TV-commercial pitchman? Game-show host?
(As an aside, would you call a pro wrestler an actor?)
That may apply more to GOP candidates than Democrats. Demonizing the left is the favorite past time for a certain segment of the media and the population while ignoring the hypocrisies of their own guy or gal.
If the Democrats keep to that they’ll lose in 2020. In 2016 the Democrats did not reach out to the people who voted for Trump. Indeed, the Left has spent much effort demonising whites, especially white males. No one likes being called a sexist. No one likes being called a racist. White men are routinely called both. The Left seem to ignore sexism against men. The Left seem to ignore - and even encourage - racism against whites. Trump reached out to them and duly won.
Is it? I’ve never seen even a minute of The Apprentice (not big on reality TV in general and Trump disgusted me even years ago). But I have the impression that it’s generally believed that the decision who to oust on the show was his. According to an article in today’s Chicago Tribune (I can look up a cite if anyone is interested) that decision was made by NBC personnel.
So maybe (and anyone who has watched the show could possibly verify) he’s a good enough actor to convince folks he was the one on the show making the decisions.
Despite being absolutely true.
I’m a white man and I never felt demonized, nor offended that sexists and racists were called what they are.
Some people on the right keep citing the ‘deplorables’ thing as reason she lost. I don’t think any of those people were going to vote democrat in the first place, they’re just throwing smoke and showing their hurt feelings.
Well, you know what Trump supporters think of your feelings.
It really baffles me, reading stuff like this, why the Right calls the Left “snowflakes”. And then I remember…projection.
I’m not aware of ever being demonized by any significant portion of the left, or any prominent democratic politician.
I’d call Dwayne Johnson an actor. No others come to mind that qualify. Eh, John Cena, maybe.
When I think of acting, I think of dramas, comedies, theater, that kind of stuff. A reality show host doesn’t qualify for me. When has Trump played anyone but himself? (Other than bad impressions of not-himself pushing his image to reporters over the phone?)
Fair enough, most people would not like being called either,
No, no they aren’t. As a 54 year old white man I can say I’ve never been called either for a very simple reason - I don’t make sexist or racist statements or act in ways that could be considered sexist or racist. The vast majority of white men I know would likely be able to truthfully say the same.
I would suggest anyone who finds themselves being routinely called either needs to reexamine what they are saying and how they are behaving.
But would you suggest, to people struggling to win a key election, that folks put that ‘reexamine what you say and how you behave’ message out there?
“Fair enough, most people would not like being called either,” you grant. Fair enough, says I; so what’s the primary goal, here?
The primary goal would be to win but I don’t think that means it is necessary to ignore racist/sexist attitudes or comments.
If I understand your point correctly - yes, it is unlikely to be well received when pointing out to people that accusations of racism or sexism may have some basis in what they do or say. The current election shows there are a substantial number of people who weren’t bothered by sexist or racist comments coming from the person they voted for. I still don’t think it makes it okay to ignore it. It could be argued HRC did a crap job pointing this out. The “deplorables” comment certainly was ill advised. Doesn’t mean someone can’t address it in a way that is more well received.
Do you at least understand how lots of Republicans may have felt demonized by Clinton’s “deplorables” comment?
Note: if your response is going to be something along the lines of ‘if they’re not actually racists and bigots, this shouldn’t have bothered them’, I’d encourage you to consider how that same logic might apply to Mitt Romney’s 47% comment.
The left is beginning to discover something: Telling the truth can incur consequences.
Truism of the day.
These are the same Republicans who have no problem laughing at other peoples’ “snowflake tears”, “safe spaces” and “triggering”? Yeah, I get why they feel demonized.
Uh, yeah: Republicans presumably lose the votes of people they sneeringly laugh at as safe-space snowflakes – and Dems can go tit-for-tat, explaining how they believe that deplorables are irredeemable: presumably losing their votes in turn.
Is that a trade to be desired? Or should Democrats live by the words my candidate spoke: When They Go Low, We Go High, all that stuff?
Only if they want to console themselves with their ethical purity as they lose again.
But they didn’t go with ethical purity. Hillary Clinton heard American citizens saying mean things about people who aren’t American citizens, and decided the best move was to call those voters deplorable and irredeemable – and, the very next day, she announced that she regretted her remarks.
At the debate, one of the moderators naturally asked a question about that, and she replied by emphatically stressing that her argument isn’t with Trump’s supporters, but with him. Because of course she did; you can’t put a statement like that out there and then stand by it, that’s just crazy talk.
She clearly had to back down, because ‘weak and dishonest’ was actually a less bad look than standing by that description – but walking it back, like doubling down, isn’t as good as simply not saying it in the first place.
Whoever the Dems put up in 2020 will presumably get asked about that: do you think “tens of millions of Americans” should get written off as deplorable and irredeemable? And I figure the candidate can say yes, and stand by it; or yes, but later disavow it; or no, the ethical-purity, they-go-low-we-go-high answer. Which do you recommend?