He didn’t always speak like a grade schooler:
There are numerous contrasting examples from decades ago, including this — with sophisticated grammar and syntax, and a coherent paragraph-length chain of thought — from a 1992 Charlie Rose interview: “Ross Perot, he made some monumental mistakes. Had he not dropped out of the election, had he not made the gaffes about the watch dogs and the guard dogs, if he didn’t have three or four bad days — and they were real bad days — he could have convincingly won this crazy election.”
The change in linguistic facility could be strategic; maybe Trump thinks his supporters like to hear him speak simply and with more passion than proper syntax. “He may be using it as a strategy to appeal to certain types of people,” said Michaelis. But linguistic decline is also obvious in two interviews with David Letterman, in 1988 and 2013, presumably with much the same kind of audience. In the first, Trump threw around words such as “aesthetically” and “precarious,” and used long, complex sentences. In the second, he used simpler speech patterns, few polysyllabic words, and noticeably more fillers such as “uh” and “I mean.”
The reason linguistic and cognitive decline often go hand in hand, studies show, is that fluency reflects the performance of the brain’s prefrontal cortex, the seat of higher-order cognitive functions such as working memory, judgment, understanding, and planning, as well as the temporal lobe, which searches for and retrieves the right words from memory. Neurologists therefore use tests of verbal fluency, and especially how it has changed over time, to assess cognitive status.
Maybe he even used to know what the nuclear triad was, or how many articles the Constitution has.
[Update a few minutes later]
Related, I think: What a conservative sees from inside Trump’s Washington:
for connected conservatives in DC, the media isn’t the only source of information about this administration. I’d venture to say that most of them have by now heard at least one or two amazing stories attesting to the emerging conventional wisdom: that the president either can’t, or refuses to, follow any kind of policy discussion for more than a few minutes; that the president will not be told no, or corrected about anything, forcing his staff to take their concerns to the media if they want to get his attention; that the infighting within the West Wing is unprecedentedly vicious, and that those sort of failures always stem from the top; and that his own hand-picked staffers “have no respect for him, indeed they seem to palpitate with contempt for him.” They hear these things from conservatives, including people who were Trump supporters or at least, Trump-neutral. They know these folks. They know, to their sorrow, that these people are telling the truth.
They can also compare what they’re hearing to what they heard, both on and off the record, during the last Republican administration. Even in Bush’s final days, when the financial crisis was in full swing and his approval ratings hovered around 25 percent, there was nothing like this level of dysfunction inside the White House, this frenzy of backbiting leakage.
So even though they agree with conservative outsiders that the media skews very liberal, and take all its pronouncements about Republicans with a heavy sprinkling of salt, they know that the reports of this administration’s dysfunction aren’t all media hype. They have seen the media report on their own work, and that of their friends; they know what sort of things that bias distorts, and what it doesn’t. Washington conservatives know that reporters are not making up these incredible quotes, or relying only on Democratic holdovers, or getting bits of gossip from the janitor. They know that the Trump administration is in fact leaking like a rusty sieve — from the top on down — and that this is a sign of a president who has, in just four short months, completely lost control over his own hand-picked staff. Which is why the entire city, left to right, is watching the unfolding drama with mouth agape and heads shaking.
This is why people are seriously talking about the 25th Amendment.
[Update a few minutes later]
Seriously, this should concern Trump supporters who want him to “drain the swamp”:
The only people seriously thinking about the 25th amendment are the Democrat and Republican cronies who see their livelihood threatened by a President who is not beholden to the Deep State machine. The Never-Trumpers outside Washington don’t count, they are far outnumbered by the normal folks who elected Trump to drain the swamp, and to add another tired metaphor – you know you’re over the target when you’re getting a lot of flak. Every day the reactions to Trump demonstrate how corrupt the American political system has become.
If you’re a Trump supporter, you should read all of McArdle’s piece. As much as he may want to, he’s not capable of “draining the swamp.” He doesn’t even know how to start.
How does a $3.6 Trillion budget cut sound as a start?
It would be nice if it happened, but Trump doesn’t control the budget.
There’s a lot of delusion going on here, by both Trump and his supporters, about the power of the presidency.
It is interesting though, that the same people who will torpedo Trump’s budget proposals rolled over and showed their belly to Obama.
Rolled over for Obama, but really they liked the Biden touch.
Trump doesn’t control the budget.
