The Trump Card...

[ATeam]

So, to sum up DaveKC and Turtle (fairly, I hope), Trump defeated all other Republican candidates in the primaries because:

1. Trump freed people from political rectitude (political correctness).
2. People wanted change.
3. People were angry and Trump provided a way to express it.
4. Trump represents business accomplishment and a business approach.

The desire for change does not explain why TRUMP won. Every presidential candidate promises change. They have been doing that since Washington. In every election, one of them wins.

Anger does not explain why TRUMP won. In every election, at least some of the voters are angry and that anger drives their vote.

In the Republican primary field, Trump's business history may have been a factor. How much is difficult to determine. Presumably, some of his base came to Trump first and foremost because he was a business man.

Political incorrectness is unique to Trump. All of his primary opponents chose rectitude over the other. Trump was willing to say things others were not and promote policies his opponents tagged as racist. So tagged, he did not care. He just kept voicing his us vs them themes.

Now let me take a crack at my own question. What did the other Republican candidates miss that Trump got?

The primary candidates all missed their own establishment political elitism that blinded them to the people. (Maybe not Carson but he was pathetic as a candidate.)

Trump got it that the political marketplace was open to a platform that was not Republican or Democratic pure. He understood that people wanted their jobs back (not free trade like elite Republicans want). And he understood that white, blue-collar voters resented having to choose their words carefully when people or other races and religions were being discussed (unlike how elite Democrats would have their kids talk in school). That's not to say Trump voters are racists. It is to say they thought things have gone too far when you have to get a permit to have a garage sale and a kid can get suspended from school for putting his finger and thumb into the shape of a gun.

Trump never received over 50% of any vote (except on the convention floor). He did not have to because the number of candidates made it only necessary to win a plurality. With his blended agenda, he won enough to defeat the elites who stuck to their party-pure and politically correct agendas. While no majority aligned with Trump in the primary, he drew enough market share to win.

Trump also won the primary because most of his early opponents dismissed him as a joke. Their strategy was to let him self-destruct (as was Hillary's). By ignoring him, instead of working early to defeat him, they gave Trump the toe-hold he needed to leverage a larger gain.

Trump's marketing and TV instincts served him well with the media. With no fear of bad publicity, he became a ratings driver and he knew it. He got more air time than the entire Republican field combined.

That's my take on Trump's primary victory. (As stated above, he defeated Hillary because she sucked. Had the Democrats nominated a less-flawed candidate, he/she may have defeated Trump.)

It's one thing to win a campaign for an office. It is quite another to serve in that office and get things done. In a campaign, your task is simple and straightforward; get more votes than the other candidates. And that is often done by discrediting your opponent with negative ads and statements. In the office of president, its more complicated and it is unwise to discredit your opponent, especially if that person happens to lead another country.

Returning to the possibility that the Republicans may see fit to turn on Trump and impeach him, let's look again at his strengths.

Trump's political incorrectness has lost its novelty. His supporters are now looking for results. It's no longer enough to say deport the illegals. Now, it's expected Trump will do so. It's not enough to say build the wall. People will soon be looking for construction to begin.

Trump's foes will not underestimate him ever again.

The media is no longer falling for Trump's tweet traps, where he would tweet something politically incorrect to drive the media away from a topic he prefers to avoid, and they would cover it for days. The president has always received the lead in the daily news. Trump is no longer competing for the media spotlight. As president, he has it by default. As I said above, those who live by the media die by the media. Notice how Trump is already ducking some of the networks he used to court. Trump will remain a ratings draw but the ratings will be just as good for networks covering a falling Trump as they were covering a rising Trump.

Trump's marketing expertise was masterfully applied in the Carrier jobs performance, but it's not like the campaign any more. The media dug deeper into the story and after a week of reporting, the public figured out that Indiana Governor Pence rewarded Carrier with millions of tax dollars after they sent hundreds of jobs to Mexico and provided little assurance that the remaining U.S. jobs would still be there a few years from now.

Trump's rallies continue to be the feel-good events they always have been for his base, but those are not like the campaign any more either. Before, everything he said at a rally was about the future (If elected, I will ...). Now, what he says will be immediately matched by the media to his present performance. It's easy to rally large crowds to their feet by telling them what they want to hear. It's more difficult when you told them something before but have yet to deliver it.

