My short answer is: I don't know nothing about it.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/08/rush-limbaugh-on-know-nothing-movement.html
I''ve said that this is going down in history as one of the great troll jobs in US Presidential election history
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/08/claire-mccaskill-and-todd-akin-20.html
Anyway, a piece out Gawker finally directly asks the question.
"To understand the contours of this theory, it’s helpful to understand where it came from. A Google search suggests the first person to remark upon Trump’s indirect assistance to Clinton was the anti-war activist and “conservative-paleo-libertarian” Justin Raimondo. In a long blog post dated July 13—just a few days after Trump stole Jeb Bush’s lead—Raimondo argued that the timing of Trump’s entry into the presidential race, which the candidate had long hinted atbut until this year never followed through on, could only be explained by a hidden “Democratic wrecking operation” designed to assist Clinton’s parallel campaign:
"[Trump’s] ties to the Clintons, his past pronouncements which are in such blatant contradiction to his current fulminations, and the cries of joy from the Clintonian gallery and the media (or do I repeat myself) all point to a single conclusion: the Trump campaign is a Democratic wrecking operation aimed straight at the GOP’s base."
"Donald Trump is a false-flag candidate. It’s all an act, one that benefits his good friend Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party that, until recently, counted the reality show star among its adherents. Indeed, Trump’s pronouncements—the open racism, the demagogic appeals, the faux-populist rhetoric—sound like something out of a Democratic political consultant’s imagination, a caricature of conservatism as performed by a master actor."
"The idea that Trump is running an elaborate interference campaign on behalf of Hillary Clinton may sound absurd. But there is enough truth to Raimondo’s theory—it makes just enough sense—that it’s already begun to infiltrate, and inform the mainstream voices of, the mainstream Republican Party. On July 23, for example, the popular conservative writer Allen Ginzburg distilled Raimondo’s argument into a vexing thought experiment:"
"If Trump had an agreement with Hillary to ensure her win by embarrassing R's & then running as an indie, what would he be doing differently?"
http://blackbag.gawker.com/is-donald-trump-running-a-false-flag-campaign-to-help-h-1723925057
I agree. I mean I've said this myself.
"It would, of course, be incredible—and virtually unprecedented in modern American politics—if a major party’s top candidate were to run a campaign for the purpose of electing that party’s most imposing political opponent. So what exactly supports the theory that Trump is such a candidate? Though he has recently rebranded himself as the only Republican brave enough to speak the truth about undocumented immigrants, his past associations and political positions suggest the theory is, if not entirely believable, not exactly implausible, either."
"There are three main lines of argument supporting the assertion that Donald Trump is running a false flag campaign:
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/08/rush-limbaugh-on-know-nothing-movement.html
I''ve said that this is going down in history as one of the great troll jobs in US Presidential election history
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/08/claire-mccaskill-and-todd-akin-20.html
Anyway, a piece out Gawker finally directly asks the question.
"To understand the contours of this theory, it’s helpful to understand where it came from. A Google search suggests the first person to remark upon Trump’s indirect assistance to Clinton was the anti-war activist and “conservative-paleo-libertarian” Justin Raimondo. In a long blog post dated July 13—just a few days after Trump stole Jeb Bush’s lead—Raimondo argued that the timing of Trump’s entry into the presidential race, which the candidate had long hinted atbut until this year never followed through on, could only be explained by a hidden “Democratic wrecking operation” designed to assist Clinton’s parallel campaign:
"[Trump’s] ties to the Clintons, his past pronouncements which are in such blatant contradiction to his current fulminations, and the cries of joy from the Clintonian gallery and the media (or do I repeat myself) all point to a single conclusion: the Trump campaign is a Democratic wrecking operation aimed straight at the GOP’s base."
"Donald Trump is a false-flag candidate. It’s all an act, one that benefits his good friend Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party that, until recently, counted the reality show star among its adherents. Indeed, Trump’s pronouncements—the open racism, the demagogic appeals, the faux-populist rhetoric—sound like something out of a Democratic political consultant’s imagination, a caricature of conservatism as performed by a master actor."
"The idea that Trump is running an elaborate interference campaign on behalf of Hillary Clinton may sound absurd. But there is enough truth to Raimondo’s theory—it makes just enough sense—that it’s already begun to infiltrate, and inform the mainstream voices of, the mainstream Republican Party. On July 23, for example, the popular conservative writer Allen Ginzburg distilled Raimondo’s argument into a vexing thought experiment:"
"If Trump had an agreement with Hillary to ensure her win by embarrassing R's & then running as an indie, what would he be doing differently?"
http://blackbag.gawker.com/is-donald-trump-running-a-false-flag-campaign-to-help-h-1723925057
I agree. I mean I've said this myself.
