An odd but strangely compelling theory w/re to Trump and Hollywood

A guy I work with claims to be political but no friend of either party. His general commentary suggests to me that he leans right (he says things like, "libtard"). He is of the belief that most of Trump's buffoonery is smoke and mirrors to distract from the good things he's doing. (As an aside, another coworker says the same thing, except as an effort to distract from the truly awful and disastrous things he's doing. I found humor in the related dichotomy.) Anyway, that's not the theory...

Coworker 1 (CW1) seems to think that Trump is behind all of the Hollywood outings of bad behavior related to sexual deviancy. Payback for that industry's front line assault against his campaign and administration and that he has summoned the dark arts of WH information gathering to get the dirty on his "enemies". I don't know if it's true or not, but I thought it was interesting to think about. Hell... Maybe he's the one who dropped Roy Moore in the grease. Might explain the timing thing.

Comments

  • I think they are both wrong about the motive for his so called buffoonery. The correct explanation is that we elected Thornton Melon and he's simply having a good time.

    As for Hollywood, I think that was the inevitable result of the rise of new/alternative media.

    Finally, as for Roy Moore, I firmly believe this is a GOP establishment hit job.
  • Bird, does the idea that DJT needs a strategic reason to make himself the center of attention really make the first bit of sense to you?

    Eric, does it really make sense to you that the GOP "establishment" would wait for Moore to be the nominee then have a NYT reporter find women to report the allegations?
  • zuk - I didn't say that I bought it. I just find it interesting to ponder in the way that fiction writers find ways to base fantastical plots on historical events. I read a book a few years ago that suggested TE Lawrence's real mission was to locate and capture a djinn to bring back to jolly old England.

    MCE - Why didn't the establishment "hit" him with this during the primary? Seems like that would have been more productive.
  • edited November 2017
    Because the McConnell wing did not want to eliminate Roy Moore specifically, they wanted to eliminate anybody who might be too conservative for their tastes.

    The way they see it, it would be better to have a democrat win the seat then a Republican that they could not co-opt.

    And keep in mind, the house republicans cut a deal with Steve Bannon such that he will not come after them next year; which means Ryan is most likely gone in 2018.

    None of this is about Roy Moore or the race in Alabama, it's about which faction will control the Republican Party in 2018 and beyond.
  • The McConnell wing that let Garland's nomination sit so Gorsuch could be confirmed, stood fast against more gun restrictions after Newtown, and fought to get Sessions in as AG?    What about Roy Moore would be too conservative for McConnell?
  • Both actions are Republican. You should not be surprised when they have a commonality of interest.

    You should also keep in mind that Scalia's old seat was extraordinarily important to Republicans, conservatives and the political right in general.

    Seating an Obama nominee was not politically possible.

    And of course, most of the people in power did not expect Trump to win.

  • Or did they?

    I think most Trump voters expected him to win.

    And by "Trump Voters" I mean the ones who were voting FOR Trump as opposed to AGAINST Hillary.
  • MC Escher said:

    Both actions are Republican. You should not be surprised when they have a commonality of interest.

    You should also keep in mind that Scalia's old seat was extraordinarily important to Republicans, conservatives and the political right in general.

    Seating an Obama nominee was not politically possible.

    And of course, most of the people in power did not expect Trump to win.

    Seating Garland would have been very easy.  All that it required was giving him a hearing, which would lead to additional pressure to confirm.  McConnell stood against the pressure to grant a hearing, and took a lot of flak for it.

    I understand that people of different views can have common interest.  But what about Roy Moore would be too conservative for McConnell?


  • Or did they?

    I think most Trump voters expected him to win.

    And by "Trump Voters" I mean the ones who were voting FOR Trump as opposed to AGAINST Hillary.
  • nbody said:



    Seating Garland would have been very easy.  All that it required was giving him a hearing, which would lead to additional pressure to confirm.  McConnell stood against the pressure to grant a hearing, and took a lot of flak for it.

    I understand that people of different views can have common interest.  But what about Roy Moore would be too conservative for McConnell?


    1) I'm not arguing your point. I'm pointing out that you are assuming a motivation for McConnell that may not be correct.

    2) This is less about conservatism per se than what team each is on.
Sign In or Register to comment.