With Republicans now in control of the House, Senate and White House, it's not about what Trump says anymore. It's about what Trump does or fails to do. And it's not about Hillary any more either. She is out of the picture.

Trump's business acumen is a remaining strength but the conflicts of interest his business now present may be the very thing that fuels the impeachment charge. He is refusing to divest so the conflicts will continue. The more they do, the more ammunition his future Republican impeachment advocates will acquire for the coming battle.

As you read this, Turkey has arrested and is detaining a (Turkish citizen) business associate of Trump's. That nation is willing to barter Trump's Turkey business interests (Trump Towers in Istanbul) for a particular Turk who resides in the U.S. but is wanted in Turkey. Will Trump give in to this blackmail and protect his business interests in Turkey by delivering this guy to the Turkish government? If he does, will he thereby open himself to charges of self-dealing or even treason? As I said, it's not like the campaign any more.

I continue to believe that the question of the hour is, how long will Trump be able to maintain the support of his base? It is an important question because the Republican Washington insiders he deeply offended lie in wait for the opportunity to impeach.

Anger in the base remains a factor. With Hillary out of the picture and the sole spotlight on Trump, the risk is high that the anger will be directed toward him.

 

[davekc]

I do agree with a lot of your points. He is not all that and did win based on a lot of your points. Hillary spent considerably more, and still couldn't pull it off. I think Trump might have had a harder time with Sanders after seeing the end results. I also think some strategy mistakes played into it. Examples of that was Hillary coming off the campaign trail way too much. Even for debate prep which she should have performed much better being a seasoned politician and having some of the questions and answers ahead of time. Add that not not even campaigning in certain critical states and those a big mistakes. Just my take.

 

[Ragman]

....it would have to be someone other than Pence. He is too controversial among liberals ......

Not really. Pence is well known to us in the Midwest. As the Governor of Indiana, Pence was in the news often. Even the most leftist liberal considers him a good man.

Must be a different Mike Pence. Pence is a staunch social conservative, .......

Oop's..... You are correct.... I was thinking of somebody else..... My bad.

 

[Moot]

1. Trump freed people from political rectitude (political correctness).

Political incorrectness is unique to Trump. All of his primary opponents chose rectitude over the other. Trump was willing to say things others were not and promote policies his opponents tagged as racist. So tagged, he did not care. He just kept voicing his us vs them themes.

Trump has freed no one from political correctness. All he did was speak without a filter. He didn't sound like a politician and I believe people found that refreshing.

2. People wanted change.

The desire for change does not explain why TRUMP won. Every presidential candidate promises change. They have been doing that since Washington. In every election, one of them wins.

Sure people want change. Every candidate promises change and that explains why Trump won. Obama promised change for 8 years. He delivered, but not the kind of change working class tax payers benefited from. Clinton proclaimed herself as the "Change Machine" but people most likely saw more Obama like change but with Hillary's stamp on it.

3. People were angry and Trump provided a way to express it.

Anger does not explain why TRUMP won. In every election, at least some of the voters are angry and that anger drives their vote.

Anger most certainly explains why Trump won. Get enough angry voters to back one particular candidate and that candidate has a very good chance of winning, even if the media says different. Obama won in 2008 because enough voters were angry that we never had a black president. Well that and a bunch of them wanted to be part of "history" and get a tee shirt to prove it.

4. Trump represents business accomplishment and a business approach.

Which certainly sets him apart from the other candidates from both the Democratic and Republican parties. Again, I think many people find a different approach to politics as usual refreshing.

Phil, I find some commonalities between The Brain's victory and The Donald's victory. You being a part of Jesse's win, do you see these?

 

[ATeam]

I do agree with a lot of your points. He is not all that and did win based on a lot of your points. Hillary spent considerably more, and still couldn't pull it off. I think Trump might have had a harder time with Sanders after seeing the end results. I also think some strategy mistakes played into it. Examples of that was Hillary coming off the campaign trail way too much. Even for debate prep which she should have performed much better being a seasoned politician and having some of the questions and answers ahead of time.Add that not not even campaigning in certain critical states and those a big mistakes. Just my take.

Hillary's strategy blunders definitely played a role. The biggest one was not coming clean when the email scandal first broke. She should have fessed up and turned the entire server over to the investigators. That would have made for some uncomfortable months but that would have been far less than the pain she suffered month after month on the campaign trail. Had she inoculated herself by fessing up and agreeing to the consequences, she would have been free of the email albatross that helped bring her down.

