Hypocrisy: So we've been hearing all this screaming about Trump's campaign manager being a Russian spy... until it turned out he took money from the Ukrainians. When this was discovered, Trump dumped him. Before he did, all the antiTrumps and liberals were whining about Trump bringing someone with Russian sympathies into the White House. Of course, they also attacked him for getting rid of the guy, but that's not the point here.
The point here is that Clinton's
One Foot In The Gravy Train: So the antiTrumps have been goading Trump to release his taxes so they can find something to destroy him with. He hasn't taken the bait. Clinton piggybacked on their attack without ever releasing her own taxes. That didn't interest the antiTrumps. Well, she finally did release her taxes and she made $10.7 million. These were apparently from speaking fees to nonprofits. Why does that matter? Nonprofits aren't suppose to pay for political speeches, they're supposed to use the money to help noble causes. The millions she took mean homes unbuilt for the poor, food undelivered for the hungry, and polar bear ball un-shrunk by environmentalists. In fact, when Condolezza Rice spoke to a nonprofit in 2009, she was ultimately forced to give all the money back by public anger. Sadly, I'm not seeing much anger aimed at Clinton except on the far left.
She also took in $5 million from banking, tech and corporate interest. Those aren't contributions to a campaign, those are amounts paid directly by lobby-ers to a presidential candidate who will regulate them. Had that been Trump, I think that would have been called a bribe. Had it been the mob, they would have called it a racket.
One Foot In The Grave: There is a lot of talk about Clinton having medical issues. Normally, I would dismiss this except that I recall much of the evidence when it hit the news. I recall her needing special glasses and apparently having headaches. I recall several falls. I've seen the photos of her staff helping her up stairs. I am left to wonder if Clinton might not have something wrong with her brain at this point? More specifically, I am left to wonder if Clinton will last a full four years. I'm not honestly sure, but I think I would bet against it. It's like Paul Tsongas all over again.
Neck and Neck: After a brutal couple weeks of intense smears from the antiTrumps, Clinton pulled to a significant lead over the most dangerous man alive. But then the Olympics happened and everyone stopped paying attention again. In the meantime, Trump has made changes to his campaign - changes which have Hillary trying very hard to assure voters that "he hasn't really changed," which likely means she's worried that people will accept that he has changed.
The effect of all of this seems to be Trump rising again in the poll. Rasmussen had him one point ahead the other day. Now the LA Times has him 2% ahead. He's leading all age groups, high school grads but not college grads, and middle and upper income types in their poll. He's suddenly surging among blacks too, which is interesting. Perhaps his outreach and his statement to blacks this weekend: "What the hell do you have to lose?" are working? Again, I don't put much faith in polls, but it is interesting. It seems that whichever candidate is in he news loses. So right now, the best plan for both seems to hide away.
Thoughts?
62 comments:
As I've said many times, this whole election is giving me whiplash... Just when it seems like Trump is getting his act together things blow up on him and just when it seems like Hillary is cementing a lead she gets hit by scandals and other problems. I'm getting less and less certain about how this is going to play out, though I have seen a few liberals starting to make excuses for a Hillary loss again for whatever that might be worth. I think all I can say for certain at this point is that I'm just burned out on it all, especially the panicking and obsessing.
- Daniel
I have to say this. What I am seeing in Trump in the last week is that he may have figured out his reality show schtick wasn't working and he had no issue with firing those people and hiring other people to get back on message and back in the game. That's impressive. I think that others may be seeing the same thing and also how the Clintons never get rid of anyone (unless they should die on a lonely country road at midnight where a tree just happens to jump out at the car...). They just explain them away like Huma who is now saying that she never actually had anything to do with her Mom's radical Islamic journal. Her name was just on the masthead for years'cause...well, it was family! She never edited or wrote or nothing and anyways...LOOK OVER THERE ---> MY HUSBAND IS STILL SEXTING!!!
Daniel, So true. I think we should call this the yo-yo election. Or maybe the dipsh*t election. That seems more fitting in so many ways as everyone involved seems to be a dipsh*t.
Bev, As odd as it may sound, firing someone who has disgraced themselves often provides a boost with the public. It shows that you are willing to make hard decisions and right decisions. That gives people comfort that you aren't rigid in your thinking. And it tends to create a fresh start. All good things for Trump.
Hillary, on the other hand, as you note, looks like someone who clings to her failures. Loyalty given to her is more important than getting it right. That doesn't sit well.
On that excuse, it's obnoxious and a failure. Ok, so she never wrote it. Are we to believe that she didn't know what her mother's views were? And yet, she participated? If my mother decided to start publishing white supremacist literature, I can assure you that I would not be part of that.
I disagree that the best plan for both candidates is to hide away. Certainly that's the best plan for Hillary, because she's not in control of her scandals. On the other hand, Trump's political woes are, as they say, self-manufactured. Which is precisely the point. Whether you think Trump sticks his foot in his mouth on purpose (which I do) or on accident (which most everyone else does) the fact remains, he has total control over his image in a way that Hillary does not.
As I've said before, political experts have agreed since the 70s that nothing a campaign does before October really matters. Which of the candidates has been the more surprising so far? That's the more shockproof candidate because the bar is already so high. The candidate who of course is running is the one in the more precarious position. It's all about timing, now, as it has been all along. We'll have to see.
BTW, Hillary's lead is slipping for the fourth, maybe fifth time? In anything but politics, the experts would be calling Trump the "comeback kid" and saying that Hillary just can't maintain a lead. Only in politics is the relentless challenger a foregone loser. America still loves an underdog, though. An underdog who can win, that is.
Hey, any thoughts on the Clinton Foundation Closeout Sale? These deals won't last long! Get your orders in now!
Tryanmax - Judicial Watch keeps pounding Clinton with damning emails about a constant Clinton Foundation/State pay-to-play round-robbin' tournament to get access and give favors from State. Oh, and this weekend Hillary's team starte the new line of lies by trying to put the whole secret email server idea on Colin Powell 'cause it was HIS idea and he told Hillary to do it. Powell is not willing to take the blame and anyway, those pesky Obama driven 2009 email retention policies/orders kind of override anything that Powell may or may not have said before Hillary became Sec't of State in Jan. 2009.
tryanmax, I can't say you are wrong about the better strategy for Trump being to take the initiative. But let me float this thought out there.
Every time something arises related to Trump, he seems to sink in the polls. Then it blows over and he seems to return to even or slightly ahead of Hillary. Does that not suggest that his best plan is to highlight Hillary and let everything focus on her? (In other words, stop answering questions except those about Hillary?)
Just a thought.
Great point on the comeback kid stuff. If Trump were the Democrat, I suspect you would hear about the scrappy underdog who just won't give up and how no matter what dirty tricks the Republican tries, they can't pull away from the Democrat.
You would also hear a ton of analysis about how undecideds break for the challenger, etc. etc.... except when they don't.
On the Clinton Foundation, sadly I have no need of government or I would buy myself a piece of Hillary. Maybe a shoulder (or is she all hind shank?), and put it in the freezer until I need some help with a regulation. ;-)
Bev, She's really mishandling both scandals, and it's taking the combined power of the entire media just to keep her floating at this point.
Huma is an interesting person. Way too controversial to be that close to a presidential candidate and way too little investigation by the major players. And why does Anthony keep hitting on young women and showing his tony everywhere? Is she that frigid?
She is mishandling the scandals because they are actually pretty big problems. They involve her role as an employee of the US people. The only reason Obama hasn't really hung her out to dry is anyone who crosses the Clintons seem to have short lives. We haven't talked much about the DNC staffer who was murdered while being "robbed" despite still wearing his watch and wallet in place. Assange claims he was his inside man where he got information on democrats.
Andrew,
Manafort is not the only issue. It's also General Flynn giving a standing ovation to Putin and accepting money from Russia Today, it is his foreign policy advisor Carter Paige, a former employee of a Russian energy company, who gave a speech in Moscow praising Russia and attacking the US.
It is Trump's praise of Vladimir Putin, his business interests in Moscow, and his waffling on the Baltic states. He spouts of Kremlin propaganda. Besides, the scuttlebutt says Manafort's firing had less to do with his Kremlin ties (if so, Flynn would've been dumped aeons ago) and more to do with a desire to shift blame to anyone else for the crashing poll numbers (that his campaign claims is not happening).
Read the John R. Schindler's article, "Yes, American spies really think Trump is Putin's guy." LINK
And if you think Schindler is a Hillary flack, then I suggest you read this and this.
