The role of the journalist was rendered meaningless, too, in the most basic way: the interviewer was compelled to participate, interrupting this incomprehensible monologue with follow-up questions or words like “right,” which only served to further the fiction that there was a narrative or a train of thought being laid out that the journalist (and hence a reader) could follow, that something was indeed “right” or could be “right” about what Trump was saying—when in fact he was saying nothing and everything at the same time, and this could not be right.
Haha. Ok. I am sometimes guilty of this. Read lots of books. It helps keep the word salad a little more focused on what is real and useful.
Pretty sure this habit has to do with DJTs upbringing. He could say anything or nothing and it wouldn’t effect the world around him. That image, though, requires too much empathy for this truly dangerous man.