Her other major blunder was making the campaign all about Trump. She and her staff believed Trump was Hillary's intellectual and political-experience inferior, and they believed the people would agree. In that regard, they were right. They did get more votes. But the electoral college miscalculation and the elitism that blinded them to the people cut them off at the knees. By making the campaign all about Trump's faults instead of Hillary's strengths, she helped keep the spotlight on him. Trump often says all publicity is good publicity. The 2016 campaign validates that theory.

 

[ATeam]

Moot, Trump freed me from political correctness. I did not realize how cowed I had become to speaking as the elites would have me speak until I saw Trump not do it.

Phil, I find some commonalities between The Brain's victory and The Donald's victory. You being a part of Jesse's win, do you see these?

The most striking similarity for me is how the upstart candidate's opponents underestimated him. They did not believe that someone so different from themselves could win. They dismissed him as a joke. People who knew better sounded the warnings but the elites were not inclined to listen. The elites knew better, all the way to election day. Then it was, what the hell just happened? How can this be true?

 

[skyraider]

It was those Deplorables that stumbled into those voting machines and pushed the wrong buttons so to speak and Trump won, it was those Deplorables that pushed back the Red Coats twice, it was those Deplorables that still believe in hard work and not freebees , and it is those Deplorables that don't ransack the cities in America...just saying. You gotta watch those Deplorables, they wanted America back.......I've got some old Solyndra parts for sale cheap .....

 

[Turtle]

The desire for change does not explain why TRUMP won. Every presidential candidate promises change. They have been doing that since Washington. In every election, one of them wins.

It was the type of change that Trump promised that set him apart. While all the other candidates promised change, the changes they promised were of the intangible tweak variety (except Sanders), and in the case of Clinton and Sanders, changes that cater to the identity politics crowd. Trump promised fundamental changes to the system rigged to allow the losses of jobs.

Trump's political incorrectness has lost its novelty. His supporters are now looking for results. It's no longer enough to say deport the illegals. Now, it's expected Trump will do so. It's not enough to say build the wall. People will soon be looking for construction to begin.

I don't think political incorrectness will ever lose its novelty. When Americans talk amongst themselves about the problems with Iraq or the Middle East in general, or with North Korea, and they say "Nuke their ass," very few actually literally mean "We need to drop nuclear bombs on them and eradicate them from the planet." What they mean is, "We need to give them an attitude adjustment to make this problem stop." When Trump says he'll build a wall, very few of his supporters think he's actually going to build a physical wall the entire length of the border. What they hear is, "We're going to secure the borders and stop this illegal immigration nonsense. And anyone who is here illegally will either get legal or get deported."

You may have heard it... The left and the media took (and still takes) Trump literally, but not seriously, while his supporters take him seriously, but not literally.

None (or at least very, very few) of Trump's supporters expect him to round up 13 million illegals and show them to the border. But they do expect him to secure the border, using whatever means necessary, to stop illegal immigration, and to enforce the immigration laws already on the books. Once the borders are secure, and the most problematic illegals have been dealt with, then you move on to the next level of problematic. The "Dreamers" are way down on the priority list. If the borders are secure and illegal immigration is stopped, it really doesn't matter if there's a wall or not.

Trump's marketing expertise was masterfully applied in the Carrier jobs performance, but it's not like the campaign any more. The media dug deeper into the story and after a week of reporting, the public figured out that Indiana Governor Pence rewarded Carrier with millions of tax dollars after they sent hundreds of jobs to Mexico and provided little assurance that the remaining U.S. jobs would still be there a few years from now.

That's not entirely true, even if accurate, with respect to the media's reporting. The public didn't figure that out, that's simply what the media told them. The fact is, Pence offered Carrier the same tax incentives (in addition to the incentives they were already getting) well before Trump entered the picture. It's not at all unusual for local and state authorities to offer tax incentives to businesses to come in and/or stay. Trump picked up the phone and called the CEO and promised two things: a lower corporate tax rate, and a tariff on Carrier products imported from Mexico.

As you read this, Turkey has arrested and is detaining a (Turkish citizen) business associate of Trump's. That nation is willing to barter Trump's Turkey business interests (Trump Towers in Istanbul) for a particular Turk who resides in the U.S. but is wanted in Turkey. Will Trump give in to this blackmail and protect his business interests in Turkey by delivering this guy to the Turkish government? If he does, will he thereby open himself to charges of self-dealing or even treason? As I said, it's not like the campaign any more.

