Exactly! See my comment above. Trump himself is becoming aware of the difference.
The Trump Card...
- Thread starter muttly
- Start date
Exactly! See my comment above. Trump himself is becoming aware of the difference.
Trump's cabinet features a number of billionaires and Wall Street investment banker types. As they exercise their power and impose their world views, the decline of the middle class and the concentration of wealth at the top will accelerate, not reverse.
It was true during Obama and is even more true under Trump. Citizens who seek financial security will find it best to become a top one-percenter. Do what they are doing to prosper because that's what works in today's economy and politically corrupt context.
I don't mean to be overly cynical here. It's easier to become a one-percenter than many people think. By reading David Ramsey and Robert Kiyosaki, you can develop a perspective on money and wealth that will do far more for you than maintaining a belief that public policy or less of it is the solution.
It's probably safe to say that every newly elected POTUS has said the same thing in some form, with the possible exception of Barack Hussein Obama; his condescending arrogance and preening narcissism combined with unparalleled inexperience rendered him clueless. Besides, his work schedule was never very intense anyway.
Evidently the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of Mexico fell for it after Trump threatened to pull out of NAFTA.
Trump agrees to renegotiate NAFTA with Canada, Mexico – for now
We don't know whether or not Trump is "having fun" if we rely solely on mainstream media reports. Realizing the fact of life and baseball that nobody bats 1.000, Trump is "winning" more than his fair share of skirmishes, especially considering the Democrats are in full-blown obstructionist mode in concert with some establishment Republicans and their willing accomplices in the media. He never received one second of "honeymoon" after being sworn in and every legislative proposal he and the Republicans submit will be staunchly opposed in congress. However, he seems to be having a lot of fun creating a favorable economic environment by reversing Obama's destructive executive orders, issuing orders of his own to enforce existing immigration laws, and of course getting his nominee confirmed to SCOTUS. Every POTUS has to go through the learning curve, and as Trump gets deeper into this process he'll be having even more fun.
Lastly, it is entirely possible Trump might opt to leave on terms if he decides not to run for re-election. Since he'll be in his mid-seventies at the end of his first term, Pence could easily be teed up as a formidable candidate that the Democrats would be hard-pressed to defeat if they continue their current race towards the radical left. Otherwise, the unfounded allegations, bogus investigations and frivolous lawsuits will continue to die on the vine.
Spin it as you wish. My view is Trump made yet another empty threat by threatening to end NAFTA and then reversed himself after he got feedback that such a threat was unwise.
Republican-initiated House and Senate investigations, and the FBI investigation, and the new Pentagon Inspector General investigation may all turn out to be bogus. Time will tell. But you have to admit that it is stranger than strange that these investigations are coming either from Trump's own party or from within Trump's own administration. You can dismiss them as bogus, especially if it was only one investigation. But four of them initiated from four different entities? Something more than bogus is going on. In time we'll find out what it is.
I have not followed the law suits in detail. The one with the Trump hotel restaurant owner was settled by Trump (who says he does not settle). The Trump University suit ended in a way that was Trump-adverse. The ones that are more interesting to me are those being developed now with an eye on impeaching Trump. Will those turn out to be "bogus"? Maybe. Time will tell.
It is always hazardous to assume you know the mindset of another human being. In the case of Donald Trump, one person can make a credible assessment of Trump's mindset, while another person can make an equally credible assessment that paints a completely different picture.
Aware of that, I have nevertheless come to believe that Trump is a narcissist and as such, susceptible to the liabilities narcissists embody. One of those is the inability to trust others. The fact that Trump is not a trusting person is clearly shown in this piece. Trump describes himself as distrusting. The effects of that distrust are also well explained.
Is my comment a case of confirmation bias? Am I buying into this article to support an opinion already formed? Perhaps so. While I am open to other views, I continue to hold this opinion because the evidence seems to continue to support it.
Aware of that, I have nevertheless come to believe that Trump is a narcissist and as such, susceptible to the liabilities narcissists embody. One of those is the inability to trust others. The fact that Trump is not a trusting person is clearly shown in this piece. Trump describes himself as distrusting. The effects of that distrust are also well explained.
