• Special characters
  • Lautschrift

How Donald Trump answers a question

300 replies   
Sehr interessante Analyse von Donald Trumps Sprache. Es geht darum, dass er z.B. hauptsächlich ein- und zweisilbige Wörter benutzt, dass er seine Sätze so konstruiert, dass sie auf einem "Buzz-Word" enden und dass er dem Zuhörer gerne Befehle erteilt ("look at what happened in Paris").

AuthorQual der Wal (877524) 16 Oct 16, 11:27
Ich glaube, da ist ein falscher Link reingerutscht. Oder kommt hier nur bei mir etwas ganz anderes? (Greenpower - Inspiring Future Engineers)

#1AuthorFragezeichen (240970) 16 Oct 16, 12:26

Stimmt. Mit dem Link stimmt was nicht.
#2AuthorMiMo (236780) 16 Oct 16, 12:56
Das Video krieg ich auch ... gemeint ist aber wohl ein von denen hier : https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=...
#3Authorno me bré (700807) 16 Oct 16, 13:07
Tut mir leid, das war wohl die Werbung vor dem Video. Der Link in # 3 ist richtig (Nerdwriter, How Donald Trump answers a question).
#4AuthorQual der Wal (877524) 16 Oct 16, 17:10
Beobachtungen einer Austauschschülerin mit Kulturschock zur Frage, warum manche Menschen Donald Trump wählen: http://www.taz.de/Ein-Austauschjahr-in-der-US...
#5AuthorCuauhtlehuanitzin (1009442) 17 Oct 16, 20:25
Thanks, Cuau, for the link to the taz article (#5). Not surprising, but sobering to read about from an outsider's perspective.

Maybe it would be good to do more high school exchanges within the same country. I wish all those rural kids could spend more time elsewhere, and be exposed to more visitors from the wider world, even if it was just a school in a larger city.
#6Authorhm -- us (236141) 18 Oct 16, 01:59
I found the taz article interesting, too. I was amazed at how different my town is. It's also a small town in the middle of cornfields, and more than 90% white, but it nevertheless manages to seem a whole lot more diverse than the town in Minnesota that is described in the article.

I wish all those rural kids could spend more time elsewhere, and be exposed to more visitors from the wider world, even if it was just a school in a larger city.

Actually, many of "those rural kids" do get exposed to the wider world, when they go to college or move to a larger city to work. What is less common, I think, is that people from the big cities spend any time in a rural area, getting to know the people and the culture there. I think broadening horizons is a good thing, but it ought to go both ways.
#7AuthorAmy-MiMi (236989) 18 Oct 16, 02:43
Sorry; of course you're right, rural kids move out, because they have to, which is why many rural towns decline, in an ongoing cycle. I wish I knew a better solution.

I'm glad to hear that not all cornfields block out all contact to the world. I would actually have thought that the internet and social media might now make it somewhat easier for rural kids to be less isolated. It's good to know that some exchange programs also help accomplish that goal.

But the particular Minnesota small town where families with 11 kids are the norm might easily have some more particular religious connection. That detail seemed unusual to me -- I doubt that that's necessarily typical of rural towns.
#8Authorhm -- us (236141) 19 Oct 16, 11:44
Ich klebs mal hier dran, weil Mr Trump im Fadentitel auftaucht.
Für aufstrebende Lernende der englischen Sprache eventuell recht nützlich.
#9Authorjo-SR (238182) 25 Oct 16, 13:00
Also in Bezug auf die "Lügenpresse" scheint er mit einigen deutschen Parteien / Gruppen auf einer Wellenlänge zu liegen.
#10Authorrennmotte (617913) 25 Oct 16, 13:40
"Puerto Rico is an island surrounded by water. Big water. Ocean water."

Wie wirkt sowas eigentlich auf NES bzw. Amerikaner?

Mir als Deutschem fällt es schwer, so etwas bizarres einzuordnen. Da fällt mir als Vergleich in Deutschland nur Stoibers Problembär-Vortrag ein, was die Absurdität angeht.

Ich meine auch allgemein die Sprechweise Trumps... Wie wirkt die auf Amerikaner? Auch offensichtlich lächerlich? Oder gibt es auch Menschen (seine Fans?), die solche Aussagen noch ernst nehmen können?
#11AuthorPizzaburger (978634) 09 Oct 17, 16:23
#11: The impression it makes on me (American although I haven't lived there in quite some time) is that he is totally out of his depth, intellectually.

I think what his fans like is not so much what he says, but how he says it, and in some cases that he says it. As far as his supporters are concerned, he doesn't have to have
- eloquence
- decency
- policies
because it's enough to just have him in office.
#12Authoranna niemus (1205372) 09 Oct 17, 16:45
I agree with #12 re Trump's intellect - or lack thereof. Seems to me many of his supporters are on the same level, though. What's amazing to me (after I had to get over the fact that he actually got elected in the first place) is that he can do no wrong in the eyes of his supporters, regardless of how insane or nuts he might appear to "normal" people. All you have to do is read some of the readers' comments on Breitbart where Steve Bannon reigns supreme. I can stomach only so much of it before I get sick, but reading them can give you a good idea of how these people think - if you can call it that. The narrowmindedness displayed on that site is truly astonishing. IMO.
#13Authordude (253248) 09 Oct 17, 16:58
I found the following helpful - by a linguist, so totally Leo-relevant! - and while I don't think it explains absolutely everything, and I do agree that racism (e.g. anti-Obama backlash) played a huge role in getting "#45 " elected, the linked blog post goes into an interesting aspect of the "conservative vs. liberal" dichotomy that I think explains a lot. (oops - hope I can link a page here; I've never tried it before...)
"I will begin with an updated version of an earlier piece on who is supporting Trump and why — and why policy details are irrelevant to them."
#14Authoranna niemus (1205372) 09 Oct 17, 17:08
dude, wir haben eigentlich alle schon gemerkt, dass sich viele Trump-Wähler ihre Stimme zurück wünschen und sich schämen, ihn gewählt zu haben.

Was haltet ihr von dem Gerücht, der Mann werde dement? Ich war nicht so fleißig bei LEO, das haben wir doch bestimmt schon vor dem Sommer diskutiert, als dieser Artikel https://www.statnews.com/2017/05/23/donald-tr... veröffentlicht wurde?
#15Authortigger (236106) 09 Oct 17, 17:27
Whether he has dementia or not is rather a moot point, unless it either gets it diagnosed (and I can't imagine him undergoing the necessary evaluations) or advances rapidly, so that he is forced out of office.

It says in the article, about the experts consulted, that "They noted, however, that the same sort of linguistic decline can also reflect stress, frustration, anger, or just plain fatigue," which I think describes the state he's in most of the time these days. He's bound to be under more pressure as president than he's ever been under before.
#16Authoranna niemus (1205372) 09 Oct 17, 17:50
It's not possible to make a remote diagnosis of such afflictions, but I see no signs of dementia the way they were visible in Ronald Reagan's second term, for example.

While I find it absolutely grating to listen to the man, I do not worry so much about Trump's eloquence, but about his (and his administration's) actions. If it weren't for Tillerson and Mattis keeping him somewhat in check, we might already have world conflagration by now. How much longer will they be able to contain him? Already there are rumors that Tillerson's days may be numbered (I would assume the story of him calling the president a "moron" to his face are true).
#17AuthorNorbert Juffa (236158) 09 Oct 17, 18:31
I've been calling Trump a "moron" since at least his campaigning days, so I was happy to hear that Tillerson finally sees it my way. :-)

Even with Reagan, his dementia was kept secret for as long as possible, and he obviously didn't leave office early, so I can imagine that whatever may ail Trump will also be a non-issue until at least 2020 when he runs for reelection - which his yuge ego will make him do, I'm sure.

And yes, tigger, I have met several Trump voters recently (all of them older white men) who were gung ho early on but are now extremely disappointed and wish they could take their votes back. Unfortunately, though, there are still plenty of people who love and support him. They tend to be younger white men, though, and they still harbor hopes of seeing a wall built, of seeing the swamp drained, and everything else Trump promised them (most of which also has to do with undoing everything Obama has accomplished).

Unlike Norbert, I do worry about his "eloquence," or rather, his tweets because he tends to insult those he doesn't like, in particular Kim Jung-un who seems to be just as loose a cannon as Trump is. Either one of them seems liable to start something that can quickly get out of control.
#18Authordude (253248) 09 Oct 17, 19:02
Trump's skin is wafer thin and he lashes out viscously at anybody who gets under it. His favorite weapon being tweets, of course. Not a quality one wishes for in a president.

I think we have to be careful to associate Trump voters just with older white men (although that may be the bulk of his constituency). I don't know how she voted, but in chatting with a Vietnamese neighbor recently, she seemed to repeat verbatim Trumpian talking points regarding immigrants in general and refugees from Islamic countries in particular. Unfortunately I gave a very undiplomatic reply, pointing out parallels between people fleeing Syria and people fleeing Vietnam.
#19AuthorNorbert Juffa (236158) 09 Oct 17, 19:18
Der amerikanische republikanische Senator Bob Corker hat es schön formuliert:
""Der Präsident war bisher nicht fähig, die Stabilität oder etwas von der Kompetenz an den Tag zu legen, die er braucht, um erfolgreich zu sein." - "Es ist eine Schande, dass das Weiße Haus eine Tagesbetreuungsstätte für Erwachsene geworden ist. Jemand hat offensichtlich heute Morgen seine Schicht versäumt."

Also liegt auch hier ein Verdacht auf beginnende Demenz vor.

#20AuthorMiMo (236780) 09 Oct 17, 19:26
Demenz muss aber nicht zwingend der Fall sein. Es gibt ja genügend Leute, vor allem Frauen, die ihn anscheinend schon vor Jahrzehnten als "douchebag" bezeichnet oder gesehen haben sollen, und speziell dabei Frauen, die sich mit ihm auf ein Date eingelassen haben. Es kann mMn. durchaus sein, dass er halt immer schon so war, und er scheint auch genetisch so veranlagt zu sein, wenn man da mal etwas über seine berühmt-berüchtigten Vorfahren liest (speziell sein Vater und dessen Vater).
#21Authordude (253248) 09 Oct 17, 19:46
Ich hatte Corkers Kommentar ("day care") eigentlich im Sinne von "Kindergarten für Erwachsene" verstanden, also nicht in Richtung Altenbetreuung. Und das passt ja auch zum Benehmen des Präsidenten, das dem eines Fünfjährigen in der Sandkiste gleicht. Wobei dieser Vergleich möglicherweise unfair gegenüber Fünfjährigen ist.
#22AuthorNorbert Juffa (236158) 09 Oct 17, 20:43
Ja, richtig, day care hat mehr mit Kindern zu tun als Altenbetreuung.
#23Authordude (253248) 09 Oct 17, 20:53

"The media is really, the word, one of the greatest of all terms I've come up with, is 'fake,'" Trump told Mike Huckabee in an interview for the two-time Republican presidential candidate's new show on the Trinity Broadcasting Network. "I guess other people have used it perhaps over the years but I've never noticed it. And it's a shame. And they really hurt the country. Because they take away the spirit of the country."

#24AuthorB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 10 Oct 17, 09:44
Ich bin nicht qualifiziert, zum Thema Demenz etwas zu sagen, aber wie Trump da (#11) von "big water" sprach, das war einfach ein Mann, dem momentan das Wort "ocean" fehlt. Es gab schon mehrere solcher öffentlicher Aussetzer.
#25AuthorMr Chekov (DE) (522758) 10 Oct 17, 10:42
#25 das erinnert mich an Baldricks Versuch, den Wörterbucheintrag für "sea" zu formulieren: "big blue wobbly thing that's got fish in it"
(noch dazu ging es eigentlich um den WB-Eintrag für "C"...)

#26AuthorSpinatwachtel (341764) 10 Oct 17, 10:46
Mal abgesehen von dem Abgrund an Stupidität, den dieser Mann erkennen lässt, wenn er nicht nur erklären zu müssen glaubt, dass Puerto Rico eine Insel ist, sondern auch, was eine Insel ist. Aber das braucht nicht Demenz zu sein, dass kann auch einfach Trump sein.
#27AuthorMr Chekov (DE) (522758) 10 Oct 17, 10:51
Wahrscheinlich behauptet er demnächst, nicht nur den Begriff "Insel", sondern auch das dahinterstehende Konzept erfunden zu haben.

Mir fallen im Zusammenhang mit Trump eigentlich nur nicht zitierfähige Vokabeln ein.
#28AuthorB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 10 Oct 17, 10:56
Genau. "A lot of people don't know this, but..." -- das heißt bei ihm immer: "Hab' ich gerade herausgefunden". Wie Norbert Juffa finde ich es extrem anstrengend, diesem Stumpfsinn zuzuhören, aber man muss ehrlich sein: Noch schlimmer, weil deprimierender, sind Interviews mit Trumps Anhängern.
#29AuthorMr Chekov (DE) (522758) 10 Oct 17, 11:17
Naja, diese "Definition" einer Insel kommt meiner Meinung nach von der erwähnten Dauerermüdung und dem Stress, weil er den Faden verloren hat und nicht mehr wusste, was er nach "Puerto Rico is..." eigentlich sagen wollte.
Manchmal sollte man halt einfach "äh" sagen - oder eine Denkpause machen, wie es sich nur mehr sehr gebildete ältere Herren professoralen Auftretens trauen.

Ich weiß auch nicht, was ich von den Demenzvermutungen halten soll. Erstens finde ich Ferndiagnosen auch unpassend und sinnlos, zweitens kann ich (aus Babyzeiten) bestätigen, dass einen Schlafmangel und Stress schnell zum Zombie machen kann. Aber der STAT-Artikel mit den Videobeispielen ist trotzdem interessant. :-)

...vielleicht sollte man einfach Supernanny Saalfrank rüberschicken?
#30Authortigger (236106) 10 Oct 17, 11:28
*Edit* überflüssig, vom Autor gelöscht.
#31AuthorMr Chekov (DE) (522758) 10 Oct 17, 11:39
"Puerto Rico is an island surrounded by water. Big water. Ocean water."
Man möchte ihm "HELMSTEDT" zurufen, in memoriam H. Lübke.
#32Authorigm (387309) 10 Oct 17, 11:52
Komisch, ich dachte immer, dass sei in OLDENBURG gewesen, wo man dem "Bundesheini" den Namen der Stadt aus dem Off einflüstern musste.
#33AuthorNorbert Juffa (236158) 10 Oct 17, 13:11
Die Pardon-Platte, auf der u.a. das drauf ist, gibt es auf Youtube. Es ist eindeutig Helmstedt (ein Ausschnitt ca. ab 2:45) - das Publikum schreit es ganz deutlich. ;o)
#34Authorigm (387309) 10 Oct 17, 13:18
Danke. Wieder was dazu gelernt :-)
#35AuthorNorbert Juffa (236158) 10 Oct 17, 13:24
Re #22 & #23: "adult day care" is a well-established concept, so I don't think Corker was particularly playing on the kindergarten concept (as apt as that may be). In my personal experience, most, but definitely not all, of the persons who are in adult day care are dealing with various dementia issues.

Adult day care is one of the best options for adult caregivers who are in need of regular respite care in order to return to the workforce, relax, and see to errands, appointments, and other responsibilities. Adult day programs also provide seniors with valuable opportunities for socialization, recreation and engagement in a safe environment. This is an affordable alternative to placing an aging loved one in assisted living or other long-term care facilities.
#36Authorhbberlin (420040) 10 Oct 17, 14:01
This is Corker's tweet:
It's a shame the White House has become an adult day care center. Someone obviously missed their shift this morning.

It says "adult" right there, and that makes it pretty clear. I didn't realize earlier that he had "adult" in his tweet.

#37Authordude (253248) 10 Oct 17, 19:46
I agree that adult day care exists and is for people with (early / mild to moderate) dementia. However, in my experience, it is almost nonexistent in the US on a daily 8-to-5 basis like child day care. Caregivers who are lucky might find in their community one or two volunteer-run church-based programs, each lasting for about two hours a week, which is enough time to go to the grocery and do another errand or two. Other than that, the choice is usually to pay for a home aide, or pay to leave the person at a residential memory care facility during the day, just not have them spend the night. Either or both of those can be helpful in the short to middle term.

For what it's worth, even knowing about adult day care for dementia, my first impression, like Norbert's and dude's, was that Corker was probably just referring more to childish behavior and pettiness, the tit-for-tat, me-first mentality that most people grow out of in kindergarten but that Trump and his advisers such as Bannon still display. It reminds me of the book 'All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten':

1. Share everything.
2. Play fair.
3. Don't hit people.
4. Put things back where you found them.
6. Don't take things that aren't yours.
7. Say you're SORRY when you HURT somebody.

Which I've always thought was a pretty fatuous title for adults; but on the other hand, when you read about not only Trump and his cronies, but also families like that of the Las Vegas shooter, you wonder how some people were brought up.

I also agree that if he really couldn't remember the word 'ocean' or other descriptive words, it could easily be a sign of mild cognitive impairment.

But his use of simple language (3rd-grade reading level or whatever) for his speeches could also be a choice based on his target audience -- people who don't trust elites who use big words. And as tigger says, forgetfulness and lack of concentration could also easily be a sign of stress, and/ or normal aging.

So I don't think anyone can or should assume dementia just from his public appearances. As Reagan showed, and as we have found with relatives who eventually developed dementia, it's easy to look back and apply the eventual diagnosis in hindsight, but much harder to analyze someone's behavior as it happens, gradually.

The other aspect of Trump's behavior that does give me pause is his anger. That could indeed be related to some loss of cognitive function -- but again, when someone already has that type of personality trait and loses inhibitions only gradually, it's very hard to know what to ascribe to a disease process and what's just 'the way he is.'

The one thing that makes me hopeful that Mr. Trump may have more self-control than he appears to -- well, apart from the group of advisers, who I hope can help remind him how to do the adult thing -- is the report that he is not a drinker. If he were consuming alcohol at the same time as confronting some loss of cognitive ability, that would indeed be more worrying, and harder for those who love him to deal with.
#38Authorhm -- us (236141) 10 Oct 17, 20:30
Tweet D.T.: "Senator Bob Corker 'begged' me to endorse him for re-election in Tennessee, I said 'NO' and he dropped out (said he could not win without my endorsement)."

Sagt der Präsident der Vereinigten Staaten. Pathetic. Der Mann braucht keinen Alkohol, um zu glauben, dass ohne ihn kein Spatz vom Dache fällt, kein Senator gewinnen kann, keine Orkanhilfe funktioniert, keiner weiß, wie mit Krisenherden umzugehen ist, keiner das politische System der USA richtig nutzen kann ("Dann ändert doch die Mehrheiten!"), kein Richter richtig entscheiden und kein Journalist richtig darüber berichten kann.

Der Mann ist außerstande, Sachverhalte angemessen zu interpretieren (die Bedingung für intelligentes Verhalten), kann Dinge nicht aufeinander, sondern nur auf sich selbst beziehen und ist, wie es aussieht, vollkommen skrupel- und charakterlos. Solche Leute sind schon im Alltag gefährlich. Dieser hier sitzt im Weißen Haus.

Der Trump-Biograph Michael D'Antonio kommentiert: "Corker seems to be suffering from the sort of burnout experienced by those who care for senior relatives.
Here his evocation of "adult care" is more meaningful than the senator may even know. Adult day care is as much a service for the friends and family of those with dementia and other disabling conditions as it is for those who attend programs. The respite they receive when experts take over for a few hours makes it possible to continue with the burden of caregiving." (auf CNN)

Auch D'Antonio scheint noch zu glauben, Trump ließe sich durch seine Berater und Partei"freunde" irgendwie in einen halbwegs verantwortlichen Menschen verwandeln. Mir scheint das die unwahrscheinlichste Verwandlung seit der des Froschkönigs. Zieht man die Konsequenzen in Betracht, die das erratische Verhalten dieses Mannes haben kann, falls irgendwann jemand mal wieder "seine Schicht verpasst", wie Corker das mit Blick auf die notwendige "Betreuung" so sarkastisch formuliert hat, dann gibt es doch nur eine Lösung: raus, aber so schnell wie möglich.

