Comments by "Ronin Dave" (@RoninDave) on "Is Donald Trump A Clinton Plant?" video.

  1. If we were looking at this decades or centuries later there would be more consensus of doubt that Trump was a legit candidate with all the suspicious circumstances and coincidences surrounding his campaign. At first I thought we were going to have a situation of voting for either a puppet, Clinton who took donations from Trump and went to his wedding in return or a puppet master, Trump who has donated and bribed politicians in the past. Now I think it may be the other way around because on the one hand the Clinton Foundation has raked in like 3 billion from industries and countries like Saudi Arabia in a huge back-scratching network of influence and power hence the reason she needed a private server to conduct these deals and subsequently delete them afterwards. So she has a lot of money and influence through the Clinton Foundation and her connections. Trump on the other hand claims to be a billionaire but the way this Trump University thing has come out he's more of a petty conman nickel-and-diming every cent because he's probably worth less than a billion, much less in fact which is why he is reluctant to show his tax returns which would prove his failures have been costly. Ironically had he just sat on the money he inherited living off the interest from his dad he would probably be richer than he is now. Anyway, having been long time friends of the Clintons there was no doubt a lot of mutual backscratching going on with Trump probably helping the Clintons out at first and they helping him out later especially when they were richer and more influential. 2008 rolls around and everyone thought Hillary was going to get the Democratic nomination. SNL even made a skit in early 08 about how the media was ignoring everyone else. Everyone was sick of the Republicans after 8 disastrous years of Bush so it looked like Hillary with name recognition and light media support would easily win. No one expected Obama to gain such popular support and actually win the primary. So they learned a lot of lessons from 2008. For 2016 they would use the so-called liberal media full force like Slate and Salon with straight-up pro-Hillary articles while CNN owned by Time Warner a Hillary donator has been used to constantly focus on Trump to ratchet up the fear in liberals while framing the narrative of Hillary as the first woman presidential candidate of a major party (but not the first female presidential candidate but whatever). Once again no one expected the out of left field candidate Bernie Sanders who started with very little name recognition (remember he only ran after Warren declined who would have been more a rival to Clinton from the beginning having more name recognition and a reputation for taking on Wallstreet) and little media support. When his popularity began to soar the Hillary camp probably went "shit! here we go again!" So they pulled out all the stops to prevent another out-of-the-blue popular candidate snatching victory from the ordained nominee. Media attacked Bernie for staying in the race, for making it hard for Hillary, and being sexist rather than confronting him on the issues. The establishment DNC locked arms to screw with polling and voting places in key areas while decrying Bernie and his supporters any chance they got such as with Nevada. Meanwhile Trump has been making a fool out of himself with ridiculous statements that in past elections would have put him in the lunatic fringe and thus ignored (like the Libertarian debate). The media though lapped it up and every time he said something stupid they ran with it because it was ammunition for Hillary and her supporters with the message - "oh but we got to defeat this big bad Trump!" If Trump were not in the race Hillary would have been up against establishment Republicans like Bush, Cruz, or Rubio and many progressives would not have found her all that dissimilar from them especially during the primaries with a very progressive candidate like Sanders. She needed this ridiculous caricature of rightwing ID gone amok to fear-monger people into voting for her (despite her nationally doing much worse than Bernie in the polls against Trump but whatever). All of it just seems too coincidental. When Bernie started making more headway, Trump seemed to get more headlines as he and/or his rallies were always getting in the news for some spectacle. The media has been conveniently helping him while hurting the other Republican candidates. Now as to why Trump has been successful - it doesn't take a savvy political strategist to realize the base of the rightwing is strongly anti-establishment thanks to 20+ paranoid rightwing radio rhetoric and 8 years of paranoid Obama hatred. Trump whether plant or not is a conman opportunist and he hijacked the base right from under the establishment Republicans by going so far to the right while downing the establishment. And thanks to either a duped or willing media he was able to get his message out there largely for free. So did Trump decide to run as a favor to Clinton and create this over-the-top rightwinger whom Hillary could easily knock down both for the primaries and in the general election or was his ego slyly manipulated and he's being played for a sap? Trump never would have been able to get away with this schtick in 2000 or 2008 as he would have been seen as too silly and in 08 there was more animosity towards the Republicans for this to have worked. These 8 years of Obama have been a boon for him allowing him to snatch away the rightwing base fueled on visceral hatred of Obama and democrats. Even his criticism of Hillary seems staged and part of the overall scam as they just make criticism of Hillary the same as much of the rightwing criticism of Obama has been - silly and not worth debating. So when Trump says the system is rigged against Sanders you have to wonder does he actually believe that or has he been told to say that with the hope that Trump chiming in to support Sanders would make Sanders and his supporters look worse? Even being disparaging her vote on the Iraq War it seems to be for making her supporters willing to justify such actions as necessary (- thus setting the stage for future justifications when Hillary goes on the warpath?) I know it sounds tinfoil hat crazy but when you have a foundation worth billions with influential connections all over the place from Wallstreet to Saudi Arabia to the media and people willing to aid the Clintons in return for favors it's not really that far out of the realm of possibility especially when you add the fact that Hillary had a private server as Secretary of State to send unobserved emails to folks which were likely quid pro quo message which she had to delete. Hell one of the emails may have been to Trump directly telling him to run for office! Also keep in mind that this is a candidate whose SuperPac has spent a million dollars to hire people to police the internet and "correct" criticism of the Dear Leader. There's plenty of shady stuff surrounding the Clintons that Trump being a plant either directly or indirectly is not really that farfetched.
    2
  2. Robin Wayne thanks for proving my point. 8 years of ridiculous criticism of Obama by Fox and other rightwing pundits allowed Obama to get away with other things with less criticism such as the droning because rightwingers were silent on that and leftwingers were too busy addressing the latest non-scandal Fox was screaming about.
    1
  3. Robin Wayne WTF are you babbling about and is that prescription or bought on the corner medication you are on?
    1