What fresh hell is this?

by liberal japonicus

I think that everyone gets their info and news from other sources, ObWi was never really going to be a place to post hot takes or red meat, but this is one of those things where I really fear for my sanity. The NYTimes podcasts have been interesting, Ezra Klein interviewed Tim Walz just before he got the VP nod, and I started clicking on the other ones and went to this one, comparing the economic proposals of Trump and Harris and they say have this

Trump: the Colossal influx of migrants into our cities is driving rent rent absolutely through the roof.

Tankersley (economic policy reporter for NYT): Now maybe his most concrete plan is how he says he's going to bring down the cost of housing.

 

Trump: but that's why as president I will seal the Border I will send them all back back to their countries where they belong prices will come down and come down dramatically and

come down fast

 

Tankersley: and that is by deporting millions of immigrants who currently live in houses, a dramatic reduction in housing demand this is theoretically possible if you drive a bunch of people out of their houses by deporting them then you would reduce demand for housing that could bring prices down particularly in in certain markets but of course deporting millions of people would be disruptive to the economy in a whole bunch of other ways would be disruptive to American society and American politics and deporting millions of immigrants is a really difficult thing that would require a massive federal law enforcement effort and again the feasibility here is not at all certain and we do not have a lot of details on on how it would be carried out.

I'm sure Hartmut can give more details, but here is an amuse-bouche.

The Vugesta (also VUGESTAP) for "Vermögens-Umzugsgut von der Gestapo" ("Property Removed by the Gestapo") was a Nazi looting organization in Vienna that from 1940 to 1945 seized the possessions of 5,000-6,000 Viennese Jews.[1][2] It was a key player in the aryanization of Jewish property, redistributing private property stolen from Jewish Austrians to non-Jewish or Aryan Austrians during the Nazi reign in Austria. [3]

Is there some other explanation that I'm missing?

Comments

[Ugh]

IMHO the "mainstream" press has gone completely off the rails in a way it hasn't before. Of course NYTimesPitchbot has been around forever but the Post has also gone off the deep end, with their farcical "fact checks" during the DNC and their hiring of Murdoch lackeys in key executive positions. Someone suggested this means Bezos wants Trump to win and while I have it on good authority that he has been hands off during his ownership maybe that has changed.

The whole "let's analyze the impact on housing of deporting millions of people" is particularly gross and Tankersley should be ashamed. I mean, if Trump's plan was just to murder these people as an "official act" (and hence immune!) would we be talking about second order effects, "gee, I wonder what this would do to housing costs and unemployment and the economy?"

Trump is openly planning on committing massive human rights violations, arresting his opponents and media members (no matter how "even handed" they think they're being) using the DOJ as a revenge mechanism, etc. etc. etc.

And yet, "golly, this might reduce housing costs" is a very "Other than that, how did you enjoy the play Mrs. Lincoln?" query only much much worse.

And yes Nazi Germany is very apt, not only on looting but on the logistics of moving millions of people around against their will ("but how might this revitalize the transportation industry?" Tankersley asks)....

Feh

[JanieM]

Is there some other explanation that I'm missing?

If you mean, is there another explanation besides immigrants to explain the housing crisis, then my answer is:

Almost all of them, Katie.

Random starting point:

https://www.propublica.org/article/when-private-equity-becomes-your-landlord

https://shelterforce.org/2024/03/22/bill-would-ban-hedge-funds-from-owning-houses/

https://patryan.house.gov/media/press-releases/congressman-pat-ryan-demands-investigation-price-gouging-wall-street-private

(Links chosen randomly, just to give you some notion of how much the problem has to do with immigrants.)

Speaking from Vacationland, where we already had (acc' to a real estate rag I read in the bank one day) the most second homes of any state in the country, covid brought a horde of people from other places to Maine, where they were in such a quick hurry (as my toddler son used to say) that they often bought houses sight unseen and uninspected -- people I know who were house-hunting would see something likely and it would have been sold before there could even be an open house or a realtor-guided visit.

Maine is a relatively poor state. Lots of people have "camps" -- hunting cabins, for instance, not built for winter living but nice in the summer. But in the bigger picture, housing prices have always been affected by (sometimes but not always "rich") people from other states buying up property, esp. along the coast, so as to make it less affordable for local people. (This isn't just a Maine problem, of course. Also, see my post a few weeks ago about the Missouri woman who poisoned the trees. I wonder how many homes she and her husband own...)

