Trump isn't the most eloquent speaker

Trump may not be the most eloquent speaker, but I would rather have a President who writes his speeches from the heart, as opposed to hiring the best speech writers in the business to do it for him. Obama was an eloquent speaker, and that's how he persuaded millions to vote for him. Trump is rough around the edges to say the least, but I would rather have a President who doesn't have the best speeches and gets the job done, than a President who speaks eloquently to the masses, but doesn't accomplish much.

 

Yes, that is right. There are plenty of eloquent liars to choose from...

 

What a president says to get elected and whether he shows that he meant what he said after being elected is far more important than his oratorical prowess.

Whether the pitch man is sincere in fulfilling the promises he has made will soon be exposed.

With millions more voters having voted for his opponent, and the authoritarian ingenue taking the oath of office with higher public disapproval than anyone in recent history (in sharp contrast to his predecessor completing his second term with high public approval) a pratfall that registers near the top of the Richter Scale could be in the offing. Will the Novelty Act actually resurrect the well-paying blue collar jobs of mid-twentieth century America in coal mining, steel production, and large-scale manufacturing?

Whether he does what he said he'll do is how he'll be judged, not how he said it.

.

 

Obama wasn't running for office; Clinton was.

Clinton didn't have any charisma. As a result of this, she earned the privilege of having to watch her opponent get sworn in yesterday.

 

I agree. What struck me as unusual is that most politicians make promises prior to election and that stops abruptly on inauguration. Rather than listen to an inaugural speech, I can read more finely written literature and heroic poems if I want inspiration and fluff. Trump took the very unusual path of making a promise to the people rather than throw candy at us.

It was an honor to the people of the USA to place power back into our hands. What's to protest?

Makes me wonder what everyone is marching to -- they obviously don't know they have already been given the power. Must be Cher on earphones! Haha - losers!

 

Well, as I keep saying, if you didn't enjoy the speech, then the speech most likely wasn't geared for your sensibilities.

 

When Trump speaks he speaks plainly so that everyone can understand what he is saying instead of doing like most politicians and dancing around the subject. You may not like what he said but at least you understand what he said

 

Lincoln's Gettysburg Address was long believed to be a rather poor speech.

I have one reply sent to me to the question of the Trump speech.

 

I recall the reception of the Gettysburg address and how people criticized Lincoln's speech as far too short and lacking substance.

But today, it is ranked high.

Trump spoke to more than politicians as most presidents due upon swearing in, but spoke from the heart to we the people.

Time will tell if Congress was listening.

 

Obama had a pleasing voice, and could read quite well from prepared speeches. This is part of what the power-brokers were trying to find in 2008 -- someone who was politically untouchable (being Black and everything), and who made a good appearance, and could read a prepared speech....

When he had to speak extemporaneously, however, Obama almost always sounded like a slowed-down variation on the way that "Porky Pig" spoke in those old cartoons. Listening to Obama was maddening because he always peppered his sentences with inclusions of, "uh", "um", "eh", and "ah". The way he spoke made you wonder about kind of mental continuity he really had. When people speak like that they are almost always suffering from some kind of mental problem. Drug addicts, drunks, and other "challenged" people have the same problem.

Links:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThEAO0lt4Dw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ue_WQcFJd8U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHgH5i8ug6E

Now, here's what Obama's spontaneous "oratory" makes me think of: http://mentalfloss.com/article/74224/reason-porky-pig-stutters . BTW, the other cartoon characters remind me a lot of the servile, ass-kissing left-wing media, and, a lot of the Obama regime's goons....

 

And yet, I understood every damn word of it!

The American Revolt: Many Americans have seen that the American establishment was no longer reliably patriotic, no longer loyal to the well-being and values of America. Many Americans with cosmopolitan sympathies see their ethical imperative as working for the betterment of humanity in general rather than on their moral community closer to home, in fellow citizens who share a common national bond. The cosmopolitans see America as backward and chauvinistic, Americans see the cosmopolitan elite as people who think it is morally questionable to put their own country, and its citizens, first.

A hundred years ago, Randolph Bourne laid out a theory of identity politics in which minority groups were to develop ethnic pride while the majority Anglo-Saxon population did not. The Bourne approach worked, until people started crowing that the majority wasn’t a majority anymore and should hurry up and die out, and then it stopped working.

Sad!

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_..._does_the_candidate_s_rise_represent_the.html

 

The speech, as any of this magnitude is obviously hyped.

Trump once again, approached it with the usual Trumpish rhetoric and message.

Perhaps the critical commentators are surprised he did not deliver a speech of more sophisticated (complicated) proportions, because they would love to tear him down for appearing to be something he is not, or changing course thus being a turncoat.

Ah well, they win somehow anyhow, because now the simpleton discourse can continue.

Personally I like a good display of oratory skills at such events. But that is just for my own entertainment and does not reflect value of the speech.

 

What would you have preferred he said? Just wondering what's better than having a president declare he's working for you.

