"In Praise of Malapropaganda": https://www.thedailybeast.com/in-praise-of-malapropaganda In Praise of Malapropaganda America has a long history of politicians mangling their words. But only Donald Trump has managed to find voters who don’t really seem to mind. Robert Alden Rubin Updated Apr. 14, 2017 9:32AM ET Published Sep. 08, 2015 1:00AM ET William Gladstone, the shrewd Victorian-era prime minister of the United Kingdom, once called political speech “the art of saying nothing in many words.” Today’s major candidates try to perfect that art by staying relentlessly “on message.” That’s why media coverage of the early presidential campaign season so often focuses on gaffes, mistakes, and malapropisms. And for good reason. Campaign gaffes can produce real news. Former New Republic Editor Michael Kinsley famously defined a gaffe as a statement that inadvertently revealed something true—such as views or policy plans that the politician would prefer to obscure. Kinsley’s definition sprang out of reporting on a 1984 event at which President Ronald Reagan admitted to considering getting rid of the tax deduction on home mortgages. Substantive mistakes, as when President Gerald Ford argued in 1976 that Poland wasn’t dominated by the Soviet Union, get pounced on because they can be proven wrong with facts, and they challenge candidates to explain and justify themselves. Careful rehearsals of talking points have mostly eliminated these in recent years, though Texas Gov. Rick Perry didn’t do himself any favors in 2012 when he forgot one of his points during an early Republican debate—the “oops” moment that came to define Perry’s candidacy. But the least consequential and most delightful campaign goofs are malapropisms, where a candidate gets tangled up in language and syntax and says something unintentionally funny. For example, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said in February that one of his top priorities was “reforming a broken immigration system and turning it into an economic—a catalytic converter for sustained economic growth.” Few would think that Bush didn’t know the difference between the metaphor of a catalyst (a chemical agent of change) and the automobile exhaust device, but the mistake was worthy of his famously inarticulate brother, the much misunderestimated President George W. Bush. A month earlier, when former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s teleprompter failed during a speech at the Iowa Freedom Summit, she soldiered on, urging her audience to rise to the defense of fellow conservatives: “And we don’t sit on our thumbs this time when one of our own is being crucified and falsely accused of whatever the hip accusation of the day happens to be, right?” This is what’s known as a portmanteau malapropism, awkwardly fusing two related words or ideas—in this case the expressions “sit on our hands” (do nothing) and “twiddle our thumbs” (waste time). The comment did little to refudiate perceptions that Palin is America’s current champion malapropagandist. Nor are Democrats immune to malapropisms. Boston’s former mayor, the late Thomas Menino, was famous for them, notably lamenting that parking problems in the city were “an Alcatraz around my neck.” And Vice President Joe Biden, often mentioned as a potential challenger to Hillary Clinton, once introduced his boss as “a man I’m proud to call my friend. A man who will be the next president of the United States—Barack America!” The candidates most likely to commit malapropisms tend to be those who cultivate a folksy, plain-spoken image that insulates them from charges of elite intellectualism. Biden is a good example, even though he’s a well-educated lawyer. By way of contrast, politicians such as Clinton and Barack Obama, also lawyers, cultivate a more wonkish, academic image, choosing their words precisely and rarely stumbling over them. We may admire their precision, but they’re not as much fun to read and write about. This summer much attention has focused on the candidacy of celebrity businessman Donald Trump, who cultivates the image of a no-nonsense boss. Trump is not known for malapropisms, and has seemed unafraid of gaffes and mistakes that would damage other candidates. So far, courting controversy has worked for him: His poll standing has risen despite impolitic comments on immigration and the patriotism of rivals. Indeed, Trump’s fearless insistence that he is right on all points, and his scorn of the need to apologize or correct himself, is in its own way “saying nothing in so many words.” He makes no attempt to explain his assertions with detailed policies, and seeks to shut down the conversation by sheer force of personality. In a sense, Trump’s attitude is his policy—a stance that appeals to many potential voters who are unimpressed by carefully reasoned debate. He is, to borrow a phrase from the English playwright Richard Brinsley Sheridan (from whose character, Mrs. Malaprop, we get the word malapropism), “as headstrong as an allegory on the banks of the Nile.” Plenty of Americans seem to like that in a politician. Robert Alden Rubin is the author of Going to Hell in a Hen Basket: An Illustrated Dictionary of Modern Malapropisms (Flatiron Books, 2015). He teaches writing in Raleigh, North Carolina.
