Friday, July 22, 2016

Shakespeare's Take on Donald Trump's Acceptance Speech

Gerard N. Magliocca

I could be well moved if I were as you.
If I could pray to move, prayers would move me.
But I am constant as the northern star,
Of whose true-fixed and resting quality
There is no fellow in the firmament.
The skies are painted with unnumbered sparks.
They are all fire and every one doth shine,
But there’s but one in all doth hold his place.
So in the world. 'Tis furnished well with men,
And men are flesh and blood, and apprehensive,
Yet in the number I do know but one
That unassailable holds on his rank,
Unshaked of motion. And that I am he
Let me a little show it even in this:
That I was constant Cimber should be banished,
And constant do remain to keep him so.


Cimber as Ted Cruz? But keep in mind The Donald's VP selection was once a Cimber, who, by the way, once (or more often) claimed that smoking doesn't kill. Are there other Cimbers? Gov. Kasich? Others? Let us count them.

Shaky also saieth: "If life handeth thee a creamsicle, discard it for a Dove Bar."

Oh. Just speak English.

I've been on vacation and missed the speech, but I read the transcript that was put out before the speech. I think all the regulars here know I'm no Trump fan, but I thought it was a pretty effective speech. There used to be a lot of talk about 'wedge issues' and peeling off supporters from the other camp, and the speech seemed to me to be designed for that. Clinton has some potentially significant weaknesses for a Democratic candidate today: she supported the Iraq war which is, rightfully, very unpopular with the base (and country), and she subsequently supported military action (for example in Libya) that had poor results; she is tied to big money and seen by many as 'fishy' or worse when it comes to corruption; and she can be tied to support for various trade agreements which are unpopular with large portions of the population, many that might think about voting Democratic otherwise. Trump is in a unique position apart from most other major GOP figures who feel they have to toe the jingoistic/militaristic party line and not condemn foreign wars and the ideological line on trade, and it looks like rather than be scared of offending the GOP base he's going to embrace these GOP heresies and hit Clinton on them. So I think it was a surprisingly effective speech.

Now, I think politics is much, much more than giving effective speeches, but nonetheless I was a bit surprised at how Trump's speech was so effective in the sense I described.

Also very interested in the 5th Circuit's decision to slap down Texas' voter ID law. I've said this before, if a state makes a real commitment to making whatever ID is required very, very easily available (in terms of financial and time costs), then I've no problem with it, but to the extent they don't do that it's clear they're just trying to keep some people from voting.

Trump supported the Iraq War (true he is bs-ing about this; Clinton spun her support too & can with some validity put most of the blame on who was POTUS at the time), is jingoistic/militaristic, is sorta "tied to big money" (he is a billionaire) & is raising campaign funds again (don't know how serious he is, but there are even reports he wants to set up a Super-PAC to target Cruz and maybe Kasich).

Trade is an interesting thing though HRC is now taking a more protectionist view. Also, not sure - push comes to shove - how independent Trump will be of "the GOP base." Think the thing is that the base there if anything opposes various things the leadership supports there.

His ability, especially in prepared remarks, to hit some points isn't surprising. The bottom line there (and the convention had some of this) often is that Trump being Trump or some bit of incompetence (such as the plagiarism business) or nastiness (a lot of the remarks at the convention) spoils thinsg.

Mr. W, sometimes body language overwhelms the written words. While you might consider it punishment, now that you've read the transcript, I challenge you to watch the speech being given to check your transcript comments. (I don't know if Trump's calls to the audience for "USA" chants appear in the transcript, but he seemed weak with the calls. Probably ad libs.)

By the Bybee [expletives deleted], did you enjoy your vacation at Mar-a-Lago?

Shag, no resort for me, my vacation was at a state park largely built by the Civilian Conservation Core. Bart would find it to be the fruit of tyranny no doubt, but I quite enjoyed it.

Mr. W, I remberber in the late 1930s some of the older kids from my Roxbury Neighborhood in uniforms that were not quite military. That's when I learned of the CCC, which was a godsend during the Great Depression, keeping youngsters productive in a bad economy. With America's entry into WW II, the CCC waned as military duty called. And the CCC produced some good work that you experienced on your vacation. So let me take a mulligan on my resorting to a resort to needle you for seeming to be on par with the transcript of The Donald's acceptance speech. Speaking of the speech, consider the scripted words by The Donald concerning the LGBT community and the "ad lib" that didn't follow the script. There was a dog whistle that the delegates obviously heard.

This comment has been removed by the author.

One thing Trump sells is that he is independent because he isn't part of corrupt system, including involving funding his campaign. But, a billionaire (or whatever he is) is going to be part of the system. You don't make money there merely being an outsider.

There are some reports that provide even more troubling details involving his connection with Putin including financially:

Post a Comment

Older Posts
Newer Posts