I found this to be so accurate! Interestingly, I was mentioning this the other day (being a literature freak) how his English genuinely bothers me sometimes for someone aspiring to be the head of state. What struck me is how at rallies he will leave a sentence half-done, hanging in the air, and leave it deliberately to his supporters to grasp his intended meaning.
Reminds me of Bush, his mastery of the English language was (in)famous .
-----------------------------------------------
“The American people deserve a president who can speak grammatical English." --Bret Stephens
I’m aware that English Professors are perceived as relentless grammarians. On meeting me, many highly accomplished adults recall a scary English teacher from their past. They are likely to say: ‘I was never good in English. I guess I’ll have to watch my what I say.’
I learned to write in grade school where we competed in spelling bees and diagrammed sentences, but I do not teach these subjects. Instead, I teach literature. I present authors from the “canon,” e.g. Shakespeare, as well as ones from the global range of writers in English today. Although I began my career as a specialist in Renaissance English Literature, I now teach mostly creative writing in the fields of memoir and poetry, with an emphasis on writers from different genders, races and ethnicities.
So I’m not your schoolmarm embodiment of grammatical authority, rapping your knuckles for making an error of composition or humiliating you for not speaking or writing correctly.
But it really bothers me that Donald Trump speaks and writes so badly. Which brings me to the subject of composition and why it matters.
At first, I regarded Mr. Trump as the master of Tweet—a pithy and effective means of mass communication. Tweet, due to its succinctness, has a poetic quality, achieving, at its best, the precision of Haiku. It also has a downside. It allows Mr. Trump to make bold statements on the spur of the moment, which he can (and often does) retract—as in ‘I never said that; I meant something else; you have misunderstood me; why are you attacking me.’ Tweet allows him to say anything, gauge the public reaction, then deny what he said (if it appears impolitic) later. As a result, he contradicts himself often and with impunity. ‘Throw that baby out?’ ‘I was just kidding.’
Many of these statements can be viewed side by side, on split-screen TV. So what? Logical contradiction does not matter. Would I have gotten away with this in grade school? Absolutely not.
Is this ‘who cares’ attitude a by-product of the shortened attention spans of today’s social media attuned society? We click and move on. Click and move on. At the end of the day, what do we recall of our activities, much less whom we have texted or messaged over the course of the past 24 hours? Mmmm.
More importantly, if Mr. Trump cannot remember what he said yesterday, or two weeks ago or even while he is speaking, how can we be expected to create a consistent portrait of him, much less his policies?
Is he (as many have asserted by now) grandiose, narcissistic, sociopathic, or simply a person who has no core beliefs or identity, so he can veer this way or that according to the perceived advantage or grievance of the day?
Here’s my take. At the heart of Donald Trump there is a man who is acutely sensitive to feelings of being wronged, made to appear weak or small (think of his obsession with his hands), or victimized. He sees the United States as being invaded by drug dealers and murderers from Mexico, describes open trade agreements as ‘raping’ the US economy and portrays internal and external terrorists (think Muslims) as running unchecked through our society.
Mr. Trump, I would argue, does not feel big, powerful, or in control. His appeal to a certain segment of the US voting population seems based on his identification with them in their self-perceived weakness and vulnerability, masked by an authoritarian promise that he alone can fix things—by consulting the “shows,” holding “meetings,” trusting the advice of his adult children (all of whom work for him and are hence beholden to him) and himself.
But here’s my real beef. It’s how badly he speaks. As a fascinated viewer of his early rallies, I noticed how often he repeats himself. He uses key words or phrases at least three times before moving on to the next thought segment. His pronouncements are assertions, rather than arguments, masked by the habit of repetition. In conventional politics, leaders attempt to explain their positions by persuading their listeners. Mr. Trump does not attempt to persuade. Rather he moves from one emotionally charged assertion to another—with no evident process of reasoning.
Filler lines run like this: ‘You won’t believe this.’ ‘It’s terrible.’ “I have to tell you.’ His thoughts follow the path of free association. He moves from one statement to another without connection, and ends more often than not, where he began.
