First off, I've skimmed some of the threads in the 2016 Politics board, particularly the Trump thread, but I haven't read all (currently) 84 pages of it, so if this is covered elsewhere, my apologies. Also, there's currently no proof of the allegation that Donald Trump is a plant from the Democratic Party to split the vote and ensure a Hillary win, so it belongs more on this board in any case.
It's no secret that until very recently, Trump was a liberal Democrat much more in line with the current progressive outlook than any conservative strain of thought. An opinion piece from Jamie Weinstein at the Daily Caller goes over just some of Trump's recent liberal positions.
http://ift.tt/1ITapXR
Basically, the piece makes the point that if Trump had the same positions he had in 2010, he would make a much stronger Democratic candidate than a Republican one. But we're supposed to believe that in just four years, his entire political outlook changed, more than that, that it did a complete 180 degrees flip? Yes, Reagan changed parties from Democrat to Republican also, but that was a process that took a fairly long time and the Democratic Party indisputably moved farther to the left during that time.
The most common conspiracy theory I've seen is that Trump is doing this as a strict quid pro quo with the Clintons. That, in exchange for running either as an easily beatable Republican nominee or a base splitting third party candidate, he'll be rewarded with special treatment by the second Clinton Administration. Either special tax breaks, government subsidies of some sort, deals to let him take whatever land he wants through eminent domain, or something else currently unknown.
To me, this conspiracy theory fails for a couple of reasons, but the biggest, in my opinion, is Trump's ego. My feeling is that Trump is way too much of an egotist to be playing second fiddle to anyone, particularly in a plan that requires him to deliberately lose what is, for him, a popularity contest.
I submit that a much more likely scenario takes advantage of Trump's ego, rather than works against it. It's been reported by several news outlets, including the Washington Post, that Trump had at least one conversation with Bill Clinton in the spring before he made the decision to run.
http://ift.tt/1ITaqLq
Now, we of course have no idea what was actually said during that conversation, but it's easy to imagine something like this.
[Redneck accent]Don, I just want you to know that I've had a ton of people tell me how much they respect your opinion and think that if you ran it would be a great thing for this country and they would definitely support you. I think someone with your intelligence and charm could really make a difference.[/Redneck accent]
An exaggeration, of course, but no one's ever said that Bill Clinton isn't a master of telling people what they want to hear. I find this to be much more likely scenario than any kind of quid pro quo conspiracy.
Thoughts?
It's no secret that until very recently, Trump was a liberal Democrat much more in line with the current progressive outlook than any conservative strain of thought. An opinion piece from Jamie Weinstein at the Daily Caller goes over just some of Trump's recent liberal positions.
http://ift.tt/1ITapXR
Quote:
|
His rhetoric on immigration also wouldn’t fly in a Democratic primary. But if he made the decision to position himself as a Democrat contender back in 2010, he would never have called for the deportation of all the illegal immigrants in the country. In fact, after Mitt Romney lost in 2012, Trump criticized the Republican contender’s rhetoric on immigration as “mean-spirited,” which suggests Trump’s instincts on illegal immigration may be less harsh than what we are seeing today “The Democrats didn’t have a policy for dealing with illegal immigrants, but what they did have going for them is they weren’t mean-spirited about it,” Trump told Newsmax. “They didn’t know what the policy was, but what they were is they were kind.” |
Basically, the piece makes the point that if Trump had the same positions he had in 2010, he would make a much stronger Democratic candidate than a Republican one. But we're supposed to believe that in just four years, his entire political outlook changed, more than that, that it did a complete 180 degrees flip? Yes, Reagan changed parties from Democrat to Republican also, but that was a process that took a fairly long time and the Democratic Party indisputably moved farther to the left during that time.
The most common conspiracy theory I've seen is that Trump is doing this as a strict quid pro quo with the Clintons. That, in exchange for running either as an easily beatable Republican nominee or a base splitting third party candidate, he'll be rewarded with special treatment by the second Clinton Administration. Either special tax breaks, government subsidies of some sort, deals to let him take whatever land he wants through eminent domain, or something else currently unknown.
To me, this conspiracy theory fails for a couple of reasons, but the biggest, in my opinion, is Trump's ego. My feeling is that Trump is way too much of an egotist to be playing second fiddle to anyone, particularly in a plan that requires him to deliberately lose what is, for him, a popularity contest.
I submit that a much more likely scenario takes advantage of Trump's ego, rather than works against it. It's been reported by several news outlets, including the Washington Post, that Trump had at least one conversation with Bill Clinton in the spring before he made the decision to run.
http://ift.tt/1ITaqLq
Now, we of course have no idea what was actually said during that conversation, but it's easy to imagine something like this.
[Redneck accent]Don, I just want you to know that I've had a ton of people tell me how much they respect your opinion and think that if you ran it would be a great thing for this country and they would definitely support you. I think someone with your intelligence and charm could really make a difference.[/Redneck accent]
An exaggeration, of course, but no one's ever said that Bill Clinton isn't a master of telling people what they want to hear. I find this to be much more likely scenario than any kind of quid pro quo conspiracy.
Thoughts?
via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/1TOwEP2
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire