Trump is a Clinton shill !?

[BrainEater]

Hehe , I'm new here , go easy on me.

-------

As an Impartial observer to US politics ,I can't help but think that the current dog-and-pony show is all a sham.

I think Hillary Clinton paid the Donald , to be her opponent.
What better way to guarantee the office , than to have a total buffoon as your competition.

I could be wrong , but ......

 

[DrPizza]

It's not a bad question. It was actually asked of Bill Clinton on one of the late night talk shows. He said he wishes he could take credit for having thought of it.

"I get credit for doing a lot of things I didn't do like that," he said. "I had a very pleasant conversation with him and it wasn't about running for office. So I missed a chance."

Upon further thought, it was an amusing question to ask, tongue in cheek, 8 months ago. Now, though, I've reconsidered - not really a good question at this point. Incidentally, that "buffoon" beat a very large field of Republican candidates. Though, it's quite possible that part of the reason for that was because it was a very large field of Republican candidates - it made his branding and macho attitude enough to get some momentum going.

 

[theeedude]

No, he is a Putin shill.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Hehe , I'm new here , go easy on me.

-------

As an Impartial observer to US politics ,I can't help but think that the current dog-and-pony show is all a sham.

I think Hillary Clinton paid the Donald , to be her opponent.
What better way to guarantee the office , than to have a total buffoon as your competition.

I could be wrong , but ......

It would be a wonderful movie plot but you're wrong. Trump is spewing far too much FUD for Hillary to have made a deal with him

 

[BonzaiDuck]

After immersing myself in the Cold War history of CIA psy-war, mind-control and propaganda projects, it corrupted my moral compass. So when I came up with my own preposterous theory that Bill Clinton had somehow manipulated Trump into declaring his candidacy, I told myself "Good! Great! Wonderful!" Which suggests that I'm no better than the GOP and Right-wing spinsters on FOX, in Congress, and from whatever woodwork they worm themselves out of.

But if such a thing happened, Trump would not have been a deliberate part of any agreement. His appearances show how disordered is his personality, with his volatile statements, indifference to Truth and Fact. It is no less true that his divisive politics provides some good advantage to Democrats -- seeking to unify their base.

If you ask me, Trump is more likely a shill for Putin. And nobody with Clinton's sense of things would have somehow, almost implausibly created the Trump Monster and put us on the brink of his being within votes of reaching the White House.

 

[Zaap]

It would be a wonderful movie plot but you're wrong. Trump is spewing far too much FUD for Hillary to have made a deal with him

But how does that follow? The whole reason that there would have been any such 'deal' is that she knows the Donald is the Donald. That is, he has NO FILTER. His whole thing is spewing whatever thought comes into his brain, and being the boss in his world, surrounded by yes-men, he's never had anyone really challenge him on just speaking his mind, however inane.

I don't think it's really any big conspiracy if this shit show is "rigged". It may have just been something like a friendly wager "Donald, you run and I'm going to run. May the best candidate win!" (Hillary of course being shrewd enough to realize that UNFILTERED Donald Trump on the ticket opposite her is pretty much a guaranteed win for her. Trump being a self-promoting blowhard, not really giving a crap about being president, just enjoying all the attention he's getting.)

No matter what, it truly won't surprise me when all is said and done that we learn both the Clintons and the Trumps are laughing all the way to be bank from this whole thing. What does it really matter if you're president (meaning Trump) and hardly even want to be, vs. your corrupt pal being prez? (And it's laughable if anyone really believes R vs D means shit- Trump was a D himself for many years. It doesn't make any fucking difference.)

 

[BrainEater]

No matter what, it truly won't surprise me when all is said and done that we learn both the Clintons and the Trumps are laughing all the way to be bank from this whole thing.

+1 agree .
This is what I mean , both Candidates , regardless of 'badge' are 1%rs. They are capitalists before anything.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

this is not new behavior for drumpf, he's been like this for decades, now he just has a much bigger stage and a much larger audience to drink in all the glory that is drumpf. he's an egomaniac of the highest order and that's about the long and short of it.

 

[MongGrel]

Trump just wants to be in position to start a new faux news network in the future it looks to me, as far as a future goal on his end.

