Tag Archives: presidential candidates

68. Why Distrust Hillary?

6 Sep

There are three important facts to note:

1. If Republicans never existed or Hillary Clinton did not run for President, there would be little or no distrust . The repeated and fruitless investigations would not have been made. Republican leaders, such as Mitch McConnell, have dedicated themselves (in actual recorded dialogue) to destroying Pres. Obama, and now Clinton.

2. Even if she were inclined to do something untrustworthy the constraints of the Presidential office would keep her respectable and honest. The Presidency is constantly observed and reported on. Hillary will rely heavily on Pres. Obama, Bernie Sanders, other responsible Democratic leaders, her Vice President, past cabinet members, military leaders, etc. She will be relentlessly observed by the Secret Service, White House staff, other employees, friends and colleagues. Communications will be monitored for security classification by designated experts. Any favoritism for campaign donors would be obvious and very unlikely to be pursued.

3. Hillary has a long history of serving our country in responsible positions. You may not agree with her politics, but you cannot argue with her genuine efforts to help people and be responsible. With Hillary you can be certain that nothing radically wrong will be done and there is a good chance that she can make improvements.

If you simply distrust all Democrats, remember that our country prospered under Bill Clinton and was very financially responsible. Under President Bush (the 2nd), the country was committed to two major and expensive wars. Hillary as a Senator, did not vote for war, but merely to give Pres. Bush the right to make the decision. It could have been a bluff to show that we were serious. Remember also that she and the rest of the country were told incorrectly that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Her vote at that time was understandable and cooperative with Presidential foreign policy.  She also had no way of knowing that Pres.Bush would engage in nation building and occupy the country for many years.

On the other hand, Trump now has a history of hiring sleazy characters to run his Presidential campaign.  He originally emphasized his wealth and indepence from rich donors — but now pleads for donations.  He has told hundreds of lies, is racist, believes in internationally outlawed torture, and engages in petty revenge. He insulted his Republican colleagues, world leaders, news-people, the family of a fallen soldier, a judge born in the USA, and many others. He incites violence and uses foul language. He is self-centered, crude, and has a long history of the selfish pursuit of wealth at the expense of others.  All of these traits are well documented.  As a political strategy, he now accuses Hillary of the very traits that characterize him, such as bigotry, and thinking of people simply as votes.

He is NOT presidential in demeanor, attitudes, or actions. None of his skills as a real- estate developer are particularly applicable to the demands of a USA president. How could he be president when that requires broad knowledge, diplomacy, and coordination? He could cause international, military, and domestic financial disasters. For example, if he were to carry out one of his middle-east bombing plans, he could create more terrorists than he kills, and change ally nations to enemies. Financially, policies such as keeping minimum wage low and abolishing ObamaCare, can lead to more poverty, crime, and acts of rebellion.

Please see my previous blogs — especially no. 65 — for further discussion of these topics.  If you are a voter, please research what the candidates have written and examine other objective info. Please don’t just rely on what they say.

Addendum:   I just read a very relevant article in the Washington Post today, 9-6-16 by Paul Waldman entitled: Trump’s history of corruption is mind-boggling. So why is Clinton supposedly the corrupt one?   The main theme is that the media covers Trump’s corruptions once or twice while Hillary’s issues are repeated many times.  And often when Hillary is exonerated  by a new fact, the fact is presented without mentioning the exoneration.

67. Is Our Press Losing Its Ideals?

25 Aug

I just saw an interview with former Governor Howard Dean. He expressed a thought that I have had for several years now: that much of USA Press has been corrupted and does not fairly and intelligently present the news. Of course, many individual reporters and commentators do a very good job. Some of the best and bravest are Eleanor Clift, Fahreed Zacharia, Michael Moore, Bill Maher, Arianna Huffington, and a number of others. But there is a major trend to present news that is sensational and sells, rather than an accurate and fair presentation of facts. And often there is a clear avoidance of anything that might offend our rich “Royalty Class”, which includes most leaders of industry and government.

In the case of Hillary Clinton, there is a tendency to overly emphasize innuendo. They repeat over and over things that could be wrong but in fact are not wrong. If, for example, Hillary meets with a company CEO or major donor, it is often reported with an implication of suspicion. The Washington Post (usually an excellent paper) is emphasizing the large number of charitable donors that she meets with, implying that something is wrong. An article title calls her “shady”.  The Clinton Foundation does wonderful charitable work and why the Washington Post wants to tarnish her is beyond me — and it does not help that buried deep in an article they say everything is OK. Further, Hillary is very good at getting political donors and that also is ridiculed by the media. All the best elected officials are great at getting donors and it is not their fault that this is necessary. In these times, a huge amount of financial support is required for all high governmental positions. Message to liberal press: ease up on Hillary or suffer a Trump presidency.

The misinterpretation of emails by everyone including the press is deplorable. For example, an email states that someone (suspicious?) is trying to contact the Secretary of State. The mere fact that someone is trying to make a contact is not worthy of reporting, but it is often reported with unwarranted speculation.

Nasty unreasonable speculation excites the readers and sells newspapers and advertising, but can have the effect of devastating character assassination. Suppose you were walking down the street and a notorious crook just asks if you have the time. What if a reporter sees this and states that you have had a contact with this gangster. At the end of the story the reporter may clarify that there is no proof of wrongdoing — but the damage has been done. People often just remember the headlines and never get to the clarifications.

Sometimes the facts are totally misrepresented or important details are omitted. Wolf Blitzer once remarked that Al Gore called President Obama a failure. The fact is that Al Gore only said that Obama failed in promoting climate-change remedies. Many people, of course, only remember the first statement and never got to the clarification.

In another example, Obama was criticized for not immediately visiting the flooding in Louisiana. This was often reported without mentioning that Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards suggested the delay, as a presidential visit could interfere with rescue efforts. Presenting only part of the story can be very damaging.

One of the most annoying errors is the reporting that Democrats want to raise taxes, implying that the raise would be for everyone. What Democrats actually say is that they want to raise taxes for very rich people and not at all for the rest of us. This can have a profound influence on voters choices.

I have observed Chuck Todd (of Meet the Press) badgering Trump about more superficial issues, but rarely have I seen him attack on the most important issues such as taxation. It seems that most reporters and commentators are afraid to bring up financial issues, perhaps because they could offend the rich owners of their media . Why do they let Trump get away with obvious lies like Hillary is a co-founder of ISIS? He repeated this on several days and finally said he was being “sarcastic.”

We would hope that the Press, a necessary part of any democracy, would be able to help people separate the lies from the truth. I watch many news programs and see spirited discussions of trivia while the profound and history-making issues are ignored. Ask yourself what Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite would say about Trump and today’s reporting of issues.

In researching for this blog, I came upon a couple of wonderful quotes by Walter Cronkite (CBS news anchor from 1962 to 1981) listed on a Google search page.
“America’s health care system is neither healthy, caring, nor a system.”
“In seeking truth you have to get both sides of a story.”
I guess the current problems have been around for a long time. Maybe it is Trump’s bizarre candidacy and his manipulation of the Press that has exacerbated the apparent corruption.

66. To Trump Voters: Really?

13 Aug

Why are you voting for Trump? He thinks you are stupid. He says that his fans are so devoted that he could kill someone in downtown N.Y. and they would not care.

He tells you obvious lies because he thinks that you don’t reason very well and will not detect them. For example, he says that Hillary enabled her husband Bill in his affairs. That is not what she said and his numerous apologies at the time, suggest otherwise. Trump’s lie comes from a distortion of the fact that she helped him with bogus lawsuits. This exemplifies his method of changing facts to support his rants.

You originally voted for him because he said that he was entirely self-supporting and could not be corrupted. Now he is accepting and soliciting donations. This is clearly reported in the news.

He says that our military is a disaster. Another lie — military leaders and other experts feel that our military is as strong as ever and best of all nations.

