- Joined
- Sep 2, 2016
- Messages
- 11,847
- Reaction score
- 5,503
If it's a con, atleast it was a con. With Hillary, it was pretty much what people would've been voting for.
People voted for Trump because they believed that he stood against special interests, and the way he ran his campaign lended credibility to him, even if he was bullshitting. Hillary wasn't even pretending to not be influenced by special interests, from the get-go. She hoarded money from anyone that would give her, and even after losing the election, she's still complaining that she wasn't given enough money by rich donors. She's literally still complaining about that.
What we ought to acknowledge here, is that by voting for either Hillary or Trump, in either case you were probably not going to end up on the "right side of history". If Clinton had won, she would've blundered, and the clever little Trumpers would've relentlessly pointed out her mistakes, and criticized those who voted her for being on the wrong side of history, again, because their "boy" would've never gotten the chance to stumble and bumble his way through a presidency.
The truth is that the Americans were going to get a pretty bad deal in either case. That's unacceptable. That's what people ought to be focusing on, instead of the "Don's" personal flaws. In fact, Trump being who he is, is the best part of the whole deal. If he wasn't as outrageous as he is, he wouldn't be called out on his mistakes. If he was playing the good-willed "goofy uncle" like Bush Jr., people would eventually endear themselves to him even if he started a freakin' war on false premises. Atleast now, the media and the people are actually critically evaluating the whole North Korea and Syrian deal. That's a great thing. Not sure if it would be the same with Hillary in charge.
Your comments are perplexing
Even if he's a con?
Even if he's bullshitting it creates credibility?