 

[Jhhnn]

What a great way for Repubs to shift the blame for Trump's success onto somebody, anybody, else. Must be that Kenyan voodoo time warp mind control than Clinton learned from Obama.

There is, after all, the matter of 14M votes he received in the Repub primaries, almost twice as many as Cruz. Those voters luvved 'em some Donald. They still love whatever he spews. They've been primed for it for years, filled with bitterness & fear by right wing propaganda, beat down by trickle down, too.

How could a masterful con man possibly pass up such an incredible agglomeration of chumps once he saw them in that light? Not Donald, obviously. He bowled them over with his bullshit.

OTOH, if he thinks there are enough Americans of that persuasion to make him President he's the one who's crazy, not them. I figure he's in it to keep himself amused, to figure out how much fame he can get & how much money he can make off the deal. He's def catapulted himself into the History books to a place he'd never be as a wheeler-dealer billionaire.

 

[ivwshane]

Trump was on tv at a Republican convention back in 1988 talking about running for president and he said if he ran he would win, he said when he does things he likes to win.

In order for trump to be doing this for Hillary you would have to ignore his history and his massive ego.

 

[Balt]

I don't think he's a Clinton shill, though it is a very amusing conspiracy theory.

I do believe the widespread theory that he was just running for the Rep nomination for publicity and money and book sales, though. Half of the Republican clown car field (it was something like 16 people iirc) were just running to get on TV and sell more copies of their crappy books or promote their radio shows. I think Trump belongs in this camp. If he really wanted to win the nomination, he probably wouldn't have just ad-libbed his opening and closing remarks. They were basically the same for every debate, "America sucks, we don't win, China and Mexico wins" etc.

I think he was surprised, as many of us were, as to how much those dumb repeated lines could convince a significant percentage of the American public to vote for him.

 

[Jhhnn]

I don't think he's a Clinton shill, though it is a very amusing conspiracy theory.

I do believe the widespread theory that he was just running for the Rep nomination for publicity and money and book sales, though. Half of the Republican clown car field (it was something like 16 people iirc) were just running to get on TV and sell more copies of their crappy books or promote their radio shows. I think Trump belongs in this camp. If he really wanted to win the nomination, he probably wouldn't have just ad-libbed his opening and closing remarks. They were basically the same for every debate, "America sucks, we don't win, China and Mexico wins" etc.

I think he was surprised, as many of us were, as to how much those dumb repeated lines could convince a significant percentage of the American public to vote for him.

Donald caught a wave much bigger than expected. He'll ride it as best he can.

 

[theeedude]

If there isn't someone like Donald running in 2020, Hillary should have a shill ready for her re-election

 

[Jhhnn]

If there isn't someone like Donald running in 2020, Hillary should have a shill ready for her re-election

If Clinton can do well the first time around she'll win that race the way Secretariat took the Belmont Stakes.

 

[flexy]

he said when he does things he likes to win.

Of course he "likes to win". He is a pathological sociopath who "CAN" only do the right/correct thing and win. But this is not the question, think about it! The question is whether he want the office of the POTUS!

The "winning" is something which will satisfy his ego, taking the office however will NOT benefit him.

This is also why I "predict" he WILL leave this race, at some point, of course not without proclaiming himself as the "true winner" who bailed out because "of the rigged system". This is ABSOLUTELY what a pathological sociopath will do and he WILL do it.

His partnering with the CEO of Breitbart is the first step so he can, after his loss, most effectively spread the tale of rigged elections and HRC's illegitimate presidency by using the professional help of the Breitbart story creators and conspiracy tale fabricators. (AKA: Trying to convince the public that he, in fact, "did not lose") Why else do you think he hired the CEO of Breitbart?

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Donald caught a wave much bigger than expected. He'll ride it as best he can.

Well, like I said, it actually troubles me. There had been a recent focus on the rust-belt and Appalachia -- people who've come to feel "left out." Others have suggested that the blue-collar component of the Trump wave is less a part of it than supposed.

Someone mentioned that Trump and the Clintons are both "capitalists." I must counter with the idea that people should "embrace class struggle" in sorting out how their personal interests and any enlightened sense of a public interest guides their votes.