He developed a procedure of communication that assumes that you will not research anything that he says. He thinks that you are so ignorant that you will just accept everything he says.  He proposes a gigantic expensive wall that will be paid for by Mexico — ignoring the fact that Congress would have to approve it, which they would not do. Mexican leaders have already said that they absolutely would not pay for it. He does not discuss all the ways that this expensive wall could be circumvented — like flying over, digging under, going by sea, going through checkpoints with false ID, coming in from other countries, etc, etc. He just assumes that you can’t figure this out.

He lied about an early condemnation of the Iraq war, he lied about Hillary wanting to raise taxes for the middle class, he lied about his business successes, and he refuses to let you see his income tax returns. He has insulted women, Mexicans, NATO allies, Muslim nation allies, many Republican leaders, disabled people, military men, and others. His emphasis is on revenge rather than on making productive alliances.  He supports torture even though President Reagan was against it.

But you say you don’t care about all these things, because when he takes office he will really be on your side and do wonderful things for the middle class. But why would you think that? He tells countless lies so why would you believe anything he says. He often changes his mind. His past behavior is selfish and full of failures where he profits and other are cheated (like those joining Trump University). His original written budget lowers taxes so much for rich folks that our country would soon be bankrupt.

He claims all sorts of abilities, but all these are related to business and not to a presidency. Creating construction jobs has no relation to the way a president would have to create jobs, which is by a complicated promotion of favorable economic conditions and job creating projects. He would have to work with Congress to achieve this and he has already alienated numerous congressmen.

So if you still are for Trump, have you really considered why? Ignoring what he says (words are cheap), has he actually done anything that would suggest a presidency that would help you? Have you researched the facts? Maybe your problem is limiting your choices to Republicans. Maybe the other party can do more of what you want.

65. Hillary Deserves Your Trust

8 Aug

I spend many hours listening to presidential election news programs and searching the Internet for information.  I am continually annoyed at how simple facts become unnecessarily complicated and confused. The commentators, reporters, the candidates, and others appear to be either poorly informed or to express themselves poorly on camera.   The reporting on Hillary Clinton seems to be particularly egregious.  So, here are some very important issues fully and clearly expressed in simple terms.

Hillary Emails:
She repeatedly said, in every situation, that she did NOT send any emails marked as classified. Also, investigations showed that her email system was never hacked, but that the Department of State email system was hacked.

FBI director Comey said that three of 30,000 emails sent were classified. But he did agree that they were incorrectly marked because they were missing the classification banner at the top of the page.

So Comey, in effect, agreed that Hillary did not send any properly marked emails.

Comey, historically a Republican, also said that she was truthful in his official interview of her.

End of story. These are the only pertinent facts. You can confirm all this by reading transcripts of relevant testimony. It is a mistake to form an opinion solely based upon biased political speeches.

Hillary and Benghazi tragedy:
She was subjected to eight expensive and time-consuming investigations that did not result in a finding of wrongdoing.

There were no lies told, only one change in early interpretations as facts developed.

The U.S. ambassador was a heroic diplomat who made a decision to enter a dangerous war-zone to conduct important business. To blame Hillary for his death would be like blaming President Bush for all the U.S. soldiers killed in battle while he was in office.

The primary protection for any embassy is provided by the local forces and not US troops.  The actual number of embassy guards was determined by lower officers and not the Secretary of State.

Republican House speaker-in-waiting, Kevin McCarthy, by mistake indicated a political reason for repeated congressional inquiries. The political error was so serious that he had to withdraw from consideration.

Contributions to Hillary campaign
It is true that the Hillary campaign took contributions from very rich donors, and that she has spoken to Wall Street organizations for fees. You could conclude that she would alter her policies to support the goals of these wealthy parties. Here is why that would not happen. She clearly receives more money from progressive Democrats so that there is more motivation to support their ideas. Further, the U.S. President is surrounded by the Secret Service, cabinet members, White-House staff, etc and is under constant observation. To secretly support any rich donor would be virtually impossible. Hillary Clinton has a long consistent history of helping people and supporting middle class needs. She never changed her mind about this basis goal. This is in stark contrast with Trump whose history only includes clever methods of making money for himself; often to the detriment of others.