Once covid got going in earnest, this problem exploded. I think the median (mean?) house price in Maine last year was over $400,000.

And I believe that a lot of the people who fled here during covid (and amazingly, survived the winter) did not sell their homes in Boston or NY or wherever. So that in itself took housing out of availability for other people.

And then there's NIMBYism. Sure, people need places to live, BUT NOT IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD.

*****

I could rant on -- this issue has affected people in my family directly and seriously -- but it's not hard to find information. Random google result:

https://themortgagereports.com/110662/why-is-there-a-housing-shortage

Not a single mention of immigrants. The whole damned thing was made up in the fever stew of Clickbait's addled brain.

Greed is some of it. (Saw an article last night on private equity using formulas to set rents as high as possible in the properties they've gobbled up.)

Poor planning is another. An architect who comments at BJ has mentioned that it's very difficult to get approval in cities for big housing projects because towns won't approve housing without a plan for parking, and in already-crowded cities that's an almost unsolvable problem.

Periodically over the past few years there have been little tiny, almost hand-made looking roadside signs that say things like "She buys houses" -- and a phone number. This is not a "she" who has a raggedy operation flipping a few houses each year..... (Billboards are banned in Maine, btw....)

Sorry for the rambling nature. Also for not being clear that this is a problem both for aspiring homeowners and for renters.

But I don't have all day, or even another few minutes, to gather links and be more coherent. I just really really hate that Clickbait is making immigrants the scapegoat for yet another problem that is really compounded of greed, poor planning, population-wide disaster (pandemic), etc.

[JanieM]

Zillow on the housing market in Maine:

https://www.zillow.com/home-values/28/me/

The average Maine home value is $410,347, up 5.5% over the past year and goes to pending in around 10 days.

[russell]

What Janie said. And, also, too....

Sure, throw them out. All they do is take stuff that Real Americans should have.

Right?

The man is an imbecile.

[JanieM]

Boomers are part of the problem as well, apparently. Two paragraphs from Google results:

Baby boomers are refusing to downsize in their golden years, according to a Redfin study, which found that the generation born between 1946 and 1964 owns nearly three in 10 (28.2 percent) large homes in the nation—nearly twice as many as millennial households with kids (14 percent).

From https://www.newsweek.com/boomers-refusing-give-their-large-homes-1893262

Why aren't boomers downsizing?
Some baby boomers, the generation now between the ages of 60 and 78, are happy in their large homes, using the extra bedrooms for hobbies and visiting family. Others say they want to downsize, but it just doesn't make sense financially. Apr 18, 2024

https://www.npr.org/2024/04/18/1244171720/baby-boomers-large-houses-millennials-homeownership

As a boomer myself, I can say that the financial disincentive for moving at this point is enormous. But then, my housing situation is pretty odd....

[JanieM]

me: The whole damned thing was made up in the fever stew of Clickbait's addled brain.

russell: The man is an imbecile.

He *is* addled and an imbecile, but he’s also vicious and malevolent and bent on fomenting as much hatred as he can in this country. I would bet that he knows perfectly well that it isn’t immigrants who have caused the housing mess. He’s just using them deliberately and cynically to rile up bigots to vote for him.

[JanieM]

Then you get stuff like this article, wherein it is stated that there are too many illegal immigrants, and it is also stated that Maine is spending money to house asylum-seekers, and the assumption (based on no evidence) is that the asylum seekers are here illegally.

See the work of the Immigrant Legal Advocacy Project to find out otherwise.

From the first link:

The state is spending another $100,000 to help immigrants fill out the paperwork for their work permits and asylum applications.

Oh the horror! And wait, I thought they were all lazy and just wanted a handout! What use are work permits to such people? (They want them desperately; Maine is lobbying the federal government to shorten the time before they can get them.)

[liberal japonicus]

Thanks for the details. My question was more 'is there any reason why the Times treats this as a serious proposal?' I'm waiting for Charles to fire up his ChatGPT account...

