HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » The defenses of Donald Tr...

Fri Aug 12, 2016, 12:09 AM

The 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.

Trump made the "Second Amendment" remark as he was already talking about a situation in which Clinton was the president. He said, "If [Hillary Clinton] gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks." There's "nothing you can do" in this situation because Trump is talking about a time in which the 2016 election has already passed and Clinton is president. If he wasn't talking about that situation, why would he say there was "nothing you can do?" During the election, there's something pretty obvious you can do: Prevent her from becoming president in the first place.

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.
Check out the full WaPo article by Aaron Blake here.

In the piece, Blake also discusses the following attempt by Rudy Giuliani to defend of Trump's recent comment.

"We know Donald Trump is not particularly indirect," Giuliani said. "If Donald Trump was going to say something like that, he'd say something like that."

According to Blake,
He (Giuliani) says Trump is "not particularly indirect," but Trump is the king of political innuendo..

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.

Trump frequently couches his most controversial comments this way, which allows him to share a controversial idea, piece of tabloid gossip or conspiracy theory without technically embracing it. If the comment turns out to be popular, Trump will often drop the distancing qualifier — “people think” or “some say.” If the opposite happens, Trump can claim that he never said the thing he is accused of saying, equating it to retweeting someone else’s thoughts on Twitter.

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.

4 replies, 1051 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 4 replies Author Time Post
Reply The defenses of Donald Trump’s ‘Second Amendment’ comment don’t make sense. (Original post)
Dark n Stormy Knight Aug 2016 OP
Doctor Jack Aug 2016 #1
Dark n Stormy Knight Aug 2016 #2
SHRED Aug 2016 #3
Dark n Stormy Knight Aug 2016 #4

Response to Dark n Stormy Knight (Original post)

Fri Aug 12, 2016, 12:12 AM

1. Of course they don't

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor Jack (Reply #1)

Fri Aug 12, 2016, 12:34 AM

2. Lol. Though, I think it's obvious to his supporters as well, but

they, like most meth heads, have no problem lying through their teeth about what he meant. Well, those that still have any teeth...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dark n Stormy Knight (Original post)

Fri Aug 12, 2016, 02:21 AM

3. Why didn't anyone ask...

 

....why, if it was about voting, he used the word "horrible".
I never heard that asked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SHRED (Reply #3)

Fri Aug 12, 2016, 04:19 AM

4. Since the paragraph is so poorly constructed, it's almost impossible to say,

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.
`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

I happened to find the quotation in this especially apropos article on semantics.
In dealing with empty concepts, we came across the issue that if somebody uses a term that potentially has an unintelligible definition, they are likely to defend themselves by quickly making up some kind of definition. I strongly suspect that in such cases, the usage of the term will be inconsistent with the definition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread