Interesting conjecture but you failed to do any realistic analysis of counter-arguments, of which there are many.
You also naively oversimplify complex issues into absurd dichotomies useful for little more than making rhetorical jabs.
You fail to offer a better alternative strategy than Trump’s, even retrospectively (where doing so is easier by many factors).
And finally, your argument drifts into symbology and scripture interpretation, an extremely weak composition material for any logical analysis of any subject outside it’s own realm, and one which introduces an externalized prime mover to the argument (either some unspecified ‘cabal’, or God), which begs the argument and demands logic or proof connecting the ‘invisible hand’ to the events, which you don’t provide.
Ultimately your whole argument rests upon ascribing motives to Trump that he never expressed (just like leftist’s did with muh racism and muh Russia) and assuming that every outcome is predictable and intentional — a bit like reviewing a chess game and pretending that the losing player’s every move was intended to create the outcome so he must have thrown the game on purpose (this is not to say Trump has “lost”, BTW — in this analogy Trump’s concern is exposing a fixed tournament, while many of us stare at a single match angry about a forced draw).
Interesting conjecture but you failed to do any realistic analysis of counter-arguments, of which there are many.
You also naively oversimplify complex issues into absurd dichotomies useful for little more than making rhetorical jabs.
You fail to offer a better alternative strategy than Trump’s, even retrospectively (where doing so is easier by many factors).
And finally, your argument drifts into symbology and scripture interpretation, an extremely weak composition material for any logical analysis of any subject outside it’s own realm, and one which introduces an externalized prime mover to the argument (either some unspecified ‘cabal’, or God), which begs the argument and demands logic or proof connecting the ‘invisible hand’ to the events, which you don’t provide.
Ultimately your whole argument rests upon ascribing motives to Trump that he never expressed (just like leftist’s did with muh racism and muh Russia) and assuming that every outcome is predictable and intentional — a bit like reviewing a chess game and pretending that the losing player’s every move was intended to create the outcome so he must have thrown the game on purpose (this is not to say Trump has “lost”, BTW — in this analogy Trump’s concern is exposing a fixed tournament, while many of us stare at a single match angry about a forced draw).