I find this sort of comment very frustrating. Indeed there is some truth in it, but my frustration stems from a complete lack of any indication of the degree to which it is true, or the degree to which Trump supporters believe these things. There is no really good way of knowing what individual people are thinking in their minds, yet an alien reading forum comments might conclude we've mastered mind-reading technology.

> he's playing to a feeling

Implying any difference of political opinion is based on emotion, rather than logic or a simple difference of opinion. Sometime in the last 10 years or so did we decide The One True Proper Way To Run The World, but it wasn't reported in newspapers?

> that their share of America's political, cultural and economic "birthright"

They think certain things are a "birthright", as opposed to thinking (correctly or incorrectly) that it is something they have earned?

> has been stolen from them by "globalists" and their foreign allies

Why is globalists in quotes? In objective reality, is there not a fairly clear distinction between those who are more nationalist in their preferred approach to managing the world's affairs, and those who are more collective/globalist?

> and that this need to be pushed back against to return the US to some (apocryphal and mythical) golden age.

Must the motivation be returning to a "golden age"? I see the debate over nationalism vs globalism as little different than capitalism vs socialism. The US tends to be somewhat more towards the capitalist end of the spectrum, which yields some good results and some bad, I don't agree with the notion that any of that necessarily "belongs" or must necessarily be shared with the overall world. Demanding "charity" is extremely offensive to me. To be clear, I believe charity is very important and by my morality I essentially consider it a near obligation if things have worked out very well for you in life, but I simultaneously believe that it should be absolutely voluntary.

> He's not trying to negotiate as an equal but assert his dominance

This sounds lovely at first glance, until you put a little thought into it. Isn't this precisely how one should negotiate? Would you have us believe it is an accepted and widely practiced norm to negotiate in a manner that does not accentuate your strengths, in order to best achieve an agreement most beneficial to your goals?

> or at least in his head and the hearts of some of his supporters, he is.

Speculation on my part, but this seems fairly inline with the popular notion that Trump lacks or has lost his mental faculties, and his supporters are all motivated purely by uninformed emotions. Again, is an informed, logical, difference of opinion impossible?