His speaking style + how his words are snipped and parsed by some media sources make it impossible to tell. Perhaps if we looked at entire speeches.
Take the idea he wants to deport Muslims. He didn't say that, but lots of people think he did. Does he hate all (American) Muslims? Hard to know, but since he wants to deport them all the answer has to be "of course." That he said he wanted to bar immigration of Muslims--elsewhere making clear(er) that this would be until we have better vetting processes--and that this was immediately following a Muslim-perpetrated terror attack abroad wasn't important. I despise Trump, but not at the expense of getting the facts wrong.
Most of his anti-Latino rhetoric, if you look at slightly larger quotes, is anti-immigrant rhetoric. And most of his anti-immigrant rhetoric in context boils down to anti-illegal-immigrant rhetoric. We may argue that there are a lot of non-Latino immigrants that are illegal aliens, but when he complains about illegal immigration we're as stereotyping as much as anybody else. Including Trump, who, I have no doubt, conflates all illegal immigration with Latino immigration. And, in fact, many Latinos themselves.
Some of his anti-Latino rhetoric is also recent, *after* all the protests done by those who assumed that anti-illegal-immigrant rhetoric was simply anti-Latino rhetoric. It often refers to protesters or other groups/individuals that are identifiable because of what they've said or done. Even his anti-Latino-judge comment falls into this. If he'd said things about illegal immigration which was taken as meaning "anti-Canadian immigration" and had Canadian groups excoriating him and denouncing him and protesting him as anti-Canadian and "racist", he'd probably not look favorably at his fate being in the hands of a Canadian-American judge.
Not all his comments are helped by looking a wider context, I suspect. So it's just harder to know than we think.
As for how he speaks in general, an NPR interviewee had it right. In the last few election cycles politicians have pulled a Blair. Tony Blair was firmly middle class in upbringing and in speech, but when he spoke to "the masses" he tried to mimic a working class accent. (Thatcher was working class; she took elocution lessons to master RP). Bush had trouble with academic, formal English, and we mocked him. Obama was good, very good--if he spoke to an educated audience, he used the dialect he was raised in and the academic, explicit, formal style he was trained in. If he spoke to workers, Af-Am audiences, religious audiences, he modified his speaking style: He went closer to AAVE (which wasn't his first dialect of English, so he pulled a Blair) or picked up preacher cadences, or used audience-appropriate cultural allusions--and by pitching his speech to the audience he helped the audience to identify with him. It's manipulation, by any stretch, but rhetoric is the fine art of using speech to manipulate people. (I hate being manipulated.)
Sanders tries to do the same thing, but he really sucks at it. He's always the educated, elite intellectual in solidarity with the working class. Lenin was like this, and mocked by some of his co-revolutionaries for having a wooden speaking style. He doesn't have a wide variety of registers. You like his ideas or you are trained to look up to professors and how the more engaging of them talk. HRC is more stiff, has the same lack of variation, but is a less engaging as a professor. Perhaps adjunct faculty. When she tries to condescend, she blows it and it sounds fake.
Trump has limited stylistic variation, but is more like Bush. He can't comfortably and uniformly speak formal English with an elaborated code. He speaks more like working class people speak, and doesn't try to drop his dialect. He uses short sentences. He exaggerates or overstates things. He's not explicit. Instead of a long adjective phrase to delimit closely the set of people he's speaking about, he'll just say the noun or a single adjective and a noun and allow context or repair to make clear where the limits are. Or perhaps he doesn't care about precision, if people want to know they'll ask. Not his problem, he's not going to contort himself for others. It's a different speaking style, one that is less considered and more fluent (even if it means more sentence fragments and repair strategies) and much more uneducated and informal. He sounds like one of the people, so it's easier to use speech to identify with him.
Since Trump's speech is less explicit and elaborated, it's much less clear out of context. Remember: explicit codes are intended to make finely granulated arguments or decontextualized statements. Explicit codes embed most of what's needed for intelligibility in the utterance and that makes wider context less important. Trump's implicit code makes his sound bites even harder to parse than Sanders' or Clinton's.
= new reply since forum marked as read
