In the first Trump/Clinton debate, Trump says ‘African American’ a number of times. In reverse it can sound like language. It’s worth analysing each of them to see whether they are language or not.
Each of these reversals contain ‘crime’, which occurs when ‘America’ is reversed. One must be careful to accept reversals with this word, even if there appears to be words with it that can make up a sentence or phrase. However, that said, if the subconscious is influencing what is said and how it is said, then that is likely at both sound and word level. But, the word America/American is going to be used in a variety of verbal interactions and communications, and the Trump/Clinton debate was certainly one of them. Therefore the choice of the word is less likely to be influenced by the subconscious then other words where there is more flexibility in choice.
The section in brackets, [African A]mericans, also produces what seems language. Let’s have a listen to the first one. A general macro listening can make it sound like
Seen that in the crime. I think you’re fat.
FS: We need law and order and we need law and order in the inner cities, and the people that are most affected by what’s happening are (African American and His)panic people.
Note: Ɂ will be used to denote a sound like similar to a glottal t – where the vocal tract is constricted instead of an alveolar articulation of [t]. ɾ will be used to denote an alveolar flap – where the tongue tip hits the alveolar ridge quickly rather than produce an n/t/d/l, as in how ‘water’ is often pronounced.
A closer listening reveals something like “SinaɁnicrime-aɾikyerfaɁ
I have selected the word ‘think’ to represent the sounds at that point in the reversal. It is uncertain to know what it could be, and I have chosen ‘think’ as the closest possibility. One can project into it ‘make you fat’, but I think this is even less likely than ‘think’.
[th] does not occur in ‘that’ and ‘the’; of course, [th] in normal speech can assimilate to the [n], but there is no perception of [th] or alveolar stop (t/d) in either word, and there is no grey area here.
I think you’re fat occurs again behind the following FS. This time there is nothing before ‘crime’ that can be perceived as language-like.
FS: We have to protect our inner cities because [African A]merican communities are being decimated by crime.
In the next occurrence, it can be heard as either ‘I think you’re fat’, or ‘A nigger fight’. This is so because [y] in ‘you’re’ is weaker than in the other examples, allowing perception of ‘er’ instead. Also, the vowel in the last word is longer, more like a double vowel.
Sits in the crime. I think your fat/A nigger fight
FS: … our inner cities, [African Americans, His]panics are living in hell …
There is a sense of ‘sits in the crime’ first – sits’nicrime.
In the last one, ‘African Americans’ is uttered two times, and in both, it is more like ‘nigger fight’. The stronger force of [y] following the velar [k] in the FS, helps to give a sense of [g] where the [y] is masked. Before ‘crime’. Is what sounds like ‘making the’ (makini).
¹Making the crime, a nigger fight ²But nigger fight
FS: ¹[The African American community has been let down by our politicians. They talk good around election time like right now, and after the election they said, see you later I’ll see you in 4 years. ²[The African A]merican commu, ah, b, me look, the community within the inner cities has been so badly treated, they’ve been abused and used in order to get votes by democratic poli ….
Can anything be genuine here? Saying that someone is fat again and again behind the same FS words is a big stretch, and there do not appear to be any triggers from the speaking. ‘Think’ is highly suspect, and anything else in its place would be contentious. The something something in the two examples are likely worthless (Sure, one may view his subconscious as saying it’s a crime being fat, but I believe the likelihood of it being genuine language is low). That said, something a little peculiar occurred after the first two reversals listed above. Straight after, he seems to say ‘pasta’. In the first one ‘need a pasta’, in the second just ‘pasta’ (well, actually ‘pasta with vayue’, but the last word is too much like gibberish). What is even more unusual is that ‘pasta’ was formed by completely different words from the FS.
The final example, although not perfect, is sounder overall. It is the only place where ‘nigger fight’ can be heard easily (although the second has a tremolo effect). It occurs two times in the same section of speech, seconds apart. Also, ‘nigger’ and ‘African Americans’ is directly associated. Once again, language-sounding words before ‘crime’ behind ‘American” in the FS, should not be trusted. But, including it, an easy interpretation can be given – problems/crimes are the fault of African Americans, and this points a finger at them for the problems they experience. However, it is fairly easy applying meanings to what we hear, and we need to be careful about using it as a justification for genuineness of language. Some weight can be given to it in evidence, but the question is how much?
Do I think the last example is genuine? I’m sceptical.