Also, last I checked the Islamic State doesn't have several thousand nuclear missiles aimed at the United States and they aren't threatening (let alone capable of) invading a NATO ally. Russia is both. They still have missiles aimed at the US and have repeatedly talked a lot about invading the Baltics, which Trump has implied he'd let them do.
They are also funding the Iranians and helping them get the bomb. Just about every rogue regime in the world that threatens our interests, from North Korea to Venezuela to Iran, is backed by Moscow and Putin, whom Trump seems to adore.
If you think that is no small matter, I would point out that our abandonment of Vietnam was a geopolitical disaster with Cambodia and Laos immediately falling and the Thais booting us out. The entirety of Southeast Asia withdrew from the American sphere and most of it turned Red.
For President Trump to allow a NATO country to be attacked and to do nothing would be the death-knell of America's political supremacy. We would be finished as a world power because no one would ever be able to rely upon us again. After all, if a hard-right Republican can't be counted on, who in America can?
This "Pourquoi mourir pour Danzig?" mentality being promoted on the right is dangerous and stupid.
And Kit - what of Bill Clinton's $500,000 "speaking fee" paid by the Russians to the Clinton Foundation right before being granted US uranium rights? This was not business entity to business entity speeches or praise in order to do business. This was money laundering to hide bribes directly to the Clintons to garner a very lucative deal through the State Dept.?
FYI - I wouldn't really give much credence to what "Russians spies" might say. If anything, I would assume that they were speaking on behalf of the candidate who gave them the best uranium deal...that wasn't Trump or any of Trump's people.
Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal
Kit - As a child of the "Cold War I", I find it highly suspicious that the after a few generations of laughing at the Russian menace (including, but not limited to the big gaffaw to Romney in 2012), the Democrats/Left is suddenly so terrified about "The Russians" and all of their evil-doing. Where were all of these fears, when Russia just annexed Crimea for the fun of it, and are now amassing their army at the Ukraine border?
"For President Trump to allow a NATO country to be attacked and to do nothing would be the death-knell of America's political supremacy. We would be finished as a world power because no one would ever be able to rely upon us again."j
Perhaps you haven't noticed, but we already are finished as a world power. That is exactly what Obama has been doing for the last 8 yrs. What did you think that "reset button" was all about? It was the same deal he made with Venezuela and Cuba and Iran. Surprisingly he has not yet made this deal with North Korea, but it's coming, I'm sure...
Kit, the Russian angle is really moot no matter how you look at it. The worst and best case scenarios for either candidate are all the same. "Grr! That Russia-luvin' Trump! Why, he's no better than that Russia-luvin' Hil'ry!" On that issue, neither candidate is less scary than the other. What matters are the issues where one candidate is scarier than the other.
Right now, I'd say Trump still looks scarier in the "could become a strongman dictator" category. Incidentally, that's not what I think, just what I think the public sees. But Trump is changing his image, because he can, unlike Hilary. And it seems to be working.
Exhibit A: Trump issues "regret" speech and his critics are upset that he didn't apologize enough.
Exhibit B: Trump makes a pass at black voters and his critics moan that it didn't sound sincere to them.
Trump's critics are on the back foot and they're saying ridiculous things that make them sound like brats. When people act like brats, other people stop listening to them.
Koshcat, I don't know what to make of the dead DNC staffer, but it certainly seems to fit right in with the problems people who can hurt the Clintons seem to have. Makes you wonder.
I agree that her problems are not normal scandals, they are really quite large significant. The only thing that has kept them from devouring her is that most of the MSM are Clinton loyalists.
Trump's stupidest/worst days are behind him is a forlorn hope I've been reading for months now. Still makes me laugh.
Kit, I read the Schindler article and pointed out why it is utter bullshit before.
Bev, Isn't it interesting that how one day you can be the world's biggest idiot for seeing Russia as the enemy and the next day they are the biggest enemy mankind has ever known?
It's easy to pick on them, sure, but please don't also forget the freedom-loving Poles' losing their missile shield thanks to President Sand Trap.
Bev, We really are the biggest and only power on Earth. Don't believe we aren't. We may use it stupidly at times, like under Obama, but we are the only big kid on the block... economically, militarily, culturally, scientifically, and innovatively. Everyone else is a pretender.
Andrew,
Every time something arises related to Trump, he seems to sink in the polls.
