The first appointments of Trump contradict its electoral proclamations

If one of the reasons not to vote for Hillary Clinton, was to prevent the entry of finance and globalization at the White House, here is that the appointments of the new President Trump, who during the election campaign had been opposed to the influence of finance and relocation of US companies, with regard to the positions of Secretary of commerce and the treasury are heading in this direction, contradicting even labile American billionaire programs. So Trump discovers his true face of opportunistic, able to make alliances with the representatives of the most powerful sectors of the federal state, those who were to be excluded because of their work, which has created so much damage to the American system. Soon even matter which one of the two nominated was a financier of Clinton: the dowry of consistency, it is now understood, it does not belong to the new occupant of the White House. Wilbur Ross, who will take the position that will oversee the delicate matter of the trade, is one of the greatest expressions of those who have used the free trade and opportunities of deregulation, the opposite of protectionism invoked by Trump, to get rich: owns textile factories in Mexico and China, and steel mills in Spain; its history of company relocations does not seem to be reconciled with the themes, in favor of the maintenance work in the US and for the US, which led to the election Trump. The future Secretary of the Treasury, on the other hand, is called Steve Mnuchin, was vice president of the investment bank Goldman Sachs; This source indicates that Trump wants, in a practical, cozy up the benevolence of Wall Street and American finance, after he falsely fought during the election campaign. The real doubt, that these appointments result, is that the electoral program, deliberately not accurate and not circumstantial, but based on electoral slogan ends in themselves, that Trump has continued in his election campaign, remained hidden to conceal ulterior motives of quite contrary to what has enabled him to achieve victory. In the explanations of analysts and political scientists that took place immediately after the triumph of Trump, it was justified victory of the billionaire as a candidate anti-system and why the Clinton represented too highlighted the richest and most powerful part of the US and still colluding with the financial system, ultimately responsible for the economic crisis. Will be interesting to see what the explanations that experts will produce for these appointments, which do not appear certain to break. A particularly important aspect is like this, which appears as a sharp reversal of Trump to its proclamations, it does not seem to have been in any way provided by the experts, in the rush to marry a victory reading of the new American president only as a popular challenge the status quo. What you seem to perceive, however, it is a restatement of the establishment rule in open contradiction of the will of the voters Trump and the main group that supported him: the Tea Party. On the contrary, this seems the affirmation of someone who, despite being in its political sphere, seemed to support him: the traditional leaders of the Republican Party. You are facing so the assumption of a very important significance, which seemed lost, the Republican Party, contrary to the perception of what the election of Trump had communicated. The entire American public was then deceived? It was a concerted strategy with the leaders of the party or Trump has planned a campaign in a particular direction, only with the aim of reaching the position of President, no, in fact, intend to implement its electoral proclamations, but, indeed, completely contradict them, to maintain power in the usual locations? And, again, Trump is the originator of this scheme or is it just the dummy manipulated by occult powers, impossible to unseat. If these questions will find the positive responses, even partial, it means that the American electorate had not before a real alternative, that, perhaps, you could realize with Sanders, who, not for nothing, was boycotted by the Democratic Party, including through dishonest conduct of its vertices. In the end everyone had won, it was important that the real power that controls the United States would remain in well-defined places: in spite of the performances of the two candidates arrived for a final showdown.