"It would, of course, be incredible—and virtually unprecedented in modern American politics—if a major party’s top candidate were to run a campaign for the purpose of electing that party’s most imposing political opponent. So what exactly supports the theory that Trump is such a candidate? Though he has recently rebranded himself as the only Republican brave enough to speak the truth about undocumented immigrants, his past associations and political positions suggest the theory is, if not entirely believable, not exactly implausible, either."
"There are three main lines of argument supporting the assertion that Donald Trump is running a false flag campaign:
"1.Trump cannot possibly be considered either a Republican or a conservative, once you account for his apparent political beliefs (many of which are remarkably liberal) and concrete policy proposals (or lack thereof)."
"2. Trump has close ties to both Hillary and Bill Clinton, and has in fact donated to her and other Democrats’ campaigns in the past."
"3. Trump’s apparent intent to run on an independent ticket—should he lose the Republican nomination—indicates he cares more about splitting the Republican vote (essentially insuring the election of a Democratic president) than he does about actually electing Republicans. He also lacks the wherewithal and/or long-term funding to mount a legitimate presidential campaign were he to become the actual Republican nominee."
As Gawker notes, Trump has gone back and forth in party affiliation.
"According to voting records, Trump is currently registered as a Republican, but in the past has been registered (and repeatedly voted) as a Democrat. In fact, he appears to have switched between the two parties at least three times in the past 14 years: In 2001, he switched from Democrat to Republican; in 2008, he re-registered as Democrat; in 2010, he re-registered as a Republican (and maintained that affiliation through 2013). So Trump is certainly a Republican, but only in the sense that any voter can register as a Republican; it’s not like party officials perform an ideological litmus tests on mere voters. (Complicating matters further is Trump’s New York City residency. Republican New Yorkers have been known to register as Democrats in order to participate in Democratic primary elections, which are frequently the only elections that matter in municipal politics.)"
What this suggests is that unlike Rand Paul-according to him-he is not a 'block of granite.'
"Unless you are a piece of unyielding granite, over the years positions evolve as they have in my case. Ronald Reagan, as an example, was a Democrat with a liberal bent who became a conservative Republican."
"According to voting records, Trump is currently registered as a Republican, but in the past has been registered (and repeatedly voted) as a Democrat. In fact, he appears to have switched between the two parties at least three times in the past 14 years: In 2001, he switched from Democrat to Republican; in 2008, he re-registered as Democrat; in 2010, he re-registered as a Republican (and maintained that affiliation through 2013). So Trump is certainly a Republican, but only in the sense that any voter can register as a Republican; it’s not like party officials perform an ideological litmus tests on mere voters. (Complicating matters further is Trump’s New York City residency. Republican New Yorkers have been known to register as Democrats in order to participate in Democratic primary elections, which are frequently the only elections that matter in municipal politics.)"
What this suggests is that unlike Rand Paul-according to him-he is not a 'block of granite.'
"Unless you are a piece of unyielding granite, over the years positions evolve as they have in my case. Ronald Reagan, as an example, was a Democrat with a liberal bent who became a conservative Republican."
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-rand-paul-golf-game-2015-8#ixzz3inHcMXwK
Of course, that might already make you suspect he's not a conservative Republican. Conservatives at least in America basically are blocks of unyielding granite-you certainly get that impression if you've listened to Rush Limbaugh over the years. I mean this is a guy still playing the same Al Gore parodies he did in the 90s.
Gawker also notes that Trump in recent years has attacked Hillary Cliinton while getting closer to Bill Clinton.
That right there would leave more gist to the false flag mill. After all, do you believe that Clinton would be this friendly to a man who genuinely hates his wife?
Still, what we know from the legal system is that all kinds of circumstanical evidence doesn't make something true, though the theory is not implausible I'd have to guess that it isn't literally true.
Certainly there is a lot more compelling evicence that this is a FF operation than there is that Tom Brady is guilty of deflating footballs.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/08/on-tom-brady-nfl-sounds-more-like.html
Here I think a good question is raised:
"The question of whether Trump is conservative is trickier to answer. Within the modern conservative movement, for example, it’s more or less assumed that candidates representing conservative interests believe abortion rights should be restricted (in many cases, radically so). It’s also assumed that conservative candidates oppose the 2010 Affordable Care Act—not just the particulars of the legislation itself, but also the general idea of universal healthcare. But, as The Washington Post pointed out last month, Trump has publicly endorsed both abortion rights and universal healthcare in the past. He’s also endorsed increasing taxes on the wealthy and legalizing drugs. It’s true that Trump has since reversed his positions on abortion and the Affordable Care Act, but as many have noted, his change of heart is far from convincing."
"One issue on which Trump is very right-wing, however, is immigration. Trump believes the United States is inadequately protected against invading Mexicans, and has accused undocumented immigrants from that country of raping Americans with impunity. The key to Trump’s appeal is his suggestion, which he utters repeatedly, that mainstream Republican leaders are deliberately sidelining both the issue of border security and the broader issue of immigration—a complex topic within both major parties—in order to shore up support among the country’s growing Latino population."
Here is my theory of Trump. It's clear he's not a standard conservative Republican. A standard CB is pretty predictiable up and down the line-as for that matter will a standard liberal Democrat like me be on many issues.
However, Trump is not simply a liberal Democrat running as a CB to troll the GOP. Rather the trolling is just a happy byproduct.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/08/trumps-legendary-trolling-of-gop.html
Where I do think you can place Trump in the taxonomy of politics is he's a sort of Right wing populist but not at all a garden variety RP.
P.S. The reason why Right wing populism can work is that their appeal is not wholly on the Right. They can appeal to the Center and Left as well. They have a certain flexiblity lacking in the solid granite of conservative Republican ideology that can broaden their appeal.
Of course, that might already make you suspect he's not a conservative Republican. Conservatives at least in America basically are blocks of unyielding granite-you certainly get that impression if you've listened to Rush Limbaugh over the years. I mean this is a guy still playing the same Al Gore parodies he did in the 90s.
Gawker also notes that Trump in recent years has attacked Hillary Cliinton while getting closer to Bill Clinton.
That right there would leave more gist to the false flag mill. After all, do you believe that Clinton would be this friendly to a man who genuinely hates his wife?
Still, what we know from the legal system is that all kinds of circumstanical evidence doesn't make something true, though the theory is not implausible I'd have to guess that it isn't literally true.
Certainly there is a lot more compelling evicence that this is a FF operation than there is that Tom Brady is guilty of deflating footballs.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/08/on-tom-brady-nfl-sounds-more-like.html
Here I think a good question is raised:
"The question of whether Trump is conservative is trickier to answer. Within the modern conservative movement, for example, it’s more or less assumed that candidates representing conservative interests believe abortion rights should be restricted (in many cases, radically so). It’s also assumed that conservative candidates oppose the 2010 Affordable Care Act—not just the particulars of the legislation itself, but also the general idea of universal healthcare. But, as The Washington Post pointed out last month, Trump has publicly endorsed both abortion rights and universal healthcare in the past. He’s also endorsed increasing taxes on the wealthy and legalizing drugs. It’s true that Trump has since reversed his positions on abortion and the Affordable Care Act, but as many have noted, his change of heart is far from convincing."
"One issue on which Trump is very right-wing, however, is immigration. Trump believes the United States is inadequately protected against invading Mexicans, and has accused undocumented immigrants from that country of raping Americans with impunity. The key to Trump’s appeal is his suggestion, which he utters repeatedly, that mainstream Republican leaders are deliberately sidelining both the issue of border security and the broader issue of immigration—a complex topic within both major parties—in order to shore up support among the country’s growing Latino population."
Here is my theory of Trump. It's clear he's not a standard conservative Republican. A standard CB is pretty predictiable up and down the line-as for that matter will a standard liberal Democrat like me be on many issues.
However, Trump is not simply a liberal Democrat running as a CB to troll the GOP. Rather the trolling is just a happy byproduct.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/08/trumps-legendary-trolling-of-gop.html
Where I do think you can place Trump in the taxonomy of politics is he's a sort of Right wing populist but not at all a garden variety RP.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/08/it-should-be-obvious-trump-is-no.html
A RWP tends not to be anything like an orthodox CR on economics. However, they can appeal to CRs with some very bellicose talk on foreign policy. Trump claims to be the biggest military hawk in the world.
Note though that he at the same time boasts of opposing the Iraq war-in 2004. Saying this may actually help him. For one thing it enables him to pummel Jeb Bush-who despite everything remains the presumptive nominee-though Jeb is really struggling and is down to 5% in Iowa.
It's not clear that this hurts Trump with the base at all. Some may even agree with it.
If you look at the history of RPs you see that in American politics he's in a line that goes back to Pat Buchanan, Ross Perot, and George Wallace.
Note though that he at the same time boasts of opposing the Iraq war-in 2004. Saying this may actually help him. For one thing it enables him to pummel Jeb Bush-who despite everything remains the presumptive nominee-though Jeb is really struggling and is down to 5% in Iowa.
It's not clear that this hurts Trump with the base at all. Some may even agree with it.
If you look at the history of RPs you see that in American politics he's in a line that goes back to Pat Buchanan, Ross Perot, and George Wallace.
However, while there are similarities between Trump and Perot, arguably Perot wasn't entirely Right wing-arguably he was a little more centrist; ie, he was kind of a populist of the Center; which is interesting as it's kind of unusual.
Populists are usually on the Left or the Right. Arguably they normally run against the Center, among other things.
In Europe we see the rise of Right wing populism in many countries. UKIP in Britain-Berlusconi in Italy was a classic version of what Trump is doing. In Europe there is a lot of fear of RWP:
"And Merkel is not the only leader aware of rise of the right among voters across Europe. Merkel's counterparts in France and Italy have both made recent comments about the unpalatable prominence of populist movements in their countries."
"In their new year addresses, French President Francois Hollande attacked what he called "dangerous" populist movements, and Giorgio Napolitano, the 89 year-old outgoing Italian President, warned there was "nothing more unrealistic or dangerous" than calls for Italy to leave the euro zone."
"As well as opposing immigration, many of these movements also campaign against the European Union (EU) and the single currency union, the euro zone."
"Examples include the Alternative for Germany (AfD) and the U.K. Independence Party (UKIP), both of which have positioned themselves as euroskeptic alternatives to the mainstream parties."
"But more extremist right-wing groups are also gaining in popularity in some countries, with Golden Dawn in Greece getting a boost from anger at the country's rising unemployment and tough austerity policies, implemented as part of economic reforms. The party is often described as neo-Nazi, although it rejects this label."
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/01/02/right-wing-in-europe-could-bring-turmoil.html
To generalize, Right wing populists normally combine a few strains.
1. On economic matters, what the economists derisively call autarky. There is great skepticism of free trade and a vehement anti immigration stance. Immigrants are felt to be stealing the nation's jobs.
2. But on domestic policies, RWP is not usually like conservative Republicans. Trump actually calls for a wealth tax and sounds a lot more reasonable on abortion. In truth he may be prochoice-he certainly was in the past.
My point is not that RWP is wrong on every issue-no, that's what CRs are for-being wrong on everything. The RWPs are right in Europe about the euro. That's what's tricky, RWPs combine some very nasty stuff-anti immigration rants and talk of every country in the world 'stealing from us' with some interesting and even correct points.
Trump in some ways really is a breath of fresh air as far as he admits how the system works rather than taking on the usual politician's air of false sanctity.
My take on Trump is that he's not literally a false flag-though he may have some of those effects in any case.
"In other words: Trump has focused his campaign on an issue that exposes the Republican Party to attacks from both its base (who want the party to move to the right) and Democrats (who have an obvious interest in portraying opponents of immigration reform—that is, most Republicans—as racist lunatics). If you were Hillary Clinton, it would be hard not to appreciate the strategic advantage of Trump’s campaign, which is doing the work of discrediting the Republican Party among its own voters, and the general public, for free."
That's the fault of the GOP though. They have reaped this, so no sympathy. For years they have refused to tamp down on this but have fanned it at every opportunity.
My take on Trump is that he really did have a kind of Road to Damascus moment.
The one fact that messes up the smooth narrative that he's trying to help the Clintons is his campaign against Obama in 2012. If you recall, Trump became known as a wild-eyed Birther back then.
This started in 2010. But this suggests sincerity-if not also perversity. I think you can argue that Trump's trajectory followed something you saw a lot after Obama was elected. Even though Trump had initially supported President Obama, he begun to sour on him.
This happened to a lot of white folks of a certain age. A lot of folks in that particular demographic got a lot more conservative than they had ever been previously. Even Scott Sumner has noted this among economists like John Taylor and Anna Schwartz.
Certainly Obama's race has not hurt this process to say the least.