Hillary is a decent reasonable person that some people mistrust, only because of a massive character assassination by the opposing Republican party. After her two terms in the Senate and being Secretary of state, her ratings by the people were very high — around 68%.

64. Profit by Creating Fears

31 Jul

Sub-title: Trump and Davidson, similar despicable methods.

For a year or so, many political leaders in both parties have recognized that Trump is fear-mongering voters as a method to get elected — and judging from past behavior, also to make copious profits. Personal profit has always been his goal and why should we believe otherwise now. Often his plan is to distort facts (like our military is a disaster) and then to say that he alone can solve this (made-up) problem. (Hillary, on the other hand, has a long history of helping people.)  Please see my previous blogs for more details on these issues.

I just listened to a video clip by James Dale Davidson about a future financial disaster for the USA. For many boring minutes with lots of repetition he described a stock market crash, massive unemployment, food lines, devalued houses, worthless U.S. dollars, hurricane destruction, etc. The whole world will be against us and will get revenge for our long control of global trade. Along the way, Davidson promised to tell how each of us can be protected by reading his publications free of charge. As the clip progressed it became more and more clear that he would finish by trying to sell profitable literature. In the end, little was free, and his advice would cost hundreds of dollars.

Davidson should have learned his lesson many years ago. In 1993 he co-authored a book The Plague of the Black Debt where he made some dire predictions about President Bill Clinton (will have one term) and the U.S. economy, all of which were dead wrong.  Our future U.S. economy will go through cycles of success and failure, but we don’t need self-fulfilling doomsday prophecies.

Billionaire Michael Bloomberg (former NY mayor) called Trump a CON man and I am sure it would be the same for Davidson — fear-mongering for profit. I am writing this blog because I was struck by the similarity in manipulation.

For those who do not know how Trump will profit, here are examples:

1. His written proposed U.S. budget involves a substantial decrease in taxes for very rich people. But even worse, it will massively increase our national debt with very profound consequences for all of us.

2. He has stated that workers are paid too much and he will not increase minimum wage.  So, Trump can pay less in wages.

3. After leaving office, he can profit from books (he pretends to write) and by speaking fees.
Trump if nothing else, is an expert in profiting from the losses of others, so I imagine secret deals while in office will make him (and family) richer.  Of course, profit is probably not his only goal, I assume that power and ego are also of interest.

I have to add a comment on a recent Trump blunder (see my previous blogs for a detailed critique of his candidacy). He insulted the Muslim father of a fallen soldier. The father stated that Trump has never sacrificed for our country. Trump answered that his sacrifice was “working very, very, hard” and making lots of money. Actually, if he had worked very hard (like most of us) and earned little money I could be sympathetic. But what does Trump know about hard work. He started off with $1,000,000 and his employees did all the hard work. After his early business failures, he cleverly figured out how to greatly profit from such failures. He would obtain a large loan based on family wealth, make false promises, let the business fail with lots of lay-offs, and make money by paying himself a good salary, and by not fully paying employees and vendors. Evidence for this is hundreds of law-suits.

63. GOP Dedicated to Destroy

29 Jul

This is a commentary about some recent presidential election events and issues.

The Republicans have been dedicated to destroying many things, but most horrible is their abuse of Hillary Clinton since she started running for President. Not many complaints before that!

Can you imagine several years when all leaders of a major party were dedicated to telling vicious destructive lies about you to ruin your reputation; and their staff searching every minor detail of your life, then exaggerating and lying about everything they could find. This history is a tribute to the strength and tenacity that Hillary possesses. I have examined every accusation against her, and like most of those well-informed have concluded, nothing is there except for a few minor mistakes that ordinary intelligent people would make. What if Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, Kevin McCarthy, etc. were subjected to such intense examination, and someone exaggerated their mistakes. We know what happened to Donald Trump — thousands of really bad things were found — no exaggeration needed.

