Paul Snively on Trump’s Rhetorical Skills

At Althouse, commenter Paul Snively writes:

There are still people who don’t understand that Trump uses ambiguity and free association on purpose?

Wow. Just wow.

Hint: Trump’s not the stupid one here. He sees perfectly well when the person on the other side of the table is trying to lead him into a trap, and evades it, not by putting down some other marker that will come back to haunt him, but by painting a word picture that can be interpreted essentially however he wants, when he decides to offer an interpretation later. What’s especially funny is that he admits that’s what he’s doing.

We’re so used to the hyper-focus-grouped politicians’ banalities—finely honed, very precise words that mean absolutely nothing—that we can’t even recognize good ol’ ambiguity and obfuscation, the shrewd businessman’s refusal to be cornered, when we see it. And boy, do we see it a lot with Trump. Good thing? Bad thing? I sure don’t know. Different from the usual in politics? Absofreakinglutely

–While the media hyperventilates over the possibility of Trump refusing to yield power peacefully if he loses the election (wait a minute, how is a defeated Trump supposed to order his troops not to let Hillary inside the White House?), it’s clever as well as only just to let them and their audience stew in discomfort.

After all, it’s damn sure Hillary Clinton will never be my sovereign leader.  The reality that the corrupt system has deliberated destroyed the nation, by creating multiple peoples and creeds in its place and delegitimizing itself through outright corruption as well as willful disobedience to the will of the people, has resulted in this grand display of Freudian projection whereby the media now accuses Trump of playing Caesar.

Of course, for my money he’s welcome to.  We don’t have a “republic” anymore anyway.  If one cannot be restored peacefully, then I guess we’ll have to settle for something else–something better than a Zionist banana empire at least.



  1. Earlier in the same, commenter robother writes:

    “So, in a week where officials in two Soros-funded organizations are caught on tape bragging about bussing in thousands of ringers to vote (using canvassers to identify missing registered voters), Trump needs to pledge to abide by the results of the election? And note that Hillary isn’t asked to take the same promise, in the face of about the numerous claims by Democrats that the Russians are hacking our election.

    Trump is dead right in his instincts here: giving up any right to complain about the fairness of the election would be understood as “full speed ahead” by the Soros election riggers.

    Of course, the history of Republicans “doing the right thing” by not challenging Democrat corruption of elections (starting with Nixon in 1960) is how we got here.”

    Excellent point: Trump is putting the vile Soros do-worsers on notice. Who knows, they may even stand down! Or at least: they may have to be circumspect enough about their fraud (as well as wary of what might happen if President Trump gets to prosecute it) so that it doesn’t rise to the level it can challenge the Trump landslide.

    Let’s win this. Make our votes count, and vote for Trump!

  2. And check this one out by Clayton Hennesey:

    “One thing new and interesting to come out of this election cycle is that it is becoming commonly accepted that words need no longer be interpreted as symbolic language according to their commonly accepted meaning but are now instead to be regarded as nothing more than animal brain level stimuli, to be responded to as desired.

    Reading and listening comprehension is out. Stimulus –> Response is in.

    “Bark!” –> “Bark!”

    So when Trump is asked, against the background of the subornation of the FBI and DOJ, in the context of documented ongoing dirty tricks against his campaign, in the context of most media outlets being documented as friendly extensions of the Hillary campaign, whether he will in advance commit to accepting future, unseen election processes and results he answers “We’ll see”, the symbolic language packet “We’ll see” – that is, maybe yes, maybe no, depending on what the total situation producing those results happens to be – is simply dropped by the receiving media language firewall.

    In it’s place the animal bark response “No!” is substituted for the actual symbolic language “We’ll see” originally used, and the headlines across the board become, “When asked whether he would accept the results of the election, Trump said he would not.”

    Why would anyone with a rudimentary brain stem commit to this sort of double-bind trap? Had Trump said “Yes” and the election results proved procedurally problematic, he has just set himself up for going back on his “promise”. So instead he says “We’ll see” – which allows him to say “Yes” if and when the results prove to be legitimate.

    But why would he even want to promise anything to a pack of stimulus-response animal brains who are more than happy to demonstrate on just about every occasion that he speaks that they have no problem substituting their own words for his as they most recently did last night?

    Whether you like Trump as a person or not, the overwhelming value he’s providing here is showing just how casually corrupt our traditionally revered institutions like the press are and what actually standing up to their intimidation looks like. And, of course, costs.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s