In addition, there was a big reaction out of the billionaire class. The whole pity the billionaire movement got started in reaction to Obama. Again, his race was a big part of it though certainly not the only thing.
http://www.amazon.com/Pity-Billionaire-Hard-Times-Unlikely-Comeback/dp/B00C816QQQ/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1439559504&sr=8-1
Trump comes from that phenomenon. It was in 2010 when someone who had praised Obama back in a 2009 book went full birther.
So that's my take. Not a false flag but not much less fun for it and there is more than enough meat on the bone that a FF conspiracy is actually pretty plausible even if untrue.
Populists are usually on the Left or the Right. Arguably they normally run against the Center, among other things.
In Europe we see the rise of Right wing populism in many countries. UKIP in Britain-Berlusconi in Italy was a classic version of what Trump is doing. In Europe there is a lot of fear of RWP:
"And Merkel is not the only leader aware of rise of the right among voters across Europe. Merkel's counterparts in France and Italy have both made recent comments about the unpalatable prominence of populist movements in their countries."
"In their new year addresses, French President Francois Hollande attacked what he called "dangerous" populist movements, and Giorgio Napolitano, the 89 year-old outgoing Italian President, warned there was "nothing more unrealistic or dangerous" than calls for Italy to leave the euro zone."
"As well as opposing immigration, many of these movements also campaign against the European Union (EU) and the single currency union, the euro zone."
"Examples include the Alternative for Germany (AfD) and the U.K. Independence Party (UKIP), both of which have positioned themselves as euroskeptic alternatives to the mainstream parties."
"But more extremist right-wing groups are also gaining in popularity in some countries, with Golden Dawn in Greece getting a boost from anger at the country's rising unemployment and tough austerity policies, implemented as part of economic reforms. The party is often described as neo-Nazi, although it rejects this label."
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/01/02/right-wing-in-europe-could-bring-turmoil.html
To generalize, Right wing populists normally combine a few strains.
1. On economic matters, what the economists derisively call autarky. There is great skepticism of free trade and a vehement anti immigration stance. Immigrants are felt to be stealing the nation's jobs.
2. But on domestic policies, RWP is not usually like conservative Republicans. Trump actually calls for a wealth tax and sounds a lot more reasonable on abortion. In truth he may be prochoice-he certainly was in the past.
My point is not that RWP is wrong on every issue-no, that's what CRs are for-being wrong on everything. The RWPs are right in Europe about the euro. That's what's tricky, RWPs combine some very nasty stuff-anti immigration rants and talk of every country in the world 'stealing from us' with some interesting and even correct points.
Trump in some ways really is a breath of fresh air as far as he admits how the system works rather than taking on the usual politician's air of false sanctity.
My take on Trump is that he's not literally a false flag-though he may have some of those effects in any case.
"In other words: Trump has focused his campaign on an issue that exposes the Republican Party to attacks from both its base (who want the party to move to the right) and Democrats (who have an obvious interest in portraying opponents of immigration reform—that is, most Republicans—as racist lunatics). If you were Hillary Clinton, it would be hard not to appreciate the strategic advantage of Trump’s campaign, which is doing the work of discrediting the Republican Party among its own voters, and the general public, for free."
That's the fault of the GOP though. They have reaped this, so no sympathy. For years they have refused to tamp down on this but have fanned it at every opportunity.
My take on Trump is that he really did have a kind of Road to Damascus moment.
The one fact that messes up the smooth narrative that he's trying to help the Clintons is his campaign against Obama in 2012. If you recall, Trump became known as a wild-eyed Birther back then.
This started in 2010. But this suggests sincerity-if not also perversity. I think you can argue that Trump's trajectory followed something you saw a lot after Obama was elected. Even though Trump had initially supported President Obama, he begun to sour on him.
This happened to a lot of white folks of a certain age. A lot of folks in that particular demographic got a lot more conservative than they had ever been previously. Even Scott Sumner has noted this among economists like John Taylor and Anna Schwartz.
Certainly Obama's race has not hurt this process to say the least.
In addition, there was a big reaction out of the billionaire class. The whole pity the billionaire movement got started in reaction to Obama. Again, his race was a big part of it though certainly not the only thing.
http://www.amazon.com/Pity-Billionaire-Hard-Times-Unlikely-Comeback/dp/B00C816QQQ/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1439559504&sr=8-1
Trump comes from that phenomenon. It was in 2010 when someone who had praised Obama back in a 2009 book went full birther.
So that's my take. Not a false flag but not much less fun for it and there is more than enough meat on the bone that a FF conspiracy is actually pretty plausible even if untrue.
No comments:
Post a Comment