Michelle Obama’s speech was spectacular. All Democrats loved it.

Doug Elmets, who had been a speech-writer and advocate for President Reagan supports Hillary because Trump is “petulant” and “dangerously unbalanced.”

Bill Clinton’s speech last night was marvelous and I totally enjoyed his account of his courtship of Hillary. Despite a past conflict, it is so apparent he and Hillary have adored each other over the vast majority of their lives. He made a wonderful case for her lifelong efforts to help less fortunate people and her sincere interest in progressive ideas.

After the speech of President Obama, Hillary showed some genuine love for him. The look of gratitude and adoration on her face could not be faked and was remarkable. In fact I kept looking at Bill to see if he was jealous (not).

All the speeches at the Democratic Convention have been extremely positive and have been very supportive of Hillary. What a contrast with the dark, pessimistic, and untruthful speeches of the Republicans, especially the dismal speech of Trump.
His method is to re-write history to suit his needs, and then use altered facts to illustrate failures that only he can correct.

Some recent Trump LIES:
False: Our military capability is a disaster (truth: better than ever)
False: Hillary enabled Bill in his indiscretions (really ?)
False: Under the Iran deal, money from the USA treasury was given to Iran (Truth: the money was Iran’s, having been confiscated as apart of sanctions — it could not have been used for infrastructure or other USA works).
False: We got nothing under the Iran Nuclear Deal (several provisions prevent their development of a bomb.)
False: Wisconsin unemployment rate is 20%. (Truth: 4.6% in 2015)
False: He never accused President Bush of lying about WMD’s (recorded in transcript)
False: Muslims in New Jersey celebrated in the streets the 911 attacks (no evidence at all)
False: Trump University had an “A” rating from BBB (last operational rating in 2010 was a “D”)
False: 81% of murdered white folks were attacked by black people (truth:  most murdered by other whites)
An Internet search will list many more Trump lies.  I just watched Hillary’s great acceptance speech.  Final thought:  too many balloons.

62. GOP Distrust of FBI

13 Jul

The House Judiciary Committee Hearing yesterday, July 12, 2016, was concerned with the final judgment on the Hillary Clinton email issue. (Please see my previous blog.)

FBI and other top investigators from the Attorney General’s office spent many months investigating more than 30,000 Hillary emails. The total effort resulted in a massive amount of data which would take many weeks to examine.

FBI Director Comey, who was originally Republican, and a dozen or so top investigators unanimously agreed that Hillary should not be charged with a crime. This was based on precedence, relevant statutes, interviews, and massive data. Director Comey testified for many hours detailing much of the data behind the conclusions. He is the expert on this information.

YET, Republican Congressmen on the committee rudely berated Attorney General Loretta Lynch for accepting FBI Director Comey’s recommendations after a lengthy meeting. They implied that she should have examined all of the data behind the decisions, and that she should testify on that data. Why would any personal opinion that she arrived at be of more value than the conclusions resulting from an extremely competent investigation?  The desperation of Republicans to ruin the reputation of Democrats is bizarre and ludicrous.

61. “Extreme” FBI Attacks

9 Jul

Powerful and brave Hillary Clinton is still standing and running after many years of ridiculous and malicious abuse by desperate GOP officials. They cannot win on the important presidential issues and are forced to rely on inane character assassination. I have discussed the nonsensical Benghazi issue in previous blogs. Here is my detailed analysis of the email question.

Hillary has always maintained that she did not send out any emails that were marked classified. She did send or receive a number of emails that were as some point classified, but none of them were correctly marked at the time with a classification header. This is consistent with what she has always said.

Hillary sent three emails out of 30,000 with a (C) marking buried in the text — but without required “confidential” headings. That is one minor error per 10,000.

“Guccifer”, the hacker, confessed that he actually did not hack Hillary’s email. This is part of the desperately-lying mentality of Hillary haters.

Rep. John Mica (Republican) hinted at conspiracy, but his nasty innuendo was angrily rejected by FBI Director Comey.