Is my comment a case of confirmation bias? Am I buying into this article to support an opinion already formed? Perhaps so. While I am open to other views, I continue to hold this opinion because the evidence seems to continue to support it.
Last edited:
In recent years and through the last few economic cycles (expansion/contraction), a profound development has been the concentration of wealth at the top and and the accompanying decline of the middle class. This long-term trend has continued regardless of political party and regardless of who occupied the White House at the time.
Connecting "the economy" or "economic environment" to the success or failure, or the job performance rating of whoever happens to be in office at the time is commonly done, but that comes with the danger of painting things with too broad of a brush. "The economy" is a huge, broad topic.
In the 2016 election, an influential group of voters was working class white voters in rust-belt states. At the same time, there were millions of voters nationwide, who did not feel the economic pain as much as the rust-belt voters did. In the grand scheme of things, did Trump win the election because of the economy, or did he win it because he was more clever than Hillary in targeting the key votes in the key electoral-college states?
I don't need an answer to that question. I raise it only to illustrate that assuming any president wins or loses an election because of the economy is an overly broad assumption that is likely to mask more important underlying truths.
Yesterday, we saw a number of news stories that linked Trump to GDP growth and made the implication that the lower rate of GDP growth just announced was somehow bad for Trump. I'm not so sure of that. GDP growth is a single economic indicator behind which much goes on. While it's easy shorthand to link GDP to a president, it is not something on which to base a conclusion or make a prediction.
In my impeachment scenario, it does not matter if the economy is booming or receding. Impeachment will come because Trump is a narcissist. The perception errors, personality disorders and character flaws embodied therein will lead to his downfall; I believe.
We're seeing signs of that now. Trump supporters and even some of his critics are talking about the education period a new president goes through. That's fine but I see little evidence that Trump has learned from his mistakes. He continues to maintain rival power centers on his staff. He continues to rely on his (narcissist-driven and thereby flawed) perceptions and instincts. He continues to use the same approach to Congress that contributed to the failure of repeal and replace. He continues to speak as an impetuous, bombastic strong man, no matter how many times his ill-advised statements lead to humiliating and sometimes instant reversals.
A strong economy will not help Trump any more than a weak economy will hurt him. His narcissism will take him down.
So if that is true, why has it not happened already? Why does the near-total majority of his base remain supportive of Trump? That's a question I ask myself every day as I track the development of my predicted scenario. For impeachment to happen, Trump's support base must erode.
Trump has reversed himself in several (not all) major policy areas, doing exactly the opposite of what he promised voters he would do, or doing little to fulfill those promises. So why do his voters stick with him?
I have a new answer to that, but before sharing it, I'd like to hear from others in this forum. While Trump has reversed himself many times, why are his voters sticking with him?
Last edited:
I read it many years ago, then revisited it early last year when he looked like he was in this for real. I wouldn't encourage anyone to put too much stock in the book, either, but knowing what is in the book certainly gives one more context with which to speculate about his words and actions. For example, within the context of the traditional, pedestrian politician, a speculative conclusion of "His empty promises, flip flops and the ease with which he caves all build up," makes perfect logical sense. In the context of The Art of the Deal, very different conclusions can be reached.
Yep. Same thing can be said for every businessman who has ever run for elected office of any kind.
Which immediately got hilariously characterized in the press, who has the insatiable need to explain to us what it means, as "I thought this would be easy." There is a world of difference between easy and easier. One is a gradation, the other is an absolute.
I wouldn't know. But based on the comments of past presidents, most deals they make are neither as complex nor as simple as the viewing peanut gallery (that's us) realize. But in the end, politics is nothing more than compromise and deal-making.
That's certainly an interesting take. History, on the other hand, is not on your side. The health of the economy is the single strongest factor in the election, or not, of a president. If narcissism played much of a role, half the presidents would have been impeached.
It's about the big picture end game, not about the little deal-making battles won or lost to get there. For example, I'm sure there are a few Trump supporters who expect to see a glorious, bigly, yooge border wall of the kind most often seen in political cartoons, but by and large, his supporters want the borders secured and illegal immigration halted, regardless of how that is accomplished.
