The sad thing is, the North Korean government actually believes in and wants to help climate change, but the "leader of the western world" doesn't. This madman wants to nuke every country under the sun, and even he can see that climate change is an issue. Ffs USA
I just want to point out some quick grammar points that probably led to the confusion above(confusing/angry comments deleted):
-Finn says, "the North Korean government actually believes in and wants to help climate change, but the 'leader of the western world' doesn't."
This is clear, especially in the context of Trump ("leader of the western world") pulling out of the Paris talks.
-The next point is where things get hazy. "the 'leader of the western world' doesn't." is considered an independent clause, with the operative "does" referring to the verb(s) in the antecedent clause, namely "believes" and "wants to help". The sentence immediately following an independent clause, "leader" (Trump) being the subject, starts with "This madman". As the "madman" sentence does not denote a subject as specific as Trump or Kim, the logical and grammatically correct assumption is that the nonspecific subject of the "madman" sentence would refer to the specific subject of the previous sentence.
The clarity of the sentence begins to fall apart as the "madman" sentence refers to the madman wanting to nuke the whole world (which many have been afraid of Trump doing ever since this last election began, and not many are actually afraid of Kim doing since all of his weapons tests have been lackluster), and then the sentence points out that the madman can see that climate change is an issue.
The dissonance rides on the last sentence, going back and forth on possible sentence subjects, eventually (and rather quickly, I might add) leaving the reader confused.
3
deleted
· 6 years ago
Sorry, if I was rude or incoherent, stressful day. I get way too worked up about this shit.... Have a great day.
However the end of the sentence should make it clear. (I'm not a native speaker), when I read "The madman" I assumed (wrongly) that it referred to Trump. However, upon reading "and even he can see...", 'he' obviously refers to 'the madman', and since 'he' acknowledges climat change it can only refer to Our Supreme Leader.
TRUMP: if North Korea does it, I'm not doing it
PRESS: but that's not the point, global warming is rea...
TRUMP: I'm not going to do it if the fat child dictator does it!
PRESS: but president trump the whole planet...
TRUMP: that's America we are talking about not earth
PRESS:....
TRUMP: terrific
Yet the country that don't care for the people, who are victimized, with no freedom... Possible then to have a low carbon footprint if there are so many restrictions...
-Finn says, "the North Korean government actually believes in and wants to help climate change, but the 'leader of the western world' doesn't."
This is clear, especially in the context of Trump ("leader of the western world") pulling out of the Paris talks.
-The next point is where things get hazy. "the 'leader of the western world' doesn't." is considered an independent clause, with the operative "does" referring to the verb(s) in the antecedent clause, namely "believes" and "wants to help". The sentence immediately following an independent clause, "leader" (Trump) being the subject, starts with "This madman". As the "madman" sentence does not denote a subject as specific as Trump or Kim, the logical and grammatically correct assumption is that the nonspecific subject of the "madman" sentence would refer to the specific subject of the previous sentence.
The dissonance rides on the last sentence, going back and forth on possible sentence subjects, eventually (and rather quickly, I might add) leaving the reader confused.
PRESS: but that's not the point, global warming is rea...
TRUMP: I'm not going to do it if the fat child dictator does it!
PRESS: but president trump the whole planet...
TRUMP: that's America we are talking about not earth
PRESS:....
TRUMP: terrific