Exactly right, yet he should be blamed for it not being in control? You know where the blame belongs… on those that do not support Trump. There is no other logical conclusion regardless of both Trumps real and imagined faults.
Adults know the difference between liking and accomplishing. Opposing what you want is not accomplishing.
Exactly right, yet he should be blamed for it not being in control?
I’m not blaming him for not being in control. I’m blaming him for not understanding what to do about it, because he had no idea what the job of being president entailed, as he recently essentially admitted himself.
You assume he doesn’t know what to do about it but that assumption is incorrect. The thing is the solution takes time because of structure. Trump has already demonstrated he can maneuver around that structure and still get things done.
It’s just a matter of time that results will wake up the foot draggers so they get on board and the momentum will improve.
Trump has already demonstrated he can maneuver around that structure and still get things done.
Not really. His “Muslim ban” was just shot down in court. Again. Because it was done so quickly and incompetently.
“As much as he may want to, he’s not capable of “draining the swamp.” He doesn’t even know how to start.”
Let’s start with a budget that starts the herculean job of getting the deficit under control; followed by judicial appointments (not just SCOTUS) that believe that its not the job of judges to makes laws; rescinding of questionable Obama executive orders (like for instance cap-and-trade by executive fiat); enforcing the law securing our borders; and more I could list. Apparently the dysfunctional “chaos” among the white house staff doesn’t seem to be stopping Trump. Of course he is the sort who will have no problem house cleaning (repeatedly if necessary) when he decides he wants to. Staff “dysfunction” is a highly correctable problem when one is willing to sack/reassign people like Trump is; he may also be one of those rare birds who knows how to put to good use staff tension/disarray when he wants to. Amazing how are unbiased media makes more of a story about staff dysfunction in the white house than another recent story I could think about: China’s savaging of our intelligence capabilities under the Obama administration:
China has ‘killed or imprisoned at least a dozen US spies in two years’
US officials have called it the worst intelligence breach in decades
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/china-killed-or-imprisoned-20-us-spies-fbi-cia-a7747686.html
Did you read McArdle’s piece? Of course it’s stopping him. At some point (and he may already be there), he’s not going to be able to hire competent staff, because he continually betrays his underlings by continually changing the story. And without staff that knows how Washington works, he will get nothing done.
“No, it’s Trump.”
It’s both…you are not going to “drain the swamp” by hiring inside the beltway insiders they are to committed to business as usual that’s why they hate Trump. He (Trump) will have many staff firings/reassignments IMHO not at all surprised. He should also IMHO have his staff reasonably stable by the end of this year but we will see. He seems to be achieving results already even with staffing problems. His biggest problem is the implacable hatred of the main stream media which will dog him throughout his term(s) no matter what he achieves. A recent example is the thought that Trump shared intel with the Russians from Israel is practically an impeachable offense; while the Chinese apparently delivering a dismembering blow of our foreign intelligence under the incompetence of the previous administration is a completely forgettable story.
It is amazing how things like China executing our agents wasn’t known until now and other things like the OPM hack and status of the military was never a big issue in the media. Obama gave the serial numbers and locations of British nuclear missiles to Russia.
Trump told Russia about a plot to use bombs in laptops to blow up airplanes. This is supposed to be the biggest breach in security in USA history or something. Its all a bunch of BS created, often out of thin air, by a media that views itself as the opposition that is required to use any means necessary to destroy the President. Even if that means spilling state secrets.
There is nothing Trump can do to change the way the DNC media has chosen to conduct itself. He might be able to do something about his staff that talks to the press but he wont be able to stop the press from lying about what takes place.
His biggest problem is the implacable hatred of the main stream media which will dog him throughout his term(s) no matter what he achieves.
That’s a problem, but one he exacerbates by his own impulsive needless actions and inability to focus. I believe that his management style is chaotic, and not conducive to actually achieving policy goals.
But there’s nothing he could do even if he did become more focused and less impulsive, the Media and vocal Leftists that use them would still hate him, and still do everything they could to remove him.
But it would be much more difficult for them to do so, and he’d actually be getting things done with Congress.
He’d also be getting things done with Congress if they’d pay attention to what Trump has revealed to the deplorables about the left (aka media) rather than being the cowards they are.
They could finally, once and all, destroy the scam media if they’d simply follow Trump’s lead and get things done during a time when the left literally can’t stop them if they’d simply pull together.