PS.: Ich halte die Demenzfrage hier für völlig verfehlt. Mir ist es doch völlig egal, aufgrund welchen Defekts jemand an so einflussreicher Stelle fatale Entscheidungen trifft. Ich glaube, was wir sehen, ist das, was bei ihm normal ist -- besser geht nicht und besser ging auf früher nie. Aber vielleicht liefert ein demenzverdacht ja den Hebel für eine Amtsenthebung aus gesundheitlichen Gründen.

#39AuthorsebastianW (382026) 10 Oct 17, 22:57
Ich halte die Demenzfrage hier für völlig verfehlt. Mir ist es doch völlig egal, aufgrund welchen Defekts jemand an so einflussreicher Stelle fatale Entscheidungen trifft.

Sagen wir, es ist verfehlt, die Frage: "Ist Trump dement?" in einem Internetforum zu diskutieren, unter Menschen, die Trump nie begegnet sind und von denen die meisten (wie ich) keine Mediziner sind. Aber wenn es darum geht, T. loszuwerden, und falls der 25. Verfassungszusatz ins Spiel kommen sollte, könnte die Diagnose Demenz natürlich eine Rolle spielen.
#40AuthorMr Chekov (DE) (522758) 11 Oct 17, 06:25
The problem with impeachment, as we have discussed before, is that you would then have Mike Pence pursuing many of the same inhumane policies, but more competently and with more legislative support. It may be less devastating to have Trump fail personally than to have the Republican party succeed with an agenda that could set the nation and the world back half a century or more, at a juncture where it may matter more than ever.
#41Authorhm -- us (236141) 11 Oct 17, 06:25
As I stated in the impeachment thread, from all that is known so far it seems unlikely that there will be sufficient grounds for impeachment. And as hm-us says, be very careful what you wish for if you envision Pence taking over from Trump.

Clearly the political agenda of the current administration is to move American society back into the early 1960s or thereabouts. But the US is not nearly powerful enough to drag the rest of the world along with it, and the result of successful implementation of their plans would be to increasingly isolate the US from a world that is moving forward rather than backward. And if proposed legislation is going to pass, the US government will pile up debt rapidly, tigthening the economic noose around our necks and seriously putting our superpower status at risk.

The place to stop this madness is at the polls, by changing the composition of Congress. But given that the Democrats are still being lead by the same old tired leadership recycling the same old ideas they have kicked around for decades, I am not holding my breath. And Americans are not yet emboldened enough to seriously embrace third-party candidates.
#42AuthorNorbert Juffa (236158) 11 Oct 17, 06:56
Nein, Pence wäre besser. Reaktionär und ideologisch verbohrt, aber kein Irrer.

Und das Grauen, das wohl die meisten empfinden, weil ein ganzes Land einem boshaften Kasper in die Hände gefallen ist: Das wäre dann weg.
#43AuthorMr Chekov (DE) (522758) 11 Oct 17, 07:04
I will stick with "Barking dog's (mostly) don't bite" for now.
#44AuthorNorbert Juffa (236158) 11 Oct 17, 07:12
Das Gebell ist ja nicht harmlos. Es ist ein zynisches, rassistisches und vor allem hemmungslos dümmliches Gekläffe. Und das nun vier Jahre lang, und wer weiß, am Ende acht. Ich kann mir nicht vorstellen, dass das ohne Folgen für die amerikanische Gesellschaft bleiben soll.
#45AuthorMr Chekov (DE) (522758) 11 Oct 17, 07:22
>>Reaktionär und ideologisch verbohrt, aber

That's a big but.

And I'm not sure that a buffoon is the worst kind of leader to have, at least in a country with (we hope) legislative and judicial checks and balances to the executive power, like the US. As appalling as Trump often is, at least there remains opposition to him, both within and outside his party, that may still partly be able to prevent him from doing the worst. Perhaps even in part by using black humor, as Corker did. As we found out the hard way after the election, sometimes it takes an over-the-top statement to get media coverage.

Unfortunately, a principled opposition with some leverage to prevent the worst apparently scarcely still exists in many other countries with more hardened power structures, such as Russia, Syria, Turkey, Venezuela, Iran, and North Korea, which are likely to cause even more harm to other countries around the world. Surely millions would be relieved to exchange any of those coldly unfunny authoritarian leaders for someone a little sillier or less cognitively predictable, but also a little less competent at cruelty and repression.

Yes, of course Trump's rhetoric has already caused damage that will take years to repair. But at least we still have a relatively bipartisan court system, an opposition party, a relatively free press, and a few stalwart Republicans who are willing to vote against him or investigate him in committees when things begin to look dire. Rhetoric is only ultimately damaging if there ceases to be a critical mass of resistance to it.
#46Authorhm -- us (236141) 11 Oct 17, 07:41
I would not necessarily include the leader of Venezuela in that list. He seems to be more of the Trumpian variety (incompetence paired with boastfulness), seems to have some sense of humor, and the country was already in serious trouble long before he came to power. Other than that: agreed.
#47AuthorNorbert Juffa (236158) 11 Oct 17, 07:52
#40: unter Menschen, die Trump nie begegnet sind und von denen die meisten (wie ich) keine Mediziner sind.

Mediziner sollten meiner Meinung nach erst recht keine Ferndiagnosen stellen, wegen des öffentlichen Glaubens, den ihre Expertise beansprucht. Ich möchte ferner an die sogenannte Goldwater-Regel erinnern (siehe hier mwN). Sie ist dem verlinkten WP-Artikel zufolge zwar eine Ethikregel für amerikanische Psychiatrists eines bestimmten Verbandes, scheint aber auch für andere Leute dieser Profession zumindest erwägenswert.
#48AuthorGart (646339) 11 Oct 17, 08:03
Sie können ja jeweils klarstellen, dass es keine Diagnose ist. Die Goldwater-Regel verbietet m.W. nicht, typische Anzeichen bestimmter Störungen allgemein zu beschreiben -- Trumps Verhalten kann mehr oder weniger explizit danebengestellt werden. Das sollte legitim sein -- schließlich geht es nicht um Charlie Sheen, sondern um einen Menschen mit sehr weitreichenden, ggf. fatalen Befugnissen.

Eine andere Frage ist natürlich, ob damit bei Trumps Anhängern viel erreicht werden kann.
#49AuthorMr Chekov (DE) (522758) 11 Oct 17, 09:25
Wo genau die Grenzen der Goldwater-Regel liegen, weiß ich nicht. Es ging aber seinerzeit bei Herrn Goldwater (die Regel scheint, wie der informelle Titel und der verlinkte Wikipedia-Artikel nahelegen, im Zusammenhang mit Vorkommnissen während seines Wahlkampfs von 1964 in das betreffende Regelwerk eingefügt worden zu sein) um jemanden, der im Falle eines Wahlsiegs eben dieselben weitreichenden, ggf. fatalen Befugnisse gehabt hätte.
#50AuthorGart (646339) 11 Oct 17, 12:16
Eine andere Frage ist natürlich, ob damit bei Trumps Anhängern viel erreicht werden kann.

Ja, es würde erreicht dass seine Anhänger noch mehr davon überzeugt wären dass die bösen Anderen alles, aber auch alles tun um ihren geliebten, genialen, unvergleichlich (o.k. das ist er wirklich)  usw. Präsidenten zu verleumden, weil der im Gegensatz zu den Anderen eben genial, grandios blablabla ist.
#51AuthorMasu (613197) 12 Oct 17, 08:02
In meinen Augen ist Trump kein "Unfall". Weder dement noch sonstwas. Er wurde in dieses Amt gehoben, es gibt eine Menge Leute, die ein großes Interesse daran hatten und haben.
Er setzt Dinge durch, die sich so manch anderer nicht ohne ein Riesentheater hätte leisten können. Ob die für alle gut und wünschenswert sind, steht auf einem anderen Blatt.

Ich glaube nicht, dass er der Einzige ist, der große Lust hat, mal wieder seine Atombömbchen auszuprobieren. Da gab es ja auch schon Vorbilder.

Die Amerikaner haben auf die eigene Bevölkerung und den Rest der Welt noch nie Rücksicht genommen, andere Staaten auch nicht, nur fehlt den einen oder anderen hin und wieder die Möglichkeit, es genauso umzusetzen.
Die Amerikaner haben immerhin noch eine Menge Freunde und Anhänger, nicht zuletzt Deutschland. Die stationieren hier alles Mögliche, Atomwaffen, jede Menge Nervengase (wen wollen sie hier vergasen?) usw.

Da deutet nichts darauf hin, daß hier jemand nicht wüßte, was er tut. Meiner Meinung nach.
#52Authorulinne (894128) 12 Oct 17, 08:38
Abgesehen von dem "die Amerikaner" (OK, ich verwende das auch oft so, richtiger wird's dadurch allerdings nicht) volle Zustimmung zu ulinnes Ansicht.

Sagen wir "die amerikanischen Regierungen".

Trump ist kein Unfall, sondern ein willkommenes "blunt instrument", damit gewisse Dinge gesagt und getan werden können.
#53AuthorB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 12 Oct 17, 08:56
Ich würde es begrüßen, wenn "die Amerikaner" hier etwas präzisiert würde.

Trump setzt fast nichts durch, bisher jedenfalls. Bisher demontieren er und seine Regierung einfach dass, was die Regierung seines Vorgänger mittels "executive orders" und anderer Durchführungsbestimmungen aufgebaut hat. Dazu werden diese Anweisungen entweder ausgesetzt oder nullifiziert, oder er gegenläufige "executive orders" erlassen. Das heißt, es handelt sich hier um Vorgänge, die innerhalb der Exekutive stattfinden.

Das in den letzten Jahrzehnten immer mehr Dinge über "executive orders" und ähnliche Mechanismen geregelt wurden, anstatt durch Gesetzgebung, ist eine signifikantes Problem, und das zeigt sich im Moment besonders deutlich. Auch die Iran-Vereinbarung z.B. wurde nie vom Kongress abgesegnet.
#54AuthorNorbert Juffa (236158) 12 Oct 17, 08:58
"Bisher demontieren er und seine Regierung einfach dass, was die Regierung seines Vorgänger mittels "executive orders" und anderer Durchführungsbestimmungen aufgebaut hat." Das reicht doch für den Anfang. Scheiß auf Naturschutz, scheiß auf Minderheitenrechte ...
#55AuthorB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 12 Oct 17, 09:00
Wenn man diese Dinge gegen zukünftige "pöse Buben" hätte absichern wollen, hätte man Gesetze erlassen müssen. Man kann nicht lediglich ein Kartenhaus aufbauen und sich dann wundern, wenn ein anderer es umpustet.

Obama hat die Möglichkeit der "executive orders" maximal ausgereizt (nachdem seine beiden Vorgänger schon kräftig davon Gebrauch gemacht hatten), weil ihm während eines Großteils seiner Amtszeit die nötige parlamentarische Mehrheit fehlte. Das rächt sich nun. Dem Präsidenten diese parlamentarischen Mehrheiten zu beschaffen liegt im Verantwortungsbereich seiner Partei.

Kurzfristiges Ziel der jetzigen Regierung: Die Obamajahre ungeschehen machen, das bringt uns auf den Stand von 2007 zurück (auch da gab es schon Umweltschutz). Langfristiges Ziel von Herrn Trump im speziellen: Zurück in die glorreichen 1960er Jahre. Bei Mao hätte es geheißen "The Great Leap Backward".
#56AuthorNorbert Juffa (236158) 12 Oct 17, 09:09
Hm... vielleicht führen wir hier momentan eine etwas gestrige Diskussion. Im Weißen Haus, heißt es, wird derweil überlegt, ob sie ihn körperlich überwältigen sollen, wenn er den atomaren Erstschlag anordnen will.

Gut, das sind Gerüchte, und auch Nixon soll ziemlich durch den Wind gewesen sein, aber kann sich jemand erinnern, dass dergleichen jemals über einen US-Präsidenten berichtet wurde?
#57AuthorMr Chekov (DE) (522758) 12 Oct 17, 09:16
Liest sich wenig überzeugend. In dem "football" ist ja nicht etwa ein roter Knopf bei dessen Drücken die ICBMs losfliegen, sondern die "launch codes" (trockene Zahlenreihen wahrscheinlich ?). Wikipedia schreibt:

"There are four things in the Football. The Black Book containing the retaliatory options, a book listing classified site locations, a manila folder with eight or ten pages stapled together giving a description of procedures for the Emergency Alert System, and a three-by-five inch card with authentication codes. The Black Book was about 9 by 12 inches and had 75 loose-leaf pages printed in black and red. The book with classified site locations was about the same size as the Black Book, and was black. It contained information on sites around the country where the president could be taken in an emergency."
#58AuthorNorbert Juffa (236158) 12 Oct 17, 09:22
In dem "football" ist ja nicht etwa ein roter Knopf, bei dessen Drücken die ICBMs losfliegen, sondern die "launch codes" (trockene Zahlenreihen wahrscheinlich ?)

Dann bleibt der Menschheit nur zu hoffen, dass der gute Mann irgendwo zwischen Ziffer 9 und Ziffer 15 das Interesse verliert...
#59AuthorMr Chekov (DE) (522758) 12 Oct 17, 09:27
Ich nehme an, dass die "retaliatory options" nach Zielgebiet und Waffengattung (land-, see-, oder luftgestützte Atomwaffen) geordnet sind, und dass man sich da erst einmal eine Option heraussuchen muss, bevor man überhaupt zu den "launch codes" kommt (die nach meinem Verständnis der Authentifizierung dienen, d.h. kommt ein eventuell gegebener Befehl wirklich vom Präsidenten). Ich denke, etliche Minuten Zeit ist im Ernstfall immer noch, um das Abgehen von Befehlen zu verhindern.
#60AuthorNorbert Juffa (236158) 12 Oct 17, 09:36
Wow. Just .... wow

Donald Trump hat US-amerikanischen Medien mit dem Entzug von Lizenzen gedroht. "Angesichts der ganzen Falschnachrichten, die von NBC und den Gesellschaften kommen – ab wann ist es angebracht, ihre Lizenzen infrage zu stellen? Schlecht für das Land!", schrieb der US-Präsident auf Twitter. Später sagte er im Weißen Haus außerdem: "Es ist offen gesagt ekelhaft, dass die Presse in der Lage ist, zu schreiben, was immer sie schreiben will."

#61AuthorB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 12 Oct 17, 09:44
Sorry, stimmt, so ist es besser. Gilt ja für fast alle bisher.
#62Authorulinne (894128) 12 Oct 17, 10:18
 weil ihm während eines Großteils seiner Amtszeit die nötige parlamentarische Mehrheit fehlte.

Solange  nicht das Wahlsystem reformiert wird und das faktische 2-Parteiensystem erhalten bleibt wird sich daran nichts ändern und jedes sinnvolle Gesetz verhindern.

Hab ich auch gelesen Bubb und nur die Kinnlade manuell hochgeklappt.
#63AuthorMasu (613197) 12 Oct 17, 10:29
Apparently, the president is not required by law to consult with anyone before ordering a nuclear strike. That's really scary, especially now, with an infantile blowhard in office.
Once he gives the order, the only way to stop it being carried out is for someone to break the law - if they have no clear reason to doubt that the order came from the president. (And yeah, the "football" is largely about authenticating that.) And the folks involved will all be trained military personnel, and so may have deep inhibitions around law-breaking. Could they be overridden by an aversion to nuclear war?

I got this info from listening to David Wright, co-director of the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Global Security Program, in a rather interesting segment of a rather interesting podcast:
#64Authoranna niemus (1205372) 12 Oct 17, 11:11
Das hohe Gut der Pressefreiheit. Wird offenbar überall mehr oder weniger abgeschafft oder jedenfalls wird das versucht.

Leider auch bei uns. Es gibt fast nur noch Hofberichterstattung.

Vielleicht heißen Journalisten dann bald auch im Trumpland "Terroristen".
#65Authorulinne (894128) 12 Oct 17, 11:13
"Hofberichterstattung"? Eh?
#66AuthorB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 12 Oct 17, 11:32
Das hohe Gut der Pressefreiheit. Wird offenbar überall mehr oder weniger abgeschafft oder jedenfalls wird das versucht.

Leider auch bei uns. Es gibt fast nur noch Hofberichterstattung.

Bei uns? Findest du? Dafür liest und hört man hier aber noch erstaunlich oft Regierungskritisches in den Medien. Oder auch eine einigermaßen neutrale und objektive, faktenbasierte Berichterstattung. Ich habe auch noch nicht davon gehört, dass hier Journalisten inhaftiert oder verfolgt würden. Oder hat mir die gleichgeschaltete Lügenpresse diese Informationen vorenthalten?
#67AuthorDragon (238202) 12 Oct 17, 11:33
War doch klar, dass das von Ulinne kommt. Gleich kommt dann noch Uljae dazu...

Ich lese oft massive Kritik an regierenden Politikern in (Mainstream-)Zeitungen usw. Keine Ahnung, wie man meinen kann, die Journalisten wären gleichgeschaltet. Hört sich halt schick an. 
#68AuthorPizzaburger (978634) 12 Oct 17, 11:46
Vielleicht heißen Journalisten dann bald auch im Trumpland "Terroristen".

Klar, warum nicht? T. hat sie ja schon im Februar zum "enemy of the American people" erklärt.

#69AuthorMr Chekov (DE) (522758) 12 Oct 17, 12:01
re #69 - I have long suspected that the twitter posts ostensibly by Trump are in reality composed by a team with higher degrees in creative writing. The tweets themselves are crafted with care, employing the best techniques of excessive punctuation, capitalisation and misspelling, with the compact message of a haiku. All designed to appeal to the semi-literate, his constituency, and, epiphenomenally, to enrage the intelligentsia.
I think we can be fairly sure that Trump has not heard of an obscure playwright by the name of Ibsen, nor does he read the British Daily Mail, which used the phrase "enemy of the people" to such effect last year ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemies_of_the_... ). But his army of ghosttweeters will have done so.
#70Authorisabelll (918354) 12 Oct 17, 13:36
Interesting: Some people feel they can and also should attempt remote diagnosis of mental instability (but not necessarily of dementia, I guess).

[ROBERT JAY LIFTON] "I also belong to a group called the Duty to Warn, which is a group of psychiatrists and psychologists who feel we have the right and the obligation to speak out about Trump’s psyche when it endangers the country and the world."
#71Authoranna niemus (1205372) 14 Oct 17, 02:01
Better late than never...
is that you would then have Mike Pence pursuing many of the same inhumane policies, but more competently and with more legislative support.
Bingo. You took the words right out of my mouth. Unlike T., Pence is an experienced politician and Washington insider. And his abject subservience to a man like DT speaks volumes about his character.
What will be the end of all of this? Ich sehe nur schwarz.

Perhaps more on topic...
Es geht darum, dass er z.B. hauptsächlich ein- und zweisilbige Wörter benutzt, dass er seine Sätze so konstruiert, dass sie auf einem "Buzz-Word" enden und dass er dem Zuhörer gerne Befehle erteilt
But that's true of how he speaks in general, not just when he answers questions. It connects well to his "base" (cringe). It's the content of his words that enrage/frighten/etc. me, not the manner in which it is delivered. If Bernie Sanders spoke that way it wouldn't bother me a bit.
#72Authorwupper (354075) 14 Oct 17, 12:28
A couple of interesting articles on the difficulties that translators have with Trump:

Bei Trump habe ich Schweißausbrüche -- Trump kann den Ruf eines guten Übersetzers völlig ruinieren, denn er widerspricht sich innerhalb kürzester Zeit immer wieder, sodass die Zuhörer denken müssen: 'Was redet der Übersetzer da für einen Blödsinn?' Das, was Trump vorträgt, steht außerdem in diametralem Gegensatz zu dem, was seine designierten Minister sagen, und er springt von einem Thema zum nächsten. Erst schimpft er, in der Pharmaindustrie säßen Mörder, im nächsten Moment geht es nahtlos um den Freihandel. Er ist total spontan assoziativ, völlig unberechenbar. Da muss man beim Übersetzen höllisch aufpassen.

