Intelligent voters thus can reliably interpret Donald Trump, up to the present point in his campaign, to be (as I explained on July 22nd) so opposed to Clinton’s alliance with billionaires — the mega-corporations — as for Trump now to be suffering huge and mounting disadvantages to his campaign war-chest as compared to hers, and this money is going instead to assist the Clinton campaign. And, “Even as early as October 2015, it was clear that the Republican Party’s mega-donors were already contributing more money to Hillary Clinton’s campaign than to Donald Trump’s. They also were contributing more than they were to Clinton’s campaign, to each of the Republican Presidential campaigns of: John Kasich, Scott Walker, Ben Carson, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and (the most of all, to) Jeb Bush.” Those six, and Clinton, were their favorites — not Trump, never Trump.
So, clearly, if you want even more economic inequality in this country, vote for Hillary Clinton — don’t trust a word that either of the Presidential nominees say. What Hillary Clinton’s lengthy record in public office shows is that she has no problem with ever-widening economic inequality; she is its champion, she has proven it by her actions in public office, but she’s not so stupid as to say this also with her mouth, only with her actual actions as a public official. Trump has no record at all as a public official, so there’s no way of knowing what types of policies he would pursue. No way except his (equally) lying words — and, of course, by whom his enemies are.
On tactical voting:
Thus, the intelligent voter who wants to reverse America’s slide into aristocracy (‘oligarchy’, to use the term that people who admire aristocrats use, as if it meant anything different than an aristocracy) — any voter who wants to see a return to democracy in America — will vote for Trump on the Presidential line of the ballot, and vote for Democrats on every other line of the ballot. And, then, if Trump as President actually does try to push forward any of the conservative things he’s been mouthing, the Democrats in Congress will almost certainly be able to block it from becoming law. And whatever he pushes that’s of a progressive nature, will win virtually all of the votes of Democrats in Congress, plus many votes even from congressional Republicans — it will become law. He could end up being a far more progressive President than any in recent times. Alternatively, he could try to ram through some extremely conservative policies and just turn out to be an extremely ineffective President (if Democrats control Congress such that they can block his bills from becoming laws). An extremely ineffective President would be vastly less horrible than a President Hillary Clinton would be. But, if we end up with a Republican Trump and a Republican Congress, that would probably be just about as bad as having a President Hillary Clinton.
Deception is now rampant in American politics. Intelligent voting therefore now means trusting only deeds as a public official (and identifying whom the given politician’s real enemies are), not words at all. Now that the Kochs have ‘spoken’ clearly with their money, we have meaningful evidence not only about Hillary Clinton (who already was clear by her deeds as a public official), but also about Donald Trump (who is otherwise still largely a mystery).