• NABDad@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    “Energy is required for all work” is not really a noteworthy statement.

    If he managed to say it as coherently as I just did, it might be noteworthy, except for the fact that it would be inevitably followed by an incessant stream of gibberish.

    • n0clue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      2 months ago

      So you have a problem with the sentence itself and not that it was spoken by Trump?

      • NABDad@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        Actually, I have a problem with both.

        It’s a completely unnecessary statement for anyone with an elementary school level understanding of the world. However, if a candidate for president of the United States is going to make such an inane statement, he should at least speak coherently.

        Work requires energy. That’s easy to say, and easy to understand.

        Trump talks like a six year old trying to explain to his parents what he learned in school today.

        • Microplasticbrain@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Who the fuck makes donuts on a stove in a business context or any context really.

          Why would a bakery use a stove instead of a commercial fryer? why would a single person make a donut from scratch with frosting for a single fucking donut at home instead of going to a shop to just buy one for a dollar?

          It’s a terrible sentence, it makes no sense whatsoever in any context.

          It’s just standard trump word vomit.

      • lemonmelon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        That’s the complete opposite of what NABDad said. “If he managed to say it as coherently as I just did,” implies a belief that the sentence is at the very least marginally incoherent. Which further implies that they do actually have a problem with the sentence itself.

        Is your suggestion to the contrary a mistake made because you were overinvested in the point you’re trying to argue, or was it purposeful misinterpretation?