And this --

#73Authoreric (new york) (63613) 14 Oct 17, 17:42
You may need to pay closer attention to Ms. Sanders. There are no inconsistencies, as she explains in this press conference on tax rates:

Outrageously funny and sad at the same time.
#74AuthorNorbert Juffa (236158) 14 Oct 17, 19:25
Outrageously funny and sad at the same time.

I hope that's the worst thing we'll be able to say about Trumpfbacke's tenure.
#75AuthorAmy-MiMi (236989) 14 Oct 17, 20:46
Realistically, the best thing we can do is make sure that he'll be limited to a single term.

The most common way people give up their power is by thinking they don't have any. -- Alice Walker

People Have The Power -- Patti Smith
The power to dream, to rule / To wrestle the earth from fools
#76AuthorNorbert Juffa (236158) 15 Oct 17, 07:53
Danke, Norbert Juffa, für die Erinnerung an diesen tollen Song.
#77AuthorBraunbärin (757733) 15 Oct 17, 10:55
'Fog in Channel - Continent Cut Off' is supposed once to have appeared as a headline in The Times. See here for details:

#78Authoramw (532814) 15 Oct 17, 15:52
Oops! That was supposed to have been posted to a different thread obviously.
#79Authoramw (532814) 15 Oct 17, 15:56
Realistically, the best thing we can do is make sure that he'll be limited to a single term.

Acht Jahre. Denkt an meine Worte. Wir werden den [expletive deleted] acht Jahre ertragen müssen. Wenn uns nicht vorher der Himmel auf den Kopf fällt und der Rest von uns dann in irgendwelchen Höhlen sitzt und sich in der Nase (wahlweise in anderen Körperöffnungen) bohrt.
#80AuthorB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 16 Oct 17, 08:45
Defeatism is for wusses.
#81AuthorNorbert Juffa (236158) 16 Oct 17, 08:56
I call it realism with a healthy shot of pessimism ;-)
#82AuthorB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 16 Oct 17, 09:00
Trump kann den Ruf eines guten Übersetzers völlig ruinieren, denn er widerspricht sich innerhalb kürzester Zeit immer wieder, sodass die Zuhörer denken müssen: 'Was redet der Übersetzer da für einen Blödsinn?'

Glaube ich nicht, die Zuhörer wissen doch, mit wem sie es zu tun haben. Außer ein paar Propagandisten auf Fox News (und natürlich T's Anhängern, die aber mehrheitlich englischsprachig sein dürften) rechnet doch niemand mit einer irgendwie kohärenten Argumentation.

Im Gegenteil: Irrt sich der Dolmetscher wirklich mal, fällt es wahrscheinlich keinem auf.
#83AuthorMr Chekov (DE) (522758) 16 Oct 17, 09:00
Die NYT hat einen Herkulesjob erledigt! 382!

#84Authorjo-SR (238182) 25 Oct 17, 09:36
Danke für den Link! Bin etwas überrascht, dass es "nur" 382 sind. Hätte locker auf das 3-Fache getippt ;-)
#85Authorilex (764482) 25 Oct 17, 10:14
Da stellt sich die Frage wie das gezählt wird wenn Trumpel alle Frauen beleidigt. Das dürften dann doch ein paar mehr sein?
#86AuthorHorst E (762087) 25 Oct 17, 11:14
Ach Donald Trump..... Ich bin immer noch sprachlos über seine Wahl!
#87AuthorChrisZ111 (1217368) 08 Dec 17, 08:51
Für diejenigen, die eine medizinische Sicht auf Trump nicht grundsätzlich ablehnen, hier ein relativ neuer Beitrag*) von einem Arzt und Journalisten. Keine Ahnung, ob irgendwas davon zutrifft, aber es ist ein interessanter Blickwinkel. Am Schluss äußert er sich auch zur heiklen Frage der öffentlichen "Ferndiagnose" in den Medien.

*) Übrigens auf der bereits von Tigger verlinkten Seite, sehe ich gerade, aber der Text ist ein anderer.
#88AuthorMr Chekov (DE) (522758) 10 Dec 17, 10:04
#88: Absolut lesenswert.
#89AuthorBraunbärin (757733) 10 Dec 17, 20:03
Aus dem in #88 verlinkten Artikel:
"Trump’s overuse of superlatives like tremendous, fantastic, and incredible are not merely elements of personal style."

- das sind doch keine Superlative, oder?
#90AuthorSpinatwachtel (341764) 11 Dec 17, 12:42

"superlative" (= hyperbole) hat auch die Bedeutung "Übertreibung".
#91AuthorMiMo (236780) 11 Dec 17, 13:13
re #88: Vor allem der letzte Abschnitt zur Ferndiagnose hat es in sich. Der Artikel ist allein schon deshalb lesenswert.

Auch interessant finde ich, wie er klar macht, dass er nicht schreibt, dass Trump krank ist, sondern nur, dass Trump bestimmte typische Symptome aufweist, die normalerweise auf eine bestimmte Erkrankung hinweisen.
#92AuthorAGB (236120) 11 Dec 17, 17:22

>>Trump's overuse ... are ... [sic]

I was unimpressed by that subject/verb agreement error, and two others in the same article, and Spinatwachtel seems right to point out that 'superlative' isn't exactly the right word there.

I was also skeptical about statnews.com, which I had never heard of. But apparently it's a health and medicine news portal founded by the owner of the Boston Globe newspaper, and staffed by some of his reporters.

The other story tigger found on it was linked in #15 above, for anyone else who didn't remember.

But having now read the article, the physician who wrote it may have a point when he says Trump should be evaluated for organic brain disease that can cause cognitive impairment leading to dementia.

My dad has dementia that seems to be partly frontotemporal and/or partly vascular, and many of the behaviors associated with the former, such as the lack of inhibition and impulse control, are indeed discouragingly familiar, and discouragingly similar to those of Mr. Trump.

However, it's also true that, in the years just before mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is diagnosed, it can be very hard to separate symptoms of cognitive decline from traits that have always belonged to the person's temperament or personality, but have just become more pronounced with age. Someone who has always had a short temper, an inclination to blame others, and a disinclination to examine himself critically, may also be prone to irrational outbursts that look very similar. And with enough support from staff and family, it may be possible to keep functioning in a way that's still fairly close to normal, much as Reagan evidently did in his second term -- not that I actually think we should risk that again.

But now that questions about impeachment are being raised again for various reasons -- cognitive ability, emotional control, Russian collusion, sexual harassment, take your pick -- it still seems to me that the question is whether Pence would be better or worse.

I skimmed back over the first part of the impeachment thread from this past spring

and didn't find a link to any more information about Mike Pence, so I hope this isn't a repetition of something we've gone through elsewhere.

But in case it's not, anyone who thinks Pence is a viable option might find this article sobering.

The upshot is that Pence has evidently been a tool of the Koch Brothers throughout his political career, and that their main interest seems to be to maintain their own revenues from fossil fuel industries. So Pence's self-promotion as an evangelical may not in fact reflect his own core interest, or even belief.
#93Authorhm -- us (236141) 11 Dec 17, 21:25
The latest tweet congratulating Doug Jones to his victory was quite polite - somehow it seemed to me born of necessity and not of Trump's normal passion ... and quite well worded for its intent. Any other politician trying to explain away an opponents victory could have written that. 

>>Congratulations to Doug Jones on a hard fought victory. The write-in votes played a very big factor, but a win is a win. The people of Alabama are great, and the Republicans will have another shot at this seat in a very short period of time. It never ends!<<
#94AuthorAGB (236120) 13 Dec 17, 08:40
My impression is that, given the Alabama election results, someone else is probably writing Trump's tweets at the moment. (Perhaps his lawyer, who IIRC belatedly claimed to have written the one in which he seemed to admit to obstructing justice re Flynn.)

That might be the case not only because of the questions about language use and impulse control raised in the statnews.com article, but also because the Alabama election results show that in future it may be necessary to broaden a candidate's appeal as opposed to focusing on an increasingly narrow 'base.'


One of the revelations of this special election seems to be that, even in the South, moderates really do still exist. If that's the case, Trump is going to have to try to reach them with moderate language, even if someone else writes it.
#95Authorhm -- us (236141) 13 Dec 17, 09:21
I'm curious about the phrase '... played a very big factor.' Shouldn't that be '... was a very big factor?' If so, do native speakers see this as a minor slip or a substantial error?
#96AuthorMr Chekov (DE) (522758) 13 Dec 17, 09:34
Good catch. Yes, it should be either

played a very big role


was a very big factor.

So maybe he composed it himself after all. But I don't know that I would call it a substantial error; it might be just an editing error that anyone could make.

Also, 'very big' doesn't exactly serve to counter the narrative about cognitive / vocabulary decline.
#97Authorhm -- us (236141) 13 Dec 17, 09:43
Who knows? His ghost tweeter would probably be mimicking his style.

But we seem to have entered 'Dave' territory here :-)
#98AuthorMr Chekov (DE) (522758) 13 Dec 17, 09:48
"Schönes" Beispiel für einen echten "Trump" unter http://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2017-12/wa...:

"Er hat ja schon was getwittert, bztw. man erkennt deutlich, dass er es nciht ist, sondern jemand aus seinem Stab:
"Congratulations to Doug Jones on a hard fought victory. The write-in votes played a very big factor, but a win is a win. The people of Alabama are great, and the Republicans will have another shot at this seat in a very short period of time. It never ends!"
Wenn Trump selber schreibt, klingt das wie gestern:
"Lightweight Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a total flunky for Chuck Schumer and someone who would come to my office “begging” for campaign contributions not so long ago (and would do anything for them), is now in the ring fighting against Trump. Very disloyal to Bill & Crooked-USED!"
Also kurz, er hat gestern eine Senatorin als Hure beschimpft. Worauf heute die USA Today schreibt, Trump sei so unfähig, er sei es nicht wert die Toilette von Obama putzen zu dürfen, wortwörtlich. Und die USA Today ist jetzt nicht gerade für Scharfzüngigkeit bekannt.
"A president who would all but call Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand a whore is not fit to clean the toilets in the Barack Obama Presidential Library or to shine the shoes of George W. Bush."
#99AuthorB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 13 Dec 17, 10:12
Was ist eigentlich mit dieser Behauptung?

... the Republicans will have another shot at this seat in a very short period of time. It never ends!

Jemand auf MSNBC hat darauf hingewiesen, dass das so nicht stimmt. Die Amtszeit von Senatoren beträgt sechs Jahre. Meint Trump oder Ersatztrump hier vielleicht, dass ein anderer Sitz bald (bei den Midterms 2018) zur Disposition steht? Oder ist Jones jetzt für kürzere Zeit gewählt? (Oder habe ich was falsch verstanden?)
#100AuthorMr Chekov (DE) (522758) 13 Dec 17, 10:24
Jones führt die Amtszeit von Sessions als Senator zu Ende. Das heißt, er hat ca. 3 Jahre im Amt bis zur Wiederwahl.
#101AuthorAGB (236120) 13 Dec 17, 10:36
unbeabsichtigt doppelt.
#102AuthorAGB (236120) 13 Dec 17, 10:36
Ah, genau. Das muss es sein.

Wobei "very short period of time" eine etwas seltsame Beschreibung bleibt.
#103AuthorMr Chekov (DE) (522758) 13 Dec 17, 10:38
Übrigens haben ein paar Kongressabgeordnete im Dezember die Meinung einer Psychiaterin eingeholt, die hier interviewt wird (sie hat Trump aber ebenfalls nicht untersucht):

#104AuthorMr Chekov (DE) (522758) 06 Jan 18, 14:28
Here's an example of how Trump answers a question, taken from the excerpts of his interview with the New York Times, reported Dec. 28, 2017.
- - - - - -
MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT: You’re O.K. with me recording, right?

TRUMP: Yeah. Virtually every Democrat has said there is no collusion. There is no collusion. And even these committees that have been set up. If you look at what’s going on — and in fact, what it’s done is, it’s really angered the base and made the base stronger. My base is stronger than it’s ever been. Great congressmen, in particular, some of the congressmen have been unbelievable in pointing out what a witch hunt the whole thing is. So, I think it’s been proven that there is no collusion.

And by the way, I didn’t deal with Russia. I won because I was a better candidate by a lot. I won because I campaigned properly and she didn’t. She campaigned for the popular vote. I campaigned for the Electoral College. And you know, it is a totally different thing, Mike. You know the Electoral College, it’s like a track star. If you’re going to run the 100-yard dash, you work out differently than if you’re going to run the 1,000 meters or the mile.

And it’s different. It’s in golf. If you have a tournament and you have match play or stroke play, you prepare differently, believe it or not. It’s different. Match play is very different than stroke play. And you prepare. So I went to Maine five times, I went to [inaudible], the genius of the Electoral College is that you go to places you might not go to.

And that’s exactly what [inaudible]. Otherwise, I would have gone to New York, California, Texas and Florida.
#105AuthorMartin--cal (272273) 06 Jan 18, 17:37
If you look at what’s going on [with] ... ist klassischer Trump. So ähnlich haben wir uns damals™ mit 17 Jahren ausgedrückt, wenn wir politisch mitreden wollten, aber keine Ahnung hatten.
#106AuthorMr Chekov (DE) (522758) 06 Jan 18, 18:03
You've all seen his latest tweets, haven't you?

"Actually, throughout my life, my two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart [....]"

I can't work out if that's irony or not. I'm not sure Trump is capable of irony, especially self-irony, but this just can't be real, can it?
#107AuthorGibson (418762) 06 Jan 18, 18:52
my two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart

Kognitiver Verfall oder nicht, es muss schwierig sein, mit über 70 zu erkennen, dass man immer eine völlig falsche Vorstellung von sich selbst hatte.

In schwachen Momenten tut mir der Typ irgendwie leid.
#108AuthorMr Chekov (DE) (522758) 06 Jan 18, 19:01
There's more to #108:

"I went from VERY successful businessman, to top T.V. Star...../....to President of the United States (on my first try). I think that would qualify as not smart, but genius....and a very stable genius at that!"
#109AuthorMartin--cal (272273) 06 Jan 18, 23:54
Morgens noch "smart", später am Tag wird er in Camp David sogar zum "genius". Und dann hat er noch den größten und mächtigsten Button.

Nein, ich kann mir bei T. eine Fähigkeit zur Selbstironie kaum vorstellen. Wie hätte er die auch erwerben sollen!
#110AuthorHarald (dede) [de] (370386) 06 Jan 18, 23:55
Dass Trump in allem der beste und ergo auch mindestens ein Genie ist, ist ja nicht neu. Was ich bei diesem Tweet aber so unfassbar finde, ist das 'like'. Wie kann ein einziger Mensch so wenig Sprachgefühl haben?
#111AuthorGibson (418762) 07 Jan 18, 00:21
#111 dito - wenn es einem beim Sprechen rausrutscht, nun ja, gut, kann mal passieren (obwohl es viele Menschen gibt, denen es nicht passiert), aber es zu tippen! Ich sitze eigentlich immer öfter mit offenem Mund und ganz ungläubig vor dem Bildschirm, wenn man wieder eine Aussage von ihm über den Bildschirm huscht (meist klicke ich ganz schnell weiter, aber immer öfter bin ich in Schockstarre).
#112Authorthisismyknick (1117613) 07 Jan 18, 18:38
Gehört denn dieses eingeschobene 'like' zu Trumps Stil, wenn er spricht? Wäre mir noch nie aufgefallen; ich dachte, das benutzen eher jüngere Leute. (Aber vielleicht drücken "sehr stabile Genies" sich eben so aus.)
#113AuthorMr Chekov (DE) (522758) 07 Jan 18, 19:50
Gehört denn dieses eingeschobene 'like' zu Trumps Stil, wenn er spricht?

Not that I have noticed.
#114AuthorNorbert Juffa (236158) 07 Jan 18, 20:00
Aus genau diesem Grund habe ich angenommen, dass jemand anders den Tweet für ihn verfasst hat. Was aber aus anderen Gründen wieder unwahrscheinlich ist. Immerhin muss man im Auge behalten, dass zu so einem Genie auch immer eine Entourage von Nutznießern gehört, die ihn gewähren lassen. Wer zieht die "enabler" zur Verantwortung, wenn es knallt?
#115AuthorsebastianW (382026) 07 Jan 18, 22:22
eine Entourage von Nutznießern

Speichellecker wäre in diesem Fall präziser, denke ich. Die Frage für die Geschichtsbücher: "Wer hat was gewusst, und wann?"
#116AuthorNorbert Juffa (236158) 07 Jan 18, 22:42
@#108: Der "Typ" würde mir vielleicht leid tun (so ähnlich wie ein brüllendes Kindergartenkind, das seine Schaufel wiederhaben will), wenn er nicht dummerweise Präsident der USA wäre und den "größeren Knopf" hätte...

#117AuthorMuzu (391565) 07 Jan 18, 23:05
dass jemand anders den Tweet für ihn verfasst hat

Da Trump sich damit komplett lächerlich macht, sehe ich nicht so recht, warum jemand aus seinem Team das schreiben sollte.

(Im Übrigen: Wenn meine Leute über meine Twitter-Account schreiben, ist das natürlich meine Verantwortung.)
#118AuthorGibson (418762) 07 Jan 18, 23:36
Eben. Es ist doch unwahrscheinlich, dass ein Ghost-Tweeter in T's Auftrag noch bizarreres Zeug schreibt als er selbst.

(Wobei es natürlich auch mal unwahrscheinlich war, dass ein größenwahnsinniger Fernsehkasper mit Hilfe eines obskuren Neonazis an die Macht gelangt, den er dann ein Jahr lang über den grünen Klee lobt, nur um plötzlich zu erklären, der habe mit ihm gar nichts zu tun usw. usw. ... Mit Logik ist diesen Leuten nicht so ganz beizukommen.)
#119AuthorMr Chekov (DE) (522758) 08 Jan 18, 05:27
Ich habe diesen sehr lustigen Abreißkalender, bei dem für jeden Tag ein echtes Zitat, eine Liedzeile, ein Werbeclaim etc. fälschlich als Trumpzitat präsentiert wird, so à la "I am the god of hellfire, and I give you fire." (Donald Trump), oder "Ich mach mir die Welt wide-wide-wie sie mir gefällt" (Donald Trump).
Die Zitate mit dem bigger, more powerful button und dem strong and stable genius at that übertreffen aber die Satire bei weitem, wirklich ein Fall von truth is stranger than comedy...
#120AuthorSpinatwachtel (341764) 08 Jan 18, 08:53
Auch wunderbar: Die Antwort von Mark Hamill auf einen Tweet des "Oraonge one":

Trump: "Michael Wolff is a total loser who made up stories in order to sell this really boring and untruthful book. He used Sloppy Steve Bannon, who cried when he got fired and begged for his job. Now Sloppy Steve has been dumped like a dog by almost everyone. Too bad! https://twitter.com/gop/status/949395088735723520 …"

Hamill: "Congratulations, sir! This dignified, statesman-like tweetis the perfect way to counter the book's narrative that you're an impulsive, childish dimwit."

Fand'sch auf den Punkt.
#121AuthorB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 08 Jan 18, 08:55
edit: etwas OT, aber ich habe mir gestern mal wieder die Rede von Steve Colbert anlässlich des White House Correspondents' Dinner von 2006 angesehen, wo er über den neben ihm sitzenden George W. Bush herzieht. Erschreckend, wie sehr diese Rede auch auf den derzeitigen Amtsinhaber gemünzt hätte sein können, und wie sehr man angesichts dessen Eskapaden inzwischen meint, George W. wäre ja eigentlich alles in allem ganz ok gewesen...
Kann ich sehr empfehlen, gibt es in voller Länge auf Youtube.
#122AuthorSpinatwachtel (341764) 08 Jan 18, 08:58
Russland-Ermittlungen: Mueller will Trump offenbar persönlich befragen

Das könnte interessant werden. Ich fürchte die Befragung wird nicht öffentlich.
Also die offizielle - die Twitterergüsse dann schon.
#123AuthorMasu (613197) 09 Jan 18, 11:56
Ist noch nicht raus, ob er's macht. Seine Anwälte wollen lieber, dass er eine eidesstattliche Erklärung abgibt, so nach dem Motto: There was no collusion and I'm, like, totally innocent.
#124AuthorMr Chekov (DE) (522758) 09 Jan 18, 12:03
And my innocence is much bigger than yours! Yuge-ly. Total loser. So sad.

