Two taxonomies of Trump tweets


Originally published at:



That first taxonomy looks more useful, but the second is more fun.


It doesn’t matter what the object of study is - fossils, living organisms, or the spewing of America’s living clown car.

The second you start doing taxonomy, somebody will disagree vehemently with you.


Ah, (sips herbal tea,) that explains everything.


Trump’s latest accusatory tweets are at least backed up with solid evidence this time:


I don’t know if I should believe it’s the first, but fear it’s the second; or believe it’s the second, but fear it’s the first.


I usually find George Lakoff’s pronouncements fascinating and then, a few moments later, boring or frustrating. I think a lot of what he says sounds more interesting than it is. I had that same reaction when I heard about his Trump tweet taxonomy on the “On the Media” podcast a few weeks ago. The fact that these tweet categories aren’t mutually exclusive—as the word taxonomy implies—makes me think this is really just a few casual observations.

Or maybe I’m just too cool for Lakoff.


Does this analysis explain why, a mere 30 minutes or so after releasing a bombshell revelation of Watergate-level abuse of power and domestic spying by the previous administration, Trump was back to dissing Arnold Schwarzenegger’s brief tenure as host of Celebrity Apprentice?


Overanalysis. The categories are clearly, stupid, stupider, stupidest, and stupiderest.

Trump confused (again!) in today's new tweet about Obama and Guantanamo

I’m pretty sure the second is also more accurate, and can easily be confused with the first. Heck, for Trump, they’re more or less the same thing, in that as an angry, insecure, delusional idiot he’s looking to blame others (not-just-preemptive framing), he’s constantly lashing out (deflecting), talking about inconsequential shit that’s important to him (diversion), and constantly trying to figure out what to do by saying things and seeing if they get positive feedback or not (trial balloon).
The fact is, Trump is the diversion for Bannon et al.


Trump and the kids.


I guess this is off-topic, but I don’t know where else to ask:

If Congress actually investigates this wiretapping claim and discovers that it’s groundless, what happens next?

I mean, can Trump just toss around incendiary accusations and then carry on like nothing happened? Will there be any consequences? (Are there legal consequences?)


He already has, more than once. Remember when he called for Congress to investigate the massive voter fraud in which 3-5 million ballots were illegally cast to rob him of the popular vote?

Thus far the legal consequences have not been forthcoming. It’s not even clear if he CAN face legal consequences—for all we know he actually believes the paranoid nonsense he reads on Breitbart. Certainly his followers do.


“Coffee” - you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.


There is an article up on MSNBC today about whether Obama has grounds to sue for libel. tl,dl: Probably not, as Trump would have to have known that the information was false, and he read it on what he considers a trusted source.

Other than that:

Could Congress censure Trump for bad conduct?


I’m thinking a bit of column A, and a bit of column B. They aren’t at all mutually exclusive.


At least in the voter fraud case he wasn’t accusing a named individual of breaking the law? Maybe that’s a distinction without a difference.

But but! Even if that’s correct its all so… depressing. And embarrassing. Can he just parrot every Alex Jones thought-turd with impunity?


Let us just remember that a pathological liar, which Trump is, even if they believe their lies, is still lying. He does however probably need to do it under oath for it to have consequences even theoretically (Sessions lied under oath, commiting perjury, and there won’t likely be consequences BEYOND his recusal – which could end up being a big deal, as Comey does not seem happy with Trump today, and apparently he is in charge of the investigation at this point…)


Yes. Yes he can. It’s not “high crimes and misdemeanors,” and there’s no “impeachment lite.”