Understanding Trump - Part I: "All the President's Flip-Flops"

Russia

Along with Trump’s reversal on Syria has come a reversal on Russia. Throughout the campaign, Trump praised Russian President Vladimir Putin, downplayed the Russian leader’s misdeeds, and argued that America had much to gain from working with the Kremlin.
counterpart Wednesday.
Since the Idlib attack, the White House’s rhetoric toward Putin has turned decidedly chilly.

Russia said that relations with the U.S. are at their lowest ebb since the Cold War, a claim that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson basically confirmed after meeting with hiscounterpart Wednesday.

I don't believe that his position on Russia has really changed at all. I believe it is a distraction to the investigations into Russia's involvement in the 2016 election. Trump and Putin are providing some cover to it.

I don't believe that his position on Russia has really changed at all. I believe it is a distraction to the investigations into Russia's involvement in the 2016 election. Trump and Putin are providing some cover to it.

Well, you might be right-- its hard to know. There was talk of that investigation (Trump's Russian ties) for some time-- but just when it looked like it might actually get serious-- Trump attacked that Syrian airbase & Assad being a Russian puppet, that attack looked like a hostile act towards not only Syria but Russia. Possibly to make people question whether or not Trump and Puta were really friends..

It sure looks that way...but there may be other things going on....

Before the "attack" on Syria the U.S. told Putin it was coming and where exactly it would be, so no Russians would be there to get hurt or killed. The "attack" blew up some buildings, a munitions dump and a few planes the Russia can easily replace for Syria. A few hours later the Syrians were taking of and landing on the undamaged airstrips. I doubt if it bothered either Assad or Putin very much, but it did make it look like Trump was pushing back against Russia, without actually doing so.

 it did make it look like Trump was pushing back against Russia, without actually doing so.

That is true. So that mightbe the motivation behind it. But if Trump didn't really flip on Russia, he tried to give that impression.

But it might have had another goal (or maybe his advisors were clever enough to kill two birds with one stone: to make it seem he was no longer friends with Russia-- but also to send another message: don't make the U.S. mad, because we can and will retaliate anywhere in the world we choose. And we don't evenn have to invade-- we can fir missiles from the safety of ship far offshore.

But, even discounting that he flipped on Russia-- what do you think about the flip on the other things mentioned in the article?

I think that some of the other flips are genuine, such as on NATO, because Trump is learning that it's a lot easier to be on the outside screaming about what is wrong then it is to sit in the Oval Office and realize that it looks a lot different. On one thing I think he would have a lot of trouble with is if he decided to fire James Comey. I don't think he and his administration could handle the political blow back if he tried to fire an FBI Director while his campaign is the one that is being investigated. I think even many Republicans would yell foul on that.

And what about China? Remember how often he bashed China during the campaign? Now-- a 180 degree flip":

Chinese Currency Manipulation

During the campaign, Trump railed against China’s economic policy, saying Beijing was keeping its currency artificially low as a way of getting a leg up on the U.S....

Day one of his presidency came and went without any such labeling,

and in an  interview  with  The Wall Street Journal  published on Wednesday, Trump announced he’d changed his mind: “They’re not currency manipulators.”

On China I do think it's a flip, specially no that he understands that they don't have as much power over North Korea as he thought they and that they are going to be a lot more implicated to deal with on trade then he thought they would be. By saying they would get a better trade deal if they pressured North Korea more he was basically laying down for them a bit.

I remember how Trump went on and on about how China was screwing us over,m how they cheated on trade deals, etc. I think one of Trump's advisers must've finally gotten through to Trump and explained how force and threats of force in an attempt to pressure N Korea won't work-- their government is too crazy.

So the only thing that might help is pressure from China-- so we need somewhat friendly relations with them. And that's why Trump flip-flipped and at least made a show of being cordial with China:

On China I do think it's a flip, specially no that he understands that they don't have as much power over North Korea as he thought they and that they are going to be a lot more implicated to deal with on trade then he thought they would be. By saying they would get a better trade deal if they pressured North Korea more he was basically laying down for them a bit.

OK, so far we've mentioned his flips on China and NATO (& possible flip on Russia). How about the other changes in his position mentioned in the article-- do you think they are also real flips in position,...or not?

I don't believe that his position on Russia has really changed at all. I believe it is a distraction to the investigations into Russia's involvement in the 2016 election. Trump and Putin are providing some cover to it.

Those two will never divorce.  Rex Tillerson would never allow it.  Exxon Mobil has spent 100's of millions of dollars on exploration and production of the Sakhalin-1 oil and gas venture, and at least $100 million in Russian infrastructure improvements.  Between them, Donald and Rex own nearly $5 million in EM stock.  Considering that Shell has already staked a claim on the Sakhalin-2 venture, nothing is going to be more important than lifting the sanctions against Russia and returning to business as usual in regard to Sakhalin-1.  There are literally billions, if not trillions, of dollars at stake.