#125AuthorB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 09 Jan 18, 12:13
Hab grad meiner Kollegin erzählt, dass D.T. sich selbst als "stable genius" bezeichnet.
Sie darauf nur trocken: "Wahrscheinlich meint er mit stable Stall".
Jetzt kleben Teile meiner Mandarine auf dem Bildschirm ...

#126Authorilex (764482) 09 Jan 18, 12:20
@121: Ha, den Tweet von HamillHimself habe ich auch gelesen und mich sehr gefreut. Schön auf den Punkt gebracht.
#127AuthorDragon (238202) 09 Jan 18, 13:37
Trump als Stall-Genie... Da lachen ja die Hühner.
@realStableGenius ist und bleibt Mr. Ed.
(Auch ohne eigenen Twitter-Account im Stall)

Und kaum spricht Oprah ein paar wirklich mitreißende Worte, schon wird sie als Nachfolgerin für Trump gehandelt. (Edit: Eine Idee, die Michael Moore schon lange hatte. Aber ich hatte immer gedacht, das sei nicht ernst gemeint.)

Die Welt ist ein seltsamer Ort.
#128AuthorHarald (dede) [de] (370386) 09 Jan 18, 17:34
@128: Und kaum spricht Oprah ein paar wirklich mitreißende Worte, schon wird sie als Nachfolgerin für Trump gehandelt.

Möglicherweise wäre ich mittlerweile auch so verzweifelt, dass ich jede/n, der/die in ganzen Sätzen sprechen kann und dabei nicht völligen Stuss redet, als Alternative bzw. Nachfolger/in für Trump sehen wollen würde, wenn ich Amerikanerin wäre...
#129AuthorDragon (238202) 09 Jan 18, 18:32
There might be a silver lining to the dark and gloomy cloud that envelops us, as the Trump presidency has apparently energized a record number of people -- among them a larger than usual percentage of women -- prompting them to run for political office. Hopefully that will give voters plentiful and better choices over the next few election cycles.

I read rumors that our junior senator from California, Ms. Harris, is contemplating to follow in the footsteps of Mr. Obama and run for president during her first term. Now if only some of the politicians above age 75 would retire to get out of the way of some promising younger folks.
#130AuthorNorbert Juffa (236158) 09 Jan 18, 20:30
—> contemplating following

I don't actually think people with little political experience are necessarily the best choice either. I'd like to see Kamala Harris stay in the senate a while and get some experience with international issues first -- something that in retrospect would have been good for Obama too.

If Dianne Feinstein weren't around my mom's age, she would have been a much better choice, with her experience in national security and intelligence, including being lied to by men in various administrations trying to limit congressional oversight of the executive branch.

I would like to see Pelosi step down just because she has become unnecessarily polarizing, thanks mainly to ceaseless attacks from her opponents.

But surely there is a middle ground in which middle-aged people with experience could bring the level heads needed for rational compromise, even across party lines. I'd like to see a ticket with a moderate Republican and a female Democrat on it -- say, Patty Murray and Mitt Romney. I bet the two of them could sit down and write a health-care reform bill right now -- and could publish their tax returns for the past twenty years without having to worry about Russian collusion or money laundering.
#131Authorhm -- us (236141) 10 Jan 18, 00:13
—> contemplating following

Thanks, that's what I had initially before I changed it because it suddenly looked wrong. Insufficient feel for the language ...

I don't actually think people with little political experience are necessarily the best choice either

Agreed, I was skeptical about Mr. Obama for this reason (but voted for him nonetheless for lack of better alternatives) and in retrospect my skepticism was justified; his foreign policy in particular was a disaster.

Ms. Feinstein would have made for a great presidential candidate in 2008, but she chose not to run. Not sure why, I think her chances would have been excellent. I value her long service to the people of California but at this time she should retire instead of clinging to her job for one more term. Ms. Pelosi should also step down because the is both ineffective and a political burden, as you point out. A net negative, to use a management buzz word.

I believe this is the appropriate time for the dinosaurs of both parties to step aside so the fifty-somethings (with a reasonable amount of relevant experience, as you stressed) get a chance to prove their mettle. We need younger politicians with fresh ideas that can also connect with Millennials. Well, maybe I feel that way because I am fifty-something :-)

I am a quite surprised that you propose Mr. Romney for a combo ticket; not my kind of candidate, I am afraid. On the Republican side I liked governors Huntsman and Kasich in previous elections. I also liked Ms. Haley before she started singing Trump's tune at the UN. I probably gravitate towards (former) governors of reasonably substantial states because they have what I believe is necessary executive experience.
#132AuthorNorbert Juffa (236158) 10 Jan 18, 00:58
See, your gut feeling for the language was right -- you just second-guessed yourself. (-:

Romney isn't my favorite person of all time, and for me his ties to the Mormon church are a clear negative (though evidently not as negative as the many Catholic right-wingers' ties to very ominous groups like Opus Dei are). But on the other hand he has been a governor, including passing comprehensive health care in Massachusetts that was a model for the ACA. And he seems reasonably rational, not obviously beholden to the ultra-right or the Tea Party. Huntsman basically ticks the same boxes, plus diplomatic experience in tough places; I would be okay with him too, though I doubt that he has the name recognition or the conservative credentials; I'm afraid at this point they're both vulnerable to being called RINOs, but Huntsman probably more so. On the other hand, they could both probably get a long way just campaigning on civility, honor, and patriotism, minus the hate.

Kasich, on the other hand, hasn't really shown enough independence from his party for me to want him in any national post. He was better than several other GOP candidates in the previous field, but really only because there were so many frankly horrifying GOP candidates.

Mainly I just think it's time for nicer people to run. We've had enough of meanness. On that front, I'm more than ready to see the back side of both Cornyn and Cruz, not that I think we will be rid of either attack puppy soon enough. And I don't think Ryan can keep pretending to be nice but then espousing cruel policies. We need principled content, not just rhetoric.

I would like to see someone run who can answer a question honestly and soberly and show that he or she is intelligent and principled. I don't think we need any more angry rhetoric, even from people whose positions I basically sympathize with, like Oprah or Bernie or Elizabeth Warren. Whoever runs needs to be answering the unspoken questions of the largely silent political center -- like, number one, where are the adults in the room.

But before any of that happens, people need to be registering and turning out voters for November 2018. If Oprah could make that happen, particularly in someplace hard like Texas, more power to her. I think she would be a great donor and motivator, and then a good ambassador somewhere.

Another ticket I could vote for: Warren Buffett and Melinda Gates. Though, yes, he's technically too old too.

#133Authorhm -- us (236141) 10 Jan 18, 01:41
Looks like there is a market not just for fantasy football, but for fantasy politics as well :-)

My objections to Romney have nothing to do with religion, although I have a tendency to be suspicious of any organization that lacks transparency, like the LDS church. I value Buffet's wisdom with regard to some issues, but he'd probably the first one to admit that he would be completely out of place in politics. I agree on the need to get away from angry rhetoric on all sides and still haven't lost all hope that civility may return to public discourse. I am a big fan of principled content, but alas, it's impossible to win elections just based on that.

I think that in general, more could be done to mobilize voters. In addition to simply getting people to register, some of whom will never show up to actually vote, couldn't there be Go-Fund-Me pages to assist people in voter ID states with obtaining proper IDs, and volunteer services on election days that drive people to the polls? Or is that kind of activity illegal? I don't know.

I assume you saw the recent interview Joe Biden gave the PBS Newshour, in which he seemed to hint at a possible run for the presidency in 2012. Any thoughts on that?
#134AuthorNorbert Juffa (236158) 10 Jan 18, 04:13
Yes, Biden, hmm. He does seem eager to keep his name in the pot. He seems principled and competent, and I'm sorry the stars didn't align for him to become his party's candidate in 2016, though at the time I thought Hillary as a woman had a better chance and more international experience, and that it was obviously more than high time for a woman to hold the job.

But now, at this late stage -- yes, Biden might still be better than many alternatives, but I'm not sure he would be enough better that it really justifies someone of his age running. I also don't know whether he could frame himself as moderate enough to actually attract the centrist voters who seem necessary to really swing an election, to create a consensus of people who are for rather than against. He seems like someone who has been very strongly associated with his party all his life, and to me that seems like the old-style political model, which for better or worse may no longer ever really work again the way it did in the 20th century.

It seems to me that he too could be more effective concentrating on licking a more modern version of a party (or better, a coalition) into shape, getting organizing and funding into place where it has been lacking before, and that that would probably be a better role for him than as the figurehead. I just don't think he has the charisma to be the one candidate who obviously outshines others.

Not that I know anyone else for that role either, because Warren is probably not capable of being moderate enough (and I doubt she should give up the seat where she is, anyway). So I think we have to wait and see who can do the most for reason and common sense in 2018 -- if anyone can make any headway at all -- and then go from there.

And in the meantime, again, see who can register and turn out the most voters. Registration and turnout, registration and turnout, registration and turnout. Without that, all the tweets and questions are meaningless. But with it, sometimes miracles happen -- see Alabama. If Obama, and Oprah, and Biden, and Franken; and Romney, and Huntsman, and Kacich, and Jeff Flake; and Melinda Gates, and Warren Buffett, and Bloomberg and Soros and Bezos and whoever else, could just all get together, if only to register people who didn't even vote last time.

Okay, call it fantasy politics. But how is that any more improbable than the nightmare that already happened? If a critical mass of serious people, with money, really got serious about working together, who knows what could happen. Or from the grass roots up -- yes, of course any of those ideas are surely worth a try. I don't know the details of the regulations either, but I suspect they usually depend on state and local election boards.
#135Authorhm -- us (236141) 10 Jan 18, 05:41
Warren Buffet and Melinda Gates

don't you have gazillions of grass-roots political activists, community organizers etc. in the US? Why do you suggest a billionaire businessman and a charity woman* instead for a political role? Because less affluent people don't stand a chance any more?

*I don't know if Melinda Gates is actually a scientist / business women / rich person in her own right, but I am to millionaire-fatigued and celebrity-tired to find out.
#136AuthorSpinatwachtel (341764) 10 Jan 18, 10:08
My take on Biden: Seems to be more honest and principled than many politicians, doesn't seem to be in it for the money (I recall reading that he was the senator with the lowest net worth at $1.2M), connects well with blue-collar workers. Cons: too old, lack of charisma, prone to gaffes.

I couldn't agree more: registration and turnout is all that counts in the end when it comes to elections. As for billionaires, their influence on politics scares me, no matter what side they are on (e.g. in California we have Thiel on one side, Steyer on the other).

As for Melinda Gates, I am reasonably sure she has a computer science degree as well as an MBA. She headed up multiple reasonably large software projects at Microsoft which is how she made the personal acquaintance of Mr. Gates. Not sure whether such a relationship could get started in today's world: Bill Gates was heading up Microsoft at the time and Melinda therefore in his chain of command.
#137AuthorNorbert Juffa (236158) 10 Jan 18, 10:24
Because less affluent people don't stand a chance any more?

Yep, pretty much. Welcome to the brave new world of modern politics.
#138Authorhm -- us (236141) 10 Jan 18, 10:33
Welcome to the brave new world of modern politics - in the U.S., that is. Here in Germany, you do not have to be a milionaire to go into politics, and I believe I am right in saying that a lot, if not most of our high-profile politicians are not independently wealthy, some in fact coming from quite humble blue-collar origins.
So why is it so different in the States, and why does everyone in America seem to accept that that is the way it is and has to be? Is it really not possible for grass-roots activists to work their way into political office at all, because some rich white old man is always already sitting there and will always win no matter what? If so, why?
#139AuthorDragon (238202) 10 Jan 18, 13:50
I don't think it is true that one has to be independently wealthy to make it in American politics. A good number of our current politicians are from relatively humble origins, even if that is sometimes exaggerated a bit. Clearly Mr. Obama falls into that category and he isn't particularly rich even now, though certainly well off. It is true that the U.S. Senate is a millionaires club, but even there you have people like Orin Hatch (R-Utah) who comes from a working-class family; his father was a machinist, I think.

By far the most common profession prior to entering politics is attorney, and one can see that even at the local level. For example, San Jose's current mayor was a district attorney, his predecessor a lawyer in private practice.

A number of very wealthy people have tried to enter politics in the past two decades and have failed. In California we had Mr. Huffington, Ms. Whitman, and Ms. Fiorina, for example. A successful run was made by Mr. Bloomberg as mayor of New York.

Wealthy people pour a lot of money into various political causes, especially since the Citizens United decision of the Supreme Court, which basically equates spending money on political advocacy with political speech, which can't be limited. For example, on the right we have the Koch brothers (industrialists) supporting the campaigns of Republican candidates and the Mercer family (hedge fund) which finances Breitbart, while on the left we have, for example, Tom Steyer (hedge fund) who currently runs "Impeach Trump" commercials on television.
#140AuthorNorbert Juffa (236158) 10 Jan 18, 18:32
A good number of our current politicians are from relatively humble origins, even if that is sometimes exaggerated a bit. Clearly Mr. Obama falls into that category

Wobei Obama ein Harvard-Absolvent ist, was ich persönlich jetzt nicht unter 'humble' verbuchen würde. Ich denke da eher an Gerhard Schröder, der in seiner Kindheit von Sozialhilfe lebte. Auch Schröder war Rechtsanwalt, aber in Deutschland ist die Uni umsonst, man kann sich also tatsächlich auch ohne Geld nach oben arbeiten.

Damit will ich Obamas Leistung nicht schmälern, und reich im US-Sinne war er ja auch nicht. Aber working class war er eben auch nicht.
#141AuthorGibson (418762) 10 Jan 18, 18:57
Ich kenne Obamas Biografie nicht genau, aber immerhin hat er im Wahlkampf gern erwähnt, dass seine (allein erziehende) Mutter zeitweise food stamps bezog. Das klingt nicht gerade nach dem Silberlöffel im Mund.

Wobei nach den jüngsten Erfahrungen wohl jeder froh sein muss, wenn der/die nächste Präsident(in) Eigenschaften wie Intelligenz, Empathie und Sozialkompetenz mitbringt -- ob jemand im Leben zu kämpfen hatte oder immer schon den car elevator zum dressage event nahm, kann da hinten anstehen.
#142AuthorMr Chekov (DE) (522758) 10 Jan 18, 19:01
Ich habe dann doch mal gegoogelt, das wollte ich jetzt gern wissen:

Concerned for his education, Obama’s mother sent him back to Hawaii to live with her parents, Stanley and Madelyn Dunham, and to attend Hawaii’s prestigious Punahou School from fifth grade through graduation from high school. While Obama was in school, his mother divorced Soetoro, returned to Hawaii to study cultural anthropology at the university, and then went back to Indonesia to do field research.

Seit 2004 ließ Schröder die Öffentlichkeit mehr und mehr über seine Jugend erfahren und erklärte, zu den Ärmsten der Armen gezählt zu haben.[1] Die Schröders waren auf Fürsorge (Sozialhilfe) angewiesen. Sie lebten 1957 als achtköpfige Patchworkfamilie in einer Zweizimmerwohnung im westfälischen Osterhagen.[1] Über seine Familie sagte der spätere Kanzler unverblümt: „Wir waren die Asozialen.“[1]

Edit: Dein Edit stimmt natürlich vollkommen.
#143AuthorGibson (418762) 10 Jan 18, 19:13
If you look at those in the US senate, the ones from humble origins often worked their way up before entering into politics, and many of them have significantly increased their net worth since entering politics (e.g. Ms. Clinton). A few married a wealthy spouse (e.g. Mr. Kerry, Mr. McCain). Senators are also older on average than members of congress, meaning they had a longer time to accumulate wealth.

Personally, I do appreciate political candidates who had to face adversity at some point in their lives, since they tend to hold up better when the going gets tough.
#144AuthorNorbert Juffa (236158) 10 Jan 18, 19:42
Jedenfalls heißt es, dass ein typisches Kongressmitglied, reich oder nicht, mehrere Stunden täglich am Telefon verbringt und um Spenden wirbt. Das lässt auf ein deutlich verbesserungsfähiges System schließen.
#145AuthorMr Chekov (DE) (522758) 10 Jan 18, 19:51
Addendum to Obama's biography in #143 (from Wikipedia, emphasis mine): He attended Punahou School— a private college preparatory school— with the aid of a scholarship from fifth grade until he graduated from high school in 1979.

Campaign finances are separate from personal wealth. The only connection is that politicians can loan money to their campaigns. It is a well-known (?) fact that members of congress spend a significant portion of their working hours raising funds for their re-election campaigns. As the public learned from leaked recordings of phone solicitations, they are often quite aggressive in their efforts. Lobbyists seem to state in unison that they don't have to chase the representatives, it's usually the representatives that chase the lobbyists to secure campaign funding. One flaw I see in the system is that representatives are only elected for a two-year term, so they are effectively forced into a semi-permanent campaign mode.
#146AuthorNorbert Juffa (236158) 10 Jan 18, 20:10

Ziemlich steil von dem Typen, der jahrelang behauptet hat, Obama wäre nicht in den USA geboren ... Wenn Leo nicht zu Recht so sehr auf Netiquette bestünde, fielen mir diverse Wörter ein.
#147AuthorB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 11 Jan 18, 09:00
Herr Trump kann ja gerne auswandern, wenn es ihm hier nicht passt. Zum Beispiel in eines der Länder, wo es noch den Strafbestand der Majestätsbeleidigung gibt. König der Lügen ist er ja bereits.
#148AuthorNorbert Juffa (236158) 11 Jan 18, 09:17
hm, im ersten Moment hab ich gelacht als ich las er wolle die Verleumdungsgesetze verschärfen. Dann habe ich den oben verlinkten Artikel gelesen.

Die Einschränkung 
"Wir wollen Fairness", sagte er. Es dürfe nicht sein, dass jemand wissentlich Falschbehauptungen verbreite, um dann die daraus gewonnenen Gewinne auf sein Bankkonto fließen zu sehen.
würden es leider schwieriger machen, ihm selbst einen Strick darauf zu drehen.
Aus seinen eigenen Verleumdungen (Mexikaner sind Vergewaltiger etc) hat er nicht unbedingt finanzielle Vorteile gehabt. Schließlich bekommt er als Präsi kein Gehalt - er und seine Entourage kosten nur wesentlich mehr als die bisherigen Präsidenten
#149AuthorMasu (613197) 11 Jan 18, 10:02
Wollen kann er ja alles mögliche. "Die Verleumdungsgesetze" wollte er schon vor eineinhalb Jahren verschärfen und wurde damals wie heute von Leuten, die sich auskennen, nicht ernstgenommen; offenbar mit Recht:

A White House spokesman did not respond to questions from CNBC about what law Trump might actually want to change. Nor did he identify what, exactly, the administration will be "taking a very very strong look at."

That official silence, however, could be due in part to the fact that there is very little Trump could actually do to change how libel laws work.

"Trump is not changing — and he never will change — the libel laws in this country, despite his rhetoric," said Richard Roth, a New York based white collar litigator and founder of the Roth Law Firm. [...] libel and slander are state court causes of action, not federal laws. So there actually is no federal statute that Trump could try to get Congress to rewrite."

Additionally, no single state could change its laws to make it easier for public figures like Trump to win libel suits against the press. That standard derives from a 1964 Supreme Court ruling, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.

Früher, als noch von einem rational funktionierenden Trump auszugehen war, hätte man hier wohl ein Ablenkungsmanöver vermutet...

