Trump: Is it all an act?

Does Trump have some other agenda? Is he purporsely trying to lose? What is he gaining? Who gains if he loses?

Is this whole campaign an act with some ulterior motive or hidden agenda?

Too complicated. He's a mental, intellectual, moral and spiritual wreck. He treats everyone like shit, and he can't help pitching himself into the abyss.

If that were the whole story, he would never be a billionaire. It does take skill and intelligence to be a billionaire, otherwise everyone could do it.

Trump, Trump, Trump. We have certainly identified the problem!, haven't we?

Trump, the perpetually spoiled frat-boy who can't and won't grow up; the walking, talking poster-child of political incorrectness--he should be Hillary's dream opponent and every devoted virtue-signaller's wet-dream.

Trump is the perfect problem since the solution is so easy and so obvious: stop Trump by electing Hillary Clinton. Presto! Problem solved. For both the problem and solution were almost prefabricated together. Clinton relished the idea of running against Trump since she had (at first, and wrongly) reasoned that, for her, unlike his Republican primary opponents, he'd be so easy to put away.

Americans like to keep their problems simple since they seem to suppose that this suggests that the solution is also probably simple.

Here, the real problem is not too difficult to state but it's very hard to solve since it's a problem which the oligarchy and their helpers--society's also-ran semi-winners-- don't want to face, let alone solve .

Trump, the falsely-defined problem is a symptom of the desperation of society's left-behind, the clear consequences of the corrupt and failed system of which the Clintons and the Obamas are two example-types, differing only slightly.

That would indicate that the corrupt oligarchic political order's reform is the real solution to the real problems--of which Trump is merely a current and striking example.

Thus, electing the Clintons once more amounts to addressing the problem of drowning people by deciding that the time is right to weigh anchor and sail away to the next luxury port of call--fortunately, that's always away from and out of sight and earshot of those left behind to drown.

Trump, for all his disgusting traits, has had the nerve, despite his wealth and social notoriety, to notice and mention aloud--so that the lucky few could not ignore it--that there were men, women and children overboard and drowning in the ship's wake.

Very few of the fortunate are interested in defining the problem that way. For, in that case, electing the Clintons--already defined as the solution here--can't be the solution.

What do you suggest?

>4 proximity1: "Trump, for all his disgusting traits, has had the nerve, despite his wealth and social notoriety, to notice and mention aloud--so that the lucky few could not ignore it--that there were men, women and children overboard and drowning in the ship's wake."

Seriously? You think he cares?

No, he's repeating what he's heard or read.

He puts his finger in the air. He knows what's in the wind. It's not hard to do. Doesn't matter if he cares. He says it because it works and he believes it will help him get elected. Mrs Clinton does the same thing. Candidates always do: Things are terrible, but elect me and I'll fix them.

I don't blame young people for believing that. What's everyone else's excuse?

>4 proximity1: "there were men, women and children overboard and drowning in the ship's wake."

Trump proposed a childcare plan that was regressive, and would help the poorest not at all. That's impressively horrible.

>8 prosfilaes:


As though you give a damn about the poor--
As though you or the Clintons or Obamas or other faux Democrats of the DLC or the wealthy sponsors they serve actually give a damn about the poor.

What they need most is a fair, responsive, reliable and enduring democratic order rather than the oligarchy's pseudo-democracy-by-accident-and-disaster which relegates them to an "at sufferance" status. But the DLC, through the likes of the Clintons and Obamas, exists to make sure that it never happens.

>9 proximity1: What they need most is a fair, responsive, reliable and enduring democratic order rather than the oligarchy's pseudo-democracy-by-accident-and-disaster which relegates them to an "at sufferance" status.

The poor are a minority. If I and the Clintons and the Obamas don't really care, if that many people are faking their care about the poor, that you don't have anywhere near the majority you need to pass laws on behalf of the poor. I think you may be confusing democracy with government by magic spell or omnibenevolent god or something.