The type of email-server used by Clinton was traditional for  Secretary’s of State and was used by Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice.  It has also been used by many other public officials that did handle classified info.  (So why the “extreme” carelessness)

FBI Director Comey seems to be intelligent and reasonable, and has tried to be impartial, but has had a Republican affiliation. We thank him for not charging her. But does his GOP background explain why he said that the email carelessness was “extreme”. Does three (improperly marked) classified email transmissions out of more than 30,000 seem “extreme” to anyone? Most would say “a little careless” or not careless at all. Who is so perfect that they could do all of 30,000 things, perfectly. Comey might argue that she should have recognized some documents as requiring classification, but that is very subjective. Classifications are not permanent and change at times. There are no specific rules to cover all situations. Testimony at the recent Oversight committee hearing suggests that the (c) classification could be misinterpreted.

My only argument with FBI Director Comey is his characterization of “extreme” carelessness. Most people would accept what she did as just a small number of understandable errors. And certainly this highly intelligent candidate would be even more conscientious in the future handling of documents than other candidates. If Republicans who handled classified info were examined for a year, like Hillary, what would be the finding. Lets have the FBI check-out every email sent by Speaker Paul Ryan and see if he does better than: one error in 10,000.

59. Email Issue vs Policy Disasters

6 Jul

The FBI just published its finding of innocent (July 5, 2016) on Hillary Clinton email practices.  So voters must decide how this issue and a few other trivial negatives compare with the questionable candidacy of Donald Trump.  Here is my summary:

Hillary Clinton:          The FBI found “carelessness by Hillary and her colleagues” in the use of emails, but no criminal actions. There were no serious consequences, just an ordinary imperfection in a few cases out of many thousands. No worse than the imperfection of the FBI director who violated neutrality and made political statements. Remember it is the job of the FBI to find criminals, the more found, the higher their ratings. Also, mistakes made could have been by State Dept. employees and not Hillary. There is no claim that any emails actually marked classified were sent by her, as she has consistently claimed. The classification of communications is not the job of the Secretary, but that of designated others. Hillary’s email server decisions were consistent with long-standing State Dept. traditions and in fact were the same as that of a previous Secretary, Colin Powell, a Republican.  (I have to add that careless emails would not happen when Hillary is president, as all communications are carefully monitored and sent by trained White House staff.)

All of the serious negative talk about Hillary began with her run for President. No one thought much about it before. Unlike Trump, she has many years of experience and service to ordinary USA citizens as First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State. She is enthusiastically supported by the past President and is the most qualified candidate that we have ever had. True, for many years she has taken campaign contributions from rich people, but there is absolutely no evidence that she has supported their agenda. It takes a lot of money to run for office so her strategy is understandable.

Regarding the Benghazi issue, Hillary was accused by Republicans of lying, in her characterization of the attack. The GOP said it was a “terrorist attack” and at only one point she said it was part of a protest against an anti-Islam video. So it all gets down to speculation about what the attackers were thinking: simple terrorism or anti-video protest. How can we know what they were thinking — one captured suspect said the attack WAS revenge for the anti-Islam video. Republicans have no reasonable arguments, they are just desperate to find something negative to say.

Donald Trump:        Vengeful actions and childish name calling of colleagues and others, suggest an inability to deal with foreign nations. He already has damaged relationships with Mexico, Great Britain, and all Muslim majority countries. His written proposed budget includes tax decreases for very rich people. He thinks workers are paid too much and does not want to raise the minimum wage. He lies about past events to suit his political needs. He advocates torture, which the revered President Reagan was against. He disrespects women and finds their biological functions to be disgusting. He frequently changes his mind about major issues, depending on his audience.  As a businessman, he has filed four major bankruptcies and numerous other businesses, such as Trump University, failed.  But here is the kicker, in almost every failed venture, Trump personally benefited by $millions while workers lost their jobs and contracted companies were not fully paid.  Hundreds of lawsuits were filed against him regarding payments and promises unfulfilled.