#150AuthorMr Chekov (DE) (522758) 11 Jan 18, 10:03
Natürlich denkt Trump gleich ans Bankkonto. Ich denke da eher an seinen Wahlkampf. Was ist das für ein Land, in dem man ungestraft behaupten darf, die politische Widersacherin sei eine Mörderin, sei bestechlich und in großem Stil bestochen worden, sie gehöre als Verbrecherin hinter Gitter. Die Verleumdungen, die T. auch gegenüber Gegnern in den eigenen Reihen und Personen des öffentlichen Lebens aller Couleur ausgesprochen hat, sind ein "politischer Stil", der einem die Sprache verschlägt. Dass man sich gegen solcherlei Rufschädigung und üble Nachrede nicht gerichtlich wehren kann, ist eine Schande für ein Land, das sich zivilisiert nennt. Und jetzt jault er -- nicht einmal, weil ihn jemand explizit ein Arschloch nennt oder einen eitlen Fatzke mit Wahrnehmungsstörungen, sondern lediglich ein farbiges Bild seiner Unfähigkeit zeichnet.

Die USA wird einiges zu knabbern haben, ihren Ansehensverlust in der Welt wieder auszugleichen. Von den Problemen im Selbstverständnis einmal ganz abgesehen. Business as usual mit irgendwelchen "vernünftigen" Kandidaten reicht da nicht. Das Land ist gespalten; die Oberfläche hat Risse bekommen, und was man durch sie hindurch im Inneren sieht, ist nicht ermutigend.

#151AuthorsebastianW (382026) 11 Jan 18, 15:22
Wie der Herr, so's Gscherr:

Der amerikanische Botschafter in den Niederlanden und seine Umgang mit unwahren Behauptungen ...

Lässt tief blicken.
#152AuthorB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 11 Jan 18, 17:56
Das wollte ich auch erwähnen. Hier in der Washington Post:
After Trump announced Hoekstra's appointment, Dutch newspaper de Volkskrant observed that Trump “put a Dutchman in the Netherlands — but it is a Dutchman from the Netherlands of the ’50s.”

Und hier:
“Excuse me, I asked you a question,” Geeraedts said.
Another journalist jumped in.
“Mr. Ambassador, can you mention any example of a Dutch politician who was burned in recent years?”
Again, silence, as Hoekstra stared around the room.
“This is the Netherlands — you have to answer questions,” another reporter said.

Der Botschafter hat auch gewisse Verbindungen zu Geert Wilders. Er kommt aus Bundesstaat Michigan und zwar aus einer Gegend, wo es ganz viele Amerikaner mit holländischer Abstammung gibt. Meine Mutter kam genau aus dieser Gegend. An praktisch jeder Straßenecke gibt es jemand, der "Hoekstra" heißt.
#153Authorwupper (354075) 11 Jan 18, 21:45
The incident with the US ambassador to the Netherlands who couldn't get his story straight was in the news a couple weeks ago, as I recall. Water under the bridge by now ...
#154AuthorNorbert Juffa (236158) 11 Jan 18, 22:51
Water under the bridge by now ...
No, it surfaced again just yesterday (Wednesday). The comments Hoekstra originally made were in 2015, long before he became ambassador. He was first questioned about them last December in an interview and then again one day ago at a Dutch news conference. I assume that's why Bubb cited it. (Apart from it being an example of how "falsehoods" are propagated, how they are dealt with, and just exactly who propagates them.)
#155Authorwupper (354075) 11 Jan 18, 23:02
Meanwhile, public attention has moved on to Trump's "sh*thole countries" remark on Thursday:

'The President Must Apologize': Haitian-American GOP Rep. Mia Love Slams Trump's 'Shithole Countries' Comment
The Utah representative, whose family is from Haiti, called on the president to apologize and said his remarks were “unkind” and “divisive.”

“The President’ comments are unkind, divisive, elitist, and fly in the face of our nation’s values. This behavior is unacceptable from the leader of our nation. My parents came from one of those countries but proudly took an oath of allegiance to the United States and took on the responsibilities of everything that being a citizen comes with,” Love said in a statement on Thursday.

Probably inspired by the visit of the Norwegian prime minister this week Mr. Trump supposedly stated that we would prefer immigrants from Norway. Given Norway's much higher standard of living, why would any Norwegian want to immigrate to the US at this time? I certainly have never met any Norwegian immigrants in the US and just one Swedish and one Danish immigrant each over a span of twenty-five years.
#156AuthorNorbert Juffa (236158) 12 Jan 18, 06:26
On the one hand Trump seems to say out loud what many white, not so young, (middle) Americans think and/or say beyond closed doors, on the other is that really what we would call behavior becoming of a president? Das ist ja die spannende Frage...

PS I have actually met two, not related to each other, recent immigrants from Norway in the last few years. My opinion is that there may be reasons other (perceived) standards of living that convince people to take the big step, i.e. emigrate (love, spirit of adventure, (perceived) opportunity to strike it reach, space, fear of immigrants to one's own country, etc.).
#157AuthorAndrea78_2 (1058532) 12 Jan 18, 06:47
fear of immigrants to one's own country

Well, if that's the reason, moving to the US would be like jumping from the frying pan into the fire :-)

I do not doubt that there are some Norwegians that move to the US every year, but the numbers are probably minuscule. This site has outdated numbers for 1996, when there were 354 Norwegian immigrants to the US. Norway is a lot wealthier now than it was back then.
#158AuthorNorbert Juffa (236158) 12 Jan 18, 07:05
Im Fall von Skandinavien würde ich der Liste der Auswanderungsgründe noch hinzufügen: Wetter.
Und vielleicht wollen manche auch dem "Wir sind alle gleich, so dass du auch nichts besonderes sein darfst"-Gesetz entfliehen.

Aber der "Standard of living" ist in diesen Ländern nicht nur "perceived" höher, sondern auch objektiv. Vor allem, weil es ein insgesamr viel weiter ausgebautes öffentliches System gibt.
#159AuthorQual der Wal (877524) 12 Jan 18, 07:09
Der Enkel eines Einwanderers und Ehemann einer Einwanderin beschimpft Einwanderer, wünscht sich aber doch Einwanderer aus Norwegen - wohl weil sie weiß und nordisch sind ...
#160AuthorMiMo (236780) 12 Jan 18, 07:16
Aber der "Standard of living" ist in diesen Ländern nicht nur "perceived" höher, sondern auch objektiv

Das ist ja meine Rede. Inzwischen habe ich aktuelle Zahlen gefunden, und die Zahl norwegischer Immigranten ist in jüngster Zeit tatsächlich rasant gestiegen. Die absoluten Zahlen sind dagegen, wie erwartet, minimal. Eine permanente Aufenthaltsgenehmigung erhielten 271 (2014), 310 (2015) und 362 (2016) Norweger [Quelle]. Von der Gesamtsumme von knapp 1.2 Millionen für 2016 halten die Norweger also einen Anteil von ca. 300 ppm.

Ehemann einer Einwanderin

Noch präziser: Ehemann und Ex-Ehemann jeweils einer Einwanderin.
#161AuthorNorbert Juffa (236158) 12 Jan 18, 07:18
Alle Einwanderer beschimpt er gar nicht, sondern nur gewisse Einwanderer, also Einwanderer aus gewissen Ländern und das finde ich unfair.

Mit “perceived” habe ich nur gemeint dass es, meiner Meinung nach, darum geht wie man ein hohes Standard of Living definiert, also, auf Deutsch gesagt, wie zeichnet sich ein ”hohes Standard of living” aus? Worauf legen die Menschen am Meisten Wert? Es gibt Deutsche die nach Griechenland ziehen...

#162AuthorAndrea78_2 (1058532) 12 Jan 18, 07:51
unfair --> rassistisch

Ich denke, da muss man nicht um den heißen Brei herumreden.
#163AuthorMr Chekov (DE) (522758) 12 Jan 18, 08:04
"Im Fall von Skandinavien würde ich der Liste der Auswanderungsgründe noch hinzufügen: Wetter."

Wetter wohl kaum, wenn damit gemeint ist, dass sie in den USA ein besseres Wetter finden wollten. Die meisten Einwanderer aus Schweden haben sich z.B. in Minnesota und Michigan niedergelassen; Minnesota gilt als der zweitkälteste Staat nach Alaska, Obermichigan hat nordisches Klima ...

#164AuthorByrdy (782769) 12 Jan 18, 08:05

Ich habe nichts von wegen "alle Einwanderer" geschrieben.


Die idealen Einwanderer für Trump sollen wohl nordische Menschen à la "blond wie Hitler, groß wie Goebbels und schlank wie Göring" sein ...
#165AuthorMiMo (236780) 12 Jan 18, 08:09
#166AuthorMr Chekov (DE) (522758) 12 Jan 18, 08:11
Side remark re #165 (2): Slightly more elaborate version of this definition in this American film from 1947: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8K6-cEAJZlE&t=612s
#167AuthorNorbert Juffa (236158) 12 Jan 18, 08:41
Bin richtig erschrocken, als ich das mit den ****hole-Countries heute las. Für mich ist es immer noch unwirklich, dass so jemand Präsident der USA ist und dass die meisten Republikaner das alles mittragen.

Dass Anderson Cooper auf CNN deswegen fast weint, ist mir allerdings "too much". Die Antwort eines Journalisten auf sowas sollte nicht Emotionalität sein, sondern ein kühler Kopf und harte Argumentation dafür, dass Trump untauglich ist.
#168AuthorPizzaburger (978634) 12 Jan 18, 09:27
Das Absurde daran ist ja: Zu welchem Zeitpunkt sind denn die Skandinavier und die Deutschen (inklusive DTs Großeltern) und die Iren etc. in Massen nach USA eingewandert? Als ihre eigenen Länder noch "Sh..-hole countries" waren, weil arm und ungleich und unfrei.
Das ist nun mal der Antrieb für Auswanderung: Bessere Perspektiven.

 wünscht sich aber doch Einwanderer aus Norwegen - wohl weil sie weiß und nordisch sind ...
Angesichts der limitierten Gedächtnisspanne dieses Präsidenten vermute ich, dass der eigentliche Grund für diese Aussage im Besuch der norwegischen Premierministerin einen Tag vorher lag, so dass er erfahren hat, dass es ein Land namens Norwegen gibt, das auch noch reich ist. Deswegen hat er versucht, diese neue Erkenntnis irgendwo unterzubringen. Nächste Woche hat er es wieder vergessen.
#169AuthorQual der Wal (877524) 12 Jan 18, 09:39
Seine Ressentiments hat er nächste Woche nicht vergessen. Mit der Zeit wird er sie immer offener zeigen und nicht mehr begreifen, dass irgendjemand sich daran stört. (Falls er das je begriffen hat.)
#170AuthorMr Chekov (DE) (522758) 12 Jan 18, 09:51
M.E. begreift er das sehr wohl und das ist Teil seines Geschäftskonzepts. Wie jemand so schön auf Farcebuch schrieb: "He is a bit of a c**t".
#171AuthorB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 12 Jan 18, 09:56
Das eigentliche Problem ist ja, dass viele Menschen - nicht nur in USA - ihn toll finden, weil er "endlich mal" ausspricht, was sie ebenfalls denken.
Die "man wird ja wohl noch sagen dürfen"-Fraktion.
Und wie man an die herankommt, bleibt weiterhin ein Rätsel.
#172AuthorQual der Wal (877524) 12 Jan 18, 10:01
Gar nicht; das ist genau das Problem. Ich sage nur "but her emails!"
#173AuthorB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 12 Jan 18, 10:03
@ 171, auch wieder wahr.
#174AuthorMr Chekov (DE) (522758) 12 Jan 18, 10:04
Between 1820 and 1920 over 730,000 people emigrated from Norway to the United States. This amounted to a figure larger than four fifths of the entire population of Norway at the beginning of the 19th century. This meant that Norway had lost a larger proportion of her total population by immigration to America than any other European country except Ireland.

The 19th-century wave of Norwegian emigration began in 1825. The Midwestern United States, especially the states of Wisconsin and Minnesota, was the destination of most people who left Norway.[3] ...
According to scholar Daniel Judah Elazar, "It was the Norwegian diaspora in the United States which initiated the separation of Norway from Sweden, which led to Norwegian independence in 1905."[7] The Norwegian-American community overwhelmingly favored independence of Norway from Sweden ... Norwegian-Americans campaigned enthusiastically for the United States to recognize Norway's independence from Sweden, with petitions and letters arriving in Washington, D.C. from most major cities. One petition from Chicago's Norwegian-American community bore 20,000 signatures.


I had vaguely in mind that at one time, Norwegian immigration had been statistically very significant, especially in the upper Midwest. I wasn't able to confirm that exactly, but evidently there were periods when many Norwegians emigrated to the US. Even if the modern day is not one of them. Yes, Qual is probably right that that was just the last thing that stuck in his mind. How sad.

And how fortunate that he has prudently and quietly changed his mind about visiting the UK. He might have gotten word that there were quite a lot of descendants of black people from 'shithole countries,' not to mention other Britons, who were ready to protest. Will Davos be friendlier, or is there an avalanche waiting for him? Hmm ...

Too bad he can't schedule a little trip to Haiti instead. A bout of typhoid, thanks to insufficient latrines and running water, might have been salutary. He is said to be obsessive about sanitation. Maybe it's time for him to have to shit in a hole in order to understand.
#175Authorhm -- us (236141) 12 Jan 18, 10:06
"Maybe it's time for him to have to shit in a hole in order to understand" - or to climb back into the hole he came from ...

Ich finde das zutiefst bedenklich und beängstigend. Der Präsident der wichtigsten Nation weltweit bringt derartige Sprüche - und die Leute klatschen Beifall bzw. versuchen das zu relativieren ...

Immerhin gibt es noch andere Stimmen: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/hu...

Nur lesen die Leute aus der rechtsen Blase das nicht bzw. verschließen die Augen davor.
#176AuthorB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 12 Jan 18, 10:10
As was stated in this thread earlier, Norwegians and other Skandinavians immigrated to the US in droves when their countries were the kind of sh*thole countries Trump is complaining about now. Worth seeing in that context: "The Emigrants" with Max von Sydow and Liv Ullmann.

These days Norway ranks #1 in the Human Development Index and #3 in per-capita GDP.
#177AuthorNorbert Juffa (236158) 12 Jan 18, 10:15
It's very easy to be incensed and appalled if you're already in the group who has been incensed and appalled ever since the election. But the real question is when, and indeed whether, the 'moderates' who voted for him and swung the election will drop away. How much is too much for them? Will they ever be courageous enough to actually speak out and switch parties, or will they just retreat into silence yet again?

In the meantime, he's due to be examined by a doctor, but it's unclear whether it's possible that that might include any check of his mental status. But we can hope.

One other note about Norway.

#178Authorhm -- us (236141) 12 Jan 18, 10:20
It's very easy to be incensed and appalled if you're already in the group who has been incensed and appalled ever since the election

Exactly. I don't care for this hyperbole from the commentator at the Chicago Tribune. For one it reminds me too much of Nikki Haley's "I am taking names" rhetoric. Not helpful. In practical terms, the focus has to be on the next election. A largish number of Republican incumbents have declared they won't run again, so there is a chance.
#179AuthorNorbert Juffa (236158) 12 Jan 18, 10:28
In the meantime, he's due to be examined by a doctor, but it's unclear whether it's possible that that might include any check of his mental status. But we can hope.

I thought they had ruled that out.

*Edit* Not quite, actually, so you were right.

White House officials said that Mr Trump would not undergo a psychiatric exam. They did not say if he would undergo other screenings, such as cognitive and neurological exams.

(Though I'm not sure whether those would qualify as checking his 'mental status.')
#180AuthorMr Chekov (DE) (522758) 12 Jan 18, 10:49
Die Ergebnisse von "cognitive and neurological exams" könnten eventuell Aussagen zum Thema Altersdemenz erlauben.
#181AuthorAGB (236120) 12 Jan 18, 11:27
Irgendwann zwischen heute und Montag kommt ein Tweet darüber, wie das physical seinen Status als Genie bestätigt hat. Oder jedenfalls gezeigt hat, dass seine Gesundheit tremendous ist. *Edit* Oder zumindest besser als die von Hillary Clinton.
#182AuthorMr Chekov (DE) (522758) 12 Jan 18, 11:35
The docs said my prostate is, like, really huge. The biggest they've ever seen!
#183AuthorYarith (877626) 12 Jan 18, 12:02
Hier die Reaktion der UN bzgl.Trumps Äußerung ("shithole"):

'UN human rights spokesman Rupert Colville said: "If confirmed these are shocking and shameful comments from the president of the United States, I'm sorry but there is no other word for this but racist."'

Zitat aus einem BBC-Artikel:

#184AuthorIngeborg (274140) 12 Jan 18, 12:42
... was seine Basis ebenfalls wieder freuen wird, denn wer braucht schon die UNO, diese Fahrradwegtyrannen, diese steuergeldverschlingenden.
#185AuthorMr Chekov (DE) (522758) 12 Jan 18, 13:19
Dem ist wohl so :-(.
#186AuthorIngeborg (274140) 12 Jan 18, 13:32
Der Vollständigkeit halber: Trump bestreitet die ihm zugeschriebenen Äußerungen:

Zitat daraus:
He wrote that the language he used was "tough, but this was not the language used".
#187Authorharambee (91833) 12 Jan 18, 14:36
Dem glaub ich doch nicht so weit, wie ne dicke Sau springen kann ...
#188AuthorB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 12 Jan 18, 15:11
Das tue ich auch nicht und in diesem Fall spricht meiner Ansicht nach gegen Trump, dass von den Teilnehmern des Treffens bislang außer Trump selbst niemand die Äußerungen bestritten hat, auch nicht seine Partei"freunde".

Dennoch finde ich es wichtig, dass man auch über ein solches Dementi berichtet.
#189Authorharambee (91833) 12 Jan 18, 18:20
#172 Exactly my point.

#175 " This meant that Norway had lost a larger proportion of her total population by immigration to America"

*her* population? How do we know when a country is female /male? Do we ask her/him? We look at which door they go through when they go to the restroom? I would always go with "its population", but if there is a rule, I would love to know about it.

Opfer werden Täter: first the Scandinavians came in masses with their "swarthy" faces (TM Ben Franklin) to contaminate the Master Race, the English, and were treated like dirt, so then when the Germans (especially the Catholic ones) came, the Scandinavians, already integrated or semi integrated, gave the Germans flack; then the Germans gave the Italians, Irish, and Jews (who came after the Germans) flack, and so on until recent times with the Hispanics... Oh brother...
#190AuthorAndrea78_2 (1058532) 12 Jan 18, 20:49
Somewhere in the thread there was an exchange on Oprah as presidential candidate. I found that a bit disconcerting, without knowing quite why, and in any case I don´t follow US politics. But a piece in the Guardian today focused my thoughts. Zitat:
"My worry is that a Trump v Winfrey contest would confirm that the Trump era was no aberration, but a new normal. It would say that, from now on, the US presidency is a celebrity post, open only to those who have found spectacular fame, usually via television. "
The tradition of politics is no longer one of political movement - let alone political struggle through the institutions - but rather the magic wand of the celebrity capturing the media and its institutions. The case of Berlusconi presaged it all ...

#191Authorisabelll (918354) 12 Jan 18, 21:02
As far as I know, countries (and ships) are traditionally considered female for reasons I don't recall. If you look at the lyrics of "God Bless America", one line refers to the US as follows: "Stand beside her, and guide her".

While the general idea of "immigrants complaining about other more recent immigrants" is certainly alive and well (like my Vietnamese immigrant neighbor complaining about recent immigrants from Muslim countries), the particular scenarios mentioned don't quite seem to match the historical record based on what I know: For example, large-ish groups of German immigrants were already present at the founding of the US, and additional mass immigration from German and Scandinavian states happened roughly around the same time in the mid to late 1800s.

I just read today that a new poll indicates that the majority of Americans do not look favorably on the idea of a presidential run by Ms. Winfrey. So I think the dangers of voting for TV personalities are sufficiently understood at this point. Most voters realize that we need seasoned and skillful politicians to get us out of the mess we are in right now.

But when asked if they want Winfrey to run for president, a majority (54 percent) said they don't want her to do so, with 35 percent saying they do want her to run. [...] When it comes to whether she should run, not all Democrats were on board — 40 percent of Democrats said she shouldn't, compared with 47 percent who do.
#192AuthorNorbert Juffa (236158) 12 Jan 18, 22:16
#192 That it is used I know, I just wonder what the (origin of the) rule/reason is...