Instead Trump is going to have to drag his own party across the finish line while they all whine like babies… but watch the change in them when they discover Trump is winning. They’ll all be singing a variation of the same song, “we were with you the whole way.” In as shameless a manner they think they can get away with.
His biggest problem is…
…the people that claim to support his goals but can’t see past his style. (to be rebutted by claiming he has no style avoiding the truth that style is, what it is.)
Tim, I believe your absolutely right about staff adjustments and we can be certain the media will spin this as a problem rather than the solving of problems.
“No, it’s Trump.”
Here’s another “forgettable” story of the gross incompetence of the previous administration:
“Navy’s Depleted Aircraft Will Take Years to Rebuild After Obama-Era Defense Cuts
Nearly two-thirds of Navy strike fighters unable to fly”
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/militarys-depleted-aircraft-will-take-years-rebuild-obama-era-defense-cuts/
I’m not defending the Obama administration.
“I’m not defending the Obama administration.”
Not saying you are my point in posting those links was to show you the extent of media bias against Trump vs the coddling of the previous administration. One of the prez’s principal jobs is the maintenance of our military’s readiness. And yet 2/3 of our navy fighters being not flyable is a throw away story; reported and quickly forgotten like it is nothing. China imploding our foreign intelligence in greatest blow in decades also will be quickly forgotten. Yet we will get to hear about Trump allegedly sharing intel from Israel with Russian like it is the grosses most egregious incompetence in the history of the world; and of course the media will endlessly repeat it over and over again.
There is no question that the media are biased against Trump more than any other president in recent history. THere is also no question that there was no person who came into the office less prepared, both in knowledge and temperament, than Trump.
Not defending, but perpetuating, by not swallowing your distaste for a man so that you can’t fully support his agenda.
It’s a question of priorities. This is one of those odd situations where the choice is being ‘right’ OR being effective. Not supporting Trump means support for the opposers (that’s the true nature of politics, like it or not..)
People thinking the 25th provides them with some kind of hoped for solution are seriously deranged. Would Trump pass a competency hearing? Certainly.
Trump doesn’t help himself with his style which offends many (myself included.) But there is a serious lack of maturity in those grasping for straws because they dislike Trump. He wasn’t my choice. He was the only choice. There was no Reagan waiting in the wings. Holding back the leftist flood was and is a losing strategy. Trump represents wake-up and shake-up and the collective deplorable consciousness understood this.
The dysfunction is real and just proves my point. Instead of buying the crap, people should understand it’s not Trump, but they themselves that are wasting this historic opportunity. One party has control of our government and can only be prevented from accomplishment by their own faults, not Trumps (real and imagined.)
Trump is getting things done despite those that should be supporting and defending him. They’re all a bunch of worthless, despicable cowards. Politics is always compromise. It’s about moving the ball, touchdowns are rare.
Mature balance would not be distracted by all the what ifs. The stupid party is doing their best to earn the title. Imagine what could be accomplished if they pulled together instead of trying to tear apart. It is shameful.
The dysfunction is real and just proves my point. Instead of buying the crap, people should understand it’s not Trump, but they themselves that are wasting this historic opportunity.
No, it’s Trump.
For it to be that “it’s Trump” you’d have to show that the rest are not the problem… but it’s absolutely clear that they are. You could claim that Trump should be a better leader (another of those unassailable arguments that means close to nothing) but those around him are not supposed to be children but adults. Can they support some of Trump’s agenda? Of course they can and they should. Trump has real faults but those supposed supporters should be focused on moving things forward instead of wasting their time on manufactured outrage. It’s time to put up or shut up.
You don’t have to like someone to realize they’re good for your cause. On paper Trump’s admin picks should be thrilling conservatives. Now all they have to do is start acting like it.
They can’t get away with putting failure all on Trump when the only limited success is coming from Trump and definitely not them. Quit looking where the media is directing attention (because it’s a con) and look at the actuality.
By next year we should start to see more positive results that can’t continue being ignored. We are already seeing them now.
For it to be that “it’s Trump” you’d have to show that the rest are not the problem
Are you so bereft of logic that you are unable to recognize that both are the problem?
Again you see the trees and miss the forest. It doesn’t matter if both are true. So the answer to your question is my logic is fine, thank you very much (have you noticed that your go to and false position is that I’m stupid?)
You can make the case that Trump is ineffective (which flies in the face of the facts) but his goals are your goals. You are in fact, fighting against your own goals.
Why? Because you can’t get past your [justifiable] distaste for the man.