[CharlesWT]

Listening to the NYT podcast, I'm put in mind of the quote:

“The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics.” —Thomas Sowell

Both sides are pushing populist economic policies that are unlikely to do much good and in the case of Trump's tariffs on everything do a lot of harm. The tariffs would push up prices. And other countries are likely to put retaliatory tariffs on US exports. Isn't this how the Great Depression started?

Regardless of who wins, in four years the federal government and its debt will be bigger. And prices will be higher.

[Hartmut]

Does his Orangeness dream of Korematsuing the immigrants and doing what greedy opportunists did with the properties of those forcefully spirited away but this time in a more organized way, so most of it flows into his pockets and those of the persons he favors?
Will future historians call this "T-r-u-m-p-ification" of Property in an analogy to Arisierung?
(The VUGESTA, lj mentions above differed from the practice in non-Austrian parts of Nazi Germany in that it was not the state represented by the fiscal authorities directly that seized and profitted from the goods but a group of middlemen and organisations that siphoned off a lot of the profits before it reached the state coffers.)
So, His Orangeness (and his accomplices) again would prefer the Austrian way of doing things.
As is my often stated opinion: The modern GOP is far more austrofascist than Nazi and usually in a bad way (always going for the [even] more corrupt and hypocritical choice).

[JanieM]

My question was more 'is there any reason why the Times treats this as a serious proposal?

From the Columbia Journalism Review last November, analyzing mid-tern coverage (but touching on e.g. the coverage of Hillary's emails in 2016):

We didn’t suggest that the election coverage in the Times was any worse than what appeared in other major outlets, “so much as it was typical of a broader failure of mainstream journalism.” But we did expect, or at least hope, that in the years that followed, the Times would conduct a critical review of its editorial policies. Was an overwhelming focus on the election as a sporting contest the best way to serve readers? Was obsessive attention to Clinton’s email server really justified in light of the innumerable personal, ethical, and ultimately criminal failings of Trump? It seemed that editors had a responsibility to rethink both the volume of attention paid to certain subjects as well as their framing.[my emphasis -- JanieM]

[snip]

Exit polls indicated that Democrats cared most about abortion and gun policy; crime, inflation, and immigration were top of mind for Republicans. In the Times, Republican-favored topics accounted for thirty-seven articles, while Democratic topics accounted for just seven. In the Post, Republican topics were the focus of twenty articles and Democratic topics accounted for fifteen—a much more balanced showing. In the final days before the election, we noticed that the Times, in particular, hit a drumbeat of fear about the economy—the worries of voters, exploitation by companies, and anxieties related to the Federal Reserve—as well as crime. Data buried within articles occasionally refuted the fear-based premise of a piece. Still, by discussing how much people were concerned about inflation and crime—and reporting in those stories that Republicans benefited from a sense of alarm—the Times suggested that inflation and crime were historically bad (they were not) and that Republicans had solutions to offer (they did not).

As they say, read the whole thing. The Times is not neutral or even-handed, far to the contrary. That they treat Clickbait as a serious candidate/applicant for any position at all, much less president of the United States, should give you the answer to your question without much need for further digging.

[nous]

I'm horribly disappointed in the media, but not terribly surprised at this sort of equivocation. Pretty much every student I teach who has come through the US school systems has learned to write about disputable topics in one of two ways: either they pick a side, assemble favorable facts, and attack the opposing view with cherry picked refutations, or they do the equivocating act and scrupulously avoid taking on either side on substance in order to "avoid bias" and "take an objective [neutral] stance." Every single one of their timed, standardized writing exams has rewarded these approaches with good scores based largely on structural integrity, and anyone who has attempted to actually lay out a substantive argument has run afoul of either time pressures or of some structural weakness and been penalized. That has been the case for over twenty years now, and those habits go deep. Many writing professors try to break these habits of mind and push students to engage in actual intellectual deliberation, but then their writing in their majors (overseen by grad students or by professors who are indifferent writers) slide right back into those habits.

The arbitrary deadlines of class terms and workloads don't help these matters at all, and those deadline pressures weigh even more heavily in a 24-hour news cycle.

I imagine that journalism majors get better writing instruction in their major classes, but then they get punished for "bias" in the comments whenever they challenge one side too harshly without making an explicit effort to also challenge the other side for something. Commenters also tend to try to go through and identify logical fallacies and treat each of those as if they disqualify everything else about an argument whose conclusions they disagree with.