His goal has always been to make as much money as possible — how does that help us? He brags about making money from bankruptcies.  If the USA goes bankrupt, you can be sure that he and his very rich friends will profit by it, while the citizens will suffer a disaster.  He argues against the TPP, but Democrats are already working on making such treaties better for workers. He says that he is a great negotiator, but does not prove that our problems are the result of bad negotiation. Negotiating with contractors is trivial compared dealing with a nation like China or Russia. Many contractors can do a job, but there is only one China and one Russia and our relationships with them cover finances, defense, treaties, boundaries, human rights, alliances, travel, industrial development, membership in international organizations, etc. (Please see my previous blogs for more information.)

So who should we vote for?          Hillary Clinton is a known quantity, who will at the very least move forward on the Presidents agenda in a reliable and safe way — and could make major improvements, especially if there is a Democratic Congress.  Donald Trump, on the other hand, is fully capable of causing major disasters for our country.  We don’t even know what he is really proposing because he frequently changes his mind about critical policies.  For example,  if his tax plan were implemented as written, there would be a disastrous increase in our national debt and heavy constrictions in basic services.  Can we trust him to make  complicated decisions, such as:  when to go to war, how to make a treaty, when to send in troops, when to withdraw them, when to apologize for killing innocent civilians, when to form a coalition, when to do nothing, etc.  You only understand all the many complications when you have the experience of a leader, such as Hillary Clinton.

 

57. Secret of Trump

16 May

(News flash: Mr. Incorruptible is now taking money from rich donors.)

As Trump started to loosen up on his various positions, I began to see him and the whole process more clearly. The secret of Trump is his ability to adapt. He observes contingencies and people’s needs and changes his approach accordingly. This has worked for his businesses and has worked in his political career so far. Adaptation in fact, is the way most enterprises do best (but alas, is not conservative).

Trump is a man devoted to success, not principles. He does throw out a few ideas, but a substantial part of every speech is concerned with various aspects of winning. He talks a lot about his winning in the polls, his number of delegates, the number of people voting for him, the states he has won, and the defeat of his enemies. He is now backing off many of his ideas suitable for the primary, and developing new ideas for the general election. So now lets see how Trump fits into the political realm.

Republican (conservative) leaders want everything to remain the same, because it is under the current (corrupt) system that they have succeeded. They do talk about some ideals, but mostly their motivation is to keep their lucrative positions,  hold on to their great wealth, and please their rich donors. They create laws that make rich people richer and if necessary, take benefits away from the general population (you and me). Republican leaders talk a lot about religion because religious people are generally more conservative and that keeps them in the party. Religion is also a diversion from questionable budgetary policies.

On the other hand, Conservative voters want things to remain the same, because they fear change. “Lets just keep doing things the same way because that is safer and new things are often hard to understand.” For some GOP voters, of course, religion is most important and they see Republicans as their champions, even though Republicans in practice, are not any more ethical or moral than Democrats, and are less Christian in terms of helping the poor.

Some Democrat leaders support the wealthy, but many genuinely promote programs to help the middle class and those in poverty. Democrat voters are more adaptable and support progressive principles, such as climate-change actions, LGBT needs, job creation, infrastructure improvements, research, support of social programs, etc.

Of course, I have over-simplified, but the main features are clear. By design or just by luck, Trump joined the Republicans because that party has a large group of fearful, traditional, and/or less-educated voters. He could present simple, forceful ideas, like building a wall and strengthening the military, that would appeal to that group.  And, of course, he can amplify the fear by talking about ISIS cutting off heads.

Now that he has achieved the nomination, he can adapt to what is necessary for the general election. He says that past ideas are only suggestions, just proposals. He is now clearly moving more towards the center and even liberal views because that adaptation is more likely to win.

So picture Trump walking along the top his giant border wall trying to stay balanced, but deviations too far to the liberal left or conservative right will make him fall off. Trump is a great adapter and that works well for businesses. But will the voters see him as principled or just opportunistic ??  And clearly, he has now abandoned his original fans.