That's why I'm very specific about what I'm saying. I believe Trump's foot-in-mouth act is, well, an act.
How does one edge out an ordained and inevitable candidate like Hillary Clinton? You have to be able to do something politically that she can't. That sounds like a pretty tall order, considering Hillary has done almost everything one can do politically. But there is one thing she can't do. In fact, it's something no one, including people on her side, will let her do.
She can't do--for herself--the very thing her party predecessor campaigned on. She can't change.
Trump can change. Like the always-there guy, he can change. He just gets a little emotional because he wants to be with you so much. He didn't mean to get upset, but he can't help it when he sees some smooth-talker trying to take advantage of you. Players like that never change, but Trump will be whatever you want him to be, so long as you'll have him.
Can you believe it?
I believe Trump is a player of a higher caliber. Maybe he can change, maybe he can't, doesn't matter. He just needs voters to think he can change, and for that, he needs something to change from.
Anthony,
Trump's stupidest/worst days are behind him is a forlorn hope I've been reading for months now.
Kinda shows just how many people want to like Trump. Will he give them the reason they're looking for?
tryanmax, I think the fundamental problem for Clinton and the MSM is that Trump is different. He's not the standard GOP candidate who can be accused of sexism or racism and it sticks. He's a guy who mixes well with people of all colors and genders, so he's oddly believable when he says, "Hey, I've got nothing against ___ (gays, black, women, etc.)" That strips away their biggest selling point... fear.
I'm not saying that he's going to win a majority of these groups, but I get the sense he's got a real chance with the moderates in those groups who have from time to time supported specific GOP candidates.
Trump and Clinton have both been on the public stage for decades. They are as known as anyone in existence.
Revelations can damage them by highlighting what is most repellant about them, but not change the perception of who they are. The public knows what they are. Each is lucky to have the other for an opponent.
Eric, I think the biggest turd Obama has left us is the Iranian deal. Rather than either putting them into a tight box or cutting a deal that requires them to be peaceful, he basically told them they could have a gun the moment he leaves office.
Now we're looking at a high possibility of a future nuclear war/strike against Israel or Saudi or a preemptive strike on Iran.
Andrew, that's a very good point. Trump makes the bigotry smear very hard to stick. Furthermore, he's played it very smart by never uttering the words "I'm not a racist, I'm not a sexist."
You can't refute a smear--that only reinforces it. Instead, you sidestep it with a competing claim. When people accused Obama of being a closet Muslim, his response was to declare himself a Christian.
Likewise, Trump says "African Americans love me," and "They are going to like me better than they like Obama." Of women, he regularly cites examples of women he's "helped" and his staff is loaded with smart, confident, attractive women. (That probably turns off ugly feminists, but who cares?)
Anthony, Trump is absolutely lucky to have Hillary as an opponent. (I'm not so sure the inverse is true. Hillary never planned to work this hard.) Lucky, or smart. He'd have never tried this against an Obama.
Imagine both Hillary and Trump saying the words "I can change." It doesn't matter if you can believe either. Which sounds more believable?
Of course, timing is always a factor. Can't wait to see what October brings.
Tryanmax,
I've long been of the opinion the Republicans would have to be stupid to lose to Clinton, the uncharismatic, corrupt successor to an unpopular, weak administration.
I will be very surprised if Clinton doesn't win. If she does lose it will be despite the efforts of Trump.
One more opinion: Trump's appeal to African Americans isn't so much to attract African American votes as it is to attract voters who care about issues affecting African Americans. There's some overlap between the two, but it is far from complete. I'd say the Venn diagram is about like the MasterCard logo.
tryanmax, I think there is a lot more accident than intent with Trump, but he seems to be steering the ship correctly of late to calm down the anger at him and win more support. I guess we'll see how it goes.
I agree about Hillary being incapable of changing. She's the same creature over and over each time she reinvents herself. It's almost creepy.
Anthony, you're assuming Trump doesn't have a plan. How could you assume such a thing? That's ridiculous. We're talking about politics, here! Also, we're talking about Trump. Trump makes plans. It's how you get things built in Manhattan.
Andrew, I think what you see as accidents are really A-B testing. No one has tried A-B testing in politics before because one mistake in politics can end a career and A-B testing is all about making mistakes--on purpose, if you will. Trump self-funded his primary, which allowed him to A-B test his way to victory. He continues to A-B test because the GOP is locked into him as a candidate.
