Saboteur or Moronic Hubris?

I think we all get it that Trump is a moron, a bully, and the most powerful man in the world (a VERY dangerous combination), with the most recent evidence being that he doesn’t appear to know the difference between The Revolutionary War, The War of 1812, and when travel by airplane became available. But what is the deal here, really?

You gotta wonder who sabotaged his speech, and how did they pull it off? It seems unlikely that he wrote the speech AND nobody reviewed it. If he did write the speech, then he truly is a moron. But if he wrote it AND had nobody review it, it’s worse because he’s full of hubris — what a combination. Or maybe he wrote it and it was reviewed by people who sabotaged it by saying nothing.

He claims it was a Teleprompter error, which is most likely a lie and a coverup. What about his confusion between the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812? Three theories here

1) Same deal as above, he wrote the response AND didn’t have anybody review it. He’s a moron so he still doesn’t know that he screwed up twice AND his hubris prevented him from asking for help even in the reply. That’s even worse hubris.

OR

2) The saboteurs continued to giggle at the second gaffe that he still doesn’t realize. Maybe they even cleverly planned this double gaffe. If so, brilliant move.

OR

3) His PR people were trying to help, but didn’t say anything about the war of 1812 screwup because that argument doesn’t hold well for two screwups, and they are hoping that it wasn’t as clear cut a mistake and could make the argument that he meant to say that party if anybody asks.

Which of course, begs the second, more important question that has been on so many minds since that fateful day in November of 2016. This is illustrated very well with the little paper clip on Trump’s diaper. How did such a moron get elected? Most importantly, this isn’t about Trump, the American people chose him for a reason. If you give a baby a gun, you can’t get mad at the baby — who gave the baby the gun and why? Half the voting population can’t be morons. My interpretation is that we simply had to choose between a Crook and a Moron. That’s a VERY complex and difficult choice. There are a lot of opinions about Hillary and the Democratic party that anointed her, but if you consider that many politicians are crooks, it’s not hard to see how many people would view this as their choice. There are various ways to look at this:

1) A moron with power will most likely become a crook, so chose the crook, at least you won’t have to deal with somebody who is both. A crook who isn’t a moron at least has an idea of how Armageddon might happen and would be in a position to prevent it.

OR

2) A moron is easier to control, so if the president doesn’t call the shots anyway (which could be the case, but this information is above my pay grade), you’re better off with the moron, and all that matters is the electability of the person.

3) A corollary to #2 is that it doesn’t matter because those in power give money to and control both parties — it doesn’t matter who wins. You might be better off with the moron, but there is another consideration. When the new president is from the other party, the population may be more excited about the “change”, and give the new president more support — as most Americans don’t know that those with true power give money to both sides. In Trump’s case they got both a new party AND a moron. (In the case of the the 2020 election, then they would love to have a serious moron run, but that would probably be too obvious)

I don’t think I have enough information and experience to know exactly how this game works. But it begs another question, if there was a saboteur, what game are they playing and do they have a plan to capitalize on this.