the Trees", in this particular matter ! There is, however, a scholarly paper, I stumbled upon a few days ago, ( published in 2008 in the Journal of Linguistic Anthropology) that can effectively explain for you why what I say is true (i.e; that you are full-blooded, albeit blithely unwitting, white racist of the first order). The academic paper to which I refer It is not too lengthy a piece, and, on the condition that you would promise to read it carefully, (along with a very brief introductory preface written by my good self), I will happily send you the details of how to access the article free of charge on the internet.

Please let me know if you are interested in taking up this opportunity to better understand the true nature of your own personality (!)



Regards

Dachshund

[Sy Borg]

John, I don't care what you or anyone else thinks I "really" am, just the person I try to be. That person is not saddled with hostility and contempt for my fellow humans based on superficialities.

People who believe irrational and unjustifiable things love to claim others as their own. How often have theists claimed that atheism is a religious belief? How often have racists claimed that the only difference between them and others is they are not hypocrites?

This is seemingly just standard overcompensation due to the inherent insecurity of holding a logically unjustifiable position driven by denied emotions.

[Fooloso4]

Donald J. Trump speaking to reporters today:

Birthright citizenship is a very, very important subject. In my opinion, it’s much less complex than people think. I think it say it very loud and clear in the Constitution that you don’t have to go through the process of whatever they’re talking about.

I think it says it loud and clear, he don’t know what he’s talking about.

[LuckyR]

Greta,

Having recently analysed your use of the English language ( in terms of prose style) in a goodly sized, random sample of posts that you have published on this forum to date, I am now able to confirm, for a fact, that you are a racist, specifically, a white (Anglo-Saxon) supremacist. You do not realise this of course, and will automatically deny the charge most emphatically; but that is only because you are- idiomatically speaking- "Unable to see the Forest for the Trees", in this particular matter ! There is, however, a scholarly paper, I stumbled upon a few days ago, ( published in 2008 in the Journal of Linguistic Anthropology) that can effectively explain for you why what I say is true (i.e; that you are full-blooded, albeit blithely unwitting, white racist of the first order). The academic paper to which I refer It is not too lengthy a piece, and, on the condition that you would promise to read it carefully, (along with a very brief introductory preface written by my good self), I will happily send you the details of how to access the article free of charge on the internet.

Please let me know if you are interested in taking up this opportunity to better understand the true nature of your own personality (!)



Regards

Dachshund

I can't really blame you for trying to draw conclusions about folks you don't really know based on their use of language and ideas, since lots have already done that on your behalf.

[Burning ghost]

LuckyR -

As the aim of this thread appears to be about drawing conclusions about people’s speech it is interesting to see how quick/ready we are to respond to things that impact upon our moral sensibilities.

Trump’s use of language is that of a businessman negotiating and manipulating his customers/clients/opponents in orer to make a deal that suits his businesses needs. At the moment his “business” is the US. I imagine his attitude and talk is not much different from what you’d hear in any boardroom meeting about how to revivify said business.

There is a lot of crossover between governmental positions and business positions. Trump seems unwilling to curb his speech to suit the position he is in and he also seems more than willing to suffer the consequences. Why is anyone shocked by his rhetoric? He is a “businessman” not a politician. If you look at those who achieve a lot in the business world they are not usually the kind of people ready and willing to mix their words to make people feel better. They set targets, taek risks, and keep people guessing.

I imagine a lot of the votes in the US, as well as in the UK, fell they way they fell due to people being wise enough today to recognise condescension, the naivety of youthful voters, the converative values of the elderly, and the intense level of carpet-bombing everyone with floods of information. Give someone 20 choices and they’ll take a year deciding - by which time the landscape would’ve shifted so much as to make the choice as good as null and void - yet give them 2 or 3 options and they’ll come to a quicker and steadier decision. All the politicians need to do is plan out a course of action by which the citizens are left with a pathway of reduced questions that lead to a conclusive decision (I say that is ALL they need to do like it is simplistic!)

Our species has not long been living in such large numbers. Populations have exponentially grown - go back to the 18th and 19th century and teh largest cities were 100,000 and then rose quickly to 1 million. Now we’re struggling to adapt our governmental systems to this. Maybe online voting will become a part of how decisions are made in the near future. Maybe a true democracy is on the way? Would it be “better” or “worse”?

[Dachshund]

I can't really blame you for trying to draw conclusions about folks you don't really know based on their use of language and ideas, since lots have already done that on your behalf.

You don't say, Lucky ?! I would never have thought there would be so many forum members/guests who were competent linguistic anthropologists !

Regards

Dachshund

[Steve3007]

I think the idea of analysing the use of language by each other, on this website, is an interesting one. I'd be interested to see a topic started on that subject. We all have easy access to every word that each other has said since first coming here, so there's lots of material from which to draw. The only snag I can see is that, arguably, the whole raison d'être of such a topic would be to break some of the forum rules.