Separate but Entangled: A Clinton Trump Conspiracy Made in Democratic Heaven
[2016 Copyright. All rights reserved]
In my last post, I speculated that Bernie Sanders would make a better opponent against the Trumpster than HillaryArtillery but that hinges on the Trumpster being a bona fide candidate. Something is this man's demeanor has caused me to reconsider whether Mr. Trump really is as ingenuous as his supporters make him out to be.
No matter how egotistical you are, the office of President and its attainment by mortal men, does not lend itself to flippant remarks and actions. I know this because I have had may "if I ran the country" moments and none of my ideas are glib and all are enveloped in the golden rule and expressed in a serious vein. I've called Mr. Trump a Nazi xenophobe but that ultimate hitman was never seen joking about the issues he considered important--at least, not in any documentary I ever saw. Who would trust a hitman of Trump's ilk with access to a nuclear button?
Now, you might say, "well, isn't this just Trump's personality?" Indeed it is but does he not have consultants on his payroll? By now, would he not be in contact with the GOP bigwigs who would certainly advise him on what is considered presidential and politically correct and why would he not abide by their suggestions? Is he that dogmatic and egotistical? In the business world who would make deals with such a person? In last night's debate, he told Megyn Kelly that he learns from his mistakes (this he said while explaining his flip-flops). So, is he also telling us he's slow learner? By now, cooler heads must have reasoned with him, "listen, old buddy, you're alienating every minority except the skinheads, you desperately need to seek a middle ground of conservatism. Are you dense or have you inhaled too much hairspray?" [btw, someone should look into that thought!]
What has triggered these feelings in me? First and foremost, it is the fact that he has contributed extensively to Democrats--including HillaryArtillery. He is also from a predominantly Liberal state--New York. Senator Cruz pointed out in last night's debate that the Trumpster has been donating to Democrats since Jimmy Carter and the Teflon DONald didn't point out that he also always gave to Republicans--merely said that he gives to "everybody." [is this because he "loves" everyone? Could the Pope have been wrong?] All this, and more, leads me to ask, "What if Donald Trump has made one of his famous deals with Hillary Clinton?"
What would be the point of this conspiracy? Two scenarios come to mind. On the one hand, if he should win the nomination, would he win the general election? One must consider the numbers he's obtained so far: an oft-repeated 40, 20, 20 split between Trump, Rubio, and Cruz. This clearly shows that although his supporters may consider him a winner, they need to ask what would happen if the "anti-Trump" votes coalesce? Then, it would be an even match. If he were then to win the nomination, it would be by the slimmest of margins making him a less than formidable opponent against Hillary Clinton. What if Trump loses the nomination? In essence, he will have then succeeded in taking away very valuable free airtime from Rubio and Cruz' campaigns and, more importantly, he will have affected 1/3 to 1/2 of the Republican voters many of whom, sour grapes in hand, might just stay out of the election for spite. He vowed support for the nominee but can Trump turn around his past disdain--his "liarTed" and "little man" comments--to now talk about honest Ted and big man Rubio? I hardly see that as believable.
Trump, eyeing his nomination, has been saying recently that he hasn't even gotten started on Hillary. "I will bring up the emails and Benghazi," says Trump but doesn't that go without saying? Why didn't he add, "and I've got aces that I can use against her that I can pull out of my hair, if need be?" His intention might just be to lose the nomination and leave behind an individual (either Cruz or Rubio) whose inexperience in worldly affairs will leave the individual vulnerable to Clinton attacks, and this person who had a hard time overcoming Trump would face another sharp-tongued opponent in the general election who might be just as "Trumpy" and effective as the original. I admit, It's a rocky road that needs to be walked by Mr. Trump; he must go the distance or risk being exposed. The risk to him is incurring the ire of the more aggressive members of his support when they find out and go ballistic on him.
The mainstream Republican power brokers have begun their Trump-trashing but what took them so long? Did they suddenly realize the truth of this conspiracy or have they awoken to the very real possibility of having the GOP labeled Neo-Nazi? I haven't got a handle on that but I'll say this much, we now know that the xenophobic members of the GOP number at least as much as 40%--judging by Trump's numbers. I don't mean true Neo-Nazi, of course, although they do constitute a part. No, I'm talking about your ordinary American xenophobe--you know, the "our way or the highway" or the "our country, love it (by taking it up the wazoo) or leave it" crowd.
What would Donald Trump gain by being a part of this conspiracy to defraud Republicans? Well, the way I see it, Mr. Trump is a one-trick pony. What he knows is real estate and only real estate as supported by Mitt Romney's speech pointing out the numerous Trumpster failings. As such, with a friend in the White House, who would naturally be better to supply real estate to the Clinton Administration than an old conspiratorial ally? The man could also do his own appropriations as--I don't know--Secretary of Commerce?
And, btw, that's another strike against the man's motives; he's known for the art of the deal but what businessman enters a negotiation ruffling the feathers of known constituents? You can say you are going to secure the borders but to add that you will also do mass deportations? No wonder he saw fit to hold up a "Hispanics love Trump" sign. I know Hispanics can be "me first" and the heck with the others who didn't make it across the border but deportations may just affect people they already know and that would hurt them in a personal way if they have any conscience at all, and I think they do.
Now, we need to ask if this conspiracy is needed by Clinton. Well, if the GOP nomination contenders had done a more traditional process sans Trump, someone could have emerged who could have appealed to all the Obama discontents who vote independent. I would not include the progressives or independents who felt let down by Obama's inability to fulfill his campaign promises--they would be siding with Bernie Sanders this election, and without Sanders they might just opt out of voting for someone who might be "guilty by association." Clinton must make the contrast between herself and her opponent as stark as possible, and that's Mr. Trump.
Now, if he does win the nomination, he would need to attack Madam Secretary with all he's got but what he's got will only receive the orchestrated counterattack of a well-oiled Democratic machinery. I can just see Hillary saying, "Well, first of all, let me say that it feels a bit odd running against a man [sly smile] who has supported us all along. You say you've done it only for business purposes, but, if that's true, can you tell us what has been the return on your investment, Donald?" Trump would then, I assume, disavow any favors else his supporters would wonder what future deals he would make with the "enemy." That still leaves people with a negative impression: he gave money and didn't get anything in exchange, therefore, he must really love the Democratic agenda--the man is a fraud! If, however, Mr. Trump is the real thing, he would counter with, "we all make mistakes. I, myself, have started businesses that never took off. Trump Vodka comes to mind," adding, "sounds too much like drunk Vodka, I think. . .I don't know. Luckily, I wasn't so dumb as to go with Drumpt Vodka--but I digress. But no, to answer your question, those days are gone, Mrs. Clinton. However, I'll say this, Harry Reid is going to like my deals not to mention Paul Ryan--a win/win for our country via a conservative Republican agenda. My presidency will not see obstructionism because I can talk to people unlike your old boss."
We'll have to see how the debates go but, as for me, I'd rather see Mr. Sanders doing battle against the Trumpster.
In summary, if Trump wins the nomination, Clinton wins because our country--if it can be said to have any moral fiber remaining--will not go down that route; and, if Mr. Trump loses the nomination, the harm will have been done (via weakened opponents) and Clinton wins again. I repeat, though, this conclusion only applies if Mr. Trump is not a bonafide candidate. If he is a serious candidate, then DT, getting his needed makeover, would then appeal to more mainstream Americans. To confront an ingenuous Trump, Bernie Sanders is the only viable opponent. Without Sanders, a red-blooded acerbic truthsayer would "Trump" a blue-blooded secretive maven any day, imho.
[Mr. Sanders race is a tough one because HC has many endorsements and the support of Democratic xenophobes and jingoists; included among the xenophobes are those who view socialism as joined at the hip with communism--McCarthyism, in some guise, still pervades many a psyche here in the U.S. as is apparent by those who continue to vote against socialistic policies that are intended to benefit everyone but the Waltons, and, btw, we all know who wouldn't touch their coffers. I don't see what the jingoists have against Mr. Sanders, however, because he voted for Afghanistan (to get Bin Laden, he says) and he voted for Libya regime change (Gaddafi was a baaaad man; ie. Lockerbie). Sanders however, would never opt for a bogus war and would always try diplomacy or an international effort before getting involved in another war but such compromise doth rattle the nerves of the Neocons in both parties albeit those Democratic know the art of dissimulation well. He does seem to be a little vindictive when it comes to those who are generally perceived to have "struck first," and that is a good quality to have in a U.S. election so, I'll just have to accept him that way.]
In my last post, I speculated that Bernie Sanders would make a better opponent against the Trumpster than HillaryArtillery but that hinges on the Trumpster being a bona fide candidate. Something is this man's demeanor has caused me to reconsider whether Mr. Trump really is as ingenuous as his supporters make him out to be.
No matter how egotistical you are, the office of President and its attainment by mortal men, does not lend itself to flippant remarks and actions. I know this because I have had may "if I ran the country" moments and none of my ideas are glib and all are enveloped in the golden rule and expressed in a serious vein. I've called Mr. Trump a Nazi xenophobe but that ultimate hitman was never seen joking about the issues he considered important--at least, not in any documentary I ever saw. Who would trust a hitman of Trump's ilk with access to a nuclear button?
Now, you might say, "well, isn't this just Trump's personality?" Indeed it is but does he not have consultants on his payroll? By now, would he not be in contact with the GOP bigwigs who would certainly advise him on what is considered presidential and politically correct and why would he not abide by their suggestions? Is he that dogmatic and egotistical? In the business world who would make deals with such a person? In last night's debate, he told Megyn Kelly that he learns from his mistakes (this he said while explaining his flip-flops). So, is he also telling us he's slow learner? By now, cooler heads must have reasoned with him, "listen, old buddy, you're alienating every minority except the skinheads, you desperately need to seek a middle ground of conservatism. Are you dense or have you inhaled too much hairspray?" [btw, someone should look into that thought!]
What has triggered these feelings in me? First and foremost, it is the fact that he has contributed extensively to Democrats--including HillaryArtillery. He is also from a predominantly Liberal state--New York. Senator Cruz pointed out in last night's debate that the Trumpster has been donating to Democrats since Jimmy Carter and the Teflon DONald didn't point out that he also always gave to Republicans--merely said that he gives to "everybody." [is this because he "loves" everyone? Could the Pope have been wrong?] All this, and more, leads me to ask, "What if Donald Trump has made one of his famous deals with Hillary Clinton?"
What would be the point of this conspiracy? Two scenarios come to mind. On the one hand, if he should win the nomination, would he win the general election? One must consider the numbers he's obtained so far: an oft-repeated 40, 20, 20 split between Trump, Rubio, and Cruz. This clearly shows that although his supporters may consider him a winner, they need to ask what would happen if the "anti-Trump" votes coalesce? Then, it would be an even match. If he were then to win the nomination, it would be by the slimmest of margins making him a less than formidable opponent against Hillary Clinton. What if Trump loses the nomination? In essence, he will have then succeeded in taking away very valuable free airtime from Rubio and Cruz' campaigns and, more importantly, he will have affected 1/3 to 1/2 of the Republican voters many of whom, sour grapes in hand, might just stay out of the election for spite. He vowed support for the nominee but can Trump turn around his past disdain--his "liarTed" and "little man" comments--to now talk about honest Ted and big man Rubio? I hardly see that as believable.
Trump, eyeing his nomination, has been saying recently that he hasn't even gotten started on Hillary. "I will bring up the emails and Benghazi," says Trump but doesn't that go without saying? Why didn't he add, "and I've got aces that I can use against her that I can pull out of my hair, if need be?" His intention might just be to lose the nomination and leave behind an individual (either Cruz or Rubio) whose inexperience in worldly affairs will leave the individual vulnerable to Clinton attacks, and this person who had a hard time overcoming Trump would face another sharp-tongued opponent in the general election who might be just as "Trumpy" and effective as the original. I admit, It's a rocky road that needs to be walked by Mr. Trump; he must go the distance or risk being exposed. The risk to him is incurring the ire of the more aggressive members of his support when they find out and go ballistic on him.
The mainstream Republican power brokers have begun their Trump-trashing but what took them so long? Did they suddenly realize the truth of this conspiracy or have they awoken to the very real possibility of having the GOP labeled Neo-Nazi? I haven't got a handle on that but I'll say this much, we now know that the xenophobic members of the GOP number at least as much as 40%--judging by Trump's numbers. I don't mean true Neo-Nazi, of course, although they do constitute a part. No, I'm talking about your ordinary American xenophobe--you know, the "our way or the highway" or the "our country, love it (by taking it up the wazoo) or leave it" crowd.
What would Donald Trump gain by being a part of this conspiracy to defraud Republicans? Well, the way I see it, Mr. Trump is a one-trick pony. What he knows is real estate and only real estate as supported by Mitt Romney's speech pointing out the numerous Trumpster failings. As such, with a friend in the White House, who would naturally be better to supply real estate to the Clinton Administration than an old conspiratorial ally? The man could also do his own appropriations as--I don't know--Secretary of Commerce?
And, btw, that's another strike against the man's motives; he's known for the art of the deal but what businessman enters a negotiation ruffling the feathers of known constituents? You can say you are going to secure the borders but to add that you will also do mass deportations? No wonder he saw fit to hold up a "Hispanics love Trump" sign. I know Hispanics can be "me first" and the heck with the others who didn't make it across the border but deportations may just affect people they already know and that would hurt them in a personal way if they have any conscience at all, and I think they do.
Now, we need to ask if this conspiracy is needed by Clinton. Well, if the GOP nomination contenders had done a more traditional process sans Trump, someone could have emerged who could have appealed to all the Obama discontents who vote independent. I would not include the progressives or independents who felt let down by Obama's inability to fulfill his campaign promises--they would be siding with Bernie Sanders this election, and without Sanders they might just opt out of voting for someone who might be "guilty by association." Clinton must make the contrast between herself and her opponent as stark as possible, and that's Mr. Trump.
Now, if he does win the nomination, he would need to attack Madam Secretary with all he's got but what he's got will only receive the orchestrated counterattack of a well-oiled Democratic machinery. I can just see Hillary saying, "Well, first of all, let me say that it feels a bit odd running against a man [sly smile] who has supported us all along. You say you've done it only for business purposes, but, if that's true, can you tell us what has been the return on your investment, Donald?" Trump would then, I assume, disavow any favors else his supporters would wonder what future deals he would make with the "enemy." That still leaves people with a negative impression: he gave money and didn't get anything in exchange, therefore, he must really love the Democratic agenda--the man is a fraud! If, however, Mr. Trump is the real thing, he would counter with, "we all make mistakes. I, myself, have started businesses that never took off. Trump Vodka comes to mind," adding, "sounds too much like drunk Vodka, I think. . .I don't know. Luckily, I wasn't so dumb as to go with Drumpt Vodka--but I digress. But no, to answer your question, those days are gone, Mrs. Clinton. However, I'll say this, Harry Reid is going to like my deals not to mention Paul Ryan--a win/win for our country via a conservative Republican agenda. My presidency will not see obstructionism because I can talk to people unlike your old boss."
We'll have to see how the debates go but, as for me, I'd rather see Mr. Sanders doing battle against the Trumpster.
In summary, if Trump wins the nomination, Clinton wins because our country--if it can be said to have any moral fiber remaining--will not go down that route; and, if Mr. Trump loses the nomination, the harm will have been done (via weakened opponents) and Clinton wins again. I repeat, though, this conclusion only applies if Mr. Trump is not a bonafide candidate. If he is a serious candidate, then DT, getting his needed makeover, would then appeal to more mainstream Americans. To confront an ingenuous Trump, Bernie Sanders is the only viable opponent. Without Sanders, a red-blooded acerbic truthsayer would "Trump" a blue-blooded secretive maven any day, imho.
[Mr. Sanders race is a tough one because HC has many endorsements and the support of Democratic xenophobes and jingoists; included among the xenophobes are those who view socialism as joined at the hip with communism--McCarthyism, in some guise, still pervades many a psyche here in the U.S. as is apparent by those who continue to vote against socialistic policies that are intended to benefit everyone but the Waltons, and, btw, we all know who wouldn't touch their coffers. I don't see what the jingoists have against Mr. Sanders, however, because he voted for Afghanistan (to get Bin Laden, he says) and he voted for Libya regime change (Gaddafi was a baaaad man; ie. Lockerbie). Sanders however, would never opt for a bogus war and would always try diplomacy or an international effort before getting involved in another war but such compromise doth rattle the nerves of the Neocons in both parties albeit those Democratic know the art of dissimulation well. He does seem to be a little vindictive when it comes to those who are generally perceived to have "struck first," and that is a good quality to have in a U.S. election so, I'll just have to accept him that way.]
Comments
Post a Comment