The two contenders and the former President come from two different backgrounds: Trump had everything handed to him on a silver platter, or as I used to say about Dubya -- "born with a silver spoon in one hand and a gold cell-phone in the other."

Everybody knows the story about Bill coming up from Hope, Arkansas. Have you ever visited that place? And Hillary came from a Chicago suburb, her father a small businessman.

If I won a $100 million Power-ball lottery, I could easily choose to just keep $5 or $10 million and set up a Super-PAC with the rest, which could no longer be "mine." The Clintons could simply have retired from it all after 2000 and walked away, set up the Foundation and left it to other party activists.

Whether you make money with speeches, a President's retirement stipend and whatever Hillary gets for being a Senator and then cabinet-member, it ultimately boils down to whether candidates and former office-holders believe in their cause and the causes of others, or simply pursue their endeavors to build more wealth.

People are motivated by more than money, and this is an error in the conservative playbook and ideology.

Trump on the other hand? What did he ever do to serve the public, besides discriminating against blacks seeking apartments and condos, cheating on his taxes, and ripping off small businessmen?

So I see the movement behind Trump as the reason America has lost greatness. It derives from racism, a selfish desire to avoid taxes or simply to destroy government at the federal level, and the adulation for a narcissist-disordered jackass who never faced life like others have. It shows a deterioration in the National Character and the National Spirit.

I can only be heartened if the margin expands between the candidates. Otherwise, I have to conclude that too many Americans have become chuckleheads, chicken-littles, whiners and sissies.

 

[Jaskalas]

It's not a bad question. It was actually asked of Bill Clinton on one of the late night talk shows. He said he wishes he could take credit for having thought of it.


Upon further thought, it was an amusing question to ask, tongue in cheek, 8 months ago. Now, though, I've reconsidered - not really a good question at this point. Incidentally, that "buffoon" beat a very large field of Republican candidates. Though, it's quite possible that part of the reason for that was because it was a very large field of Republican candidates - it made his branding and macho attitude enough to get some momentum going.

It helped Trump tremendously to get free 24/7 publicity and advertising from the media. More than a year before the election they gave his platform as much, if not more, coverage and messaging time than our sitting President.

 

[Jhhnn]

It helped Trump tremendously to get free 24/7 publicity and advertising from the media. More than a year before the election they gave his platform as much, if not more, coverage and messaging time than our sitting President.

Trump plays the media extremely well, gets a lot of coverage. They seem to love sensationalist suckage & he delivers like nobody else.

 

[TheGardener]

Trump is definitively unique among Republicans. He represents millions of people that have been disenfranchised by both parties. If Trump had not entered the race, the Republicans likely candidate would have be Juan Ellis Bush. Bush or Clinton? Kind of the same to me when it comes to politics.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Trump is definitively unique among Republicans. He represents millions of people that have been disenfranchised by both parties. If Trump had not entered the race, the Republicans likely candidate would have be Juan Ellis Bush. Bush or Clinton? Kind of the same to me when it comes to politics.

I'm not really criticizing your note about "disenfranchisement," but only to say that they perceive themselves to be "disenfranchised."

You can trace all this back to the 2008 election and then the 2010 Tea Party demonstrations and mid-term victories.

I still argue that this "disenfranchisement" is a presupposition about Obama as being a "sop" to "affirmative action." Thus, they questioned not only his birth-certificate, but his college grades. The assumption: He couldn't have really "earned" his way -- because he's black.

Fundamentally, their sense of disenfranchisement is contrary to their belief system of "free-enterprise" and "markets." You have Fiorina -- who was a consummate outsourcer, and Trump -- a consummate outsourcer also ripping off small business.

I could explore this angle in more depth, but I'll skip to some other fundamentals. Do these "disenfranchised" think that Dubya and Dick did the right thing with the extra war in Iraq? Are they upset at even the suspicion that Dubya was a big mistake? Did they even care whether Halliburton profited from a sole-source contract arising from unwarranted influence by Halliburton?

They complain about "special interests." I've been complaining about special interests for a long time -- Big Oil and Big Defense (like Carlyle Group).