Accuracy and substance should be of much higher concern than the performance of neutrality, but it seldom is.

[JanieM]

Besides what Ugh points out about the passages lj quotes, you can take out some of the empty verbiage to see more clearly how empty the rest of the verbiage is:

Tankersley (economic policy reporter for NYT): Now maybe his most concrete plan is how he says he's going to bring down the cost of housing.

[snip]

...but of course deporting millions of people would be disruptive to the economy in a whole bunch of other ways would be disruptive to American society and American politics and deporting millions of immigrants is a really difficult thing that would require a massive federal law enforcement effort and again the feasibility here is not at all certain and we do not have a lot of details on on how it would be carried out.

About his "most concrete plan" we have no details whatsoever... So what Tankersley really means is that so much of what Clickbait says is incoherent, resentment-fueled gobblydegook that to be able to pretend it means anything at all (which the Times is apparently bent on doing), he (Tankersley) has to rely on the Humpty Dumpty principle ("'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'")

"Concrete" means nothing (literally and figuratively), "not a lot" is weasel-speak for none, etc. "The words of this wizard stand on their heads" (Gimli).

[JanieM]

nous: their writing in their majors (overseen by grad students or by professors who are indifferent writers)

Another big topic. I have just given notice that I'm retiring from my 20+ year gig as a volunteer editor for a local non-profit.

Every summer I edit the work of the organization's summer interns. Every summer I despair at the poor quality of the writing and the thought that there are so few people now who are skilled at teaching good writing, most people having never been taught themselves.

It's interesting to see you lay out some of the mechanisms by which that is happening.

[wonkie]

I cancelled my WaPO and NYT subscriptions with no regrets at all. I used to think the "legacy" media might be capable of learning, but I no longer believe that. I think the lousy journalism is intentional. BTW did you notice that Mojo decided that the narrative for this race is an "unserious man versus and untried woman"? Fuck her.

[Girl from the North Country]

Well I know this isn't an open thread, but since it is, at least loosely, about some of the *supply adjective of choice* stuff Trump says, this (about his interview with Dr Phil) is in the Times today. It's behind a paywall, so I am copying the first three marvellous paras, with my bold on IMO the choicest phrase:

Donald Trump suggested that God believes he has a purpose to “save America” and maybe the world, and that this is why he survived last month’s assassination attempt.

The former president sought to pin some blame for the shooting on President Biden and Kamala Harris, the vice-president and his rival for the White House, in an interview with Phil McGraw, the TV personality known as Dr Phil.

Trump stuck with the religious theme by claiming he would win in California if Jesus were in charge of voting in the state, alleging that some people had received seven postal ballots which inflated the Democratic vote in a state where he lost by 5,103,821 votes in 2020.

[GftNC]

wonkie, I had no idea who Mojo was, so I googled the quote. Ah yes, it's about an article I read. Light fluff, but on the whole not bad and heart basically in the right place, I thought. My interpretation of the phrase was that the two descriptions were basically (and the least offensive of) what each side was likely to say about the other, in the "very ugly slugfest" to come. Here it is, for anyone interested, since I still have a couple of gift links in hand and the month is nearly over:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/24/opinion/trump-harris-dnc-election.html?unlocked_article_code=1.GU4.FNJn.FxcWTGBdg9jS&smid=url-share

[Michael Cain]

I cancelled my WaPO and NYT subscriptions with no regrets...

A few years back I stopped reading the NYtimes and WaPo. After trying different things for a couple of months, I ended up using USA Today and the AP instead. I don't feel like I'm less informed, but my stress level is down.

[CharlesWT]

As a boomer myself, I can say that the financial disincentive for moving at this point is enormous.

A California example:

"Right now there are tens of thousands of older homeowners in CA who won’t sell their home until one spouse passes away. The reason: capital gains taxes. If they bought a home in the 80’s for 200k & it’s worth 2M today, they would be dumb to sell even if it’s too big for them.

Under current law, each homeowner spouse gets a 250k deduction on the sale of their primary residence. In the example above, a 1.8M gain, minus a 500k deduction, minus costs of sale = state & fed taxes on a gain of 1.1M (about $350k in taxes). Thats a ton of money!