I’m not “fighting against” Trump. I’m simply pointing out his numerous deficiencies.
Rand, I am shocked!
Are you becoming one of the Usual Suspects — on your own fine, fine Web site?
Are the “inmates running the asylum” inasmuch as it is your loyal, committed readers who are now setting the terms of the editorial position taken by your excellent blog?
I’m not “fighting against” Trump. I’m simply pointing out his numerous deficiencies.
I believe that’s called a distinction without a difference.
Rand, you are a straight shooter. Normally a very good quality but it’s tripping you up in this case. If nobody was criticizing Trump, you’d not only be justified but would have an obligation to point those things out. But do you really believe Trump lacks critics?
The question answers itself. At the risk of being accused of being a Trump supporter, you might want to spend more time understanding and supporting his agenda and refine your criticism to why his actions don’t lead to his goals (but even there you would be part of a crowd… you are anything but an ordinary analyst. It’s one of the many things I (and others) admire you for.)
I believe that’s called a distinction without a difference.
Fortunately, it doesn’t matter what you believe.
At the risk of being accused of being a Trump supporter, you might want to spend more time understanding and supporting his agenda
To the degree I understand his agenda (it’s not always easy to understand the true agenda of a con artist), I support some of it, and I oppose some of it. And I’m going to continue to point out the ways in which he himself sabotages it.
You have three choises: support, opposition or indifference.
You have plenty to say so we can rule out indifference.
Highlighting deficiencies doesn’t sound like support. Especially when it’s not even handed.
Hmmm… what else is left?
Everyone will disappoint. Politics is getting what you want from those that are deficient.
It’s stupid to just blindly support anything or anyone. I will support him when he does things worth supporting, I will oppose him when he deserves to be opposed, and I will criticize him when he deserves criticism.
Don’t forget how the media treated Reagan. For eight years he was a senile buffoon, remember?
I sure do. This is nothing new.
The contempt for Trump from the conservative wing is understandable. Trump is not a conservative. But, conservatives do not know how to win. Trump was our next best choice. And, he won.
So, I don’t care much about NatRev’s frothing, even though I like the publication and especially some writers in particular. Anything from Bloomberg is not worth my time reading. I have no idea what StatNews is, who it represents, or any reason I should care. So, my reaction to all this purported inside stuff is basically a yawn.
Not that I do not appreciate our gracious host from bringing it to my attention. It’s always good to know what the currents are. Even a whirlpool going nowhere can be a hazard.
I was struck less by the differences in Trump’s earlier remarks than the similarities; he was essentially the same Trump, closer in years to his college days. He was in his mid-40s in 1992. If someone doesn’t keep up an effort to challenge himself intellectually as he gets older, he starts falling into tropes in his thinking.
The most valid reason to have opposed him in the presidential race is also one of the reasons neither Hillary nor Bernie should ever have been considered.
Trump testified before Congress, a few years back, regarding proposals to renovate the UN building in New York. The topic of construction was entirely within his area of expertise. He used simple terms — and a very great deal of exaggeration — to address complex issues and concepts: “Curtain walls” and “swing space” and “short leases” and “New York land-lords (lovely people but they’ll steal you blind.)”
He made a bunch of falsifiable predictions about how the projects would go, how long they’d take (beyond plan) and how much they’d cost (over budget).
For some reason, we’re not reviewing his predictions and demonstrated expertise…
It’s not clear that construction expertise carries over into other big projects. But we could at least begin by determining whether or not he was making a valid public analysis of a governmental activity, back then.
determining whether or not he was making a valid public analysis
The place to start is… does he complete his own projects on time and under budget?
“It’s not clear that construction expertise carries over into other big projects.”
Or maybe it just might:
“Trump planning to cut large infrastructure and construction permitting from 10 years to 4-12 months and adding $200 billion in incentives”
“To speed up infrastructure projects, officials are preparing to overhaul the federal environmental review and permitting system, which they blame for costly delays. Trump asked advisers whether they could collapse that process, which he said takes at least 10 years, down to four months. “But we’ll be satisfied with a year,” Trump said. “It won’t be more than a year.”
The Trump administration, determined to overhaul and modernize the nation’s infrastructure, is drafting plans to privatize some public assets such as airports, bridges, highway rest stops and other facilities, according to top officials and advisers.
In his proposed budget released Tuesday, President Trump called for spending $200 billion over 10 years to “incentivize” private, state and local spending on infrastructure.”