I have to agree with that one. What's the point really? Trump will just lie and make more fake promises and make nasty remarks because that's what he does best.
Biden is setting up Trump for the Rope-A-Dope. Trump thinks he can beat Biden in debates because he thinks Biden is "slow". Biden is just lying in wait to pounce on Trump in those debates.
Trump's campaign has been calling for a fourth debate in early September for weeks. It formalized that request on Wednesday with a letter to the commission. The letter, written by former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, who represents the Trump campaign on debate issues, argued that the current debate schedule was an "outdated dinosaur and not reflective of voting realities in 2020." He noted that millions of Americans will have the ability to vote early before the first general election debate in late September. The commission rejected that argument on Thursday, noting that "there is a difference between ballots having been issued by a state and those ballots having been cast by voters, who are under no compulsion to return their ballots before the debates." The commission also noted that in 2016, when the debate schedule was similar, "only .0069% of the electorate had voted at the time of the first debate." "The Commission has found that three 90-minute debates work well to fulfill the voter education purposes the debates are intended to serve," the letter read. "If the candidates were to agree that they wished to add to that schedule, the Commission would consider that request but remains committed to the schedule of debates it has planned as reflected in the attached release." Andrew Bates, a Biden spokesman, responded to the Giuliani letter on Wednesday by saying that the Biden campaign has said "all along, including in a letter to the commission in June, that Joe Biden will appear on the dates that the commission selected and in the locations they chose." Bates and other Biden spokespeople did not immediately respond to whether they will back a fourth debate. It is unclear whether Trump's campaign, as Bates notes, has officially agreed to appear at the commission's three scheduled debates. Erin Perrine, a Trump campaign spokeswoman, said, "Yes, we have agreed with the debate commission," when asked by Fox News on Tuesday whether the campaign has "formally committed" to the commission's appearances. The bolded portions say otherwise. I think you may have been duped by the underlined portion.
the confusion on Trump walk back probably date back to the below. It was Trump statement back in dec 2019 that lead some to think he might skip the debates. Biden has never even suggested skipping the 3 debates they agreed to earlier this year. He clarify a number of time that he will be debating. yes, it’s the great daily wire https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-suggests-he-might-make-major-changes-to-debates The New York Times reported last week that Trump has been “discussing with his advisers the possibility of sitting out the general election debates in 2020” because “he does not trust the Commission on Presidential Debates, the nonprofit entity that sponsors the debates.” ... “As President, the debates are up to me, and there are many options, including doing them directly & avoiding the nasty politics of this very biased Commission,” Trump concluded. “I will make a decision at an appropriate time but in the meantime, the Commission on Presidential Debates is NOT authorized to speak for me (or R’s)!”
If we had one it would go like: Trump lies, Biden calls him a liar and explains the truth, rinse and repeat
It's reverse psychology. He's baiting Biden to call him out then Trump has him by the short and curlies.
Do you really think the man that can't put together a coherent sentence extemporaneously is going to win a debate with a lawyer, with 40 years of political experience, who served in the White House 8 years, who has put forth detailed plans and platforms for almost every issue? Seems a stretch.
Ocham razor. It’s who Trump is and the right wing distort what actually happen. Trump camp asked for a 4th debate with a list of their suggested “unbiased” moderator. Lol. Trump is just being trump and his follower is being his follower.
There really is no reason for Biden to debate Trump. Biden already has an 8 point lead and gets nothing out of debating Trump. Trump is the one desperate. Biden should sit back, act Presidential and let Trump continue to embarrass himself and his administration.