Under current law, if the couple waits until one spouse dies, & the property is held as community property, it gets a step up in basis to the date of death value of the deceased spouse. The survivor can sell the home right after their spouse dies & pay *ZERO* capital gain taxes!"
Justin Gordon

[JanieM]

Just for the record, my disincentive has nothing to do with capital gains taxes, since I don't own any property. It has to do with rental costs. I'm sure there are plenty of other boomers who are in the same boat. Maybe even more than there are boomers who own houses worth $2,000,000.

Also, this.

Takes on the $2,000,000 example directly.

ETA: Fixed the link. (I hope.)

[nous]

None of those houses that the boomers are holding onto rather than downsizing are going to help the people who can't afford the market in CA. They have already been priced out of the smaller homes or they would have bought one, rather than having to rent the larger homes from the real estate investors who would be the most likely buyers for all those Boomer houses.

We need more units of affordable housing to drive down the rents and make rentals less attractive. Go after the short term rental market and limit offshore owners for homes they don't reside in.

[wj]

Tankersley (economic policy reporter for NYT): Now maybe his most concrete plan is how he says he's going to bring down the cost of housing.

Bull. It really is. It's like saying TCFG has a plan to improve the economy: he will improve infrastructure. The infrastructure plan has been "coming out in the next two weeks" for going on 8 years now.

As Janie put it: About his "most concrete plan" we have no details whatsoever...

Personally, I would expect that if (God forbid!) Trump regains office, he will try to implement his beautiful deportation vision. A few thousand immigrants (legal or otherwise, because he*** simply makes no distinction) probably get deported. And several thousand more get rounded up and put in camps (if any of these fools can figure out how to set those up). But then, two things happen.

First, somebody discovers that the infrastructure for this mass deportation simply doesn't exist. Transport by air? In addition to being very expensive, there simply isn't enough capacity. Even if you ban Real Americans from traveling by air for a year or two. Transport by ship? Again, the capacity simply isn't there.

Which leaves transport by bus/truck. There probably isn't adequate capacity there either. And if I were the Canadian or Mexican authorities, I'd impound the vehicles as soon as they arrive. Why let them go back for another load?

But second, all his rich donors would discover (if they don't know already) that they can't run their businesses without those workers. And they can force Trump to listen like nobody else.

Short story shorter, the whole thing breaks down pretty fast. Yes, tragic for thousands. But considering the total number of immigrants, a drop in the bucket.

Like any Trump plan (except those for fleecing his fans), it simply isn't workable in the real world.

** And, more importantly, the scum who work for him. Although it's an interesting question how far (how many generations) back they will go to decide who qualifies to stay.

[wj]

We need more units of affordable housing to drive down the rents and make rentals less attractive. Go after the short term rental market and limit offshore owners for homes they don't reside in.

Apartment buildings. Row houses. And located in reasonable proximity to where their jobs are. Both because it's nuts to have people in low wage jobs spending two hours twice a day commuting.** And because reducing emissions requires less driving.

** Fun fact: as far back as we have evidence (i.e. several thousand years) the greatest distance from homes to work (e.g. fields) was 1 (one!) hour travel time. Until our current situation, at least here in the Bay Area, although I believe other parts of the US have similar experience. No idea about the rest of the world.

[liberal japonicus]

Seems rather panglossian, wj. Here's Perlstein interviewing David Neiwert

https://prospect.org/politics/2024-08-28-election-story-nobody-talks-about-neiwert-qa/

So let’s talk scenarios. What if Trump wins?

There are two components. One is the immigrant front, the whole Minutemen ethos is going to come into play here, where these guys armed with AR-15s will claim we’re just supplementing the government; we’re just rounding people up and serving them up to the Border Patrol. Which is what they did in Arizona for quite a few years. But this will spread to the national scale.

You assume that the normal mechanisms will be employed and because the infrastructure doesn't work, everyone will throw up their hands and go home. I think it would be more likely that you'd have round-ups, they'd put them in some sort of lock up until things could be sorted out and they'd start protesting, and the protests have to be put down. And it might only be a handful of people shot, but I somehow don't think that you can brush off the tragic by pointing out that they didn't have the infrastructure to 'really' pull it off.

[nous]

Meanwhile, though, the Project 2025 destruction of the federal bureaucracy continues apace, because all of that is boring and uninteresting to Narcissus.

And all the foreign strongmen run amok in the vacuum.