That said, I think the time for A-B testing is drawing to a close. I won't say it's done just yet, but it's about time to ask for the sale. Interestingly, Trump has a background in sales.
tryanmax, On blacks, they suffer from ideological groupthink brought on by a belief in victimization. The best a conservative can do is pick up about the 10% who are conservatives and get the next 10-20% who are not hardcore ideological to stay home by not giving them a reason to turn out.
Then you have the whites (mainly young women) who get queasy about being associated with someone who is viewed on the left as anti-___ (black, gay, woman, etc.).
Ending the gay fight, for example, makes it a lot easier for these women to vote Republican.
tryanmax, Interesting idea. I can see what you mean about A-B testing. I'm just not sure it isn't more accidental than intentional. I guess we'll see if Trump can craft a consistent winning message over the next few months.
Anthony, I guess we'll see.
"President sand-trap" - Awesome
Trump did go to Louisiana looking like he gave a damn. Forced president sand-trip to get his ass out of bed and make an appearance. God forbid he sleep on the plane instead of his comfy bed in Martha's Vineyard.
Interesting article in the WSJ this last weekend with interview with Scott Adams. He doesn't like either candidate but admires Trump for his ability to come up with labels that stick (Lyin' Ted; Crooked Hillary). The Clinton camp came up with their own calling Trump "dark". These are clever, psychological tools used to influence people. If you heard he publicly supports Hillary, he said it was because he was being referred to as Goebbles and he feared for his safety.
The "health" rumor about Hillary is she has a seizure disorder or a post-concussion disorder. Until I see her CT or EEG or her flopping on the ground, I can neither confirm nor deny these reports.
Tryanmax - I agree that Trump is a planner. And yes, to build in Manhattan, one has to know how to navigate "the process" which is about as anti-business as it can be with "Wall Street" sitting prominently in Lower Manhattan. Example: it has taken 15 years to rebuild the WTC complex.
I do agree that Trump has a plan and one that has garnered him hundred of millions of dollars of free publicity before he's run one ad. Btw, the Hillary camp is beginning to panic because her campaign donations are waaaaay down for August.
As an aside: It has been in the news lately that those big college donors are taking their money elsewhere too. They are not liking how administrators are caving to the SJWs on campuses around the country so they are directing their money to other causes.
Both yo-yo and dipsh*t work for me! This whole thing has been a complete and utter farce from the beginning. I guess we'll see if Trump can stay on message and pull this off. I did hear about him in Louisiana, too, which should help him out. And Bev, glad to hear it about the college donors. I figured giving in to the SJW fringe would come back to haunt them sooner or later. Hopefully the loss of donations and declining enrollment will teach them a lesson.
- Daniel
Trump did go to Louisiana looking like he gave a damn.
Oh yeah, that's one more that the Trump detractors are making themselves look like brats over. Trump went to Louisiana, but the parts he went to weren't black enough. Basically, the media has committed to criticizing Trump, so now he's forcing them to criticize good actions. Not only are these criticisms lame, they cause people to question prior criticisms.
LOL! Yo-yo and dipsh*t. Could be a show on Comedy Central!
Seriously, a lot of writers have been struggling for a metaphor for this election, many of them involving various things on fire, inedible sandwiches, incurable diseases and unfunny clowns. I'd like to offer a slightly higher brow approach. This election is a choice between Pandora's box and Schrödinger's box.
(Yes, I know it's usually Schrödinger's cat, but he presumably owns the box, as well.)
If it's not one thing, it's another.. My laptop is giving me problems and Blogger hates my IPad. So no post for tomorrow from me. Ugh...electronic devices are great until they aren't..
Bev,
I'm not saying Hillary isn't horrible (she is). She's just not being as cavalier in her public statements on foreign policy as Trump is.
Also, we aren't finished as a world power, Obama has done a heap of damage to our foreign policy but he hasn't crippled us, not by a long shot. The destruction of NATO (which Trump's hero Putin is actively seeking*, btw) would cripple our status in ways that would make the Iran Deal and the Reset look like minor goofs.
It would be the Fall of Saigon times a thousand.
*What else do you call it when someone is threatening to invade NATO allies in the Baltics and making alarming moves towards key NATO ally Poland while supporting European anti-NATO parties, on the right (Le Pen) and on the left (Corbyn), and pushing anti-American propaganda around the world (Sputnik and Russia Today).