I really don't think Trump wold give in to such blackmail. It's not like he needs the Turkish property. I think he'd give up the Trump Towers in Turkey just to make a point. But if he did, he certainly would open himself up to self-dealing charges. But unless Congress has declared war on Turkey or unless we are in an open state of war with Turkey and I missed the memo, Turkey is not an enemy of ours. Treason only applies in levying war against the Unites State, or in giving aid and comfort to an enemy. Only a country or entity that has declared war or is in a state of open war constitutes an enemy, so Turkey isn't an enemy. Neither is Russia or China, for that matter.

It is an important question because the Republican Washington insiders he deeply offended lie in wait for the opportunity to impeach.

Not enough of them to amount to anything, not to be able to mount a successful campaign for impeachment. There are certainly enough who will jump on any passing bandwagon, but few have the mojo to drive the thing. It would first have to get out of the House Judiciary Committee, and Bob Goodlatte (R), Virginia, Chairman, is a Trump supporter. so are several other prominent members of the Committee. Like I said before, it will take far more than hurt feewings to get Trump impeached - he'll have to do something remarkably egregious, and tank in the polls, before anything happened. Pushing for impeachment without just cause and public endorsement presents it's own political perils.

 

[ATeam]

I don't think political incorrectness will ever lose its novelty

It is Trump's political incorrectness I was referring to. Once new, it's not new any more. That is a loss of novelty.

When Trump says he'll build a wall, very few of his supporters think he's actually going to build a physical wall the entire length of the border. What they hear is, "We're going to secure the borders and stop this illegal immigration nonsense. And anyone who is here illegally will either get legal or get deported.

That may be true today but when Trump first started in about the wall, he was pushed to define his meaning. More than once, I saw footage of him specifically spelling it out that he was literally talking about a real wall. I watched one segment where he described the wall's specific height and appearance to a rally crowd. If he did not mean a real wall, why would this tell-it-like-it-is candidate describe a real wall?

Today, his supporters are modifying their expectations. They will modify them further as Trump fails to deliver the things he promised but are in fact undeliverable. As that continues, the base will erode as they see less and less of what they they were led to initially believe. Some die-hards will remain with him forever but when sufficient numbers quietly trail away from Trump's base, space will be created for the impeachment movement to grow.

Trump picked up the phone and called the CEO and promised two things: a lower corporate tax rate, and a tariff on Carrier products imported from Mexico.

I'm not sure that's exactly how such a phone call played out, but if it did, it appears that Carrier took the deal. They claimed the public money, kept some jobs in the U.S. and exported hundreds of jobs to Mexico. Note that the public money has indeed been committed but the tarriff has yet to be imposed and a good number of Washington Republicans oppose such a tarriff. It is not yet known if Trump has the power to impose and/or maintain such a tarriff.

I really don't think Trump wold give in to such blackmail. It's not like he needs the Turkish property. I think he'd give up the Trump Towers in Turkey just to make a point.

I don't know what Trump will do about this, if anything. We will find out soon enough. It is a clear fact that his global business interests expose him to developments such as these. It works the other way too. It has already happened that after President-Elect Trump spoke by phone with a leader in another country, a Trump project there was accelerated by friendly action by that country's government. Whether the leverage is positive or negative, countries are already taking action regarding Trump's foreign business interests to influence Trump in ways that favor the foreign countries. Time will tell how common or uncommon this becomes, and how significant or insignificant it is.

It would first have to get out of the House Judiciary Committee, and Bob Goodlatte (R), Virginia, Chairman, is a Trump supporter.

Is Goodlatte a Pence supporter too? If Trump becomes damaged goods, what kind of deal might Pence make to gain Goodlatte's support? Also note that Goodlatte serves as a committee chairman at the pleasure of Paul Ryan who even today is booed at Trump rallies. Reince Priebus, a fellow Wisconsinite and long-time friend of Ryan's now serves as Trump's chief of staff. If Ryan wanted to move against Trump, he could not have a better plant better placed in the Trump organization.

Like I said before, it will take far more than hurt feewings to get Trump impeached - he'll have to do something remarkably egregious, and tank in the polls, before anything happened.

Exactly!

