I believe part of it is lack of understanding of what he is actually doing, but some of it may just be a contrarian approach to the world. Neither is necessarily “bad” in my opinion. But I think if he were more cognizant or more in control of his behavior he could be more effective.
Yes I agree with all that….. I think a large part of it, however, is that his perspective on the world and how it works is based on him being a businessperson, and not a politician.
I think you see this in both his behavior towards Kim and Putin. All of the “political strategerists” are telling him what he should or can or can’t do with each relationship, but in Trump’s mind these are just two men that he needs to find common ground with. So, he (figuratively speaking) picks up the phone and says to each of them “OK, so how do we both get what we want here?”
I would say some of those strings and obligations include behaving in a way that doesn’t call in to question the validity of the presidency, the democracy or our stature in the world. haha.. let’s see ya let that one just lay there
This is one of those POV’s that one agrees with in principle, but one must also add that being unpredictable and a little scary can sometimes play into our favor. I think we can agree that Trump’s a bit too far on the side of unpredictable and raw, but there are situations where the unpredictable factors plays well.
Apparently it wasn’t obvious to you that what I said was a rhetorical question… and maybe that shouldn’t be surprising. If you are really a heavy trump supporter you might very well not even be aware.. that if the majority of a group of people all over the world disagree strongly with you.. there is at least a chance, that perhaps you are wrong.
I don’t disagree that the “majority” leans anti-Trump, both in the US and worldwide.
But, I consider that factor far less important than policy implementation. In general, the more effective a politician, the less popular he or she will be, because to be effective, you’re shaking the tree of status quo.
We HAD to have a revamping of both the corporate tax structure and the corporate tax code in order to be globally competitive. Despite the fact that no Dem voted in for doing so, there was broad bipartisan consensus that we were screwing ourselves with our corporate tax rates and structure; it was the drop in the personal rates (and the desire to not hand Trump a win) that kept the Dems away.
And, guess what? That REALLY pissed off the EU and major asian counterparties, because we made the US a more desirable place to invest than an EU country, and in many cases (because of intellectual capital protections) than Asian developing nations. And when the EU politicians are pissed, and the EU corporate leaders are pissed, they’re going to tell their media that they;re pissed, and their going to write about what a jerk Trump is, just because he rammed through something that benefits us and not them.
Same thing with tariffs. Now, it should have been obvious to anyone breathing that Trump didn’t institute tariffs because he wanted to be a protectionist; Peter Navarro’s not a protectionist in the least (I’ve been a Navarro fan for years, btw). What Navarro’s been saying is that we’re giving away an entire percentage point of GDP for YEARS because the original trade agreement template we’ve been working off of since the Clinton years was “fair” if you were a megacorporation CEO, but not so “fair” if you were an american worker.
It’s one thing to say I simply disagree with you, make your case and be done with it. It’s quite another to say publicly that the press is lying about everything, always.
I agree, but sometimes the media is. Lying. Or more often, the game is to report one side of the story, then put up in the 2-box a an anti-Trump democrat and an anti-Trump republican, then pretend you’re being “fair and balanced.,”
The media doesn’t like it when they get called out on their bullshit.
Also fascinating is that anyone would actually believe, as many seem to, that the media is almost part of some cabal of like minded saboteurs intent on bringing him down.
I don;t think it’s a cabal; I just think that journalism appeals to a certain type of person with certain types of views. Conservatively minded people tend to get MBAs.
More to the point, from the media you tend to get the points of view of (a) educated people from (b) journalism schools tho © live in NYC, DC, or LA. Those aren’t the points of view of the majority of Americans. This is a very big country.
I will say this.. whenever any politician claims he is doing something for the American worker, your ears should start to burn… especially if you are an american worker employed in some sort of industrial, mining etc.. business that is currently being outsourced. It’s a lie.. intentional or otherwise… a lie either way.
Well, I started with that above. We can use that for a springboard, maybe.