Well, you may wanto to check the waves of immigrants from Protestant and Catholic German areas, did they happen at the same time. Are there sources that state that? :-)

I personally would love Oprah to run for resident, she is great and we would all get a car!!! All of us!!! YAY!!!!! :-D
#193AuthorAndrea78_2 (1058532) 12 Jan 18, 22:44
What mess are we in right now that we were not already in, say, two years ago? I am talking about *substance*, like the economy, that seems to be thriving, like invading other countries, none so far; not tweets, off the wall comments or other petty issues.
#194AuthorAndrea78_2 (1058532) 12 Jan 18, 23:04
You might want to ask about the origin of the "countries are female" tradition in the Sprachlabor next door, there may even be a thread on that already.

If you have sources that give details of protestant Scandinavian immigrants railing against more recent catholic German ones, I'd appreciate a pointer. I am guessing this scenario might apply to Minnesota, but that's a complete WAG.
#195AuthorNorbert Juffa (236158) 12 Jan 18, 23:09
"the particular scenarios mentioned don't quite seem to match the historical record based on what I know: For example, large-ish groups of German immigrants were already present at the founding of the US, and additional mass immigration from German and Scandinavian states happened roughly around the same time in the mid to late 1800s."

Sorry, I must have misunderstood what you wrote above, I thought you had made a claim and I was wondering about sources...
#196AuthorAndrea78_2 (1058532) 12 Jan 18, 23:15
"first the Scandinavians came in masses with their 'swarthy' faces"

Skandinavier sind "swarthy" (= dunkelhäutig)? Seit wann denn das?
#197AuthorMiMo (236780) 12 Jan 18, 23:16
I wasn't trying to imply that we are in any new kind of mess, but we are certainly exacerbating many aspects of the existing mess. As a fiscal conservative, I'll mention just one point here: Debt to GDP ratio. We are on an unsustainable path.
#198AuthorNorbert Juffa (236158) 12 Jan 18, 23:16
I think this is the relevant sentence in Benjamin Franklin's writings that Andrea is referring to (this is from a secondary source, I haven't found the primary one yet):

"And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth."

[Later:] Apparently from an essay in which Mr. Franklin argued for keeping the American colonies WASP territory:

Benjamin Franklin, "Observations Concerning the Increasing of Mankind, Peopling of Countries, &c." Boston: Printed by S. Kneeland, 1755.
#199AuthorNorbert Juffa (236158) 12 Jan 18, 23:23
As to why countries were traditionally considered to be female, there doesn't seem to be a good answer. I checked existing questions at English Stackexchange because they often have answers from people with considerable insight into etymology and historical aspects of English, but in this case the best pointer is back to Wikipedia:

[quote]The origins of this practice are not certain, and it is currently in decline (though still more common for ships, particularly in nautical usage, than for countries). In modern English, calling objects "she" is an optional figure of speech, and is advised against by most journalistic style guides such as the Chicago Manual of Style.[/quote]

My own take is that it was probably connected to the use of female allegorical figures to represent countries, e.g. Columbia in the case of the United States, but such a line of thought gets stuck on a chicken & egg problem.
#200AuthorNorbert Juffa (236158) 12 Jan 18, 23:40
In my other post I was talking about the new German (Catholic) immigrants known to "drink alcohol on the day of the Lawd..." Oh no!!!! Aberration!!!!
#201AuthorAndrea78_2 (1058532) 12 Jan 18, 23:45
#199 True about Benny. Not only WASP's, though, at least apparently, the Dutch were not criticized....
#202AuthorAndrea78_2 (1058532) 12 Jan 18, 23:47
re #190: Not that important, but: flak (originally German btw)
#203AuthorGibson (418762) 12 Jan 18, 23:48
Getting away from the swarthy Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes for a moment, and from the question of whether a country is a him or her, and -- if just for a moment -- getting back to the question of how Trump answers a question, here's another example -- three examples, in fact -- from a recent interview Trump gave to the Wall Street Journal.
WSJ: You had tweeted yesterday that you wanted Republicans in Congress to take control of the investigations. They control Congress. Do you want them to shut down those investigations?

Mr. Trump: No, I think—I just want them to—look, all I see of these Democrats, like Adam Schiff —it’s all he does, he’ll have a meeting, and then he’ll leave, and he’ll call up the meeting, and then I’ll have a meeting and then he’ll leave. He left meetings where people are being interviewed, and then all of a sudden they say a story about what’s going on inside the meetings.
It’s probably illegal, what he’s doing. But the Democrats know it’s a hoax. It’s an excuse for them having lost the election. They know it’s a hoax. And yet, they are milking it to a fare-thee-well and I think the Republicans— although I will say that over the last month the Republicans have started to get very tough. Because they realize there’s no collusion whatsoever. There’s no collusion.

WSJ: Do you think they’re close to ending the probe?

Mr. Trump: I hope so. Hey, look, I got elected president. I won easily, 306 or 304, depending on your definition, to 223. I won a race that should never be won by a Republican because it’s so stacked in the Democrats’ favor. I mean, if you figure California, New York, and Illinois, you start off with losing that—you have to run the entire East Coast and every— and the entire Midwest.
I won an election that should never be won, because the Electoral College is far harder to win than the popular vote. The popular vote, for me, would have been much easier.

WSJ: But just to be clear, you’re not asking for them to shut those congressional investigations down?

Mr. Trump: No, I just want them to be tough, be strong. I also think that primary collusion, because there was no collusion on our side, the collusion was on the Democrat side with the Russians. And what went on with the FBI, where a man is tweeting to his lover that if she loses, we’ll essentially go back to the—we’ll go to the insurance policy, which is—if they lose, we’ll go to phase 2, and we’ll get this guy out of office.
I mean, this is the FBI we’re talking about. I think that is—that is treason. See, that’s treason right there.
#204AuthorMartin--cal (272273) 12 Jan 18, 23:53
Generally speaking the Swedes do tan very well, and therefore acquire a swarthy complexion... Here in Austria and Southern Gemany many locals, real locals, not immigrants, have skin complexions Americans would associate with Greeks, Southern Italians, and Spaniards.

In (rural) America, many people still take pride in and brag about how supposedly unable they are to get a tan...
#205AuthorAndrea78_2 (1058532) 12 Jan 18, 23:54
You are right, I usually spell it without a c, it was a cell phone typo on my part, but then I checked, out of curiosity (I hate the autocorrect on my phone, I just don't know how to turn it off), and I learned something new: flack, although less common, is indeed accepted.
#206AuthorAndrea78_2 (1058532) 13 Jan 18, 00:00

But it's still wrong in the sense of criticism, which should be spelled 'flak.' 'Flack' with C has a different meaning, namely, a publicist, shill, etc. So we need to know the difference and not rely on spell-check.


I was also not recommending the use of 'her' for countries, which I consider old-fashioned; that was just one of the only links I came across with some statistics about immigration from Norway.


Martin, thanks for the examples of Trump's language. It's interesting to me, or rather dismaying, just how many incomplete sentences there are, sentences that start on one idea and drift off to another.

I know there are studies that have linked the decline of complex syntax to cognitive decline. (Wasn't there one that studied the writing of a group of nuns over decades, or am I just imagining that?) I would be curious to know how a scientist or physician who analyzes syntax would judge Trump's cognitive ability based on his use of language, particularly if some transcripts like this could be compared with other interviews from past decades.

As I've said before, maybe earlier in this thread, I haven't gotten the impression that his vocabulary or language over his lifetime has been particularly limited. He may just be an extravert who likes to talk more than read or write, but as some of his staffers said in response to the recent book, that doesn't mean he's unintelligent or can't learn.

But if he were struggling with a decline in cognitive function at the same time as he's trying to carry out one of the most stressful jobs in the world, and if that then became a self-fulfilling cycle, with the stress contributing to the cognitive trouble and the cognitive trouble contributing to the stress, then yes, I would feel sorry for him. (Well, somewhat.)

And again, that would also fit with a loss of judgment and a loss of filtering, including crude language such as that reported from the meeting on immigration.

It's just sad. Especially on MLK weekend.

Even sadder to me, though, are the Republicans who were in that meeting who lied and said they didn't remember him saying it. Kudos as usual to Lindsey Graham for at least having the guts to tell the truth.

PS @Norbert re #195: What's a WAG?
#207Authorhm -- us (236141) 13 Jan 18, 01:09
RE #204
Yes, I have often thought that the thread would be more interesting had it been titled: How DT doesn't answer a question. (OR How he avoids answering a question)
#208Authorwupper (354075) 13 Jan 18, 01:16
WAG = wild-ass guess
#209AuthorNorbert Juffa (236158) 13 Jan 18, 01:17
OT-A, re #207:

Alzheimer's disease, the dreaded affliction of old age, might show its first subtle effects when its victims are as young as 20. In a study based on the autobiographies of young women about to join an order of nuns, researchers have reported that the women's writing styles when they were in their 20's predicted with uncanny accuracy which of them would be severely demented with Alzheimer's disease six decades later. The study was published today in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

/OT-A, and start OT-B, also re #207

It was the kind of utterance that makes professional transcribers question their career choice:

… there is no collusion between certainly myself and my campaign, but I can always speak for myself — and the Russians, zero.

When President Trump offered that response to a question at a press conference last week, it was the latest example of his tortured syntax, mid-thought changes of subject, and apparent trouble formulating complete sentences, let alone a coherent paragraph, in unscripted speech.

He was not always so linguistically challenged.

STAT reviewed decades of Trump’s on-air interviews and compared them to Q&A sessions since his inauguration. The differences are striking and unmistakable.

Research has shown that changes in speaking style can result from cognitive decline. STAT therefore asked experts in neurolinguistics and cognitive assessment, as well as psychologists and psychiatrists, to compare Trump’s speech from decades ago to that in 2017; they all agreed there had been a deterioration, and some said it could reflect changes in the health of Trump’s brain.

In interviews Trump gave in the 1980s and 1990s (with Tom Brokaw, David Letterman, Oprah Winfrey, Charlie Rose, and others), he spoke articulately, used sophisticated vocabulary, inserted dependent clauses into his sentences without losing his train of thought, and strung together sentences into a polished paragraph, which — and this is no mean feat — would have scanned just fine in print. This was so even when reporters asked tough questions about, for instance, his divorce, his brush with bankruptcy, and why he doesn’t build housing for working-class Americans.

... (section deleted) ...

The experts noted clear changes from Trump’s unscripted answers 30 years ago to those in 2017, in some cases stark enough to raise questions about his brain health. They noted, however, that the same sort of linguistic decline can also reflect stress, frustration, anger, or just plain fatigue.

(the article continues)
#210AuthorMartin--cal (272273) 13 Jan 18, 01:36
OT #207

What you say is not correct, hm--us, unless I am missing something.

According to Webster (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/flack - Definition 2, point 3):

less common spelling of flak
1 : antiaircraft guns
2 : the bursting shells fired from flak
3 or less commonly flack : criticism, opposition
#211AuthorAndrea78_2 (1058532) 13 Jan 18, 01:56
Sorry if I was not clear. Merriam-Webster is wrong on this point and should not be considered a guide to correct usage. Longtime readers of this forum are aware that it is relatively descriptivist, meaning that if enough people make a mistake, it will put the mistake in print. So you shouldn't believe everything you find in it.

Thanks, Martin, and thanks, Norbert.

('Wild-ass'? Is that a new thing? Not by any chance 'wise-ass'? Ah well. I suppose now we could shorten it to OG.)
#212Authorhm -- us (236141) 13 Jan 18, 02:13
Further OT: It is definitely "wild ass". Google Ngram suggests the term "wild-ass guess" has been around since the mid 1960s. There is also the variant SWAG = scientific wild-ass guess. I have known both terms for well over a decade, but I don't recall where and from whom I first heard them. Some random website claims these terms originated in the US military. I have no reason to doubt that but also no reason to believe it.
#213AuthorNorbert Juffa (236158) 13 Jan 18, 04:07
Continuingly OT: I knew SWAG as a stupid wild-ass guess (FWIW).
#214AuthorMartin--cal (272273) 13 Jan 18, 07:07
#212 I want to agree with you, I had not even seen "frack" until I misspelled it, but the more I do research (https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=flack) the more it looks like that "flack" is an accepted, less common spelling of flak.
I think I will open a thread in the Sprachlabor...

WAG I had to look up...
#215AuthorAndrea78_2 (1058532) 14 Jan 18, 00:38
Oxforddict. meint, "flack" sei eine AE-Variante von "flak".

Da "Flak" aber ursprünglich die Abkürzung von "Flugabwehrkanone" darstellt, ist "flack" mit dem überflüssigen c nicht stimmig.

#216AuthorMiMo (236780) 14 Jan 18, 06:56
#207 What's a WAG?

And what does OG mean? (#212)?

Perhaps people could add an explanatory footnote when using abbreviations that many people won't know. It gets a bit tedious otherwise.

I also think it's rather a pity that so much of this particular thread is being taken up with discussions of 'WAG' and 'flak'.
#217AuthorHecuba - UK (250280) 14 Jan 18, 11:44
ist "flack" mit dem überflüssigen c nicht stimmig.

Naja, nach dieser Logik ist die Schreibweise "Tipp" im Deutschen auch nicht "stimmig". Es gibt ja das "überflüssige" p.
Wenn ein Wort eingedeutscht bzw. "eingeenglischt" wird, gelten andere Regeln als in der ursprünglichen Sprache des Wortes. Nicht, dass ich unbedingt die Schreibweise "flack" im Englischen unterstützen möchte, aber das obige Argument (#216) ist ziemlich daneben, finde ich.
#218Authorwupper (354075) 14 Jan 18, 11:51
Just as some people write "jive" when they mean "jibe", some write "flack" when they mean "flak" (or vice versa). As far as AE is concerned, hm-us already described what is generally considered correct usage in #207:

He drew a lot of flak from his colleagues. (criticism)
He works as a flack for the meat industry. (spokesperson)

BE may have different conventions.
#219AuthorNorbert Juffa (236158) 14 Jan 18, 12:31

Da "Tipp" keine Abkürzung ist, hat es mit "dieser Logik" nichts zu tun.

Nach Deiner Logik wäre also auch zu vertreten, dass man "loser" auf Deutsch "Looser" schreibt, oder?
#220AuthorMiMo (236780) 14 Jan 18, 13:32
OG = onager guess.

#221Authorhm -- us (236141) 14 Jan 18, 17:40
Heavens! Now I've had to look up what an onager is.
(It's a wild ass, for anyone as uninformed as I am.)
#222AuthorHecuba - UK (250280) 14 Jan 18, 17:51
Thank you, Hecuba! You're not alone.
#223Authorwupper (354075) 14 Jan 18, 17:55
Sorry Norbert, but here I 'll have to reluctantly say something, I hate to sound like I am correcting people: people usually give (a lot of) flak to others and get (a lot of) flak from others.

I don't think I have ever heard "to draw flak" in my whole life, and I am no spring chicken.
#224AuthorAndrea78_2 (1058532) 14 Jan 18, 21:00
I agree, that wasn't the best possible example. I shouldn't post when my brain is already half asleep. People typically get or catch flak, while ideas or concepts draw flak. A few examples from the American press (one of which refers to a person drawing flak):

Mr. Trump's obsession with crowd size and his signature use of superlatives, such as "historic," "epic," "tremendous," "the biggest ever," draw a lot of flak from his critics — so much so that they risk crossing the line into overkill.

Mike Woo makes no bones about his positions -- even when they draw a lot of flak.

Except that Ted Koppel never did a show on dwarf-throwing, or, for an hour on cross-dressing, slipped into a skirt. Phil Donahue did and, not unexpectedly, drew a lot of flak.
#225AuthorNorbert Juffa (236158) 14 Jan 18, 21:19
the kind of utterance that makes professional transcribers question their career choice

just think of the poor Interpreters, too! They probably feel that they constantly have to assure their listeners "no really, that's what he said! And don't ask me, I don't know either what he means..."

Andrea, can you take your language issues to the Sprachlabor please.
#226AuthorSpinatwachtel (341764) 15 Jan 18, 08:21
For those who want to test how they would fare as transcribers, give the audio clip in the following article a try. What did the president say with regard to Kim Jong Un:

Did President Trump say "I have" or "I'd have?"
But White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders on Saturday tweeted a note indicating Trump said "I'd probably have a very good..." rather than "I probably have a very good."
"FAKE NEWS IS AT IT AGAIN!" she tweeted.
#227AuthorNorbert Juffa (236158) 15 Jan 18, 10:01
Ich geb's auf. Inzwischen streiten sie sich, ob er "shithole" oder "shithouse" gesagt hat. Weckt mich, wenn der Typ nicht mehr Präsident ist.
#228AuthorMr Chekov (DE) (522758) 15 Jan 18, 10:05
Da der Präsident sich laut Pressebericht bester Gesundheit erfreut, wird das voraussichtlich ein sehr erholsamer Schlaf.

Einer der anwesenden Republikaner, der vorgestern noch meinte, er könne sich an nichts erinnern bezüglich der Charakterisierung der afrikanischen Länder, war sich dagegen heute ganz sicher, das Wort "shithole" sei nicht gefallen. Hm, ja.
#229AuthorNorbert Juffa (236158) 15 Jan 18, 10:17
# 227: Die Links zu den Originalaufnahmen funktionieren bei mir leider nicht.
Aber ich halte es mit (im Artikel zitieren) Josh Rogin:

Washington Post columnist and CNN analyst Josh Rogin weighed in via Twitter: "Once again, it doesn't matter. Either statement is ridiculous."
#230AuthorQual der Wal (877524) 15 Jan 18, 11:22
Martin or whoever may rule this OT as well, but the questions raised in the original post seem to cover how Trump communicates at all, not just literally how he answers questions.

>>dass er z.B. hauptsächlich ein- und zweisilbige Wörter benutzt, dass er seine Sätze so konstruiert, dass sie auf einem "Buzz-Word" enden und dass er dem Zuhörer gerne Befehle erteilt

This little article in this week's New Yorker goes well over the top with sarcasm, but it also gives a glimpse of 'Fox and Friends,' the morning talk show that seems to trigger many presidential tweets. Part of the knack seems to be how the president gets the TV hosts to parrot his own questions, which is a good trick if you can do it, and also saves you from having to answer questions from other people, such as reporters.

The cycle of talk to tweet to talk to tweet, ad infinitum, seems particularly noteworthy.


'How "Fox and Friends" Rewrites Trump's Reality:
The thin fourth wall between the President and his TV'
Andrew Marantz, New Yorker, January 15, 2018

In the Fox News studio, the fresh tweets were displayed in bold type on a thirty-foot-wide screen, Trump’s larger-than-life Twitter avatar peering, Rushmore-like, into the middle distance. (Presumably, the real Trump, in the Presidential bedroom, peered back, an elderly youth gazing into a shallow pool.) ...
A few days into the [Asia] trip, en route from China to Vietnam, he walked to the rear of Air Force One, where the press corps was sitting, to deliver some off-the-cuff remarks. “I know they like to say—people that don’t know me—they like to say I watch television,” he said. “People with fake sources—you know, fake reporters, fake sources. But I don’t get to watch much television, primarily because of documents. I’m reading documents a lot.” ...
It later became clear that the impetus for Trump’s outburst was an e-mail he’d just received from the Times—a list of fifty-one fact-checking questions for an article about him. Of these, he felt compelled to respond, indirectly, to just one, about his “prodigious television watching habits.” ...
(A chart of Trump’s 2017 tweets, created by a University of Chicago graduate student and plotted by time of day, reveals an unmistakably dense band between 6 a.m. and 9 a.m., when “Fox & Friends” is on the air.) ...


Not fair, not fair, to sleep through it all. Someone needs to be awake to warn me when the North Korean bomb is on its way -- or when the latest smartphone warning is a fake, as in Hawaii. Constant vigilance is required.