Here’s an extended quote from a recent rally: "In many respects you know they [ISIS] honor President Obama. ISIS is honoring President Obama! He is the founder of ISIS. He’s the founder of ISIS, O.K? He’s the founder, he founded ISIS and I would say the co-founder would be crooked Hilary Clinton. Co-founder, crooked Hillary Clinton. And that’s what it’s about." (Quoted from NYT editorial August 11, 2016 (link is external))
If this were a paragraph in English composition, it would earn an F.
Why?
One reason that we learn to communicate in sentences, paragraphs, essays, articles and books is so that we can reveal our thinking processes to others and hope to persuade them to our point of view. This is as true of scientists as humanists. Once we learn the rules of grammar and composition (however many ways we may wish to violate them), we can speak a common language.
Professors of English know that if our students want to find jobs where they will need to be able to communicate effectively with their diverse co-workers they will also need to master basic skills in speaking, writing and critical thinking. Saying the same thing over and over again, without offering a rationale or factual basis for your position, will get you nowhere. Computer Science (a highly touted field today) requires proficiency in logical thinking. You can’t just flail your arms and arrive at new Apple software product.
Mr. Trump’s habits of repetition coupled with strategic imprecision (witness all of the interpretations offered for the single word “founded”) allow him to rally his supporters to a high pitch of emotion--while providing him with an easy exit, should he feel the need.
Trump supporters say that his critics are “parsing words,” as if it doesn’t matter what he says. Yet they themselves speak clearly and rationally, offering plausible interpretations of what he might have meant. Since his recorded speech is so ambiguous and/or easily denied, it’s impossible to pin him down. As Duncan Hunter wearily acknowledged this week on CNN: “He misspeaks a lot.”
At a time when a misspoken word or phrase might plunge us into nuclear war (think Kim Jong-Un), this might be a good time to embrace your inner grammarian.
I think Trump said "Obama founded ISIS, Obama the founder of ISIS, OK? Founder of ISIS ! Founded ISIS!.... And the Co-founder is Hilary Clinton, Co-founder Hilary Clinton, that is what I wanted to say...... " he said 5 times that Obama is the founder of ISIS in one paragraph! loolllllll............. I think he is indecisive or trying to catch his audience or something..... a clown.
Meaning of Shirk according to The Qur'an
" Worshipping anyone or anything besides Allah " or " distributing anything exclusive to Allah, to anyone or anything else "
Meaning of Tawheed according to The Qur'an Worshipping none but Allah. Affirming whatever is exclusive to Him, Him alone.
format_quote Originally Posted by noraina;2930266[I
"In many respects you know they [ISIS] honor President Obama. ISIS is honoring President Obama! He is the founder of ISIS. He’s the founder of ISIS, O.K? He’s the founder, he founded ISIS and I would say the co-founder would be crooked Hilary Clinton. Co-founder, crooked Hillary Clinton. And that’s what it’s about." [/I]If this were a paragraph in English composition, it would earn an F. Why?
Attention span is the amount of concentrated time one can spend on a task without becoming distracted ... and also the maximum amount of time that someone can listen to another person explaining an idea. The Trump audience can listen for max. 30 seconds. Hence, you must make your point in no more than 25 seconds: Obama is the founder of ISIS and Hillary Clinton is the co-founder. That is a winner. Trump manages to make his point in less than 10 seconds. You see, your point does not need to be true. It only needs to be short and simple.
Meaning of Shirk according to The Qur'an
" Worshipping anyone or anything besides Allah " or " distributing anything exclusive to Allah, to anyone or anything else "
Meaning of Tawheed according to The Qur'an Worshipping none but Allah. Affirming whatever is exclusive to Him, Him alone.
Sometimes I have difficulty understanding his appeal.
He is not a particularly eloquent or charismatic speaker, I have listened to him and honestly even if he wasn't coming out with those twisted opinions I still wouldn't want to hear him speak. I'm supposing it's his very animated personality and outrageous statements, because he has 0 points as far as inspirational words are concerned.
Altho the writer of the article reminds me of my English teacher. Alhamdulillah I was her favourite student, the star English pupil .
Since this is a thread about Trump and I hope there are some American posters here...so my question is, who do you vote for?