Trump doesn't bluff. In the context of politics-as-usual, many people will see it as such, but if Canada and Mexico were to stand firm on refusing to renegotiate NAFTA, Trump would absolutely pull out of it. Trump will bluff with things he doesn't necessarily want to do, but if called on it he'll follow through with it, just to let people know he doesn't bluff. There are many recollections to be found on the Net from people who have negotiated with him in the past who will tell you that very thing. Here's one such example:
Actually the Nafta. Thing is typical Trump. He first says we are going to pull out for months, and now we are going to start negotiating and changing it. I think that was the goal all along.
Kind of ask beyond what you actually want. Is that the case here? Won't take long to see.
Kind of ask beyond what you actually want. Is that the case here? Won't take long to see.
So Trump is basically selling his policy goals?
It's about getting what you can get.- Yogi Berra
That's a widely held assumption but I'm not so sure. Do you have a source or citation that backs your assertion that "the health of the economy is the single strongest factor in the election, or not of a president?"
When matching election results to "the health of the economy," how exactly do you do that? What indicators do you use?
I dug into this a little in recent days and found no easy answer to these questions. Do you have a better answer to offer?
Last edited:
Not really. He's simply leaving room for negotiation. He asks for the Sun, the stars, and the Moon, when in reality his goal is only the Moon.
After negotiating, he agrees to the Moon. The other wide feels like they won something by not giving him what he asked for. Yet he got exactly what he wanted.
If he asked for the Moon up front, and remained unmovable on that, he'd only have gotten a Sputnik, it anything at all.
There it is!....... The Russian connection!.....Not really. He's simply leaving room for negotiation. He asks for the Sun, the stars, and the Moon, when in reality his goal is only the Moon.
After negotiating, he agrees to the Moon. The other wide feels like they won something by not giving him what he asked for. Yet he got exactly what he wanted.
If he asked for the Moon up front, and remained unmovable on that, he'd only have gotten a Sputnik, it anything at all.
Uhm, a US History book? Newspaper clippings from the last 3 centuries? Numerous academic studies? The strength of the economy is rarely the sole factor, and sometimes not even the primary psychological factor, but it's underneath everything. For example, John Adams lost his re-election bid to Jefferson because of several factors, including the stronger organization of the Democratic-Republicans, Federalist disunity, the controversy of the Alien and Sedition Acts, the popularity of Jefferson in the south, and the effective politicking of Aaron Burr in New York. But underneath it all was a lagging economy. When the economy is down, it forces the other issues to the top, issues that would otherwise be dismissed or ignored. Even on the heels of an impeachment, if Bill Clinton could have run for a 3rd term he'd have won, because of the economy.
The most comprehensive studies have been done by Ray Fair (beginning 1972) and Leo Kahane (2009), but there are a plethora of articles and studies dating back the middle 1700s on the matter.
Voters are influenced by two primary things, sociological factors and psychological factors. The sociological factors include income, occupation, education, gender, age, religion, ethnic background, geography, and family. The psychological factors include political party identification, specific candidates, and key issues. Any number of these factors will play a stronger or weaker role in an individual, but on the whole, it's the psychological factors that usually win the day in the voting booth. And key issues become more or less important depending on the economy. (not always, there are exceptions to every rule, of course).
But if you're really bored and want to get a little light reading in...
Fair, Ray C. "The Effect of Economic Events on Votes for President." The Review of Economics and Statistics 60.2 (1978): Print.
Fair, Ray C. "Presidential and Congressional Vote-Share Equations." American Journal of Political Science 53.1 (2009): Print.
Kahane, Leo H. "It's the Economy, and then some: Modeling the Presidential Vote with State Panel Data." Public Choice 139.3/4 (2009): Print
Kinder, Donald R. and Kiewiet, D. Roderick "Sociotropic Politics: The American Case." British Journal of Political Science 11.2 (1981): Print.
Or, you can track down any number of studies that go to great tortured lengths to dispel the conventional wisdom, with some claiming the economy never, ever, under any circumstances, plays even the slightest role in an election.
I couldn't resist.There it is!....... The Russian connection!.....