 

[Turtle]

I don't think political incorrectness will ever lose its novelty

It is Trump's political incorrectness I was referring to. Once new, it's not new any more. That is a loss of novelty.

That's what I understood your reference to be, and I was referring to Trump's political correctness, as well. I don't think Trump's political incorrectness will get old. He's a blunt talker, and if you look at who is has been picking for his Cabinet, most of them are blunt talkers, too.

When Trump says he'll build a wall, very few of his supporters think he's actually going to build a physical wall the entire length of the border. What they hear is, "We're going to secure the borders and stop this illegal immigration nonsense. And anyone who is here illegally will either get legal or get deported.

That may be true today but when Trump first started in about the wall, he was pushed to define his meaning. More than once, I saw footage of him specifically spelling it out that he was literally talking about a real wall. I watched one segment where he described the wall's specific height and appearance to a rally crowd. If he did not mean a real wall, why would this tell-it-like-it-is candidate describe a real wall?

It's a negotiating tactic, as much as anything. And it pissed off Democrats to no end, so he went with it. Build a wall, deport all Muslims, deport all illegal immigrants, cancel all trade deals, win so much you're gonna get sick and tired of winning. It's a negotiating tactic.

Back in the summer, June, maybe July, The New York Times did a survey of Trump supporters and asked them if they thought he was going to really built an actual wall. More than 80 percent said they didn't think he would. So I'm not sure how many really believed he would build one in the first place. A few, to be sure. And I'm sure a few still believe he will. But instead of The Times taking the clue to stop taking him literally and instead take him seriously, they went with "Even Trump's own supporters don't believe him."

Today, his supporters are modifying their expectations. They will modify them further as Trump fails to deliver the things he promised but are in fact undeliverable. As that continues, the base will erode as they see less and less of what they they were led to initially believe. Some die-hards will remain with him forever but when sufficient numbers quietly trail away from Trump's base, space will be created for the impeachment movement to grow.

It's almost like you're rooting for an impeachment. No, Trump's supporters aren't modifying their expectations, as their eyes have been wide open about them from the beginning. They've known all along about the three branches of government and how Trump isn't an elected dictator who can just say it and simply make-it-so. They don't expect, and never have expected him to cancel all the trade deals, deport all illegal immigrants, round up and deport Muslims, deny Muslim immigration, or build a wall. But they expect him to keep that attitude, since it's the exact opposite of the attitude we've seen from Washington for nearly 3 generations.

I'm not sure that's exactly how such a phone call played out, but if it did, it appears that Carrier took the deal.

I'm not sure, either, but that's how it happened according to Mike Pence, who also took part in the conversation with United Technologies.

They claimed the public money, kept some jobs in the U.S. and exported hundreds of jobs to Mexico.

Interesting relational juxtaposition there with "some" and "hundreds," I'll give you that. It implies more jobs were exported than remains, which isn't the case. According to Carrier, 600 "evaporator coil" jobs will still go to Mexico by the end of 2017, which was announced a year prior to them announcing the Indy plant was going to close up and go to Mexico. Those jobs weren't impacted by the now-very public video of the announcement of the plant's closing. The announcement of the plant closing meant that about 800 union manufacturing jobs would go to Mexico, and 300 engineering and administrative jobs would either be eliminated entirely (about 200 of them) or moved to Collierville, TN and/or (mostly to) Charlotte, NC. So the deal worked out by Trump/Pence saved all 1100 of those jobs, but did not resurrect the 600 jobs that had been previously slated to go to Mexico. The 600 that will be lost, Carrier had previously offered and encouraged those impacted to apply for jobs at other United Technologies facilities, including receiving relocation assistance, and those who could not or chose not to relocate would be provided up to 4 years of paid training in a field of their choice. That was already a done deal, worked out with the union, and not a part of the plant closing announcement, nor Trump's negotiation. So when the press reports that Trump didn't save those 600 jobs, or the jobs at a completely different plant that wasn't a part of all this, either, they're being a little disingenuous.

Note that the public money has indeed been committed but the tarriff has yet to be imposed and a good number of Washington Republicans oppose such a tarfiff. It is not yet known if Trump has the power to impose and/or maintain such a tarriff.

