WeeklyStandard: Trump Creationism: Who's Responsible for Creating Donald Trump? -- Jonathan Last
Points to a review of the daily beast, which I review next below.
He only adds that a recent poll by Civis Analytics shows Trump:
"takes home 29 percent support among registered Republicans; he has 40 percent of folks who are unregistered Republican leaners; and he gets 43 percent—his best number—from voters who lean Republican but are registered Democrats"
Pretty impressive for an idiot (see below)!
=======================================
TheDailyBeast: How the P.C. Police Propelled Donald Trump--Tom Nichols
As seen from the quote, not a fan of the left, or Trump.
"Democrats want to perma-glue Trump to the Republicans so that the GOP will never get his stink off the party even after he’s been defeated."
Two assumptions here, Trump = stink, and Trump will be defeated. Another follows, both parties are trying to hang Trump on the other. Assumes neither wants him, and that is very strange.
For a person doing phenomenally well in the polls, who informed Tom Nichols he is not wanted by the Republican party? What does he think the republican party is other than its constituents that vote Republican?
A very strange and incredibly biased article. "his creepy, un-American attachment to Russian dictator Vladimir Putin." I remember Reagan reaching agreements with the Soviets and proclaiming "Trust, but verify!," I remember a secretary of state proudly pushing a button that had been mislabeled in Russian, and proclaiming a reset in our relationship.
"Trump’s a GOP newcomer whose views on abortion, health care, and taxes are mostly anathema to actual conservatives" Not all republicans agree on all portions of these matters. They are more fiscally conservative than Democrats, usually, but some support limited abortion, all support caring for the poor (or should) and none like taxes (including Trump).
"It’s pointless to try to explain Trump in terms of political platforms because Trump himself is too stupid and too incoherent to have any kind of consistent political views about anything beyond hating minorities and immigrants" End of case. Trump is as dumb as Reagan! So what is there to talk about.
Tom Nichols, from this article is a true hater. He hates Republicans, Democrats, Trump and Ben Carson. I doubt he loves any of the rest.
His point that the PC world of anti free-speech has left a void in the political space which Trump has filled has some merit. Unfortunately, he does not give Trump enough credit.
Look at Dig how Trump says what he says (Puschak).
"Donald Trump knows when to sound incredulous or forceful. He has good comedic instinct. You could even call him witty. But you can’t call him smart or well informed. The best salesman can sell you a TV without knowing anything about it. Because the TV isn’t what matters. What matters is you. And if you are an American citizen who for years has listened to politicians sound sophisticated while accomplishing nothing you might just be primed for something that is everything they are not. But the next time you feel like Donald Trump has a point, do yourself a favor and look at his words.”"
Puschak points out that Trump speaks in short sentences, repeats them and almost invariably ends his sentences in an action word! Puschak says he uses fourth grade in the Flesh-Kincaid score. His sentence construction is simple without independent clauses.
This is straight out of Amazon, The Elements of Style, 4th Edition, Strunk and White a book I used in Engilsh 1A, an eternity ago in College. In other words Puschak says Trump is a charlatan who speaks impeccable simple English as taught in Berkeley during the 60's and probably in the Ivy League schools he attended. Not too shabby.
Pushak simply doesn't like Trump so he pours negative adjectives on him, but none of these "pundits" do so we can take what they give us and makes sense, and ignore the rest.
What is interesting about these two analysis is:
1. Trump is filling a real void created by our PC world.
2. He is clearing the air with good, simple, and direct language which convinces,
3. He has not needed to and hasn't told us where he stands and what he will do, because he wants to convince us of who he is
a. He is for America
b. He is a winner, and as a leader he will want America to win
c. He is a generalist who will set goals and hire the best implementers to get to them
What precisely is stupid about this analysis? Why couldn't our pundits come up with it? How could he be as stupid as they say and be worth the billions he is?
No comments:
Post a Comment