<b><center> IMPORTANT NOTE: THIS IS PURELY SPECULATION AND IS NOT INTENDED TO BE FACTUAL, BUT MORE OF A 'WHAT-IF' SCENARIO, THINKING FROM A POLITICAL STRATEGY PERSPECTIVE.  THIS IS NOT A STATEMENT OF SUPPORT FOR ANY POLITICAL PARTY OR CANDIDATE, BUT RATHER A THOUGHT EXERCISE.  </center> </b>

I'm very excited about Walmart's announcement that they are increasing minimum wage for employees and that they are going to offer bonuses.  I think it has been a long time coming.  That said, I think that their are ulterior motives.  The first motive I think is that they are beginning to strategically organize themselves as a means to compete during the ongoing retail apocalypse and the inevitable final boss battle that will occur between Walmart and Amazon.  Another thought that I had earlier was spurred about when reading a comment feed on Facebook about some shootings in Boston, MA (USA).  Those posts often become Political. 

Well, as expected, there was 'that guy' who blamed the mayor's 'support of criminals and illegal immigrants' for the shootings.  Then, of course, there were the counterarguments that inevitably follow in those situations.  The counter that the 'mayor-blamer' had for the initial counterarguments pointed out that there has been an upturn in the Economy (his words) and that large companies are increasing minimum wage as a result of the tax bill that came in to law that supported larger companies (much to the chagrin of many Democrats).  He was listing off all of these things that were great about current financial events during the Trump Presidency.  Then the thought appeared, a fleeting paranoia regarding the 'cahoots' between big corporations and politics, the relationship between the two being well known (super PACs, lobbyists, etc.). 

<h3><center>What if large companies waited to announce/improve things UNTIL an arguably extreme President was in office SO AS to garner support for future elections, possibly support for an even more extreme candidate? </center> </h3>

That would actually be a great strategic move.  It would be a move for the long game.  A great warrior knows that it is about the war, not just one battle, so it would make a lot of sense to wait until the ideal candidate to promote certain belief systems that would benefit you in the long run if they were adopted by the masses.  If you could give the appearance of (admittedly, it may just be legitimate success) unprecedented success to a candidate with a given belief system, then the zeitgeist of the society may shift in favor of that, which could lead to many further victories for candidates that share/campaign with that belief system as their platform.   I can't imagine I'm the first person to think of that, so I can't imagine it hasn't been done.  Has it been done in this case?  No one can really know except the parties involved, but my opinion is that it would have been a really tactical political move to do so if it was the case.   Again, this is a pure 'what-if' scenario, not meant to be accusatory or taken negatively; it is just an exercise in critical thinking; the same could have been said about events during any presidency by any political party! :) 

<center> AS ALWAYS, WISHES OF WEALTH AND HEALTH FOR ALL! :) </center>