dRumpf mastering the art of going in polar opposite directions, simultaneously. [View all]

[Mc Mike]

1) It's not actually fooling anyone around here, but this tactical phenom has been manifested in a pronounced way since the 'Amplification of slash expansion of slash contraction of' his Muslim ban in late July:

"Donald Trump said his latest proposal to stop immigration "from any nation that has been compromised by terrorism" is an "expansion" of his blanket ban on Muslims, in an interview aired Sunday.

"I actually don't think it's a rollback. In fact, you could say it's an expansion," Trump told NBC's Chuck Todd on "Meet the Press." "I'm looking now at territory. People were so upset when I used the word Muslim. Oh, you can't use the word Muslim. Remember this. And I'm OK with that, because I'm talking territory instead of Muslim." " From TomCaDems's 7/24 o.p.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1529709

He and his merry band of campaign surrogate mutants take both sides of the issue. He wants credit for not being insane and unconstitutional, and wants to tell the people who love him for being insane and unconstitutional that he's still on their side, is as crazy and anti-democracy as ever before.

2) Does he ever apologize, or feel like he needs to apologize? Yes. And No. He's stated frequently that he never has, never will, and doesn't think he has anything to apologize for. He tells it like it is, blunt unvarnished truth. His fans love it. Then he apologized on the campaign stage, to a generic anyone (everyone) who feels offended by any of the zillion sheisskopfian things he's said. He's winking and nodding at the fans who love his take no prisoners approach, while neither he or his campaign can think of one particular example that he feels bad about. He 'apologized' and not one of his campaign mutants will admit to one single thing he did wrong that the apologizing is about, hours of tv discussion with zero clue offered by any surrogate as to where l'il donnie thinks he stepped a bit over the line. He'll never apologize, and he made a total complete blanket apology, about nothing -- at the exact same time. He's running on never apologizing and his fans want him to have credit for apologizing, simultaneously. Sure to sway the independents, right?

3) He's on the record as saying that Putin will never go into Ukraine, believe him, write it down. And they're already in Ukraine, in Crimea, he definitely already knows that, it's horrible and it's all Obama's fault, because the dems're horrible. And he's in favor of Russia taking over Ukraine, because that's what the people want, so the Crimean annexation is great. And he loves Putin, and doesn't know him at all. He's fake rattling his saber at Russia while parroting Putin pravda talking points, simultaneously.

4) He loves Putin, and runs on wanting to attack the entire world, his followers are on board with the second part, aquiescent about the first part. He has a ton of opaque relationships with Putin, and has issued tons of belligerent hyper aggressive statements about a dRumpf foreign policy for everywhere except for Russia, North Korea, killers from Chinese Tiananman Square, and the now dead Saddam Hussein. But now, SIMULTANEOUSLY, we get to hear that the real danger is Clinton's financial ties to Putin, his opponent is besties with Putin, not him, though, he doesn't trust Putin, doesn't want Putin's influence exerted inside our government. Nevertheless, we're getting to also hear SIMULTANEOUSLY about the extreme danger Clinton's belligerent anti-russian stance is to world peace, he's got a kinder gentler foreign policy, diplomacy is always best, and she's going to start a war with Russia due to her overheated cold war rhetoric, but she's weak, don't forget THAT. She's going to start a nuclear war, sez the guy who wants to give Japan and Saudi Arabia nukes, and who wants to know why we can't use them if we have them. Russia is good when it's with him, it's evil when it influences Clinton, Clinton is bad because she's too strong on foreign policy, but she's bad because she's too weak on foreign policy. Her diplomacy is bad, her lack of diplomacy is bad. Her financial ties make her a pawn of Putin, who dRumpf thinks is the greatest thing since sliced wonder bread, and also he's fully within his rights to have hundreds of hinky financial connections to Putin's russia, that he won't disclose. He's sticking to his guns on that.

5) Campaign expansion, or Manafort out? How about both. How bout we give you a woman campaign manager, who spends all her time attacking womens' rights? Tax returns released? Yes. And No, never. Debates? He can hardly wait, and might just skip them. He wants the Black and Hispanic vote, while doing everything possible to reassure his 'aryan' base simultaneously.

I could dredge some more of these up from the recesses of my memory, but the concept is solid enough without more examples. He wants to present a rorschach image for his flunky followers where they can see exactly what they want when they look at him and his statements, and simultaneously wants to betray everything his followers love about him, to reassure extremely low info independents, so they can look at rorschach donnie and see what they need to see to back him, too.

The schroedinger's cat campaign, from the uncertainty-principled politician. Gee, he sucks. And so do they.