 

He should have offered an olive branch to the libs, cause that's the most natural and reasonable response to hysteria and temper tantrums, recounts and boycotts.... something along the lines of "We'll be winning again... but we will make sure to lose some, we'll make America great again but not as great as Europe and Canada, America first but Mexico is close second, we'll bring our jobs back but will leave some in China". The liberal hearts would have melted right there

 

To me Trump is nearly incoherent and speaks at a 4th to 6th grade level. I think his mixed signals are going to be very confusing to our allies and enemies alike.

 

She had more issues than her speaking style, but she only had two tones to her speeches: Condescending or angry, and often both at once. She really was horrible at connecting to anyone who was not already in the bag for her. Trump is a horrible speaker too, but he isn't the same old same old so we will see. TBH, watching him over the past few days, he seems a lot heavier and less healthy than I recall him being in the past. Makes me think Pence might very well finish the term. Trump seems like a heart attack in the waiting.

 

HaHa you're on to something... maybe they think everyone is supposed to win.

 

"Um’s and uh’s indicate that you’re searching for the right word. The more concerned someone is with choosing the right way to say something, the more they tend to ummm, which is why, while too much ummm-ing has been associated with a lack of intelligence, it’s actually correlated with having a large vocabulary. The intelligent person has many words to choose from, and so sometimes gets caught up in taking pains to pick just the right one to express himself; “um” is the sound of his decision-making process.

Um’s and uh’s are more common when you’re speaking about an abstract topic. Although they use filler at the same rate outside the classroom, during lectures, humanities professors say “uh” more than professors of hard sciences (4.76 times per hundred words compared to 1.47 times per hundred). Researchers posit that this disparity is due to the fact that professors of the humanities have a broader, more abstract subject matter to cover, and thus more options to think over on how to express themselves; there are more ways to describe Rembrandt’s artwork than a physics formula. Whenever you’re contemplating complex options on how to articulate your thoughts, your ummm-ing will go up."

http://www.artofmanliness.com/2012/06/14/becoming-well-spoken-how-to-minimize-your-uhs-and-ums/


[video=youtube;5cuzj7i1Whs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cuzj7i1Whs[/video]

 

Libs are upset if a speech doesn't give a shout out to women, gays, illegals, blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, etc.

If you don't touch all the bases, the left will say you're a racist and the speech was hateful.

 

I would rather a President that does not rely upon hyperbole, anecdotal evidence, and ad hominem attacks. The aforementioned are great if you like conflict but not so good if you are looking to unite the Nation.

 

Strange! John Kennedy didn't speak this way, and I'd put his IQ up with the higher scores ever achieved by an American president. I don't remember Ronald Reagan, Daddy Bush, or Bill Clinton speaking this way, either. Hell, for that matter, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Jimmy Carter didn't speak that way -- and I've got nothing good to say about any of those three.... Obama? Every time he spoke without the benefit of a prepared script the truth is that he sounded like an inept, insecure, bumbling half-wit who was woefully out of his depth....

But rather than argue with you, I'll simply make one "Haiku-ish" observation: LANGUAGE IS THOUGHT....

 

In Trumps case replace the um's with repeated sentences, or words....all the same..It's called being human.

[video=youtube;_aFo_BV-UzI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aFo_BV-UzI[/video]

Edit: Oh yea stop the video at 1:16....all the rest gets too psychological for the lament.(the music pisses me off as well) Make your own assertions based on how he talks.

 

In 2008 people elected Obama's speech writers. Obama didn't even know what was in his speeches and didn't read them beforehand, remember his corpse-man comment?

 

The thing that Trump has going for him, is he never actually says anything of substance. It is all self aggrandisement, hyperbolic praise of himself or whichever crowd he is trying to appeal to, meaningless nationalism, vague attacks on the other, etc. Can anyone point to specific actions Trump promised that go beyond building the wall? Trump supporters will use vague pronouncements like "destroy ISIS" as an example, but Trump doesn't actually have to do anything to claim victory. Assad is in ascendence in Syria, the Iraqi army has already been slowly but surely taking back Mosul, and when those two groups remove the territorial bases of power for ISIS Trump will claim victory. That is what he does. He says nothing, understands nothing, and then takes credit for everything. People who know even the smallest amount about politics or the way the world works realize this. When things start to fall apart, and they will start to fall apart, Trump will blame Obama and his supporters will eat it up unquestioningly. He will then continue to take credit for every individual job created and blame Obama and Democrats for every failure. Its intellectual charlatanism, but its good enough to be elected president, so who am I to criticize?

 

Intelligent people are upset when every speech the new president of our country makes lacks even the tiniest shred of substance!! Make America Great, cities are bad, I'm great, people are great, Washington DC is bad, I said people are great but not X group of people they are terrible, I'm really great, I'm really really really great, make America great again, end of speech. It is that formula repeated endlessly and yet the politically naive, uninformed, and those who unthinkingly internalize right-wing propaganda eat it up!!