#231Authorhm -- us (236141) 15 Jan 18, 11:38
Dein President ist doch die Merkel, oder?
#232AuthorAndrea78_2 (1058532) 15 Jan 18, 20:35
Wie? Was? Merkel ist bekanntlich Bundeskanzlerin, z.Z. geschäftsführend (und kaum in Gefahr, einen Atomkrieg zu beginnen, wenn jemand aufdeckt, dass sie beim Golf bescheißt).
#233AuthorMr Chekov (DE) (522758) 15 Jan 18, 20:45
A bissl übertrieben, find i... I kann dir garantieren dass kein Atomkrieg stattfinden wird, 100%. Wenn du willsch, können mir sogor wettn, ok? :-)

#234AuthorAndrea78_2 (1058532) 15 Jan 18, 23:38
Na, dann bin ich ja beruhigt.
#235AuthorMr Chekov (DE) (522758) 16 Jan 18, 00:47
Das ist dann so eine Wette, die man nicht verlieren kann. (Achtung: Zynismus).

Vielleicht sollte man ergänzen: ... der einen Atomkrieg anfängt oder Nordkorea soweit provoziert, dass die einen anfangen.
#236AuthorQual der Wal (877524) 16 Jan 18, 07:05
@234: Und das kannst Du einfach so garantieren, weil...?

(Ich halte die Wahrscheinlichkeit auch nicht unbedingt für hoch, aber sie ist meines Erachtens >0 und war schon einmal niedriger. Garantien jeglicher Art würde ich mich nicht auszusprechen trauen.)
#237AuthorDragon (238202) 16 Jan 18, 09:56
Warum denn nicht? Wenn die Garantie nicht eingehalten wird, sind wir eh gef***t und haben ganz andere Sorgen als eine nicht eingehaltene Garantie ...
#238AuthorB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 16 Jan 18, 10:41
Neues zu T's geistiger Fitness:

... Dr. Ronny Jackson, who conducted the routine physical examination. "The president's overall health is excellent," Jackson said.
Trump requested a cognitive exam during the session. Trump scored 30/30 on a test of his cognitive ability — "The Montreal Cognitive Assessment" which screened for Alzheimer's and dementia, among other illnesses. "I have no concerns about his cognitive ability," Jackson said.

#239AuthorMr Chekov (DE) (522758) 16 Jan 18, 22:10
...Weil ich mich von der Presse keiner Gehirnwäsche unterziehen lasse? :-)

#236 Willsch aa wettn? Deine Wett nimm i gern on! :-)

Aber die Frage stellt sich: warum redet die Presse so viel Unsinn? Warum hören wir tagtäglich von Tweets, von der Größe seiner hände, usw? Könnte es sein dass andere, wichtigere Sachen gerade passieren? How many plutocrats has he already appointed, for instance?
#240AuthorAndrea78_2 (1058532) 17 Jan 18, 08:51
Ich hatte schon mehrfach den Eindruck, dass er die wichtigen Dinge im Hintergrund machen lässt und durch seine Tweets davon ablenkt. Aus unerfindlichem Grund rennen viele aber nur den Tweets hinterher.
Nur ein Beispiel: in vielen Ministerien wurden die Fachleute durch Unerfahrene oder gleich gar nicht  ersetzt. Seine Form von Abbau der Bürokratie.
#241AuthorMasu (613197) 17 Jan 18, 09:25
Zu dem Eindruck gibt es sogar Artikel bei ZON und Grauniad. Wenn ich sie noch fände ...
#242AuthorB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 17 Jan 18, 09:28
Politico hat sogar eine wöchentliche Rubrik: "Things Trump did while you weren't looking". Hier ihr Jahresrückblick: https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/12...

Die Beschäftigung mit Tweets ist natürlich die Sache von Medien, die auf billigen und leicht verfügbaren Content angewiesen sind: Cable News, trashige Websites... Ganz ignorieren sollte man die Trumpschen Twitter-Tiraden aber auch nicht.
#243AuthorMr Chekov (DE) (522758) 17 Jan 18, 09:40
dass er die wichtigen Dinge im Hintergrund machen lässt und durch seine Tweets davon ablenkt. Aus unerfindlichem Grund rennen viele aber nur den Tweets hinterher

Sollte es so sein, wäre das kein unzutreffendes Kalkül in einer Welt, in der sehr viele Leute mit "Zeichen setzen" (irgendwas bei Facebook liken, irgendwelche Transparente an Schloten anbringen oder eben einen Tweet absetzen) alles schon getan wähnen, weil sie dieses Zeichen schon für eine Handlung nehmen - um nicht zu sagen, dass sich eine Handlungen für sie in Zeichensetzen erschöpft.
#244AuthorGart (646339) 17 Jan 18, 09:46
Danke Pavel.
Nein, ignorieren nicht, aber eben auch mal dran vorbei schauen, was im Hintergrund so läuft.
#245AuthorMasu (613197) 17 Jan 18, 09:47
# 240:
Das ist dann so eine Wette, die man nicht verlieren kann.

Was ich meinte, war das gleiche wie B.L.Z Bubb: Da Du ja wettest, dass Trump keinen Atomkrieg anfängt, kannst Du nicht verlieren - da, wenn er einen anfängt, das mit dem Leben eh irgenwie vorbei ist. Insofern: Nein, danke, ich will nicht wetten.

Und zum Thema "Was die Zeitungen berichten": Ich weiß ja nicht, was du so liest, aber den Artikel im Guardian über das langsame Austrocknen der verschiedenen "politisch unpassenden" Behörden, das Umsetzen neuer Politiken und das Ernennen von Gefolgsleuten habe ich auch gelesen.
Und dass die FBI-Untersuchung weitergeht, scheinen auch manche zu vergessen, weil sie nicht jeden Tag Schlagzeilen produziert.

Allerdings wünschte ich mir auch manchmal etwas weniger Fokussierung auf das Menschliche und Allzumenschliche - gestern war ein Artikel drin, dass irgendein Pastor in der Kirche Trump wegen der Verwendung des Wortes "Sh..hole" verurteilt hat - und Mike Pence saß in der Kirche! OMG!
Darf Mike Pence keine Kritik hören? Ist das schon so außergewöhnlich, dass das in der Zeitung steht? Etwas albern, finde ich.
#246AuthorQual der Wal (877524) 17 Jan 18, 09:48
Mit dem Menschlich-Allzumenschlichen hast du natürlich Recht (es verstopft auch hier in Deutschland Talkshows, Nachrichtensendungen und Gehirne), aber die Episode mit dem Pastor fand ich tatsächlich interessant. Da spricht jemand truth to power, ist doch berichtenswert und für einen Kommentar gut: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-tu...
#247AuthorMr Chekov (DE) (522758) 17 Jan 18, 09:56
The president's physician says he scored a perfect 30/30 on a 10-minute dementia test called the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), designed as a screening tool for the loss of clear thinking that sometimes precedes dementia. This is the test the president passed:

#248AuthorBubo bubo (830116) 17 Jan 18, 12:38
Hier sind die Aufgaben des Tests auf Englisch:

#249AuthorIngeborg (274140) 18 Jan 18, 00:51
Na toll. Also heißt es ab jetzt: "I defeated Crooked Hillary AND I knew all the animals."
#250AuthorMr Chekov (DE) (522758) 18 Jan 18, 06:20
Nein, Crooked Hillary defeated herself: she was the worst presidential candidate in US hiostory. Bernie would have beaten the Donald hands down.
#251AuthorAndrea78_2 (1058532) 18 Jan 18, 06:57
Andrea78-2: Der Wahlkampf ist vorbei und Trump ist Präsident, jedenfalls dem Titel nach.
Wir fangen jetzt nicht an, nochmal zu diskutieren, wer eine bessere oder schlechtere Wahlkampagne geführt hat oder wer die bessere KandidatIn war
In diesem Faden soll bitte möglichst rund um das Kommunikationsverhalten von Trump diskutiertt werden. Danke.
#252AuthorQual der Wal (877524) 18 Jan 18, 07:04
Oops, I did not think I was OT, but, in that case, sorry, my bad. A million apologies.

The Donald communicates like a champ: he is the champion, and best representative, of the average white American. He says aloud what the average white American thinks but not says in public, or says in private, because it is no longer socially acceptable to say certain things out loud.

My 0.02 EUR
#253AuthorAndrea78_2 (1058532) 18 Jan 18, 07:21
Der "average white American" scheint eine ziemlich seltsame Spezies zu sein. Oder du unterstellst ihm das einfach, ohne sachliche Grundlage. Ich vermute mal Letzteres.
#254AuthorMr Chekov (DE) (522758) 18 Jan 18, 08:08
Wer hat ihn dann gewählt?

PS Average white Americans is all I have had contact with all my life, trust me, I know what I am talking about.
PS #2 I come from a very blue state.
#255AuthorAndrea78_2 (1058532) 18 Jan 18, 08:26
Oh yeah, finally we are allowed again to call shithole countries shithole countries, and grab women by the pussy. About time, too.
#256AuthorB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 18 Jan 18, 08:42
@255, dass sie ihn gewählt haben, heißt ja nicht, dass sie den ganzen Irrsinn billigen, den er verzapft. Bei Wahlen geht es bekanntlich um das geringere Übel; viele haben ihm halt zugetraut, es "denen in Washington mal zu zeigen". Wie sich diese noble Hoffnung gehalten hat, wird sich im Herbst erweisen. (Und natürlich hat Qual der Wal (#252) Recht: Das ist nicht das Thema dieses Fadens.)
#257AuthorMr Chekov (DE) (522758) 18 Jan 18, 08:46
he is the champion, and best representative, of the average white American

Ich habe glücklicherweise auch schon Kommentare von weißen Amerikanern gelesen und gehört, die sich von ihm nicht bestmöglich repräsentiert sehen, sonst würde ich wohl komplett den Glauben verlieren. Aber vielleicht waren die ja alle nicht durchschnittlich genug.

Abgesehen davon hatte ich bisher diese hohen politischen Ämter zumindest in demokratischen und säkularen Staaten so verstanden, dass diejenigen, die hineingewählt werden, für das komplette Wahlvolk gleichermaßen da sein sollen. Also für Menschen jeglicher Hautfarbe, jeglichen Geschlechts, jeglicher ursprünglicher Herkunft, jeglicher religiöser Überzeugung, jeglicher sexueller Orientierung, jeglichen Bildungsniveaus usw. Klar, das klappt nie 100%ig, irgendwer hat immer eine etwas stärkere Lobby, und letztlich sind unsere Politiker auch nur Menschen, aber ein bisschen inklusiver als bloß "der ist für den weißen Durchschnittsamerikaner" (wie sieht der eigentlich aus?) würde man sich den/die US-Präsident_in dann doch wünschen. 

because it is no longer socially acceptable to say certain things out loud

Und das wird man ja wohl noch sagen dürfen... Nein, ernsthaft, findest Du es gut, wenn er Dinge ausspricht, die man eigentlich nicht mehr sagen sollte, weil die Gesellschaft glücklicherweise mittlerweile erkannt hat, dass sie rassistisch oder sexistisch oder herabwürdigend oder was auch immer sind, und sie dadurch ein Stück weit wieder salonfähig macht?

#258AuthorDragon (238202) 18 Jan 18, 10:07
Was übern großen Teich herübertönt, ist im Wesentlichen eine beinahe täglich neue Aufregung darüber, dass Trump dies oder jenes gesagt oder getan hat. Die Befassung mit Trump und seinen Äußerungen alleine dürfte zuwenig sein. Wird eigentlich auch etwas getan, um einen wahrnehmbaren Teil derjenigen Leute, die anscheinend bislang einen erregt twitternden Trump immer noch einer wie auch immer gearteten Alternative vorziehen, etwas zu bieten, das sie davon überzeugen könnte, Trump nicht mehr zu wählen? (Das ist keine rhetorische Frage, es ist schließlich sehr gut möglich, dass aufs Ganze gesehen die deutsche Presse zu Lasten anderer Nachrichten den Schwerpunkt auf die jeweils neuesten Trumpiaden legt, weil das so schöne Schlagzeilen gibt, oder dass andere Wahrnehmungsverzerrungen vorliegen.) Mit ein paar kosmetischen Maßnahmen alleine dürfte es freilich nicht getan sein, und das mit den Alten Weißen Männern und ihren angeblich letzten Zuckungen, die man bloß noch eine kleine Weile auszusitzen braucht, klingt zu sehr nach einer linken Gutenachtgeschichte, um wahr zu sein.
#259AuthorGart (646339) 18 Jan 18, 10:19
He says aloud what the average white American thinks but not says in public, or says in private, because it is no longer socially acceptable to say certain things out loud.

Diesen Satz finde ich interessant. Wenn es nicht mehr gesellschaftlich akzeptiert wird, gewisse Dinge zu sagen, spricht das doch dafür, dass es eine Mehrheit gibt, die das nicht akzeptiert? Ich meine, da die USA ja keine Diktatur ist, kann man ja alles sagen, was man will. Man kann nur nicht steuern, was die anderen dann von einem denken.

Es scheint für viele in den USA in Ordnung zu sein, dass man im Fernsehen nicht "fuck" sagen darf bzw. das über"piept" wird. Aber das gehört nicht zu den Dingen, "die man nicht sagen darf"?

Sprich: Es geht meiner Meinung nach nicht um das, was man sagen kann oder nicht (das meiste ist einfach gute Manieren vs. keine Manieren), sondern um die zugrundeliegenden Änderungen in der Gesellschaft, die viele "average white Americans" anscheinend nicht akzeptieren können.
#260AuthorQual der Wal (877524) 18 Jan 18, 11:01
Sprich: Es geht meiner Meinung nach nicht um das, was man sagen kann oder nicht (das meiste ist einfach gute Manieren vs. keine Manieren), sondern um die zugrundeliegenden Änderungen in der Gesellschaft, die viele "average white Americans" anscheinend nicht akzeptieren können.

Vielleicht handelt es sich um eine Minderheit, die Anpassungsschwierigkeiten hat. Vielleicht aber auch nicht - es mag Eingeborene geben, die ihre hergebrachten Exerzitien nicht öffentlich abhalten, weil der Missionar es nicht gerne sieht; zudem setzen sich Mehrheiten zu nicht geringen Teilen aus Menschen zusammen, die sich selbst gerne auf Seiten der Mehrheit sehen. So oder so, die Bemerkung oben scheint mir einen gewissen Hegelianismus zu atmen: vielleicht wäre ein Vergleich mit einem Pendel passender. Ob es gerade mit Trump schon innehält, um wieder zurückzuschwingen, werden wir vielleicht erst in zwanzig Jahren oder noch später wissen, aber irgendwann wird es das tun, unter welchen Umständen oder mit welchem Ergebnis auch immer, und es wäre jedenfalls wünschenswert, dass das nicht zu Herrn Trumps Bedingungen erfolgt. Nicht auch nach den Belangen der "average white Americans" bzw. ihres einigermaßen dialogfähigen Teils (den der Schuh vielleicht ganz woanders drückt, als man denkt) wenigstens zu fragen, macht aber genau das meines Erachtens wahrscheinlicher. Ich möchte meine in #259 gestellte Frage daher gerne wiederholen. Gibt es links der Mitte in Hinblick auf Herrn Trump wirklich nichts als Sprachlosigkeit, nichts als Reagieren statt Agieren?
#261AuthorGart (646339) 18 Jan 18, 11:15
I could agree with the pendulum theory as a first-order approximation. Globally, the pendulum appears to has moved, and may still be moving, to the right.

In the US, there isn't silence on the political "left", but for the most part an endless repetition of the same positions we've heard for decades, many of which no longer resonate with voters. Part of the reason for that is what I perceive to be a structural problem of the Democratic Party, which is run by people overdue for retirement, while Republicans have already refreshed their ranks. The generational change among Democrats has started (in my congressional district we just replaced a congressman in his seventies with one in his forties), but it will probably take the better part of a decade to be completed.

The average age of the Democratic House leadership is 72 years old, whereas the average age of Republican House leadership is 48 years old. This trend continues in House committee leadership with Republican chairmen averaging 59 years old and ranking Democrats averaging 68 years old.

As far as decisive leadership at the Democratic top goes, I would claim that a singular focus on the candidacy of Ms. Clinton ensured that no strong alternatives could emerge (Mr. Sander was an unexpected surprise out of left field, and he's an independent). The result is a power vacuum which is obvious now.
#262AuthorNorbert Juffa (236158) 18 Jan 18, 16:48
Apropos Kommunikation: Ich würde mich hier wohler fühlen, wenn die vulgäre Pöbelei dieses Mannes nicht auch auf LEO abfärben würde und mit der besinnungslosen Übernahme von "Crooked Hillary" auch nur der Anschein erweckt würde, es handle sich dabei um eine irgendwie eingeführte und quasi selbstverständliche Charakterisierung. (@251)

Es reicht, wenn Trumps Schlagwort von den "fake news" von autoritären Gestalten rund um den Globus imitiert wird, wie es jetzt besorgt u.a. von Sen. McCain und Flake öffentlich festgestellt wurde. Und, mehr als ein Lapsus, der Guardian hat tatsächlich Kim Jong Un ohne Anführung als "rocket man" tituliert.

Die Gefahr, die von diesem notorischen Verzerrer der Wahrheit für den öffentlichen Diskurs ausgeht, ist nicht zu unterschätzen. Und er erdreistet sich sogar, einen "fake-news prize" für "the most corrupt and dishonest media" zu vergeben "[Rep. Sen. Jeff] Flake said 'it beggars belief that an American president would engage in such a spectacle'."

Noch einmal Guardian: "Trump has often used his bully pulpit to highlight errors in the media [...] and he has labeled the press the “enemy of the American people”. Trump has yet to acknowledge any of his lies, which have been tracked in an exhaustive list by the New York Times and underscore the president’s near daily disconnect from the truth.

The move ["fake news awards"] was nonetheless prime fodder for Trump’s base, which has rallied behind the president’s extraordinary assault on the first amendment."

#263AuthorsebastianW (382026) 18 Jan 18, 18:47
While the specific term "C. H." may be a Trumpism, I will note for completeness that the perception of Ms. Clinton as crooked, corrupt, dishonest etc isn't just limited to followers of Mr. Trump, but appears to be rather widespread: from the left to the right of the political spectrum.

Mr. Trump's predilection for assigning denigrating nicknames to his opponents is kindergarten behavior I consider incompatible with his high office.
#264AuthorNorbert Juffa (236158) 18 Jan 18, 19:06
Ich nicht. Mir wäre es viel lieber wenn er sich wie ein normaler President ausdrücken würde, aber ich bin halt *nicht* der durchscnittliche, weiße, suburban/rural, Amerikaner.

Ich meine, ich verstehe euch: man hat ja ein Jahr lang die Möglichkeit gehabt den Trump und seinen Unsinn kennenzulernen, hat ihn trotzdem gewählt. Wie kann es sein???
Ganz einfach: die meisten weißen *mögen* ihn. Die sagen das in der Öffentlichkeit nicht, denn man wird von den Antifas angegriffen, oder von den Liberals als "idiot" beschimpt, wenn man zugibt dass man Trump wähler ist. Aber die mögen ihn, trotzdem. The silent majority (among white, suburban/rural males), so to speak.

Es ist eine andere Welt, Dragon, ich verstehe schon dass es dir schwer fällt es mir zu glauben wenn ich sowas behaupte, aber leider so ist es. Viele Europäer verstehen viele Amis nicht, und umgekehrt.

No, not you, you are German, not American.

I was just quoting #250, but I agree with you. Norbert is also right though, certain epithets somehow become accepted by the masses, and people start using them...

Norbert spricht mir aus der Seele. Es mag auch OT sein, aber die Verantwortung liegt ja an der DNC.

And the pendolum has indeed moved to the right in the US, but that is how the US works. Obama himself said it just before leaving office: first a strong jerk to this side, and then an equally strong one to the opposite side. That's America.

When Bill Clinton got elected, in 1992, he was a bit of an opportiunist, just like the Donald, he fed on people's fears at the time. But what do you know, a couple of years later (Fall of 94, I believe), the Democrats lost their majotity in Cogress: Americans had already changed their mind...
#265AuthorAndrea78_2 (1058532) 18 Jan 18, 20:48
...the perception of Ms. Clinton as crooked, corrupt, dishonest etc isn't just limited to followers of Mr. Trump, but appears to be rather widespread

You don't call a person crooked or a criminal (in public, repeatedly, and for the media to report) unless you can prove it. Because in a civilized country you may be forced to prove it. As it seems, 'the average white American' has a different understanding of what the first amendment means.

