The Incoherency of Donald Trump

NATOThe foreign policy world is abuzz today about the latest pronouncement from Donald Trump that casts doubt on his willingness to fulfill our NATO treaty commitments.

The policies Trump puts forward are wildly outside the mainstream of any Republican or Democratic administration in the last 60 years, but what really caught my eye in the transcript of the interview – which was put out because the campaign is now claiming Trump was misquoted – is the basic incoherence of his words. At almost every point, the words Donald Trump speaks literally make no sense.

To wit (emphasis added):

“If we cannot be properly reimbursed for the tremendous cost of our military protecting other countries, and in many cases the countries I’m talking about are extremely rich. Then if we cannot make a deal, which I believe we will be able to, and which I would prefer being able to, but if we cannot make a deal, I would like you to say, I would prefer being able to, some people, the one thing they took out of your last story, you know, some people, the fools and the haters, they said, “Oh, Trump doesn’t want to protect you.” I would prefer that we be able to continue, but if we are not going to be reasonably reimbursed for the tremendous cost of protecting these massive nations with tremendous wealth — you have the tape going on?”

“In the meantime, what have we done? So we’ve kept peace, but in the meantime we’ve let North Korea get stronger and stronger and more nuclear and more nuclear, and you are really saying, “Well, how is that a good thing?” You understand? North Korea now is almost like a boiler. You say we’ve had peace, but that part of Korea, North Korea, is getting more and more crazy. And more and more nuclear. And they are testing missiles all the time.

“And we’ve got our soldiers sitting there watching missiles go up. And you say to yourself, ‘Oh, that’s interesting.’ Now we’re protecting Japan because Japan is a natural location for North Korea. So we are protecting them, and you say to yourself, ‘Well, what are we getting out of this?'”

Just so you understand though, totally on the record, this is not 40 years ago. We are not the same country and the world is not the same world. Our country owes right now $19 trillion, going to $21 trillion very quickly because of the omnibus budget that was passed, which is incredible. We don’t have the luxury of doing what we used to do; we don’t have the luxury, and it is a luxury. We need other people to reimburse us much more substantially than they are giving right now because we are only paying for a fraction of the cost.

By the way, and I know what I’m talking about is massive. If we ever felt there was a reason to defend the United States, we can always deploy, and it would be a lot less expense.

“I don’t think so, but I do give great credit to him for turning it around. You know, the first hour, it seemed like it was over. Then all of a sudden, and the amazing thing is the one that won that was the people. They came out on the streets, and the army types didn’t want to drive over them like they did in Tiananmen Square when they sort of drived them over, and that was the end of that.”

“Meetings. If I ever have the opportunity to do it, meaning if I win, we will have meetings, we will have meetings very early on.”

David, I have statisticians, and I know, like if I went to Pennsylvania, I say, “Give me the statistics on what is going on with respect to manufacturing.” Numbers — 45, 55, 65, I have states that are so bad. New England. Look at New England, what happened.

Cyber is absolutely a thing of the future and the present. Look, we’re under cyberattack, forget about them. And we don’t even know where it’s coming from.

Because we’re obsolete. Right now, Russia and China in particular and other places.

Yes. I am a fan of the future, and cyber is the future.

We have nuclear that we don’t even know if it works. We have nuclear where the telephone systems are 40 years old and they have wire that’s so corroded that they can’t call from one station to the next.”

And I hope you say that I do know my subject. And I do know it. I know it better than, I know it better than the people that do it for ——

It’s possible to puzzle out of these comments what the reader THINKS Mr. Trump is saying but the reality of the words he speaks are incoherent and nonsensical. He does not deserve the benefit of the doubt. No one should level up his words. He deserves to be judged on the basis of what he actually says and the way he says it.

– Austin

 

8 thoughts on “The Incoherency of Donald Trump

  1. Dennis Lang says:

    Obviously I’m hopelessly naive but that millions of citizens apparently consider this fellow capable of being President remains bewildering despite volumes of thoughtful analysis and critical dissecting for months. Is it pathological denial of epidemic proportions?

    The non-endorsement by Ted Cruz almost makes Ted Cruz likeable!

    Now at the climax of the Republican convention legal fisticuffs with his ghost writer!

    http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/donald-trump-threatens-the-ghostwriter-of-the-art-of-the-deal

    What next?

    Looking forward to the Crowd take on Trump’s speech–with it’s usual considered objectivity!

  2. THANK YOU, JON. If anyone who visits this site has not yet read this week’s New Yorker article about Tony Schwartz (who wrote Trump’s The Art of the Deal) and Schwartz’s revelations about Trump’s true persona, don’t miss it. Schwartz, who got rich by writing the book, felt compelled now to spill the beans, because he feels his ghostwriting created a monster. It’s a fascinating look at the process he used to try to get Trump to focus on anything for more than a minute or so (which helps explain the transcript you sent, Jon).

    Unfortunately, if you sat a Trump supporter down and read the article aloud to him, despite the fact that Trump would be revealed as completely uncaring about people, the supporter is so drenched in disgust with the political system that the revelations would not move him.

    I believe it’s crucial to expose independent voters to the contents of the New Yorker article. As far as I know, the TV networks (and the NY Times) have not mentioned it. The article was reported and written by one of the magazine’s finest — Jane Mayer.

    Gary

    1. Dennis Lang says:

      Holy Smoke!!
      Classic film and, yes, the country seems to be living it!!!
      Life imitating art (to coin a phrase).

  3. Dennis Lang says:

    From Cass Sunstein of Bloomberg News, referencing a study by NYU’s Jonathon Haidt on “political psychology”:

    “Whatever Democrats think of the current Republican Party and its nominee, they should stop mocking. Republicans are drawing on long cultural traditions and deep moral convictions. However flawed, a messenger who does that is likely to present a formidable challenge in November–and beyond”

  4. Ellen Mrja says:

    This man is a dangerous idiot. He assured George Stephanopolous this morning that if he’s elected president, Putin “won’t go into the Ukraine.” Stephanopolous’ response: “They’re already there.”

Comments are closed.