I really dislike conspiracy theories. By taking the focus away from valid points that should be debated and take up oxygen on discussion that is just plain dishonest. Do you know what I dislike even more? That would be patterns of credible evidence emerge that make the conspiracy theories start to sound rational. As I slip on this particular tinfoil hat I’ll have to once again quote the great Damien Sandow and ask you to allow me to beg your indulgence…
As with any discussion on Trump I have to preface it with my personal up front opinions. First off, I’m not a fan of Trump. Having grown up in New Jersey I had a front row seat to the rise of The Donald and don’t believe that he would make a good President. If you want a more detailed explanation Jonah Goldberg gives a good analysis. That said, I understand respect those who are ready to vote for Trump, and Kurt Schlichter has written a number of pieces explaining the reason to vote for Trump, and I’ll be among them.
With all of my disclaimers out of the way, let’s dive into the ugly parts of the discussion. Trump has held a number of questionable positions to be running as a Republican – on the borders, on abortion, on his views of his Presidential opponent, etc. Before the comments erupt in arguing these points, please refer back to the last paragraph on the pros and cons of voting for Trump. But the one conspiracy that has hung in the back of my mind is the conspiracy theory that he’s running just to throw the election for Hillary. Before all of you Trump supporters erupt, please hear me out.
Early in Trump’s campaign I thought it would have made more sense for him to run as a Democrat. With the Dems having been pulled insanely to the left it would have made a good fit for Trump to run as a centrist Democrat (a sadly near-extinct species). between the smaller, less qualified field and his sharp tongue he would have been great for slicing through their BS. Granted, he would have had to face the Clinton machine, but based on a number of his changing views it would have made more sense. Unfortunately, the Republicans made made two fatal mistakes in running against Trump in the primaries. First, when an insurgent candidate gains steam with one issue some mainstream candidate generally latches on and co-opts it, along with the insurgent’s support. Unfortunately, the highly intelligent political consultant class told their candidates to basically ignore the issue, allowing Trump to own it. The second mistake, (which helps explain the first), is the fact that Conservatives are tired of our “Leaders” ignoring the principles we elected them to follow, and their cowardly unwillingness to defend themselves and our principles from the dishonest bile from The Radical Left, whether from politicians, or especially from the media. Cruz understood this better than any other candidate, but nobody owned the mantle as a fighter better than Trump.
So now we have Trump vs. Hillary. The first real evidence I saw to back this “Agent Provaceteur” theory was the day after Hillary had it revealed that she had several dozen highly classified e-mails on her illegal, unsecured, home server. You might recall that the same day that the Hillary story broke, Trump also used that day to announce the endorsement from Sarah Palin that he’d obtained. Could this have waited a few days? Probably. Does this mean he was in the bag for Hillary by helping to suck her story out of the news cycle? Maybe, maybe not. But I’ve seen a few more examples of this, culminating with how he handled the day that we learned that Hillary had the father of a mass-murderer terrorist standing directly behind her at a campaign event. And how did he react to this, by being uncharacteristically non-Trumpian about the incident. As Jim Geraghty summarizes:
Remember yesterday’s point that Donald Trump had been given a golden opportunity, now that Seddique Mateen, the father of the Orlando terrorist, had attended a Hillary Clinton rally, been seen behind her, and declared she was “good on national security” and good on gun control?
Here’s how Trump responded to this opportunity:
In not so typical Trump fashion, Donald Trump hasn’t touched the story about the father of the Orlando Pulse nightclub shooter showing up at Hillary Clinton’s rally in Kissimmee.
People who subscribe to the theories that Trump doesn’t want to win or that he’s trying to help Hillary Clinton win — I don’t — will point to this bizarrely passive response.
The Clinton campaign seems to recognize what a potential liability this is:
The Clinton campaign said earlier Tuesday they were not aware of his presence.
“The rally was a 3,000-person, open-door event for the public,” a campaign official told Fox News. “This individual wasn’t invited as a guest and the campaign was unaware of his attendance until after the event.”
Instead, at an event yesterday, Trump offered this word salad:
“Hillary wants to abolish — essentially abolish the Second Amendment. By the way, if she gets to pick, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks.Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know.But I tell you what, that will be a horrible day, if Hillary gets to put her judges in, right now we’re tied.”
And yes, I know that Trump has attacked Hillary and has had fun mocking her radical loon attack dog, Fauxcahontas. But I’m seeing too many cases of Hillary serving up golden opportunities for Trump to crush her and instead he serves up some easy sound bites for her Eunochs. As he did on Wednesday, via PJ Media’s Tyler O’Neill:
Donald Trump on Wednesday repeatedly called President Obama “the founder” of the Islamic State, also known as ISIS.
“ISIS is honoring President Obama,” the Republican presidential candidate said at a rally in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. “He is the founder of ISIS. He is the founder of ISIS, OK? He’s the founder. He founded ISIS. And I would say the co-founder would be crooked Hillary Clinton. Cofounder — crooked Hillary Clinton.”
These comments mark a reversal for Trump, who last week called Clinton “the founder of ISIS.”
Note to Trump: Spouting off crazy at your opponent (like suggesting your opponent’s father had ties to the Kennedy assassination) doesn’t dominate the news cycle when the media hates your opponent more than you. When they are in “Protect the Queen” mode, loose cannon comments will dominate the news cycle, especially if they provide convenient cover for them to ignore her string of what now seem to be daily scandals.
I’m also seeing too many stories about his lack of a ground game, failure to advertise in swing states, poor organization, etc. I’m just having a hard time believing that somebody with Trump’s years of business experience would be incapable of seeing the mistakes he’s making and not making tactical adjustments.
So back to you Trump supporters – I’ve made no bones about my dislike for our nominee, will have no problem voting for him in November, and I despise conspiracy theories. It’s just that every day that goes by the evidence suggests that he’s trying to lose this election. And no, enthusiastic supporters at rallies and deciding that the poll numbers Trump once bragged about continuously are no longer valid are evidence that Trump will defeat Hillary.
The “Sports” web site Deadpsin.com writes an annual preview of every NFL team under the theme of, “Why your team s*cks”. The 2015 edition of my beloved Philadelphia Eagles was sadly, and accurately, described as a team that “spent a whole season planting dynamite inside its own a**hole.” Please Trump supporters, help me believe that we’re not just planting dynamite in our own a**hole.
Cross posted at from Brother Bob’s Blog