>10 prosfilaes:

The oligarchy rightly fears an effective genuine democratic order because they know that those they abuse, cheat, lock-out and take for granted far outnumber them.

This explains the prodigious time, effort and money they devote to capturing, corrupting and keeping control of the system.

The Obamas and Clintons are sold-out servants of it.

The Clintons--

Is it all an act?

...The email was one of thousands released by WikiLeaks on Monday that provided a revealing glimpse into the inner workings of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign. They show a candidacy that began expecting a coronation and was thrown badly off course by a misreading of the electorate and a struggle to define what she stood for.

Stretching over nine years, but drawn mainly from the past two years, the correspondence captures in detail the campaign’s extreme caution and difficulty in identifying a core rationale for her candidacy, and the noisy world of advisers, friends and family members trying to exert influence.

At one point, more than a dozen campaign aides corresponded about whether Mrs. Clinton could tell a joke at an Iowa dinner about the hairstyles of two Republicans: Donald J. Trump and Trey Gowdy, the representative from South Carolina who led the inquiry into Mrs. Clinton’s handling of the attacks in Benghazi, Libya.

“I love the joke, too,” wrote Jake Sullivan, Mrs. Clinton’s policy chief, but he added that Mrs. Clinton should stay “above the committee.”

The exchanges show how Mrs. Clinton’s long-gestating plans to pursue the presidency collided with a newly populist mood in the Democratic electorate (which one of her advisers called the “Red Army”).

And they detail how, even as Mrs. Clinton was brushing off questions early on about her political plans, insisting that a run was not on her mind, she had already enlisted aides to wrestle with how to reposition a career politician as an agent of change and how openly to rely on gender to stoke grass-roots enthusiasm.

Glen Caplin, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, did not dispute the authenticity of the emails, which were believed to have been obtained by hackers who breached Mr. Podesta’s account. But he assailed Mr. Trump’s campaign for praising their release.

“This comes after Donald Trump encouraged more espionage over the summer and continued to deny the hack even happened at Sunday’s debate,” Mr. Caplin said, alluding to election-related email hacks that have been linked to Russian security forces.

Mrs. Clinton’s voice is mostly absent: The leak includes few emails from the candidate herself. But the exchanges among her aides are sometimes less “House of Cards” than “Veep,” HBO’s scabrous comedy dissecting the vanity and phoniness of Washington.

"Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Strained to Hone Her Message, Hacked Emails Show"

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/10/11/us/politics/hillary-clinton-emails.html

Apparently it was all an act, to appease Ryan et al. Now that Ryan has semi-un-endorsed him, the masks are off. Here's the Tweet:

"It is so nice that the shackles have been taken off me and I can now fight for America the way I want to."

We will now get the authentic Trump!

>13 timspalding: When I read that the shackles were now off Trump, Yosemite Sam came to mind!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2yDVYj7czQ

>13 timspalding: From what I've read/heard so far, a lot of people are wondering if he's been "shackled", what might we see coming out of his campaign.

I dont think he's ever been shackled. He's been indulged. That's part of the problem. He's a fitting emblem of America right now. Most of the country resembles him.

I don't believe most of the country resembles him. Perhaps a small, vocal and powerful part. Obama couldn't have been elected if everyone was like Trump. It's a difficult time right now. Somehow we have to get through all the anger and pessimism. I may start that process for myself by not watching the 3rd debate.

>17 krazy4katz: While I haven't heard/read anything that he's said it outright yet, he may be ready to not do the third debate. The following is from an article about his rally in Florida.

2.) Trump attacks the Commission for Presidential Debates, which he said had treated him unfairly.

“I have no respect for that group by the way, I’m done,” he said while railing against them.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/10/unshackled-trump-goes-completely-batsht-here-are...

>17 krazy4katz: You've forgotten that Obama ran on a platform of change and ending partisanship.

