2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThe defenses of Donald Trump’s ‘Second Amendment’ comment don’t make sense.
I had been trying to compose a post about this, but fortunately found a professional had written it out for me.
Then Trump immediately follows it up by saying, "But I tell you what, that'll be a horrible day." Again, this strongly suggests the time frame he's talking about is when she's already in the White House. Otherwise, both the "horrible day" comment and the "nothing you can do" comment that bookend his Second Amendment remark are total non sequiturs.
In the piece, Blake also discusses the following attempt by Rudy Giuliani to defend of Trump's recent comment.
According to Blake,
Here Blake links to another WaPo article, A lot of people are saying .?.?. : How Trump spreads conspiracies and innuendoes. It's a good analysis of how Trump, and, I believe many politicians--RWers in particular--can say so much without ever actually, indisputably saying it.
Which I think explains why we shouldn't be surprised if someone carries out Trump's "second amendment" suggestion and Trump is not held the slightest bit responsible for it.
A lot of attention was given to this issue when infamous word-salad chef Sarah Palin came to our attention. A lot of virtual ink went to discussing her intensely cringe-worthy speaking style.
A lot of RWers seem to share this inability to clearly express themselves, yet, their supporters don't seem to find this problematic. Intelligence, logic, even specific plans for governing are not necessary in their speeches, as long as they convey their solidarity with the the Right Wing cause.
Here are links to some of the best of the other information I found on the subject:
A Linguistic Analysis Of Donald Trump Shows Why People Like Him So Much (video)
Donald Trump's use of grammar 'typical of children aged 11 and under'
What Language Experts Find So Strange About Donald Trump
Linguists explain why Sarah Palin has such an emotional connection with her audience This may also apply to Trump. For the scholarly, here is a link to a pdf of the academic study on which it seems this last article was based.
Doctor Jack
(3,072 posts)Its obvious to anyone with a 3rd grade education what he meant. Unfortunately most of his supporters dropped out in the 2nd grade to pursue careers as full time meth addicts.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(9,760 posts)they, like most meth heads, have no problem lying through their teeth about what he meant. Well, those that still have any teeth...
SHRED
(28,136 posts)....why, if it was about voting, he used the word "horrible".
I never heard that asked.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(9,760 posts)but one would guess that the "horrible day" he referred to would be either the day Hillary "abolish(es) the Second Amendment" or the day she "gets to pick her judges."
It doesn't matter much to his listeners. Trump's using Hillary and horrible in the same paragraph is enough for them. And they know he meant maybe they can stop her with their "second amendment" rights. That's clear enough for them. They don't need no "professor" types with their logical and clearly formed paragraphs!
But, again, that's the problem with this sort of ambiguous language, and the advantage to duplicitous people using it; Trump(ty Drumpfty), can make claims like Humpty Dumpty--that argumentative egg perched on a wall in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass.
I happened to find the quotation in this especially apropos article on semantics.