Jophiel wrote:
That's not what I was referring to. I was referring to your defense of Trump's nativism/nationalism and its appeal to GOP voters and trying to pretend that Clinton & Sanders were doing the same thing.
And that's what I'm talking about. At no point did I "defend" Trump. The fact that you keep interpreting what I'm writing in the context of some kind of motivation on my part is the problem. You create a motivation for me, then dismiss what I write because of that motivation. "Oh. You're just defending Trump for <Whatever>. Let's move on...". But what you're missing is the core point I'm making. That trying to dismiss Trump via the same sort of associative labeling isn't going to work. You responded to that by just lumping yet another associative label (nationalist) to him. So basically doubling down on the same mistake I was just pointing out you were making.
Most people aren't going to understand what the term means. They aren't going to know or care what the term means. And of those who do, most will also realize that the term applies just as much to Clinton as to Trump. Actually, arguably moreso. This isn't me "defending" Trump. It's me pointing out that the method of attack you're using isn't likely to be very effective.
Quote:
Quote:
It's just struck me when reading all these opinion pieces in Salon, or Slate, or Huff Po, or wherever...
I don't regularly read any of those so I'll take your word for it. The few Slate or Salon pieces I've seen linked and read in the last six months have been about how Sanders is the bestest choice to beat Trump ever which doesn't really jive with what you're reading but, again, I'll defer to your Slate/Salon/HuffPo reading experience.
The last week or so has been "interesting", in that regard. I've noticed a definite shift in tone. Cruz dropping out marked the clear point at which, barring something really strange and unlikely, it was clear that this was a Clinton/Trump race. And the op-eds reflected that change (as did this very thread, right?). And what I noticed right off the bat was what I viewed as a regurgitation of the same negatives about Trump that conservatives were saying last summer. It's almost like most of the liberal writers were so focused on Sanders vs Clinton (in whichever direction) that they've just been stuck in amber in terms of how they view Trump. They still see him as they did last summer. The guy they really hoped would somehow do well and win the nomination because he'd be the easy guy for Clinton to beat. I honestly don't think they've paid any attention at all to how public opinion has shifted in the meantime.
So yeah, that's at least part of what's been driving my posts on this subject. It just doesn't look like the liberal pundits are taking Trump at all seriously. Which I think is a massive mistake. And when they do make some kind of assessment, they make what I think are the wrong ones. Funny bit of irony, I've been avoiding Bill Maher's show for years now, mainly because it prompts me to yell at the TV far too much, but for some reason I was inspired to tune in last Friday. Right after I'd posted (in the other thread maybe?) about the pattern of mistake that Bush, Rubio, and Cruz all followed (first taking the high road and expecting Trumps offensive nature to bite him and looking weak, then complaining when it didn't and looking like whiners, then finally counter attacking but by then just looking desperate followed by a rapid decline). So there's this guest on, and in the midst of a semi heated debate about Trump (which was amusing since Coulter was on the panel), he was asked what Clinton should to in response to Trump. What did the guy say? "She just needs to take the high road...". I practically face palmed at that.
Look. It's entirely possible that I'm completely wrong about this. Maybe the general electorate really is a whole different animal, and will resoundingly reject Trump and everything he says and does. Maybe, despite the exact same tactic failing horrifically for everyone in the GOP who tried it, Clinton can take the high road and win against Trump. Maybe this time, they'll laugh at him instead of with him. But... I wouldn't bet on it. I just see the same pattern occurring again. And it's not a pretty pattern.