https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_and_the_English_Langu...
Trump uses political language
political language makes murder respectable
------
Trump makes murder respectable
Trump was against the Iraq War, probably the biggest killing event of the last xxx years.
Regardless of politics, Trump has a very idiosyncratic approach to speaking. His mastery of this approach reminds me strongly of the Orwell essay linked above.
I've no desire to debate Trumps policies on HN, but find his approach to speaking quite interesting.
So in a way, yes, he has made murder respectable. The previous two POTUS' made murder respectable by using remote controlled flying bombs.
https://medium.com/@mortenjust/i-doomed-mankind-with-a-free-...
If they didn't, the findings are invalid.
What a lot of smart people don't understand though, is that in politics, not trying to solve problems, but trying to appeal to people is the goal. And you don't use the same tools at all for that.
It's actually a sign of intelligence to use the simplest language necessary when expressing yourself to a broad audience (many with low education). People who use unnecessarily large words are usually doing it to try to sound smarter than they are and to build up their own egos.
I'm an independent that lives in NYC. My vote is always a throw away vote.
The purpose of a dictionary is to aid you in understanding the meaning any English speaker or writer is trying to convey independent of the time period or location, not to dictate valid and invalid words. Some words might be dropped from abridged dictionaries when they fall out of popularity but in 'The English Dictionary' (which doesn't really exist but is approximated by dictionaries like Oxford's) words are added but never removed.
This is different, than say, the mission of L'Académie française which is to act as a language regulator and maintain the official vocabulary and grammar of French.
Sesquiedalian seems to have been popping up since the 1600s.
http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/176752?redirectedFrom=sesquipe...
Not so much about what they wanted to do in the future. They didn't stand for elections.
He does use very simple words.
If you're talking about presidents (which is unfair, the type of speech you give as president vs candidate, and debates are different), it's clear that although the trend was downward, for the past few presidents the average level was about 8th grade:
http://www.vocativ.com/interactive/usa/us-politics/president...
Trump speaks at a 4th grade level. Probably intentionally.
But to compare him to a four year old then make a sweeping statement like "isn't that bright" ?
How could anyone think this? Isn't it obvious that there are domains in which he is, for better or worse, exceptionally intelligent within that domain?
> Isn't it obvious that there are domains in which he is, for better or worse, exceptionally intelligent within that domain?
No, it isn't. He's rich because daddy was rich, without that leg up he'd be living in a trailer park slobbering on himself.
You don't know what an ad hominem is. Those were called insults, insults are not ad hominems.
> The guy is acknowledged to have won (basically) every republican debate.. would you suggest a child can do that?
Yes actually, a decently intelligent high school child could win against that pack of dim bulbs. Republican debates are a joke won by whichever person throws enough red meat to the crowd and insults the other guy the best; they're an embarrassment to even watch.
> Some of his answers last only a few seconds, some are slightly longer, but almost all consist of simple sentences, grammatically and conceptually, and most of them withhold their most important word or phrase until the very end. Trump’s sentences end with a pop, and he seems to know instinctively where to put the emphasis in each one.