Knowing what I know about Hillary, she is just a smarter, more well honed version of Trump. Both sound like psychotic war mongers to me. I'd hate to be involved in wondering who to vote for.
Trump cannot be that idiot in reality. He must be a very clever man inorder to collect all those wealth. He just speaks with the tongue of his voters..
He's speaking just like Hitler in the way he's trying to create an "us vs them" mentality. He has supporters because they don't like social change, and they want everything to go back to how it was decades ago.
I personally think that no one that racist, sexist, or islamaphobic deserves the presidency. Bottom line, Trump is a hate mongerer. I can't vote for Hillary either, so I'm voting for green party candidate Jill Stein.
I encourage anyone here who is American to go out and vote third party.
(In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)
(Peace be upon you)
format_quote Originally Posted by Born_Believer
Since this is a thread about Trump and I hope there are some American posters here...so my question is, who do you vote for?
Knowing what I know about Hillary, she is just a smarter, more well honed version of Trump. Both sound like psychotic war mongers to me. I'd hate to be involved in wondering who to vote for.
Yes, you are correct; they are both war hawks. I actually dislike the idea of voting for any of them and therefore have intermittent thoughts about whether I should vote for any of them. They are both good at lying. They are both good at hoodwinking the gullible. They've both reneged on deals.
What it comes down to ultimately is just which of the two nominees is worse.
And I've decided for now that Trump is worse because he's a "loose cannon." If I could ever out of my own imagination create a figure that would be more likely to use nuclear weapons and thrust us into warfare, then it would be a figure like Trump. Not to mention that it is not him that particularly worries me as I don't think Trump himself is either xenophobic or racist or uneducated and ignorant but I do think a majority of his right-winger base from which he draws his unwavering support is. Many number Neo-Nazi groups openly favor him. (I have more sympathy for the liberals that are supporting Trump because in some way they seem to just want to see a different America in which we don't have a de facto oligarchy due to special interest lobbying.)
However, if Trump wins, I think we can expect to see xenophobic, racist, and illiberal discourse as well as hate crimes exponentially on the rise in the U.S. Also, I'd once read in an article that when GOP has a majority in the Congress and also a GOP President, then right-wing terrorism directly rises to a noticeably very significant degree because right-wingers get frustrated with not getting what they were promised as they don't expect to have things they'd like done when there's a Democrat President or a majority Democratic Congress but they do expect so under the leadership that they perceive as their own. So, that's why I think Donald Trump presidency is a recipe for disaster (how much of a disaster is still anybody's guess).
So, yes, while I'm gearing to vote for Hillary Clinton, I'm doing so very reluctantly; and to be honest, I still have reservations.
(In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)
(Peace be upon you)
Yes, you are correct; they are both war hawks. I actually dislike the idea of voting for any of them and therefore have intermittent thoughts about whether I should vote for any of them. They are both good at lying. They are both good at hoodwinking the gullible. They've both reneged on deals.
What it comes down to ultimately is just which of the two nominees is worse.
And I've decided for now that Trump is worse because he's a "loose cannon." If I could ever out of my own imagination create a figure that would be more likely to use nuclear weapons and thrust us into warfare, then it would be a figure like Trump. Not to mention that it is not him that particularly worries me as I don't think Trump himself is either xenophobic or racist or uneducated and ignorant but I do think a majority of his right-winger base from which he draws his unwavering support is. Many number Neo-Nazi groups openly favor him. (I have more sympathy for the liberals that are supporting Trump because in some way they seem to just want to see a different America in which we don't have a de facto oligarchy due to special interest lobbying.)
However, if Trump wins, I think we can expect to see xenophobic, racist, and illiberal discourse as well as hate crimes exponentially on the rise in the U.S. Also, I'd once read in an article that when GOP has a majority in the Congress and also a GOP President, then right-wing terrorism directly rises to a noticeably very significant degree because right-wingers get frustrated with not getting what they were promised as they don't expect to have things they'd like done when there's a Democrat President or a majority Democratic Congress but they do expect so under the leadership that they perceive as their own. So, that's why I think Donald Trump presidency is a recipe for disaster (how much of a disaster is still anybody's guess).
