There’s a phrase for what Trump does – flood the zone with shit!
I have often thought about how to counter Trump’s rantings. And one way is to clearly vigorously fight back with point-by-point rebuttals with the same level of vitriol that Trump employs. The problems with this approach (especially for MSM types) is threefold: (1) you would…
There’s a phrase for what Trump does – flood the zone with shit!
I have often thought about how to counter Trump’s rantings. And one way is to clearly vigorously fight back with point-by-point rebuttals with the same level of vitriol that Trump employs. The problems with this approach (especially for MSM types) is threefold: (1) you would spend almost all day doing that, and (2) it could appear to the casual observer that you are “picking on” Trump, thereby either creating a sympathetic backlash or allowing the possibly persuadables to “tune you out”.
But the third aspect of this is the worst. I just don’t think that most of the anti-Trump crowd would be very good at it (and when I say “good”, I really mean “nasty” and “juvenile”). A sober, logical rebuttal of Trump (the kind you read in The Bulwark, for example) just doesn’t carry the same emotional gut punch that Trump’s rantings do. They sound squishy, by comparison.
It’s simply very hard to counter someone who is often disconnected from reality and has exactly zero sense of shame.
My go-to example here is Trump’s treatment of Clinton during their second debate when he stalked her around the stage. My wife wanted Clinton to turn around and say “back off Buster”. While that would have been very emotionally satisfying, it wouldn’t have worked. Trump would have immediately feigned offense and played the victim card. Clinton would have ended up the loser. The truth is that you just can’t get in the gutter with Trump. It’s like the old joke about wrestling with a pig – you get dirty and the pig likes it.
Perhaps I should rethink my position on this given the fact that it has become clear over the past several years that there are large portions of Trump supporters that are unreachable. They are a lost cause. There’s no reason to worry about how they will react to something. So the messaging has to be focused on the persuadables. And perhaps a logical, specific rebuttal would be effective with those folks. All I know is that an emotional appeal won’t work. Trump has the emotional vote all locked up.
"Perhaps I should rethink my position on this given the fact that it has become clear over the past several years that there are large portions of Trump supporters that are unreachable. They are a lost cause. There’s no reason to worry about how they will react to something. So the messaging has to be focused on the persuadables. And perhaps a logical, specific rebuttal would be effective with those folks. "
It sucks. But the uninformed populace would be the ones which enable an electoral vote win possibility. If the courts do their sworn duty, we won't have to chance that.
There’s a phrase for what Trump does – flood the zone with shit!
I have often thought about how to counter Trump’s rantings. And one way is to clearly vigorously fight back with point-by-point rebuttals with the same level of vitriol that Trump employs. The problems with this approach (especially for MSM types) is threefold: (1) you would spend almost all day doing that, and (2) it could appear to the casual observer that you are “picking on” Trump, thereby either creating a sympathetic backlash or allowing the possibly persuadables to “tune you out”.
But the third aspect of this is the worst. I just don’t think that most of the anti-Trump crowd would be very good at it (and when I say “good”, I really mean “nasty” and “juvenile”). A sober, logical rebuttal of Trump (the kind you read in The Bulwark, for example) just doesn’t carry the same emotional gut punch that Trump’s rantings do. They sound squishy, by comparison.
It’s simply very hard to counter someone who is often disconnected from reality and has exactly zero sense of shame.
My go-to example here is Trump’s treatment of Clinton during their second debate when he stalked her around the stage. My wife wanted Clinton to turn around and say “back off Buster”. While that would have been very emotionally satisfying, it wouldn’t have worked. Trump would have immediately feigned offense and played the victim card. Clinton would have ended up the loser. The truth is that you just can’t get in the gutter with Trump. It’s like the old joke about wrestling with a pig – you get dirty and the pig likes it.
Perhaps I should rethink my position on this given the fact that it has become clear over the past several years that there are large portions of Trump supporters that are unreachable. They are a lost cause. There’s no reason to worry about how they will react to something. So the messaging has to be focused on the persuadables. And perhaps a logical, specific rebuttal would be effective with those folks. All I know is that an emotional appeal won’t work. Trump has the emotional vote all locked up.
"Perhaps I should rethink my position on this given the fact that it has become clear over the past several years that there are large portions of Trump supporters that are unreachable. They are a lost cause. There’s no reason to worry about how they will react to something. So the messaging has to be focused on the persuadables. And perhaps a logical, specific rebuttal would be effective with those folks. "
It sucks. But the uninformed populace would be the ones which enable an electoral vote win possibility. If the courts do their sworn duty, we won't have to chance that.