Unless the tariff is part of a treaty negotiated by the President (which must necessarily be ratified by Congress), the Supreme Court has consistently ruled in favor of the President changing or placing tariffs. The President has tremendous authority under the provisions of the countervailing duties and/or the anti-dumping provisions of Title 19 to act, especially in cases where industries are allegedly suffering "market disruption" or in cases where safeguard measures are recommended. He can impose tariffs on entire countries, or on individual industries of other countries. The tariff laws are a mess, really, so there will be a battle, as the WTO and ITC would weigh in, along with the Commerce Department and the US Trade Representative, but in the end, unless the tariff explicitly violates a trade treaty already in existence, the President can pretty much do whatever he wants. Although, it would clearly be better and a lot less messy if he has Congress on board.

I really don't think Trump wold give in to such blackmail. It's not like he needs the Turkish property. I think he'd give up the Trump Towers in Turkey just to make a point.

I don't know what Trump will do about this, if anything. We will find out soon enough. It is a clear fact that his global business interests expose him to developments such as these. It works the other way too. It has already happened that after President-Elect Trump spoke by phone with a leader in another country, a Trump project there was accelerated by friendly action by that country's government. Whether the leverage is positive or negative, countries are already taking action regarding Trump's foreign business interests to influence Trump in ways that favor the foreign countries. Time will tell how common or uncommon this becomes, and how significant or insignificant it is.

Other countries will certainly try and make it look like they are doing Trump Corporation a favor, but whether they actually will curry favor in return remains to be seen. In any case, even the littlest thing will be presented by the press as a conflict of interest so grave as to present a veritable Constitutional Crisis. Trump's daughter has her jewelry and clothing line manufactured in China, and Trump himself has a lot of his stuff manufactured there, as well, and he doesn't seem to be all that conflicted in keeping China happy. So I dunno.

It would first have to get out of the House Judiciary Committee, and Bob Goodlatte (R), Virginia, Chairman, is a Trump supporter.

Is Goodlatte a Pence supporter too? If Trump becomes damaged goods, what kind of deal might Pence make to gain Goodlatte's support?

If Trump becomes damaged goods, supporting him will become a political liability, and Pence won't need to make any deals.

Also note that Goodlatte serves as a committee chairman at the pleasure of Paul Ryan who even today is booed at Trump rallies. Reince Priebus, a fellow Wisconsinite and long-time friend of Ryan's now serves as Trump's chief of staff. If Ryan wanted to move against Trump, he could not have a better plant better placed in the Trump organization.

Well, there's always hope for such a coup, I suppose.

 

[ATeam]

Regarding you and me describing Trump supporters, notice how you paint them with a broad brush while I talk about a specific number drifting away. Groups are composed of individuals and individuals change their minds and behaviors. While it can be said that all Trump supporters voted for Trump on election day, it cannot be said that they all did so for the same reason. Nor can it be said what all of them will do in the future. Like any group that supports any candidate, they are not a unified block.

As I look at Trump's base, I am looking at the number of people who will drift away. Many will stay. Some will drift. There exists with every public official a tipping point beyond which he/she becomes no longer a viable political entity. That same official will always have committed supporters.

For me, it's not about what some non-existent unified group of Trump supporters are doing. And it's not about me projecting my preferences onto an imaginary group of that nature. For me, It's about when the tipping point will be reached -- that is when sufficient numbers of Trump supporters drift to create a different political reality than the one that exists today -- and Trump will become more of a liability than an asset to the Washington Republicans who have the power to impeach him.

Back in the summer, June, maybe July, The New York Times did a survey of Trump supporters and asked them if they thought he was going to really built an actual wall. More than 80 percent said they didn't think he would.

In my view, the significant number is the 20%. Those are the ones who can be expected to be disappointed and drift away. Those are the ones who bring the tipping point closer.

Unless the tariff is part of a treaty negotiated by the President (which must necessarily be ratified by Congress), the Supreme Court has consistently ruled in favor of the President changing or placing tariffs.

I chose my words carefully in making my tariff point. I said "It is not yet known if Trump has the power to impose and/or maintain such a tarriff." Legally, he may indeed have the law behind him. Politically, the Washington Republicans may keep Trump from imposing that tariff by applying political pressure and/or and making a deal with Trump.

Also note that Trump has contradicted himself many times. The fact that he said he would impose a tariff in no way guarantees that he will not later change his mind and take that item off the table. He boasts about his unpredictability. I have never once heard him claim that his word is good. (He may have made that claim but I've never seen or heard that.)