Trump is king of all things smoke screen. I would, however, like to think that his chilled demeanor toward Steve Bannon has some truth to it.  That guy is nothing short of creepy. 

Oligarchy.

Those two will never divorce.  Rex Tillerson would never allow it.  Exxon Mobil has spent 100's of millions of dollars on exploration and production of the Sakhalin-1 oil and gas venture, and at least $100 million in Russian infrastructure improvements.  

The more I think about it, the more I'm starting to think that while Trump really does flip his positions fairly frequently, perhaps Russia doesn't belong on this list--there's a good chance its all for show-- and underneath Trump his associates. is still really very tight with Putin and ..

I think that Trump and Putin, because of financial ties, are practically blood brothers or closer.

You can think it, but it's clearly delusional.  

Never underestimate the degree to which Trump loves Flip-Flops! 

I like flip flops too, but they always wear out too soon! They always end up with the parts pulling up through the holes!

Stop buying those cheapies, lol

If you buy the cheapies then you can afford to buy several pairs.

The one major flip flop that I watched closely is with China. Having spent a great deal of time in Asia doing business over the years and having an interest in the history/culture of the area. My first trip to China was in 1981 and my last 2005 when I retired. My daughter taught English there for two years. So I have more than a passing interest in that part of the world. During that 20 plus years I saw the huge changes taking place in China.

I has happy to see that Trump met with Xi and according to various articles, Xi was able to give Trump a history lesson on the relationship between Korea and China. IMO, this was a good thing.

That aside, a open line between our two counties can only be a good thing. It's important to understand how China views North Korea and they how and whys of it.

Trumps rhetoric during the campaign and after was music to his followers ears. While little of it was true it was what they wanted to hear. Now that the campaign is over the real world is settling in. Rhetoric isn't going to get the job done and in fact could be very detrimental to the U.S.

This isn't the China of 1950's when they entered the Korean war. It's important to know why China entered the war against the U.S.  China is a major power and will act like one. There are many points of contention and many areas of agreement between the U.S. and China. It's best to stop with the rhetoric and keep open lines of communication with them.

The current situation is volatile to say the least. Un is a dangerous man and best to be treated that way. It's a time when the sway that China has over NK (not nearly what Trump thought they had) can be used by the U.S.

There have been large cracks in the relationship between China and North Korea for the past 3 years or so and a closer relationship between China and South Korea. China is now South Korea's largest trading partner.

I read that late yesterday China issued a stern warning to both the U.S. and North Korea to cut back the tit for tap comments and cool it before everything spins out of control.

What will North Korea do. I don't know and I doubt that anyone else knows for sure that they will do, China included.

IMO, it's best to tread carefully and keep in constant communication with the Chinese. Viewing them as an ally is the best bet for us.

Just my two cents.

I has happy to see that Trump met with Xi and according to various articles, Xi was able to give Trump a history lesson on the relationship between Korea and China. IMO, this was a good thing.

Trumps rhetoric during the campaign and after was music to his followers ears. While little of it was true it was what they wanted to hear. Now that the campaign is over the real world is settling in. Rhetoric isn't going to get the job done and in fact could be very detrimental to the U.S.

I totally agree. And what is important is not only that Xi taught that lesson-- but it looks like Trump actually listened to him! (Which is a "win-win" all around).

I totally agree. And what is important is not only that Xi taught that lesson-- but it looks like Trump actually listened to him! (Which is a "win-win" all around).

IMO one of the keys things to realize in attempting to understand Trump is how much of a "flip-flopper" he is.

To put that another way, I think that Trump is actually much more flexible than people realize. True, he was rigid & unbending during the campaign-- but that was because he had to pander to a particular base to win. 

 China is now South Korea's largest trading partner.

Wow. I imagine that North Korea can't be too happy with that!

Here are the top trading partners of South Korea.

They breakout China and Hong Kong as two separate countries, when in reality Hong Kong is China.

Below is a list showcasing 15 of South Korea’s top trading partners in terms of export sales during 2016. That is, these are countries that imported the most Korean shipments by dollar value. Also shown is each import country’s percentage of total Korean exports.

