I agree, however thinking you have to use a git-like branch n' merge structure specifically to analyse trump' monologue because he's that crazy, is a mistake. Normal conversations are like this too. See my other reply that hints at the fact that what's problematic about Trump's discourse is the lack of topical continuity structure. That role is carried out by Trump's own ego and it is made possible in proportion that everything and anything, like old roman roads, lead back to Trump. In Lacan 1961-62 course about identity, one can read:

>So, what does the neurotic want to know? I'm slowing my delivery here so you can hear clearly, as every single word is important. He wants to know what is real in that which is his passion – in other words, what is real in the effect of the signifier.

And I think this is exactly what Trump is on about. He wants to see for himself the effect of his own name as he utters it (hence the 3rd person). I don't think he came with that remark about "the weave" by accident. I think it was planned and "discussed" internally as the explicit, self-aware display of madness that would allow him to string this nonsense together, and by uttering it, absolve himself from the toxcicity of his own thought process and make it our problem – thus achieving the roaring effects he sought to find in the very name of Trump in the first place.

I agree with a lot of this, but not with the statement that lots of people are like this. If you plotted the trees for most people, they'd have a few branches, but they'd largely get back to the point after one or two asides. Trump just jumps from topic to topic disjointedly, and then in the end just refers back to the original topic, again disjointedly.

He really isn't anywhere near as coherent as the average person, and I'm not American, so I don't even have a dog in this fight. I've only heard him talk, and I usually can't make out any point at all, which I personally have very rarely encountered with the average person (for the sober ones, at least).