Oh, and in lighter news, Gawker is shutting down today.
I think some music is appropriate: LINK
Meh, Trump is basically reiterating the Democrats' line that the US ought not be the world's policeman. If you believe him on this issue, you have to explain how you choose what to believe and what to dismiss. If you think other world leaders believe him, you're giving them as much credit as you give Trump. If they do believe him, they're of the caliber you believe Trump to be.
Frankly, it's extremely hyperbolic to interpret suggestions of greater reciprocity in our alliances as threats of abandonment.
"I think we should look into refinancing the mortgage."
"OMG! You want to default on the loan and let the bank forclose!"
tryanmax, There is a more direct quote. Trump said something to the effect of, "Maybe we shouldn't defend all NATO members."
Diplomatically, that was a stupid thing to say, but (1) it's something that is already unofficial policy and everyone knows it... we aren't going to war to save Turkey or Ukraine, and (2) both left and right have been talking about this for years for one reason or another -- the left to be less warlike and the right to make the Euros/Japanese spend more on defense.
I don't take the quote seriously.
Gawker deserves an ugly death.
I think that was Gingrich. Now, if it's attributed to Trump and people believe it, that's all that matters. But people don't care all that much about NATO.
Also, whoever frames the argument wins. Maybe not the argument, but overall. Trump has legitimizes the question. That's what counts.
Looks like you started something good with Yo-Yo and Dipsh*t, Andrew! The two boxes comparison is a good one, too, tryanmax. Very accurate for what we're dealing with. And goodbye and good riddance to Gawker!
- Daniel
Daniel, It would be funny if Yo-Yo or Dipsh*t caught on. LOL!
tryanmax, I'm not sure. I just know that's the other one being tossed around as proof of treachery.
Strange, strange election year. I'm noticing a growing number of voices telling Trump that he ought to just give up. That's a strange thing to say to any presidential candidate after the conventions. Even stranger to say to a candidate who is running a campaign within the margin of error. Of course, the strangest thing about telling Trump to give up is the knowledge that he won't.
This suggestion is coming from all directions opposed to Trump, as Trump is opposed from all directions. Because of that, I can't get a read on what it means except that they are literal wishes being voiced. People generally only voice their impossible wishes when they're in an emotional state.
tryanmax, I've seen those comments as well. It feels strange, that's for sure.
I think you put your finger on it with the "impossible wishes." It feels like the dying spurt of an resistance movement to me.
Just wanna say "I called it!" Heard a report this morning that Trump's African American outreach isn't swaying black voters as much as it is swaying suburban women.
Nice call tryanmax. I'm also seeing the race industry trying to dismiss his outreach by trying to move the bar. Before it was say something nice. Then it was meet with black leaders. Now it's, "well, he hasn't walked through black communities."
I take that to mean his efforts were more successful than they imagined.
The media is also playing into Trump's narrative. They have to admit that Trump is reaching out to black voters in order to say he's doing it wrong. Then, instead of protesting, Trump corrects what they faulted him on. So now he's not just connecting, he's responding.
Think about this: who's been the villain in Trump's story since the beginning? The media. And now Trump is making them actually play the part. He does what they say he should do, and they continue to criticize. They're ingrates.
I have to admit, I didn't quite pick up on this until now. I've noticed that the media claims that attacking the media makes a candidate look weak. But I've been asking myself, who are the media to make such a claim? That's probably a bit of luck to Trump. They called him weak, and now they're picking on him. I think there's a word for that.
Darn it! Yesterday I almost stuck in a bit about how we'll be seeing " the softer side of Trump" and now I wish I had. Today, the story is about Trump "softening" his immigration stance--a word Trump himself introduced to the convo.
tryanmax, The immigration thing has been interesting to watch. It's so scripted it makes me wonder when they prepared it.
1. A couple days ago, the MSM was declaring him a racist and talking about how he would still deport Grandma because he's the kind of guy.
2. Yesterday, the question comes up, "is he softening his stance?"
3. This morning, we are treated to both. First, he's a racist for not softening, but he is softening so he's a flip flopper.
4. Trump denied softening.
5. Now we get articles explaining why Trump's "softening" was inevitable because Trump is just playing to the public... but he's still a racist cuz.
Post a Comment