This is a historic election in many ways. I cannot remember a time when the Democrats, the sitting President, the liberal main stream media, and the Republican establishment have all teamed up against an outsider who broke through the system, beat 16 opponents during the Republican primary and now has the political and media establishment in full attack mode against him. Are they worried?
Donald trump brings a lot of this on himself. The Khan speech during the Democratic convention was a classic scripted presentation to bait Trump. The Khans were very believable, and how could you not sympathize with them losing their son in Iraq, a captain in the military and a bronze star hero. But unfortunately the heart breaking story they told during the convention turned into an attack on Trump by the father, which was obviously scripted; it was a classic Democratic tactic. And Trump took the bait. He should have praised the family, and then just said that he didn't think their comments about him were fair.
During the Republican convention the mother of one of the CIA agents killed in Benghazi told the story about Hillary lying to her. The father of another agent killed during the attack confirmed it during later press interviews; he even had notes made on the spot proving that Hillary said "The attack was due to the video and we are going to put the man that made it in jail", this was after she had told her daughter and the president of Egypt it was a terrorist attack. The mother's speech got almost no attention from the media, while the Khan speech and Trumps response received 50 times the coverage. The message - Trump took the bait and the liberal media jumped. Hillary was smart by only saying; "The mother and father of the slain Benghazi heroes get my full sympathy, but they just misunderstood what I said", a complete lie, but the media bought it and the story was buried.
What makes this election historic is how Trump might possibly win with these 'headwinds' from every corner of the political and media establishment. When our President gets up in a nationally televised press conference with a foreign leader, and tells the Republican establishment not to support Donald Trump, that is unprecedented for a sitting chief executive, but it is not surprising coming from a despicable, classless, narcissist who cares about nothing but protecting his legacy because he knows Trump might destroy it.
No one really gives this outsider Trump a chance, but if somehow he does win, it will be a remarkable victory for the 'folks' and a finger in the eye of the establishment across the board, and could result in profound changes in our political system and media coverage. If he does not win, he will just become a blip in history along with Bernie Sanders and proof that Washington really does control all aspects of the political and media establishment in this country.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
Your assessment of the situation is excellent, Chuck. There is very little that can be added to your statement. It seems like Trump is incapable of restraining his tendency to run his mouth with his brain disengaged. His campaign staff must include a few people who know when to hold and when to fold, as they say, in a poker game. There is some thought that Trump has made a personal decision to spend the next three months ripping people that he dislikes on the political scene and walking away with enough residual campaign money to recover what he spent during the primaries. For a little while, he was settling down and sounding presidential, but he has reverted back to his narcissistic style that is getting old and too predictable.
I read all of your blogs and appreciate your feedback and opinions.
I read all of your blogs and appreciate your feedback and opinions.
He's been a Clinton contributor for all of their political endeavors. He had a phone conversation with Bill Clinton before he announced his candidacy. He has made no real effort to establish a campaign. He alienates everyone that could assist him in his campaign. He has no real skin in the game, financially or otherwise. He has little to gain, and nothing to lose at this point, whether he wins, loses, or withdraws.
I believe his campaign was an intentional effort to throw the Republican Party into disarray, and assure HRC the Presidency. The first is an undeniable success, and the second appears pre-ordained at this point. Simply put, he's a shill for the Clinton's, his payoff will be "uge" when she is President, and the people who voted for him will have been conned by an expert. There's even a reasonable possibility he will withdraw before the General Election; in say, October, when the RP has no hope of fielding a candidate. He does the job for HRC, and avoids the embarrassment of an electoral defeat.
How will intelligent people who voted for him, or endorsed him, reconcile their positions when a lot of evidence points to this Machiavellian plan.
John, your use of the term Machiavellian as applied to Trump must include a fair amount of tongue-in-cheek. The classic definition of a Machiavellian personality is a pretty accurate description of Hillary Clinton that includes cunning, scheming, and unscrupulousness, especially in politics or in advancing one’s career. That is certainly not Trump’s strong suit. On the other hand, Trump is intelligent, somewhat articulate although a bit repetitive, and very people oriented toward everyone he considers loyal, all three of them. He is a very successful businessman and he knows how to live well. Perhaps his only shortcoming is he is apparently insane.
Is it five, or six, bankruptcies that left investors holding the bag while Trump put his money in offshore accounts. Is it 1,500 or 2,500 lawsuits from small businessmen, many of whom lost their businesses because they weren't paid for goods or services. Then there is Trump University, etc. Sorry Bob, I don't call that a successful businessman, I call that a successful conman. Let's add the secret tax returns that will show his real net worth, his ties to organized crime, his ties to Russian "businessmen", and his lack of charitable giving (in spite of what he says).
The estimates of his wealth, had he simply invested in the S&P 500 since his Father died and made him fabulously wealthy, would put him at $20 billion. He says his wealth is at $10 billion, Forbes puts him at around $4 billion. Analysts indicate that any monkey could have done well in Manhatten real estate when Trump started, so I question his wealth, and his business acumen. Bullying people is not "negotiation", and that's how many Trump deals go. Look Into the deals he has lost, and why, and the hundreds of millions others have made with the same opportunity when his options expired.
His comments on how to solve the National Debt (just print more money), and his understanding of international economics (isolationism creates jobs) confound economists on both sides of the aisle so, please explain to me how he is a good businessman who understands economics. Chuck has better business creds than Trump. He started with very little, built a successful business in a highly competitive, volatile international business, sold Photosea for a good price at just the right time and is now enjoying the benefits of a life well lived. He takes care of his family, has maintained lifelong friends, and respects people rather than making a practice if denigrating anyone who disagrees with him.
You are also falling into the comparison game. HRC is everything you say and more, but that has nothing to do with Trump. If my theory is correct, Trump is quite Machiavellian to participate in the Clinton scheme to tie up the election.
Oops, I forgot one big point.....banks won't lend him money. He has to go to private sources, and they have pretty well dried up, unless you consider the mob an acceptable source of funding for large projects.
John, I am impressed with your ability to regurgitate the various ultra-liberal talking points condemning Trump. Perhaps you might reread my last comment regarding Trump.
I understood recently that it was agreed that the upcoming election was pretty much in the bag for Hillary with most party insiders, the sitting President, and the majority of the media working their magic to destroy Trump. On that basis I am more inclined to poke a little fun at the process rather than taking it too seriously.
One final point is Chuck would never survive in political office…he is much too honest.
One of my sons can't believe I could possibly vote for Trump and I can't believe he would vote for a proven criminal like Hillary. As John says Trump may be a con man and have ties to the mob, but it hasn't been proven to me. Hillary and Bill are proven criminals, they just have the political power along with the Democratic party to get away with it. I consider my vote an "anyone but Hillary" vote. And to me, by not voting you are just voting for Hillary.
As of now Trump looks like he is sinking like a rock in this election but things can change quickly. Who knows what Julian Assange and Wikileaks might have ready to release before the election.
John, I hope you are not offended by my comments on Chuck’s blog. I have been trying to have some fun with it recently with a bit of subtle politically incorrect humor.
It is my opinion that the national election is a done deal much the same as Hillary’s candidacy was rigged long before the primaries. If I had my preference, Bernie Sanders would have been my preferred choice. Yah, he was way too liberal, but at least the guy was honest. I consider Hillary less honest than Trump if that is humanly possible.
In your comment on the blog, John, you referred to Trump’s business problems in the past as some kind of revelation. My thought when I read your statement was to wonder if you are familiar with business as usual in America. You worked closely with the oil companies in years past. I wonder if you have ever studied the history of the major oil companies. Have you taken a look at IBM or Ford during World War Two when they were making a fortune dealing with Nazi Germany? Have you given any thought to how our modern day pharmaceutical companies are screwing the people?
Donald Trump is a minor league player in the game of American business. Is he worth five, ten, or twenty billion dollars…who knows, and who cares? My outlook is once an individual has a few hundred million dollars stashed away, it doesn’t matter what their total net worth happens to be. Mitt Romney’s net worth was reported at around 250 million, and that is chump change compared to Trump. The Democrats ripped Romney to shreds on many points including his wealth. Have you wondered why the media hasn’t gone after the Clinton Foundation seeking information on where that money came from and how much they have? What do you think the thirty thousand or so missing emails on Hillary’s illegal mail server was about, hum?
Ah, but Trump is narcissistic, and Machiavellian. Those of course are convenient labels that stop all intelligent discourse. He has refused to release his last 20 years or so of federal income tax returns that will result in the ultra-liberal movement ripping him to shreds if he foolishly complies. He is a novice politician, but he is not a damn fool as was Mitt Romney. In spite of employing thousands of people, he is a racist, a bigot, and a business scoundrel of the worst sort as reported in the current media that is so reliable that we can believe everything without question. He has made statements that to allow a flood of Islamic immigrants into America will result in the same problems that we are seeing in Europe as Islamic Fundamentalism under sharia law is taking over France and at least two other European nations. It is mind boggling that the Obama/Clinton movement is in favor of importing millions of refugees from the Islamic sewer. What is Hillary going to do when Islamic Jihad starts up in our major cities? Is Hillary aware of the fact that the latest black terrorist movement known as Black Lives Matters is an offshoot of the Black Muslim Movement in America?