I even think the "blue-collar, not-college-educated" component may be overstated. Instead, it's the WHITE blue-collar-not-college-Educated component.

And if they completely distrust "the Media," they also believe the long mantra of repetition broadcast by the media from deliberately constructed events. "Liar . . . Liar . . . Liar!" I remember that one, too: the congressman who stood up and called Obama a Liar during a state of the union.

I later joked with a Tea Party Trump supporter about the Pope's visit, simply saying "At least they didn't stand up and call Pope Francis a Liar!" He was livid -- absolutely livid. I thought he would explode right in front of me.

 

[Jhhnn]

Trump is definitively unique among Republicans. He represents millions of people that have been disenfranchised by both parties. If Trump had not entered the race, the Republicans likely candidate would have be Juan Ellis Bush. Bush or Clinton? Kind of the same to me when it comes to politics.

Disenfrachised? In this capitalist utopia of trickle down economics that the jerb creators have made for us? That a Repub Congress has stonewalled to keep since 2010?

Just because Trump appeals to the confused, the angry & the fearful doesn't mean he'll represent them any better than any other Republican. He's never given the suckers an even break in his whole life, so why would he start now?

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Disenfrachised? In this capitalist utopia of trickle down economics that the jerb creators have made for us? That a Repub Congress has stonewalled to keep since 2010?

Just because Trump appeals to the confused, the angry & the fearful doesn't mean he'll represent them any better than any other Republican. He's never given the suckers an even break in his whole life, so why would he start now?

That's why I imagine that what was once called the American Character has begun to rot. But I'm wrong about that. The rot was always there. It's just getting a lot more exposure these days for various reasons. It's as though the crocodile turned over to expose its piss-stain in a frenzied media and individual-empowering technology.

They used to just meet in the woods at night wearing white sheets . . .

 

[blankslate]

It's a nice plot for a satire....

And it's sad that this election cycle at first glance looks just like like a satire movie plot....


_________________

 

[agent00f]

I'm not really criticizing your note about "disenfranchisement," but only to say that they perceive themselves to be "disenfranchised."

You can trace all this back to the 2008 election and then the 2010 Tea Party demonstrations and mid-term victories.

I still argue that this "disenfranchisement" is a presupposition about Obama as being a "sop" to "affirmative action." Thus, they questioned not only his birth-certificate, but his college grades. The assumption: He couldn't have really "earned" his way -- because he's black.

Fundamentally, their sense of disenfranchisement is contrary to their belief system of "free-enterprise" and "markets." You have Fiorina -- who was a consummate outsourcer, and Trump -- a consummate outsourcer also ripping off small business.

I could explore this angle in more depth, but I'll skip to some other fundamentals. Do these "disenfranchised" think that Dubya and Dick did the right thing with the extra war in Iraq? Are they upset at even the suspicion that Dubya was a big mistake? Did they even care whether Halliburton profited from a sole-source contract arising from unwarranted influence by Halliburton?

They complain about "special interests." I've been complaining about special interests for a long time -- Big Oil and Big Defense (like Carlyle Group).

I even think the "blue-collar, not-college-educated" component may be overstated. Instead, it's the WHITE blue-collar-not-college-Educated component.

And if they completely distrust "the Media," they also believe the long mantra of repetition broadcast by the media from deliberately constructed events. "Liar . . . Liar . . . Liar!" I remember that one, too: the congressman who stood up and called Obama a Liar during a state of the union.

I later joked with a Tea Party Trump supporter about the Pope's visit, simply saying "At least they didn't stand up and call Pope Francis a Liar!" He was livid -- absolutely livid. I thought he would explode right in front of me.

A recent Gallup study verifies that actual economics (employment/wage) isn't the major driver behind trump support even it if it's self-reported as important, the other main self-reported factor being racial anxiety.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2822059

Previous studies also place ethnic resentment as by far the leading differentiator between support for the two parties. Some I would joke about age, but really politics comes down to race in this country. People don't like to admit it, each for their own reasons; conservatives for the obvious ones, but also many centrists/liberals because it's also in their interest to portray a post-racial society.