The people who are usually dismissed as the "Tea Party" are making the same compaints as the Bernie Sanders people, i.e. that the system is rigged by an oligarchy, that politicians and Wall Street bankers are interested only in enriching themselves at the expense of the rest of us, especially the little guy, whoever the little guy is.

I thought maybe by little guy they meant Peter Dinklage, but he's doing quite well.

Another point: This election has gotten the highest TV ratings. What does that tell you?

>18 rastaphrog: No loss as far as I can tell, except giving the voting public a chance to hear policy statements, which is unlikely.

>19 barney67: Obama ran on a platform of change and ending partisanship because that is what he really wanted to do. I believe he tried but was too inexperienced to be able to do that or to recognize that it was not possible with this Congress. This inexperience, by the way, is why I voted for HRC during those primaries. I wanted Obama to spend at least one term in the Senate before running for president. His failure was being naive, not dishonest. Congress has behaved shamefully for the past 8 years.

The Tea Party may be angry at a rigged system but they don't seem to realize that it is the Republicans who typically support the wealthy by giving them tax breaks etc. They are so terribly misinformed (in my opinion). The identity of the oligarchy is also a question. People here are always talking about an "oligarchy" but I don't know who they are referring to.

>20 krazy4katz:

" People here are always talking about an "oligarchy" but I don't know who they are referring to"

"No idea"?! Really!? You're not even trying

Some examples :

https://www.librarything.com/topic/220070#5659813

Go ahead--brush them off! It's what you do to evidence which clashes with your fantasy-views

>21 proximity1: So just to clarify: you are saying that those 3 people (Singer, Mercer and Simons) are part of the oligarchy.

The oligarchy would be anyone with enough money to employ top lobbyists to influence the laws and regulations at the federal level. Anyone in the 1% would probably qualify.

>23 jjwilson61: Ah, OK. so the oligarchy would be the people the Republicans keep protecting, for the most part. Well then I really don't understand why proximity1 keeps going off on the Clintons (and I am not about to read all that stuff — sorry Proximity1!! Don't have time). At least HRC pledges to raise their taxes. Whether or not she succeeds, who knows?

>24 krazy4katz: :

Q : "Whether or not she succeeds, who knows?"

A : Virtually anyone and everyone who a) has been paying attention, b) isn't hopelessly self-deluded and c) whose wants and needs require that they give a damn.

>23 jjwilson61::

"The oligarchy would potentially be anyone ("Democrat," "Republican," or "other") with enough money as well as the means and inclination to employ top lobbyists to seek, selfishly and for their own and their associates' personal gainful interests, to corruptly influence capture, hold and maintain effective control of a political order, including the design and execution of its laws and regulations--in our system's case-- at the federal, state and local level. Any such people who are so inclined among the 0.1% do qualify and are members of it."

)revised & corrected)

All wealthy people are Republican and evil. All poor people are Democrats and good.

>27 barney67: All poor people are Democrats

Not where I live.

>27 barney67:

"All wealthy people are Republican and evil.
All poor people are Democrats and good."

Vain, gratuitous, insecure and defensive fucking straw-man hog-wash.

No one here has claimed any such thing.

Back to the original question. Is it all an act? In a word, no. Trump is not a mentally healthy person. I think this piece (one of the better ones that I've read about Trump's psychological make-up) is illuminating:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/11/opinion/donald-trumps-sad-lonely-life.html?act...

>16 barney67:

Most of the country resembles him.

Probably most don't. But far, far too many do.

>19 barney67:

This election has gotten the highest TV ratings. What does that tell you?

One of three things. Either:

(1) The American public is starting to care what our leadership is like

(2) They've come to watch the freak show

or

(3) A little of both

Hopefully (1), although (3) would be okay (and understandable), too. I'd be lying if I said all of this doesn't hold a morbid fascination for me as well.

The Trump campaign has become a special extended episode of "To Catch a Predator."