Other countries will certainly try and make it look like they are doing Trump Corporation a favor, but whether they actually will curry favor in return remains to be seen.

Agreed

Kindly note that I am not rooting for a Trump impeachment. I do, however, expect it. Having made that prediction my writing here is done to share the reasoning behind it.

 

[Moot]

Moot, Trump freed me from political correctness. I did not realize how cowed I had become to speaking as the elites would have me speak until I saw Trump not do it.

Don't become too emboldened with your new found freedom from political correctness. In your business, grabbing women by the crotch could get you in trouble!

 

[ATeam]

Moot, Trump freed me from political correctness. I did not realize how cowed I had become to speaking as the elites would have me speak until I saw Trump not do it.

Don't become too emboldened with your new found freedom from political correctness. In your business, grabbing women by the crotch could get you in trouble!

It would have been more accurate to say that Trump's political incorrectness and the large, groundswell response to it, helped me see more clearly how oppressive certain players can be by making this, that or the other thing politically correct. Political rectitude may be a tool used by some to influence the behavior of others but it does not change people's beliefs deep down. Trump's rise helped me recognize just how superficial political rectitude can be.

 

[Moot]

For me, It's about when the tipping point will be reached -- that is when sufficient numbers of Trump supporters drift to create a different political reality than the one that exists today -- and Trump will become more of a liability than an asset to the Washington Republicans who have the power to impeach him.

What happens if Trump supporters don't drift and they perceive any impeachment proceedings as vengeance imposed by the angry Republican establishment. One of the reasons I voted for Trump is because the Republican elite didn't want him. This could hurt Republicans in the mid-term elections and four years from now. I guess this wouldn't be the first time the Republican Party shot themselves in the foot. Good thing they have a lot of feet and wear Kevlar™ socks.

 

[ATeam]

What happens if Trump supporters don't drift and they perceive any impeachment proceedings as vengeance imposed by the angry Republican establishment.

While it is certainly possible that the Trump supporters remain steadfastly behind him in large numbers, my expectation is otherwise. Time will tell.

 

[RoadTime]

I really can't believe there is this talk of impeachment going on, before the man has even taken office


Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums

 

[Turtle]

Also note that Trump has contradicted himself many times. The fact that he said he would impose a tariff in no way guarantees that he will not later change his mind and take that item off the table. He boasts about his unpredictability. I have never once heard him claim that his word is good. (He may have made that claim but I've never seen or heard that.)

To those who take him literally, there is no doubt that he's a walking, talking contradiction machine. Especially when it comes to details and minutiae. But more broadly, his stance on policy positions have remained remarkably the same since he started talking about them in the 80s. Trade deals, jobs, stifling regulation, immigration, etc. The threat of a tariff is a negotiating tactic, not really a first response. I've never heard him claim his word is his bond, either, but I have heard people who have worked with him and those who have negotiated with him talk about how he doesn't bluff much. I don't expect Trump to levy a tariff on each and every company that moves jobs out of the country in a one-size-fits-all policy, but if any of those companies flip Trump the bird on the way out, he will, absolutely.

I really can't believe there is this talk of impeachment going on, before the man has even taken office

Hope and Change. Old habits die hard.

 

[ATeam]

I really can't believe there is this talk of impeachment going on, before the man has even taken office

That probably happens with every newly-elected president as his staunchest foes engage in wishful thinking and process their emotions after their defeat. In the present case a fair amount of impeachment talk is out there. I think the volume of it is higher this year. Commentators of all stripes speak of the 2016 election as one of the most unusual in history.

 

[ATeam]

To those who take him literally, there is no doubt that he's a walking, talking contradiction machine. Especially when it comes to details and minutiae. But more broadly, his stance on policy positions have remained remarkably the same since he started talking about them in the 80s. Trade deals, jobs, stifling regulation, immigration, etc.

The reliability, interpretation and/or effect of Trump's word is easy to test with a specific example.

From the Wall Street Journal:

"During the GOP primary, Mr. Trump emphasized
his support for the [ethanol] mandate in Iowa—the nation’s biggest corn-producing state and home to the first nominating contest—in contrast with his Republican rivals who were mostly critical of it.

"'I am there with you 100%,' Mr. Trump told hundreds of Iowans whose livelihoods depend on the ethanol industry at a summit in January. 'You’re going to get a really fair shake from me.'”(Full article)

Trump recently named two ethanol-mandate foes to head the EPA and DOE. Some of his high-profile supporters from the oil industry are bringing pressure to eliminate the mandate. With Republicans newly in control of two branches of government and with the bias toward deregulation that party has, I belive it is fair to say the ethanol mandate is or soon will be in play.

