They're similar in that sense, but Trump is even worse, in that he doesn't only trip over his words, but also says things that no member of the political elite would say.
Which is of course why he's so popular (consider as well that on some important issues like trade or foreign policy he's to the left of Clinton). It's ironic that after both Sanders and Trump and the obvious desire for change they represent, America may well end up with the ultimate establishment candidate in office.
Some of his statements are so blithely self-contradictory that I'm reminded of something I have read about psychopaths.
Here's one of Trump's statements:
‘I know much about climate change. I’d be – received environmental awards. And I often joke that this is done for the benefit of China. Obviously, I joke. But this is done for the benefit of China, because China does not do anything to help climate change. They burn everything you could burn; they couldn’t care less. They have very – you know, their standards are nothing. But they – in the meantime, they can undercut us on price. So it’s very hard on our business.’
and here's a version of what I read:
What makes psychopaths different from all others is the remarkable ease with which they lie, the pervasiveness of their deception, and the callousness with which they carry it out.
But there is something else about the speech of psychopaths that is equally puzzling: their frequent use of contradictory and logically inconsistent statements that usually escape detection. Recent research on the language of psychopaths provides us with some important clues to this puzzle, as well as to the uncanny ability psychopaths have to move words - and people- around so easily. […]
Here are some examples:
When asked if he had ever committed a violent offense, a man serving time for theft answered, "No, but I once had to kill someone."
A woman with a staggering record of fraud, deceit, lies, and broken promises concluded a letter to the parole board with, "I've let a lot of people down… One is only as good as her reputation and name. My word is as good as gold."
A man serving a term for armed robbery replied to the testimony of an eyewitness, "He's lying. I wasn't there. I should have blown his fucking head off."
From an interview with serial killer Elmer Wayne Henley:
Interviewer: "You make it out that you're the victim of a serial killer, but if you look at the record you're a serial killer."
Henley: "I'm not."
I: "You're not a serial killer?"
H: "I'm not a serial killer."
I: You're saying you're not a serial killer now, but you've serially killed."
H: "Well, yeah, that's semantics."
And so on. The point that the researchers noted was that psychopaths seem to have trouble monitoring their own speech. What is more, they often put things together in strange ways, such as this series of remarks from serial killer Clifford Olson: "And then I had annual sex with her." "Once a year?" "No. Annual. From behind." "Oh. But she was dead!" "No, no. She was just unconscientious." About his many experiences, Olson said, "I've got enough antidotes to fill five or six books - enough for a trilogy." He was determined not to be an "escape goat" no matter what the "migrating facts." [Hare, Without Conscience]
This looks to be an interesting article, written by a linguist, on Trump's use of language:
Not had the chance to read it all yet but the thrust of the argument here is that Trump chooses his words more carefully than his detractors might like to believe.
I'd like to get the hang of this Trump parody business.
All I know is 'Believe me'.
It's hard to get that sort of idiocy without dumbing down TOO MUCH. And the incoherence, but also the simplicity. Its hard. Believe me, it's hard.
where's the remix of 'such a nasty woman'? youtube letting me down. and i thought we had the best people, really the best people.
http://www.cjr.org/covering_the_elec...php?NewsletterConventional wisdom holds that journalists are bastions of neutrality who mustnít root for Team Red or Team Blue, either in word or deed. But during this election season, several hundred news professionals have aligned themselves with Clinton or Trump by personally donating money.
People identified in federal campaign finance filings as journalists, reporters, news editors or television anchorsóas well as other donors known to be working in journalismóhave combined to give more than $396,000 to the presidential campaigns of Clinton and Trump, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis.
More than 96 percent of that cash has benefited Clinton: About 430 people who work in journalism have, through August, combined to give about $382,000 to the Democratic nominee, the Center for Public Integrityís analysis indicates.
About 50 identifiable journalists have combined to give about $14,000 to Trump. (Talk radio ideologues and paid TV pundits are not included in the tally.)
Generally, the law obligates federal candidates only to disclose the names of people making contributions of more than $200 during one election cycle. So itís likely more journalists have given the Clinton and Trump campaigns cash, but in amounts too small to trigger reporting requirements.