1. China: US$124.4 billion (25.1% of total Korean exports)
2. United States: $66.8 billion (13.5%)
3. Hong Kong: $32.8 billion (6.6%)
4. Vietnam: $32.7 billion (6.6%)
5. Japan: $24.4 billion (4.9%)
6. Singapore: $12.5 billion (2.5%)
7. Taiwan: $12.2 billion (2.5%)
8. India: $11.6 billion (2.3%)
9. Mexico: $9.7 billion (2%)
10. Marshall Islands: $7.7 billion (1.6%)
11. Malaysia: $7.5 billion (1.5%)
12. Australia: $7.5 billion (1.5%)
13. Philippines: $7.3 billion (1.5%)
14. United Kingdom: $6.9 billion (1.4%)
15. Indonesia: $6.6 billion (1.3%)

The current situation is volatile to say the least. Un is a dangerous man and best to be treated that way. It's a time when the sway that China has over NK (not nearly what Trump thought they had) can be used by the U.S.

Well, during the campaign Trump bashed China seemingly without let up. But apparently he did make the shift in attitude you mentioned:

President Donald Trump has said his Chinese counterpart Xi Jingping gave him a history  lesson  on China and Korea.

In an interview with  The Wall Street Journal , Mr Trump said he told Mr Xi he believed Beijing could easily take care of the threat of North Korea.

The US President said Mr Xi then explained the history of China and Korea to him. 

"After listening for 10 minutes, I realised it's not so easy," Mr Trump said.

"I felt pretty strongly that they had a tremendous power over North Korea. But it's not what you would think."

(LINK)

Little by little, the Trump administration is abandoning its alt-right roots in favor of its Wall Street sugardaddies. Everyone sees this except the alt-right, which -- having abandoned "reality" as a basis for its thinking -- will blithely continue to believe that Trump is doing as he promised them. 

Actually there's been some indication that little by little people in the alt-right are starting to wake up-- some are starting to get angry about his flip-flops.

Excuse me.....does not a President, any president, have a Cabinet made up of those people from all realms of life who have the expertise that he/she doesn't? 

Then, why would it amaze you that he has flip flopped on issues?  If you don't do something wrong, then, you are not doing anything.

Obama was subjected to the same ridicule, but not on the same level that Trump has endured.  Case in point....the ridiculous protesting in Berkeley.  I guess boys just gotta have fun.  Berkeley is a festering sore in the U.S. - always has been.  Protesting on this level only seriously began during Obama's tenure. 

If Trump flipflops that is because he is listening to advice and has changed his opinion.  Have mercy....I wish that more people would listen without their minds made up.

Good points. Remember when Obama's views on gay marriage "evolved"?

Excuse me

You're excused. 

Obama was subjected to the same ridicule, but not on the same level that Trump has endured.  

Think about it, why would this be ? The Bush administration left a burning sack of shit on the doorstep of Obama's new administration. He didn't have time to be flip-flopping on issues and golfing every weekend. Obama had to grab the steering wheel and wrench the bus out of the ditch. 

Think about it, why would this be ? The Obama administration left a burning sack of shit on the doorstep of Trump's new administration.

Trump inherited a fairly healthy economy, Obama inherited a nightmare. I do question some of his foreign policy decisions and a few of his domestic policies.

His major goal was to improve health care, it was overly ambitious. Health care has become an enormous albatross on the neck of this nation. Something has to be done. It's the republican's turn now.

Health care has become an enormous albatross on the neck of this nation. Something has to be done. It's the republican's turn now.

Agreed. But IMO both sides are looking at it the wrong way. Basically, they are all looking at who should pay. How that is to be carried out. (Of course liberals and conservatives usually have very opposing views).

But I think they should be looking at something else-- how to lower costs yet still provide good care. (But that's another subject-- and I don't ant to derail the conversation in my own seed!)

Obama was subjected to the same ridicule, but not on the same level that Trump has endured.  

Think about it, why would this be ? The Bush administration left a burning sack of shit on the doorstep of Obama's new administration. He didn't have time to be flip-flopping on issues and golfing every weekend. Obama had to grab the steering wheel and wrench the bus out of the ditch. 

But even if that is true-- Obama didn't constantly flip back and forth-- his "style" was different (Again, I'm not saying either was better or worse-- merely their methods of functioning was different).

Bth thought, both acted. But in at least one way they are opposites:

-Obama was a "thinker"-- he really thought about something before he acted. (And no-- I'm not saying he was smarter--or not. What I'm saying is that is his style was to think and analyse more before acting. 

-Trump, OTOH, is quite the opposite-- he acts fairly quickly when he gets an idea. 

(Depending on their values, different people have criticized one of them for this-- some think Obama was too hesitant about acting, others think Trump acts too quickly, without thinking things through. I'm not judging either as better-- I'm just observing what they typically do. Which is the purpose of this seed :^).

"Obama was a "thinker"-- he really thought about something before he acted."

Obama might have been influenced by Hamlet:

"Now whether it be
Bestial oblivion, or some craven scruple
Of thinking too precisely on th' event—
A thought which, quarter'd, hath but one part wisdom
And ever three parts coward—I do not know
Why yet I live to say this thing's to do,
Sith I have cause, and will, and strength, and means
To do't."