Norbert is also right though, certain epithets somehow become accepted by the masses, and people start using them...

That's not what Norbert said. And it's a symptom of what's going wrong. It can't be tolerated. Unless, of course, you want to live in a shithole country.

#266AuthorsebastianW (382026) 18 Jan 18, 21:58
Sebastian said that.
Norbert said that many see HC as crooked, dishonest etc. and that is most certainly true.
#267AuthorAndrea78_2 (1058532) 18 Jan 18, 22:24
Zur Gedächtnisauffrischung:
Donald Trump bekam 62.984.825 Stimmen (46,09 %),
Hillary Clinton bekam 65.853.516 Stimmen (48,18 %).

Trump hat also nur die Minderheit der Amerikaner hinter sich und entspricht nicht der Vorstellung der Mehrheit der USA-Bürger. Seine Anhänger waren eine mehr oder weniger "silent minority", nicht majority. Und dass alle "average white Americans" hinter ihm stehen, ist füglich zu bezweifeln.
#268AuthorMiMo (236780) 18 Jan 18, 22:37
The silent majority (among white, suburban/rural males), so to speak

Finish this sntence MiMo: Wer lesen kann, ist .... :-)
#269AuthorAndrea78_2 (1058532) 18 Jan 18, 22:41
I thought I was pretty clear in what I said, but subsequent comments show that this may not have been the case. Let me try again: I do not advocate name calling in politics, nor do I view it favorably. I merely tried to point out why the "C. H." moniker stuck immediately when Trump used it (I am not sure he invented it). And before we pin blame for the election of Mr. Trump exclusively on that modern bogeyman, the "angry white male", let's not forget that white females also played a significant role:

Why Did So Many White Women Vote for Donald Trump?
[Among women] [h]e received the strongest support from white women without college degrees, 62 percent of whom voted for him. [...] The second largest contingent of women supporting Trump was white women with college degrees. Forty-five percent of them voted for him. [...]  Seventy percent of white voters also described Clinton as dishonest or untrustworthy.
#270AuthorNorbert Juffa (236158) 18 Jan 18, 23:53
#264 Norbert
>>the perception of Ms. Clinton as crooked, corrupt, dishonest etc isn't just limited to followers of Mr. Trump, but appears to be rather widespread: from the left to the right of the political spectrum.

I disagree and would call that a serious mischaracterization. The watchers of Fox News may think that, because that's the diet they've been fed ever since Bill Clinton's presidency, when the opposition spent the entire time trying to dredge up incriminating evidence out of the murk of Arkansas politics, but never found anything serious about her. Except, of course, that she seemed to turn a blind eye to his sexual misdeeds, which I think it's actually possible to read either as naïveté or wishful thinking, or as a conscious choice to make the best of it and focus on larger issues -- perhaps, in fact, precisely because she's so serious about ethics on a broad scale, such as women's rights, rights of minorities, and economic justice.

And as MiMo says, she got more votes than Trump. That's not nothing -- though I agree that the Democratic party needs a younger, more charismatic candidate if it ever hopes to create as much enthusiasm among younger voters and moderates as Obama did when he was first elected. I think that is actually the silent majority who could be reached if, as Gart says, the left had a message positive enough to give them hope, to motivate them to turn out at the polls.

But I agree that just bewailing Trump, whether for his style or his deeds, isn't going to cut it.
#271Authorhm -- us (236141) 18 Jan 18, 23:55
I don't think it is a mischaracterization, let alone a serious one. Re-quoting from the article I quoted above (emphasis mine): Seventy percent of white voters also described Clinton as dishonest or untrustworthy.

That is widespread in my book, at least among whites and it comprises more people than just Trump voters: 58% of non-hispanic whites voted for Trump. And in my personal experience, that perception goes all the way from left-wing Democrats to libertarian Republicans. Some of the most vitriolic remarks I have personally heard about Ms. Clinton came from registered Democrats that supported Mr. Sanders. Let me see whether I can find corresponding statistics for all voters, rather than just whites.

[Later:] Report of a poll conducted in late July of 2016 (emphasis mine):
In a recent CBS News poll, 67 percent of respondents found Hillary Clinton to be dishonest, and 56 percent thought the same of Donald Trump.

A poll from late August 2015 (emphasis mine):
"Liar" is the first word that comes to mind more than others in an open-ended question when voters think of Clinton

Report on polls from mid-2015:
A recent Gallup Poll found that 53 percent of Americans think Clinton isn't "honest and trustworthy." [...] Another recent poll, this one conducted by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center before Clinton had to back down from her account of her Bosnia trip, found that 29 percent of white Democrats considered her a "phony," almost twice as many as the 15 percent who described Obama that way.

But I agree that just bewailing Trump, whether for his style or his deeds, isn't going to cut it
Agreed. As you said recently and I think it bears repeating: what counts is registration and turnout, registration and turnout, registration and turnout!
#272AuthorNorbert Juffa (236158) 19 Jan 18, 00:27
Inzwischen halten ca. 60 % Trump für "not honest" - kein Wunder, denn noch kein amerikanischer Präsident hat im Amt so viel gelogen wie er.

Was "dishonesty" angeht, ist HC gegenüber Trump inzwischen wohl ein Waisenkind ...

#273AuthorMiMo (236780) 19 Jan 18, 04:43
Back to topic?
#274AuthorQual der Wal (877524) 19 Jan 18, 07:09
Back to topic!

How Donald Trump answers questions - with lies.
#275AuthorByrdy (782769) 19 Jan 18, 07:45
Factual data shows otherwise.

That's a shocker, given he is a politician. Good thing all the other politicians are extremely honest!!
#276AuthorAndrea78_2 (1058532) 19 Jan 18, 19:39
While it is widely recognized that politicians tend to have a contentious relationship with the truth, not all are prone to spouting the immense volume of blatant lies that Mr. Trump produces. A statement that "all politicians lie" trivializes the corrosiveness of Mr. Trump's pervasive lying. It is true that he's not the first person in history with that behavioral pattern, but he is certainly a prime example.

"The superiority of his genius consists in nothing else but an inexhaustible fund of political lies, which he plentifully distributes every minute he speaks, and by an unparalleled generosity forgets, and consequently contradicts, the next half hour. He never yet considered whether any proposition were true or false, but whether it were convenient for the present minute or company to affirm or deny it; [...] Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it, so that when men come to be undeceived, it is too late; the jest is over, and the tale hath had its effect: like a man, who hath thought of a good repartee when the discourse is changed, or the company parted; or like a physician, who hath found out an infallible medicine, after the patient is dead."
Jonathan Swift, The Examiner No. 14, November 9, 1710

In addition to many small lies on a day-to-day basis, Mr. Trump also uses the Big Lie propaganda technique, as first defined by Adolf Hitler in "Mein Kampf". See Wikipedia for a definition and the original quotation. The English translation by Ralph Manheim (Houghton Mifflin 1943) has the relevant paragraphs on pp. 231-232. I am providing a pointer here instead of quoting directly since I don't know whether this might cause trouble for LEO.
#277AuthorNorbert Juffa (236158) 19 Jan 18, 21:45
>>A statement that "all politicians lie" trivializes the corrosiveness of Mr. Trump's pervasive lying.

Well said. Thank you for that, and also for the reminder about the Big Lie technique.
#278Authorhm -- us (236141) 19 Jan 18, 23:05
He is a not a good liar, though, he does not think his lies thru beforehand like Bill Clinton, who was a great liar, would do. On the other hand, he seems good at diverting attention and confusing things, I am more often than not left wondering whether he was really lying, or maybe he got confused,he had a william Shatner moment, or whatever...

Also, der Wahrheit halber, he is often misquoted by the press, and that is a fact

"I am the least person you'll ever interview"
"Great stuff, great stuff"
"Some great people, great people"

Very general statements... What kind of come back could one have?

#279AuthorAndrea78_2 (1058532) 20 Jan 18, 00:46
he is often misquoted by the press, and that is a fact

Misquoted in what sense? In many instances, original audiovisual recordings as well as screenshots of his Twitter messages are available and accompany (or are linked from) reports by various news sources, both online and offline. When you say that Mr. Trump is often misquoted, roughly what percentage of Trump quotations does that refer to, and by what methodology was that number established?
#280AuthorNorbert Juffa (236158) 20 Jan 18, 01:02
Trump hat mit der Lügerei angefangen schon lange, bevor er Politiker wurde. 1987 behauptete er z.B. in seinem Buch The Art of the Deal noch, sein Großvater stamme aus Karlstad in Schweden. Eine deutsche Abstammung war wohl damals noch nicht opportun.
#281AuthorMiMo (236780) 20 Jan 18, 08:20
Leider ist es immer noch nicht so opportun Deutsch zu sein, aber das ist ein andere Geschichte. Das ist aber nur eine "weiße Lüge", nicht so relevant, wie er sein real estate empire aufgebaut hat, na, das ist viel wichtiger...

Norbert, ein typisches Beispiel davon ist folgendes:
Trump: "Illegal immigration is a crime!"
Die Presse: "Trump says that migrants are criminals"

Trump: "We need to curb illegal immigration to our country!"
Die Presse: "Trump wants to stop people from migrating to the US"
#282AuthorAndrea78_2 (1058532) 20 Jan 18, 09:22
Are you a Russian hacker?

#283Authorhm -- us (236141) 20 Jan 18, 10:02

Das wohl kaum, aber ein Troll scheint er/sie zu sein. Hatten wir länger keinen mehr. Immer nur diese Passfälscher.
#284AuthorMr Chekov (DE) (522758) 20 Jan 18, 10:10
Are these exact quotes? I cannot find any specific instances that would match, maybe you have some links handy that illustrate these points? I will note that summarizing an entire speech or press conference isn't the same as providing a quotation. Mischaracterizing isn't the same as misquoting.

I am doubtful that the president is misquoted often, as was claimed. Mischaracterizations do happen occasionally. Some probably happen inadvertently, because all too often its not clear from the president's tweets what his position actually is. Others clearly happen on purpose, such as referring to the various proposed versions of the travel ban as a "Muslim ban". I do not consider use of such inaccurate terminology helpful in political discourse, but I do understand why people create such misleading terms to further an agenda.

The Trump administration is on record that it not only wants to stop illegal immigration but also cut legal immigration in half. That's obvious not stopping migration to the US, but certainly curtailing it sharply. And this is not just idle talk: there are specific rule changes in the works for 2018 to facilitate a reduction in legal immigration.

I don't recall any press report  (as opposed to editorial / opinion) in a reputable publication stating that the president "wants to stop people from migrating to the US". But I don't read everything that is out there and would be happy to augment my knowledge base via any specific examples provided.
#285AuthorNorbert Juffa (236158) 20 Jan 18, 10:17
Sorry about the late reply. Well, look at the whole "I'd probably have a good relationship" to the Korean guy thing. That is a good example of misquoting him, trying to make him look bad, when he already looks bad on his own, anyway.

Another example, on a Tyrolian newspaper, on the 15th, they had a big image of Trump saying "Ich bin die am wenigsten rassistische Person, die Sie jemals interviewt haben. Und wer anders sagt ist ein verdammter Reisfresser!"

Two days ago, on ABC: "Back in the USA from Davos, the president faces right away yet another giant controversy!" Then you listen to the story, and it was really nothing big, basically insignificant stuff.

Those were not exact quotes, they were translations from local TV news.

I cannot say he gets misquoted in print that often, in fact, in print, rarely (they are not stupid, libel is a serious thing), but it seems like they always trying to put things in a way that makes him look bad. You don't think?
#286AuthorAndrea78_2 (1058532) 29 Jan 18, 03:52
Na ja, Donald J. Trumps berüchtigte Tweets stammen dann wohl auch nicht von ihm, sondern von irgendeinem missgünstigen Saboteur, der ihn in schlechtem Licht erscheinen lassen will.
#287AuthorMiMo (236780) 29 Jan 18, 05:58
@286, you don't think?

Doch, natürlich. Hinter all den Verleumdungen, zu denen sich die bekanntlich gleichgeschaltete amerikanische Presse verschworen hat, um T. als größenwahnsinnigen Trottel mit undurchsichtigen Interessen und dumpfem White-Supremacy-Weltbild dastehen zu lassen, sieht tragischerweise niemand seine wahre Natur, nämlich die des ebenso kompetenten wie effizienten Wohltäters, der rastlos und selbstlos für sein Land ... Doch, doch, den Quatsch glaube ich natürlich oder werde ihn glauben, sobald ich mal zwei Monate am Stück FOX News geguckt habe.
#288AuthorMr Chekov (DE) (522758) 29 Jan 18, 08:27
@Mr Checkov (DE) #288:
Hast Du ein Faible für Selbstkasteiung?

Selbst CNN, die nun wirklich Trump gefressen haben, haben auch regelmäßig Artikel, die seine Erfolge aufzeigen. Nur ist eben die Frage: Was ist ein Erfolg für Trump und was ist tatsächlich gut für die Mehrheit der Bevölkerung der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika?
Die Steuerreform ist sicherlich ein Erfolg für Trump. Sie wird auch in den kommendne Jahren für die Mehrheit der Bevölkerung eher eine Entlastung bringen, bevor in einigen Jahren für die Mehrheit der Bevölkerung die Belastung höher wird als zuvor. Dazu kommt, dass diese Steuerreform die Einnahmen des Staates signifikant verringert, was in Konsequenz bedeutet, dass auch die Ausgaben verringert werden müssen.
#289AuthorAGB (236120) 29 Jan 18, 09:56
Another example, on a Tyrolian newspaper, on the 15th, they had a big image of Trump saying "Ich bin die am wenigsten rassistische Person, die Sie jemals interviewt haben. Und wer anders sagt ist ein verdammter Reisfresser!"

In welcher Zeitung stand das denn? Ich finde online dazu momentan nichts. War das Teil einer normalen Nachrichtenreportage, oder eher Teil eines satirischen Kommentars oder einer Persiflage?

Die Steuerreform ist sicherlich ein Erfolg für Trump. Sie wird auch in den kommendne Jahren für die Mehrheit der Bevölkerung eher eine Entlastung bringen

Mit Ausnahme von New York, New Jersey, Connecticut und Kalifornien, und da voraussichtlich vor allen jenen, die nicht für Trump gestimmt haben. Ein Schelm, wer Böses dabei denkt :-)

was in Konsequenz bedeutet, dass auch die Ausgaben verringert werden müssen.

Das gab es doch noch nie. Nein, die Sozialausgaben müssen gesenkt werden, damit der Etat für mehr Militär und die Mauer 2.0 zu Verfügung steht. Die Gesamtausgaben werden auch weiterhin die Einnahmen übersteigen, das hat doch Tradition bei uns, das kann man nicht so einfach ändern; da könnte ja jeder kommen. Beide großen Parteien sind für "Big Government", sie unterscheiden sich lediglich in den Ansichten, in welchen Bereichen der Staat besonders groß auftreten soll. [Wer Ironie findet, darf sie behalten zwecks Reycling]
#290AuthorNorbert Juffa (236158) 29 Jan 18, 09:57
#290 Teil 1
Der erste Teil der Überschrift stammt wohl aus einem Interview.
Hier ein Bericht dazu aus der Tagesschau:

"Ich bin kein Rassist. Ich bin die am wenigsten rassistische Person, die Sie je interviewt haben, das kann ich Ihnen sagen"

Was er im Original gesagt hat habe ich nicht gefunden.

#291Authortraveller in time (589684) 29 Jan 18, 14:20
Das hat er anscheinend am 14. Januar in Florida gesagt:

“No, no, I’m not a racist. I am the least racist person you have ever interviewed,” Trump said in Florida, according to a pool report. “That I can tell you.”
#292AuthorWachtelkönig (396690) 29 Jan 18, 14:26
Re #291, #292: I am perfectly aware that Trump said the first part. I am interested in the second part, "Und wer anders sagt ist ein verdammter Reisfresser!", which Andrea78_2  gave as an example in #286 of how Trump is often being misquoted in the mainstream media, a claim I had previously questioned.
#293AuthorNorbert Juffa (236158) 29 Jan 18, 17:10
Das wird in dieser Zeitung wohl eine Karikatur gewesen sein (am Tag danach). Wir wollen ja nicht annehmen, daß Andrea das einfach erfunden hat.
#294AuthorWachtelkönig (396690) 29 Jan 18, 17:40
I do not want to assume anything, which is exactly why I asked. My working hypothesis is that the context was satire, caricature, or something of that nature, in which case this would not be an instance of Mr. Trump being misquoted in the press.
#295AuthorNorbert Juffa (236158) 29 Jan 18, 17:55
It was indeed a cartoon. One could say he is not being *really* misquoted. Point well taken. On the other hand, the cartoon was pretty big, nicely centered in the middle of the page. Will the (uneducated) masses understand that the press, in this case, is utilizing a caricature, an exageration, in order to make a point, in order to point out the grotesque in Trump's behavior/communication style?

My grandpa would say: I am not much of a betting man, but if I were indeed a betting man, I would bet a lot people did believe he actually said it.

For what concerns taxes, as a Bernie supporter, I don't think I need to state the obvious here, but many will argue that tax cuts will spur the economy, which in turn will generate more revenue, which in turn will generate more tax monies, as well.

PS I will contact you privately to send you a copy of the cartoon in question (you need an "abo" to see the newspaper, it is not freely available online).
#296AuthorAndrea78_2 (1058532) 30 Jan 18, 05:34
Heute auf dem T-an-der-Leine zu finden. (nach unten rollen)

Fünf Eigenschaften verlangt das Feldhandbuch der amerikanischen Armee von Führungskräften: Sie brauchen erstens Vertrauen, zweitens Disziplin und Selbstkontrolle, drittens Urteilsvermögen und kritisches Denken, viertens Selbstreflexion, fünftens Empathie. Ich denke, nach einem Jahr Trump können wir sagen: Der gegenwärtige US-Präsident und oberste Befehlshaber der Streitkräfte besitzt keine dieser Eigenschaften. Wenige demokratische Staatschefs haben in so kurzer Zeit so viel Unruhe gestiftet, Zwietracht gesät und Verbündete verprellt wie der narzistische Milliardär im Weißen Haus.

Oder liege ich falsch mit meinem harten Urteil? Ist Trump in Wahrheit ein genialer Querkopf, der sich einfach weigert, sich dem zynischen Politbetrieb anzupassen, der unbeirrt seinen eigenen Weg geht und dafür von uns mindestens so viel Bewunderung verlangen darf wie von Siemens-Chef Kaeser und anderen deutschen Firmenchefs, die dem Präsidenten auf dem Weltwirtschaftsforum in Davos Elogen sangen?

Vielleicht wissen wir heute Abend mehr. Da wird Trump vor dem US-Kongress seine Rede zur Lage der Nation halten. Unser Washington-Korrespondent Fabian Reinbold wird die Rede hinterher analysieren. Darauf bin ich mindestens ebenso gespannt wie auf die Rede selbst.
#297AuthorMasu (613197) 30 Jan 18, 08:40
@296: Da Medienkompetenz in D bereits in der Schule vermittelt wird, kannst du beruhigt davon ausgehen, dass eine Karikatur nur von jemandem als Originalzitat verstanden wird, der sie unbestimmt missverstehen will. Das ist dann üblicherweise jemand, der auch von alternativen Fakten spricht und den Klimawandel für eine Verschwörungstheorie hält.
#298AuthorYarith (877626) 30 Jan 18, 08:48
#298: Es war allerdings eine Tyrolian newspaper. ;-)
#299Authortraveller in time (589684) 30 Jan 18, 09:04
"Vielleicht wissen wir heute Abend mehr. Da wird Trump vor dem US-Kongress seine Rede zur Lage der Nation halten."

Nein, leider nicht. Es wird eine Rede zur "State of the UnioM" ...

#300AuthorB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 30 Jan 18, 09:07
iThis thread has been closed.
LEO uses cookies in order to facilitate the fastest possible website experience with the most functions. In some cases cookies from third parties are also used. For further information about this subject please refer to the information under  Leo’s Terms of use / Data protection (Cookies)