More “madness” from poor unprepared Trump.
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/05/trump-planning-to-cut-large-infrastructure-and-construction-permitting-from-10-years-to-4-12-months-and-adding-200-billion-in-incentives.html#more-133305
Cognitive disorder, or Trump Derangement Syndrome? Trump had been preparing for years and would no doubt market himself appropriately. Trump is also a master rhetorician, so naturally there will be less emphasis on facts and arguments to make the sale to the electorate.
If his cognitive abilities are in question they would have shown up during his many campaign speeches and debates.
Ya, the first article says he either intentionally changed his speaking patterns or is retarded. Then concludes he is retarded. He employed shrewd use of language in the election but it must have been all retard luck.
Then McArdle totally ignores that the establishment GOP has been out to destroy Trump. And she seems to think Republicans want, a fix for Obamacare’s many problems. No wait, she says Washington Republicans want that. At a time when the GOP controls congress and the Presidency, the GOPe would rather stab the base and the President in the back rather than actually do anything they have been campaigning on for decades.
That’s not Trump’s fault.
Oh, and the eGOP hates Trump, so I’m supposed to believe anything McArdle says she heard on the cocktail circuit from confirmed Trump haters.
My vote for Trump was just as much against the GOP as it was against Shrillery.
Why wouldn’t you believe her when she plays the telephone game and is sixth or seventh in line?
I generally respect McArdle, but about Trump she is as deranged as the rest. They seem to stand around telling each other how shocked they are.
William F Buckley said he’d rather be ruled by guys off the street than by the elites, and he meant it. Obviously the guy off the street would have a harder time maneuvering DC. That’s factored into the cost. The alternative is some politician.
“William F Buckley said he’d rather be ruled by guys off the street than by the elites, and he meant it. Obviously the guy off the street would have a harder time maneuvering DC. That’s factored into the cost. The alternative is some politician.”
Well said…sums up the current situation nicely. The mere fact for instance that Trump has cracked down on border security has caused a huge drop in illegals entering; even without the wall being started. Guess people realize instinctively when a man means business as opposed to a typical politician who merely knows how to belt out a speech.
Obviously the guy off the street would have a harder time maneuvering DC. That’s factored into the cost. The alternative is some politician.
I agree being an outsider makes it more difficult to maneuver DC, but I’ll hold out hope that Trump’s an anomaly. I’m still willing to give a competent outsider a chance over a career politician.
This is why people are seriously talking about the 25th Amendment.
But not serious people. America’s first coup wont fix any problems with Trump, congress, or our society.
Second, but who’s counting?
This one won’t go as well for the elites as the last one, though. Then, they had the people on their side because of Vietnam. This time, it’s clear the motivation is government of the elite, for the elite, and by the elite.
National Review Online turned into just another clickbait site so quickly I noticed.
Dr. Pournelle’s posted a very interesting story on Comey.
I respect the good doctor very much. If he thinks this is worth posting, then there’s probably a lot of truth to it.
You expect Trump to deal with these people – let him work.
If Comey was wearing a wire when he had dinner with Trump, then it is good he got fired. The head of the FBI shouldn’t be trying to entrap the President.
If that portrayal of both Trump and Comey is anywhere near accurate, my view of Trump’s political skills just went through the roof!
I had expected Trump would get a handle on his internal swamp people in less than a year. Now I’m certain of it.
My 77 y.o. mother noted that only Fox has been covering Trump’s foreign trip (I hadn’t paid attention.)
Certainly the British-accent-Trump videos are relevant here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUGT30gGtiI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=728_Lwz3nD0
“God, he talks just like a prince!”
Roz Doyle, ‘Frasier’, 11 May 2000
Would it be better with glasses and a beard? Rand would insist it be a Groucho Marx style that includes eyebrows.
Groucho, btw, being one of the most intelligent men you might ever meet. It’s too bad people can’t see past style.
Then you have glasses on the tip of your nose with pipe. We all know it’s actually wardrobe that determines intelligence. /sarc
This first clip shows that while Trump doesn’t always speak in complete sentences, he references contextual stories, which is good communication. Its a bit like having a conversation when someone interrupts with a good point, only everyone talking is Trump.
The gender switch debate from the Guardian is also relevant, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yC7-JsR2Fk
The article reeks of Obamaphilia. After all, if you’re going to judge someone by how they speak, Barry is the man, being so eloquent and all…
Obviously he would make a great leader.