Trump is criticized for not sounding like a polished politician while out on the campaign trail. His lack of experience in politics has resulted in him falling into a few bear traps on the campaign trail. He has spoken out on some issues that he should have shut his mouth on and given the media one of his sour face expressions or a one-finger salute when asked about some things. I was recently listening to a speech that Trump was making that was on CNN. Half way through the speech, CNN cut it off and went to an interview with Wolf Blitzer and Nancy Pelosi that was a total rip on Trump. That was a full confirmation that CNN stands for the “Clinton News Network.”
I will repeat an earlier statement that is we have three choices coming up in the National Election. There is Hillary for President, Trump for President, or no vote. I am inclined to sit out the upcoming election.
What would it take to prove it to you Chuck. If an expose' book about Trumps land deals, written before he ever contemplated running for President, pictures of him partying with known gangsters at the Trump Tower and in FL aren't enough, then I guess I'm at a loss for how to "prove" those connections.
Take a look at this link and additionally read the references it cites. There are both Left and Right Wing sources here.
http://www.pensitoreview.com/2015/09/08/why-the-silence-about-donald-trumps-mob-ties/
Simple logic says you don't build casinos in New Jersey and Las Vegas, at the time he built them, without mob connections. I think you are practicing willful blindness rather than being objective.
As to Hillary and Blll, I, like you, believe them to be criminals at many levels; however, to use your Trump logic, it hasn't been proven.
Sitting out an election is no more a vote for HRC than it is for Trump.
NOTE: Basic Math
My Vote = 1
My Vote applied to HRC:
HRC 1, Trump 0
My Vote applied to Trump:
HRC 0, Trump 1
My Vote applied to nobody:
HRC 0, Trump 0
I prefer not to have my name associated with either Candidate.
John, your one person, one vote logic is only accurate if and only if you are the only voter. If two candidates are vying for an elected office with an extended following and the normal supporters of one of the candidates become disenchanted and opt to not vote, that will skew the election in favor of the opposite candidate. You might want to do a little study within the field of statistical analysis to get an understanding of how that works.
Bob, If a person doesn't vote in an election, it is as if they didn't exist for that event. That is the purpose of not voting. They are therefore not a part of the data set for that event. Secondly, to vote for a third Party candidate, that has no possibility of winning might fit your model because that vote is part of the event. It is also a protest vote, which does have some value as it makes a statement. However, I can't argue the math, it was never my strong suit, but I believe the outcome of any statistical analysis is defined by the data set and if a voter is not a part of that set, they do not exist for the purposes of the analysis. I can tell you that to vote for someone you feel tarnishes the name of the Country makes the voter a part of that event. It's like getting odiferous slime on you, it's nearly impossible to remove and it taints you with that stench for a long time. If Trump wins and starts a war, or drives the Country into a recession, then everyone that votes for him a part of that. The same holds true for HRC. If she creates social unrest, steals as much as she can carry away, and compromises National Security, then her voters wear that with her. I won't be a part of either situation.
I think the issue of how a "withheld vote" effects an election is based on perspective. Chuck's argument that a vote not made helps to elect HRC could also be used by an HRC supporter, i.e.: A vote not made helps to elect Trump. The fact that it could be used by either side invalidates the argument because it cannot be applied as a general statement of how a withheld vote effects the outcome of an election.
What is more disturbing than someone like Hillary running for President (and will probably win), is that a serial criminal and liar; involved in one scandal after another for 30 years; a person who along with her husband has used politics to personally enrich themselves with 'pay to play' schemes; who are two people that have no moral character whatsoever; and her supporters accept that.
Chuck, that sounds like the CEO of Dow Chemical during the Vietnam War, or Halliburton (and major shareholder Chaney) in Iraq, or any number of CEO's that dump industrial waste into rivers rather than pay the expense of proper disposal, or power companies that delay putting scrubbers on their coal fired plants until the last legal option is exhausted, or drug companies charging outrageous amounts for pills "because they can". Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Not always, but when you have a history of it like Trump or HRC it's a safe bet that it will continue. One thing is certain, whatever happens over the next 4 years was earned by the American electorate. No whining allowed.
Oh, and contrasted with HRC, Trump has moral character. Does that include his philandering, three wives, incestuous comments about his daughters, and other questionable professional and personal activities. His supporters either overlook or accept his various forms of moral turpitude. What's different between their position and that of an HRC supporter. My position is that neither choice is acceptable. Let's hope that whoever wins is true to form and commits an impeachable crime. Either of the V.P's is a passable alternative.
Post a Comment