Hyper_Upgrade said:
That is an interesting take to say the least. Hitler was not eloquent, he used passion and emotional overtures. Granted I'm not a German speaker so I can't say for sure the level he articulated his speeches, but he usually started softly, sometimes even pausing for several minutes to get people to anticipate his speech, and once he got going he increasingly raised his volume to inflame the passions of his audience. He is consider an influential speaker because he was one of the first to master this tactic. His strong man personality was also fake and merely used to attract the guile's of women and the minds of men. President Trump is more hyperbolic. At a rally he will use hyperbolic language to have that over the top flare. He also tells inside jokes that mostly his audience would understand and makes fun of his own hyperbolic style. It's why he is so successful with Republicans base because it is that elite vs common man mentality that matches his style and speeches. There are of course similarities to using emotional appeals as a tactic, but what Trump truly excels in is exploiting the press by using ambiguous and unstructured language. It allows his enemies to fill in the blanks to what he says since he does not clarify, which can lead to wrong takes or misinterpreted opinion and make his supporters distrust the news for its biased slant (MS-13 animals). By the way, trust in the validity of the news was down far before Trump announced his candidacy (Gallup). He was just the first to know how to exploit it. Hitler is not an asshole, he is homicidal and genocidal maniac that nearly destroyed Europe in his quest for world conquest and his belief in Germanic superiority. There simply is no comparison no matter how crude the analogy unless you compare him to Mao or Stalin. All three have over a 100 million souls of blood on their hands. By all means, you can disagree with or hate Trump's decisions, but you only hurt your own argument with such rhetoric.
|
The MS-13 example is not the best one for your example. That case was a simple deliberate attempt at twisting his words, not an omission of Trumps that could be skewed.
His animals comment was an answer when asked about the MS-13 gang.
Be like me writing a review about a movie and saying "If this movie wanted to be the biggest piece of shit movie in the world it succeeds greatly." and then a tv commercial going "...movie ... succeeds greatly"
You know, paraphrasing my comment, except in its paraphrasing completely changing the narrative. That is what the press did with his MS-13 comment. Trump says a gang that goes around rapping, killing, butchering, robbing ect people are animals and the press comes out ands say "trump says Mexicans are animals"
And in todays world, all it takes it one media outlet to report that and htne everyone single one jumps on it like flies on honey and reports its, extrapolates its, blows it up even more out of proportion, ect. Then when facts come out, there is a quiet apology in the corner whispered by a few that no one hears and if you were to take a survey in the streets right now I would bet the majority of people would say that they heard Trump said Mexican are animals. The media knows that the first news is what sticks in peoples minds, so being completely accurate is not important. They can come out later and say "we revised it"