So, with the present situation being what it is, how would have the hundreds of people Trump spoke to at that conference interpret the words he personally spoke to them?

Would you suggest that Trump was establishing an initial position with later bargaining in mind? Would you tell them they should not have taken him literally? Would you tell them that when they heard Trump speak those words, they should have known he meant something else? Would you tell them that his stance on this policy position (ethanol) is remarkably consistent with everything else he has said since the '80's? Would you tell them that his position on ethanol is crystal clear and they can bank on his continuing support?

We need no answers now. They will come on their own soon enough. We will be able to see exactly what Trump does and does not do when the ethanol mandate comes up for debate; and we will be able to see exactly how those Iowa conference people respond to whatever develops.

My view: If the mandate is lifted or weakened, those Iowa people from the conference will feel lied to and betrayed. Once supportive of Trump, they will be supportive no more. Some may turn on him and advocate for someone else, especially if an impeachment battle opens. On the other hand, if the mandate is preserved, Trump will be their hero for life.

 

[Turtle]

So, with the present situation being what it is, how would have the hundreds of people Trump spoke to at that conference interpret his words?

I would think that "...a really fair shake from me," would be interpreted as "I'm not going to screw you over."

Will you suggest that he was establishing a bargaining position?

No, I would suggest it was campaign rhetoric as much as anything.

Will you tell them they should not have taken him literally?

"I love Iowa. I've been here so many times now, I think I'm going to buy a farm and maybe just move here." Should Iowa, and the American people, hold him to that, too? All Trump promised was a fair shake. He never promised that the mandate would remain untouchable forever. Trump is about jobs, and is against anything that is a jobs killer, and he knows that completely getting rid of the mandate will cost jobs.

Will you tell the readers here that when Trump said what he said to those people in Iowa, everyone knew he meant something else?

Nope. I think he meant exactly what he said. He's long been on record that ethanol helps reduce dependence on imported oil, which helps energy independence. “Energy independence is a requirement if America is to become great again. My theme is ‘Make America Great Again.’ It’s an important part of it,” Trump has said on more than one occasion.

As for naming two pro-oil/anti-ethanol heads for the EPA and DOE, I have serious doubts that he picked either of them because of their personal stances on ethanol. Cabinet members serve at the pleasure of the President, regardless of their own personal views. If they cannot reconcile their own personal views with the President's policies, they are replaced one way or the other. Trump's agenda will be to get rid of or amend regulations that kill jobs and stifle business innovation and expansion, not to get rid of regulations that simply put more money in the pockets of oil company shareholders.

Trump doesn't want to eliminate the ethanol mandate, regardless of whatever views Pruitt or Perry might have. He does want to overhaul it (the Renewable Fuel Standard), particularly the Renewable Identification Number (RIN) program part of it. Becuzzzzz, it's a jobs killer, that allows large refineries to put small and medium sized refineries out of business, or at a distinct disadvantage, due to the mandates that penalize refineries if they do not meet certain blending requirements, which are virtually impossible for small and medium refineries to comply with.

Back in January, when Trump told the Renewable Fuels Association in Iowa that he was with them 100%, he also made it very clear that that the EPA ought to follow the guidelines set by Congress in 2007 under the Renewable Fuel Standard. Those were workable standards. A few months earlier Obama's EPA mandated a cut in the supply of ethanol-free fuel from 5 billion gallons to a mere 200 million gallons starting 2017. That's great for Iowa ethanol farmers, but really bad for small and medium refineries who will have to shut down. It's also insanely bad for the boating and fishing industry, as ethanol-infused gasoline is even more hygroscopic than B10 biodiesel.

What Trump is looking at is, as always, killing regulations that kills jobs. He supports the ethanol mandate, but he doesn't supported it at a point where the quest to eliminate ethanol-free fuels in search of some EPA Utopia kills jobs. I think what he'll do is set things up so that refineries of a certain size are not required to produce ethanol blends, since many of them are unable to do so already. That will leave Iowa farmers in good shape, as well as the engines of boats, motorcycles and lawn mowers, and will keep the smaller refineries in operation, which further reduces the dependence on foreign oil.