[Hartmut]

First, somebody discovers that the infrastructure for this mass deportation simply doesn't exist.

Ever heard of forced marches? This also has the benefit that the numbers will significantly diminish on the way to first the camps then the border, the more so, if it's the Southern border in the summer. There will be lots of volontary MAGAts to escort them, in particular, if it's made clear that they will suffer no consequences for any abuse.
Of course, those that make it all the way to the border will be the most hardy and resilient, therefore the most dangerous, so 'special treatment' is to be considered (off camera).
[/sarcasm]

[Hartmut]

Although it's an interesting question how far (how many generations) back they will go to decide who qualifies to stay.

There must be a political donation database to ease the difficulty of decision. Purchase of a regular installment plan for donations to proper (=well-connected) institutions would also increase the chance of favorable treatment. Let's call it metic meritocracy or something like that. Of course they would have to always carry proof of protected status with them and those that stay on a discount plan would have to have a visible sign on their clothes (to incentivize switch to a higher priced option).

[wj]

Although it's an interesting question how far (how many generations) back they will go to decide who qualifies to stay.

I should, perhaps, have noted that, whatever the details of the criteria used, Vance's wife and children would assuredly be among those slated for deportation. Not only recent immigrants, but the wrong skin tone. My sense of Vance, however, is that he would consider this a small price to pay for power.

But there are so many mixed race families these days. Not to mention mixed religion families, which I expect to be a factor sooner or later. (Utah may will come to seriously regret being a red state. Mormons, after all, being well beyond the pale for the devout Christianists.) I'm thinking others may be less willing than Vance to have their families broken up.

It should also be considered that, while the RWNJs comprise the majority of current gun owners, there are a lot of us who remember which end the bullet comes out of. And have the resources to acquire our own, if push comes to shove. I'm thinking that those with "no consequences" expectations may be in for a nasty surprise. Legal consequences may be the least of their problems.

[bobbyp]

My question was more 'is there any reason why the Times treats this as a serious proposal?'

Indeed.

[liberal japonicus]

great minds, bobbyp.

I wonder if Trump's talks would sound better in the original German...

[Hartmut]

No, actually not. With a few notable exceptions** (that made even other Nazis cringe) the rhetorics of the Nazi leadership never strayed into incoherency. I'd say it's far more difficult in German to hide that one is producing pure word salad. And the vilest content was usually presented in a very technocratic way, making it seemingly more palatable or at least following an inner, if pathological, logic. Cf. Himmler's Posen speeches (aimed at the inner circle not the public though).
What His Orangeness produces is simply not thought through and would be difficult to even adequately express in German without turning into complete gibberish.
They guys behind him with the actual plans are a completely different matter and they are usually careful enough to not go to the public with it.
They would fit right in with midlevel positions in the Nazi hierarchy (although the top could have wiped the floor with them, so they would not have reached the inner circle of power).

**Robert Ley being the prime example. No matter about which matter he talked, after a short amount of time he began to literally shriek and to spew MTG like stuff. It's notable that in propaganda films aimed outwards (like Triumph of the Will) clips with him blend out right before that occurs. One can notice the first signs and then there is a fade or cut. Julius Streicher - the editor of the rabidly antisemitic "Der Stürmer" also occasionally overdid it but he usually kept it just 'fiery' not apoplectic and could do 'calm' too, if needed.

[Snarki, child of Loki]

Thank you Hartmut, for defending the language of Goethe and Schiller (and many more) from the vile smear of being associated with Trump.

(not that I'm against doing 'cheap shots', I'm all in on that; but still...)

Now, calling Trump's speachifying 'Palinesque' would be better, were it not for Michael Palin, dammit.

We need a new word for 'gibberish coming from their brain-worm'. Could it be that German could do the world a service by providing one?

[Hartmut]

I do not know whether word salad or Wortsalat came first*. There are several words in German with different nuances for 'incomprehensible speech' but I would have to look up which one would fit the exact context asked for.
The one that comes to mind is Kauderwelsch (which wikipedia links to Gibberish), although I think it's not a complete overlap since it is not nonsense per se.
I found a technical term that was unknown to me and is derived from theatre: Gromolo. But that is deliberate nonsense with the intention to imitate a certain 'sound'. Wikipedia gives Chaplin's Great Dictator as an example (first Hynkel speech), giving the impression of German to an English speaking audience in that case.