So, yes, while I'm gearing to vote for Hillary Clinton, I'm doing so very reluctantly; and to be honest, I still have reservations.
The president is a figure head and Trump comes across as a perfect American, big, loud, of Scottish and German blood and can't speak good English, but he can speak "American". Clinton comes across as an old woman, a career politician in the shadow of Bill with no class but speaks in a pompous manner. She would not be taken seriously by most of the world leaders as they are men. She is also a militant feminist fanatic and once sung "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran". She is a psychopath. Trump is probably not a psychopath just a nationalist republican just saying anything to get the vote.
Since this is a thread about Trump and I hope there are some American posters here...so my question is, who do you vote for?
Knowing what I know about Hillary, she is just a smarter, more well honed version of Trump. Both sound like psychotic war mongers to me. I'd hate to be involved in wondering who to vote for.
That's easy, I don't vote. America is a lost cause and I have better things to do than waste my time on lost causes.
I cannot vote Jill Stein, because she is not on the ballot in my state. Gary Johnson is, but I do not have any confidence in him based on what I have seen in interviews with him. I just don't think he is ready for the office yet.
I will be VERY reluctantly voting Hillary just to keep Trump out.
Voting is haram, afaik. Can any scholar confirm? @huzaifah ibn Adam.
Voting for whom will be the next commander to bomb Muslims................
Democracy is shirk.
And Allah knows best.
Last edited by Serinity; 10-01-2016 at 08:23 AM.
Meaning of Shirk according to The Qur'an
" Worshipping anyone or anything besides Allah " or " distributing anything exclusive to Allah, to anyone or anything else "
Meaning of Tawheed according to The Qur'an Worshipping none but Allah. Affirming whatever is exclusive to Him, Him alone.
Meaning of Shirk according to The Qur'an
" Worshipping anyone or anything besides Allah " or " distributing anything exclusive to Allah, to anyone or anything else "
Meaning of Tawheed according to The Qur'an Worshipping none but Allah. Affirming whatever is exclusive to Him, Him alone.
I cannot vote Jill Stein, because she is not on the ballot in my state. Gary Johnson is, but I do not have any confidence in him based on what I have seen in interviews with him. I just don't think he is ready for the office yet.
I will be VERY reluctantly voting Hillary just to keep Trump out.
I was a huge Bernie supporter.
There's something just very undemocratic the way the options are limited to these two candidates.
I too, thought Bernie was one of the decent politicians out there who wouldn't be bad as the President, really unfortunate he couldn't make it.
So you need to study the first Islamic history more..The four Caliphas were elected. They voted for their Caliphas..Are you saying they were chosen through a haram way?
Voting is haram, afaik. Can any scholar confirm? @huzaifah ibn Adam.
Voting for whom will be the next commander to bomb Muslims................
Democracy is shirk.
And Allah knows best.
This could be a whole topic on its own although I've met a few Muslims in the uK with similar and thankfully, niche views.
Our Rashidun Khalifah were all voted into power. Voting or democracy, in and of itself, is not haram. It is the Islamic way. We see the great fitnah in the muslim community arise as democracy became less relevant and power was transferred from father to son.
However, I do understand if Muslims did not want to vote in a khafir country, because you put it, we may well be electing the next person to bomb Muslim countries. Having said that, the good of voting far outweighs the bad.
If Muslims realised just how much power they have as voters in the west, with millions for example in the UK and elsewhere, we could turn the tide in favour of policies that we want. The Jews have done that consistently with far fewer people. In the UK, 2.7 million muslims have only 13 MPs, whereas a fraction of the number in the Jewish community have at least twice as many MPs (that are openly Jewish).
Imagine if more and more Muslims got involved in the democratic process, more and more of us in councils, then from councils I local governance, from local governance in parliament. We would have a significant say on international affairs and warfare. Currently, 10 of the 13 MPs voted against airstrikes in Syria. If more were involved, we could have turned the tide in Parliament.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
.
knows best.
.
Search liked this post
(In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)
(Peace be upon you)
(And peace be upon you)
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks