Trumpedity, Trump, Trump--Revisiting the Stable
This is a follow-up to my previous post on the Clinton-Trump connection. This conspiracy theory of mine is a bit more firmly "planted" today compared to when I first proposed it. For those new to the theory, he it is in a nutshell: HRC/WJC and DJ got together and one of them made an offer to the other that could not be refused, namely, let's run against each other and HRC will win because Liberals will continue with their herd, progressives will rear at the prospect of Sysyphus gaining the upper hand, and conservatives don't see all that much conservatism in this Disc Jockey who spins his disk backwards like a misguided Beatles fan looking for rhyme and reason where there is none. What about Independents? Well these folk (indie here) go with the best choice for their current situation with or without a little magnanimity thrown in for foreign policy, immigrants, and the "humble sons of unpropitious fortune" as James Madison once referred to the 99%,
Why? Because Trump is a "mudder," a horse who does well when the random rain muddies the racetrack but is less than stellar at most other times.
Build a wall. We need to remember that drug-lords do well because of demand. If there were no demand for cheap labor or ready voters (here, I stand guilty of fueling Conservative ire), the pasture would quickly dry up. Mostly because of the former, it's not going to happen--do you think Mr. Trump wants his hotels to go into the red because of labor costs. We are so addicted to cheap labor that U.S. companies will go abroad to look for it. Give it a rest xenophobes and keep the taxpayer here.
Foreign policy. Here I refer you to a fine analysis of Trump's foreign policy speech found in today's GuardianUS. The inconsistencies in the same speech are mind-blowing. The article points out that the speech was probably written by more than one person [and, if you ask me, Trump was unlikely to have been one of them], and that would be OK if he had taken the time to edit the speech. Here we see another possible shortcoming: is Trump capable of hiring people that can take over an entire facet of his administration? If he can't hire one head speechwriter, is it because he can't be bothered providing input or proofreading and/or, is it because he is deathly afraid of sharing the spotlight. Or was it a foolhardy maneuver to same money? I don't know, who has the right tip sheet?
To digress a little, why does Trump keep ahead of the pack? Aside from his supporters with their fringe values that coalesce around a negative regressive theme, the previous paragraph points to another motive force. What if the people who have have a hand in his momentum seek to make his administration an oligarchical one with Trump role that of the most colorful carousel pony? We saw the nascent beginnings of this in the Bush Administration vis-a-vis Cheneyan and Rumsfeldian influences. Barack Obama's administration had these too (the Emmanuels come to mind) but he strutted his stuff and got rid of them [not before one of them had ruined single-payer, though] and even his top political appointee, Secretary Clinton, and we know she didn't quit because it would have been very advantageous for her to have remained Secretary of State up until she actually started her run. On the flip side, if BO had wanted her around and it turned out she had really burned herself out [the fires do tend to follow her around, don't they?], where will she get her stamina from this time? Oh yea, that's right, they'll be two of them in the WH if things go according to her plan.
Muslims. For someone with such avowed nationalistic fervor, does Trump not realize that nation trumps motherland? We saw it firsthand with the Japanese incessantly accused of being a fifth column to the point of incarceration and yet had the most decorated group of fighting soldiers in the second world war and never exhibited the slightest evidence of collusion. The recent German immigrants then were a little feisty but not by much, and the Italians had their Sacco & Vanzetti but, not really. We see it in documented Hispanic immigrants who rail against deportation but remain mum when it comes to the wall. What about our Blacks--do I have to ask? Many allegiances to country turn out to be economic but, who cares? Even when the money dries up, you still prefer that which you know. There may have been wretched hordes coming to our shores but few would have come had they known U.S. was an enemy of their homeland. Likewise, few Muslims living comfortably here would support their homeland just because their homeland was at war with the U.S. I just don't see it; you would have to prove to me that the Muslim is a radically different [no pun intended] human being. The only monkey wrench is the Sunni/Shiite dichotomy but whichever sect ends up being the minority in the U.S., our Equal Protection Clause should assuage any discord amongst them. Further, looking at the Middle East:
Is this not because the people of Iraq are Iraqi nationals first and Sunni or Shiite sectarian second?
Women. If Trump stays misogynistic, it is proof positive that he is a Hillary Clinton plant and that this posture only represents a safety valve in case he does get the nomination. Women will not forget and will not vote for the German Stallion in a general election (I think I heard recently on CNN that 78% of women polled held an unfavorable opinion of Trump). He attacks HRC as "crooked" but not much else. Ok, that almost makes sense--save the ammo for later and don't show your cards--but why not start spreading the political memes now while he still has all that free media coverage? I would, wouldn't you? After all, as far as Hillary Clinton is concerned, the only surprises an opponent might throw at her are in privately held transcripts of speeches. The irony if all this plays out as Hillary plans, is that Mr. Trump will have actually done his schtick for the sake of a woman candidate. Will he stick with his schtick?
Now, I believe the HRC/DJ conspiracy was originally intended as a means of weakening the GOP, and here the pact succeeded; however, the successful outcome turned out to be a runaway train and quite intoxicating, so much so that now the possibility of a Trump nomination is very real. Whether HRC still welcomes the pact is not known. That all depends on Mr. Trump polishing his image and message to appeal to those beyond his present supporters. However, if the aforementioned foreign policy speech is any indication, Trump's mudder days will be a little too slippery for his feet in the second half of this year even as he continues to maintain his proud Gullfaxi mane.
From www.pinterest.com image: Gullfaxi- Norse myth: a brilliant horse with a golden mane that could run on land, water, and air and it was equally fast on each plane. [also a good mudder, I guess]
Why? Because Trump is a "mudder," a horse who does well when the random rain muddies the racetrack but is less than stellar at most other times.
Build a wall. We need to remember that drug-lords do well because of demand. If there were no demand for cheap labor or ready voters (here, I stand guilty of fueling Conservative ire), the pasture would quickly dry up. Mostly because of the former, it's not going to happen--do you think Mr. Trump wants his hotels to go into the red because of labor costs. We are so addicted to cheap labor that U.S. companies will go abroad to look for it. Give it a rest xenophobes and keep the taxpayer here.
Foreign policy. Here I refer you to a fine analysis of Trump's foreign policy speech found in today's GuardianUS. The inconsistencies in the same speech are mind-blowing. The article points out that the speech was probably written by more than one person [and, if you ask me, Trump was unlikely to have been one of them], and that would be OK if he had taken the time to edit the speech. Here we see another possible shortcoming: is Trump capable of hiring people that can take over an entire facet of his administration? If he can't hire one head speechwriter, is it because he can't be bothered providing input or proofreading and/or, is it because he is deathly afraid of sharing the spotlight. Or was it a foolhardy maneuver to same money? I don't know, who has the right tip sheet?
To digress a little, why does Trump keep ahead of the pack? Aside from his supporters with their fringe values that coalesce around a negative regressive theme, the previous paragraph points to another motive force. What if the people who have have a hand in his momentum seek to make his administration an oligarchical one with Trump role that of the most colorful carousel pony? We saw the nascent beginnings of this in the Bush Administration vis-a-vis Cheneyan and Rumsfeldian influences. Barack Obama's administration had these too (the Emmanuels come to mind) but he strutted his stuff and got rid of them [not before one of them had ruined single-payer, though] and even his top political appointee, Secretary Clinton, and we know she didn't quit because it would have been very advantageous for her to have remained Secretary of State up until she actually started her run. On the flip side, if BO had wanted her around and it turned out she had really burned herself out [the fires do tend to follow her around, don't they?], where will she get her stamina from this time? Oh yea, that's right, they'll be two of them in the WH if things go according to her plan.
Muslims. For someone with such avowed nationalistic fervor, does Trump not realize that nation trumps motherland? We saw it firsthand with the Japanese incessantly accused of being a fifth column to the point of incarceration and yet had the most decorated group of fighting soldiers in the second world war and never exhibited the slightest evidence of collusion. The recent German immigrants then were a little feisty but not by much, and the Italians had their Sacco & Vanzetti but, not really. We see it in documented Hispanic immigrants who rail against deportation but remain mum when it comes to the wall. What about our Blacks--do I have to ask? Many allegiances to country turn out to be economic but, who cares? Even when the money dries up, you still prefer that which you know. There may have been wretched hordes coming to our shores but few would have come had they known U.S. was an enemy of their homeland. Likewise, few Muslims living comfortably here would support their homeland just because their homeland was at war with the U.S. I just don't see it; you would have to prove to me that the Muslim is a radically different [no pun intended] human being. The only monkey wrench is the Sunni/Shiite dichotomy but whichever sect ends up being the minority in the U.S., our Equal Protection Clause should assuage any discord amongst them. Further, looking at the Middle East:
- Did the mostly Shiite Iran help the Shiite in Iraq before the Iraq War?
- Did the mostly Sunni Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria, and Egypt help the Sunni in Iraq after the Iraq War?
Is this not because the people of Iraq are Iraqi nationals first and Sunni or Shiite sectarian second?
Women. If Trump stays misogynistic, it is proof positive that he is a Hillary Clinton plant and that this posture only represents a safety valve in case he does get the nomination. Women will not forget and will not vote for the German Stallion in a general election (I think I heard recently on CNN that 78% of women polled held an unfavorable opinion of Trump). He attacks HRC as "crooked" but not much else. Ok, that almost makes sense--save the ammo for later and don't show your cards--but why not start spreading the political memes now while he still has all that free media coverage? I would, wouldn't you? After all, as far as Hillary Clinton is concerned, the only surprises an opponent might throw at her are in privately held transcripts of speeches. The irony if all this plays out as Hillary plans, is that Mr. Trump will have actually done his schtick for the sake of a woman candidate. Will he stick with his schtick?
Now, I believe the HRC/DJ conspiracy was originally intended as a means of weakening the GOP, and here the pact succeeded; however, the successful outcome turned out to be a runaway train and quite intoxicating, so much so that now the possibility of a Trump nomination is very real. Whether HRC still welcomes the pact is not known. That all depends on Mr. Trump polishing his image and message to appeal to those beyond his present supporters. However, if the aforementioned foreign policy speech is any indication, Trump's mudder days will be a little too slippery for his feet in the second half of this year even as he continues to maintain his proud Gullfaxi mane.
From www.pinterest.com image: Gullfaxi- Norse myth: a brilliant horse with a golden mane that could run on land, water, and air and it was equally fast on each plane. [also a good mudder, I guess]
Comments
Post a Comment