*just checked: it was first used by French and German psychiatrists and was then calqued into English.

[nous]

Rather than German, this one could have that bigcompoundWelshname energy: gwallgofrwyddyn dodo'ullyngyrymennydd.

[liberal japonicus]

Thanks for setting me straight about my unwarranted slur on the German language (which was originally Molly Ivin's line about Pat Buchanan's 1992 convention speech).

Hartmut's musings have me wonder if some evangelicals view Trump's speech as glossolalia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speaking_in_tongues

Humans use language to communicate but glossolalia does not. Therefore, he concluded that glossolalia is not "a specimen of human language because it is neither internally organized nor systematically related to the world man perceives".[16] On the basis of his linguistic analysis, Samarin defined Pentecostal glossolalia as "meaningless but phonologically structured human utterance, believed by the speaker to be a real language but bearing no systematic resemblance to any natural language, living or dead"

[Girl from the North Country]

I found a technical term that was unknown to me and is derived from theatre: Gromolo. But that is deliberate nonsense with the intention to imitate a certain 'sound'.

The equivalent in English, or at least English English, is the practice among actors, extras etc in crowd scenes being told to keep saying "rhubarb, rhubarb rhubarb"

[liberal japonicus]

Thanks GftNC! Looking it up, I found this

https://wordhistories.net/2022/01/28/rhubarb-theatre-nonsense/

[liberal japonicus]

And a apropos note about Trump's previous lebenstraum policy

https://www.mississippifreepress.org/five-years-after-mass-ice-raids-in-mississippi-families-are-still-piecing-their-lives-back-together/

[Hartmut]

In German it's the same plant used for that purpose: Rhabarber.

Here's a classic example of talking seemingly coherently while just chaining together completely empty cookie cutter phrases.

Here's the uncommented original (without subtitles)
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x38rt75

and here commented and subtitled.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESYUEhNziC0
Unfortunately, the subtitles do not fully do it justice.

But this is a satire of talking while saying nothing, not the ramblings of a narcissist know-nothing with probably onsetting dementia.

[JanieM]

Open thread / side note -- I have a picture post up at BJ today.

[Girl from the North Country]

Lovely, Janie! I was particularly knocked out by the Kennebec River Rail Trail in Hallowell

[JanieM]

Thanks, GftNC. The rail trail pic is unusual for me in that it has a person in it -- I caught him anonymously, so I was okay with it. And it wouldn't be anywhere near as good without him. :-)

[CharlesWT]

For this family a gathering this Thanksgiving might be a little tense.

[wj]

No more so than those of a lot of families. (There's a reason a lot of people ban politics from family gatherings.)

Besides the detail that rather few family gatherings extend to second cousins and beyond.

[liberal japonicus]

Charles, since you are reflecting about family gatherings, maybe reflect on how this might go down.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/article/2024/aug/30/donald-trump-ketamine-therapy-niece-mary-new-book

[Ufficio]

The missing object of the possessive noun on those shirts is apparently "second cousins whom he doesn't actually know".

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/photo-people-wearing-nebraska-walzs-trump-shirts-distant-113400609

Seems like they won't be running into each other at Thanksgiving.

[liberal japonicus]

I look on the bright side, Charles can tell us the exchange rate for Russian rubles.

[Glen Tomkins]

Think of how much housing square footage we could free up by deporting Trump and other billionaires, and then seizing their residences. You would of course have to do some conversion to split up the huge square footage these people each currently occupy, usually in prime city center real estate that most needs to have rents driven down towards affordability.

[Snarki, child of Loki]

You'd get a lot more new housing by converting golf-courses, but I for one would rather that they got converted to natural parklands.

[Cheez Whiz]

A lot of these commemts try to imagine a practical implementation of Trumps "mass deportation now" "plan", but there's an existing example at hand. Wall. The goal is performative retribution to satisfy performative outrage. A Potemkin solution to a a Potemkin problem. Stephen Miller may have more grandious schemes, but that won't matter to Trump unless it inconveniences him in some way, say if Tyson or some Big Ag CEO starts leaning on him, or the inevitable deaths start getting him bad press.

[Girl from the North Country]

The goal is performative retribution to satisfy performative outrage.

Exactly right.