The "coward" part may be the reason for the erasable red lines.

The "coward" part may be the reason for the erasable red lines.

You might be right.

Or-- another possibility: on a purely mental level, he figured a more vigorous confrontation with Assad migh simply carry more possible risks than possible benefits. (And remember-- weakening Assad strengthens Assad's enemies-- one of which is ISIS).

There is no doubt in my mind that any action taken in Syria is a lose-lose situation.

There is no doubt in my mind that any action taken in Syria is a lose-lose situation.

Up until recently I had thought that whatever action we'd take-- it would continue for a while. (If we sent inn troops, whatever their purpose, they would stay for a while. And probably over time we'd add more. Or-- we'd start sending a lot more arms to one group or another.).

But recently, after the recent missile strike,  I had a different idea. What if the U.S. did on;y that one missile strike-- and didn't continue?

And perhaps leave the existing U.S. troops aiding the existing SDF coalition fighting to liberate Raqqa from ISIS-- but once that's achieved, withdraw completely.

________________________________________________________

*SDF = Syrian Democratic Forces, a coalition of Kurds, Arabs and some indigenous Christians fighting ISIS, now trying to liberate Raqqa, ISIS' main headquarters

I'll come back to ponder this on the 'morrow (when I'm not so buzzed, Buzz) ;>)

"Good night, good night! Parting is such sweet sorrow,
That I shall say good night till it be morrow."

Excuse me.....does not a President, any president, have a Cabinet made up of those people from all realms of life who have the expertise that he/she doesn't? 

Then, why would it amaze you that he has flip flopped on issues?  If you don't do something wrong, then, you are not doing anything.

I totally agree-- in fact every elected official should be open to change when appropriate. 

However I am trying to do something here that is different than the usual online discussions. The usual discussions are judgmental-- everything is judged as good or bad, right or wrong. For example, if discussing the recent missile strike on Syria online-- the discussion vwould immediately turn toward judging-- some people arguing that it was the "right" thing to do-- others arguing it was the "wrong" thing to do. 

And whether a ny president is usually "right"-- or "wrong". And that's certainly legitimate-- fit des serve a purpose.

However what I'm trying to do here is temporarily suspend judgement. To not judge Trump's actions as good or bad, but rather to try to understand how he thinks--- in other words, his "style" of thinking and behaviour.

However what I'm trying to do here is temporarily suspend judgement. To not judge Trump's actions as good or bad, but rather to try to understand how he thinks--- in other words, his "style" of thinking and behaviour.

One of the first things I noticed about Trump is that his style is quite different than other presidents. (At this point someone here might says that's a criticism-- but its not. Its a statement of fact (or at least I think its a fact). Its not inherently "good" or "bad". but it got me curious-- so I decided to try to figure him out-- what motivates him, etc.  

I think he never expected to win and is over his head now.

I think he never expected to win and is over his head now.

I've heard people mention that-- whether its true or not I don't know.

But ironically, whether or not he succeeds may depend to a large extent upon-- how flexible he is!

His ability to learn-- and then his ability to change his approach to use what he learns. One example: I think initially he didn't have enough in depth understanding of the whole situation re: N Korea-- and also the role China plays. I think China's President Xi explained a lot about that situation-- hopefully Trump listened and will now have a better understanding of the situation. (It appears he has flip-flopped on that-- which is a good thing).

Thank you.

I think he never expected to win and is over his head now.

On that we agree. I think many of his poor cabinet choices reflect that also. I believe that most of them were fueled by Steve Bannon's desire to dismantle the government, rather then run it and I think that now Trump understands that taking it apart is not a good thing.

And there are many other times Trump made a major shift-- things not mentioned in this article. One I remember is his total shift away from "birtherism". Remember how he kept insisting Obama wasn't born in the U.S.? (In fact, I believe he was one of the earliest one to really push that absurd conspiracy theory).

Well, recently he shifted 180 degrees!

After years of serving as a leading proponent of the "birther" notion that President Barack Obama isn't a native-born U.S. citizen, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump said today he believes President Obama was born in the U.S

Today, after NK failed attempt to launch a rocket the lack of bluster/comment from the administration was, IMO, perfect.

''Trump had nothing to say about the launch, said Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis. “The president and his military team are aware of North Korea’s most recent unsuccessful missile launch,” Mattis said in a statement. “The president has no further comment.”

In the military parade today, NK showed off what is thought to be new missiles. The failure of the launch has to be a huge embarrassment to the ''Dear Leader''....

By only noting that the administration and President were aware of it, IMO, showed that Trump was learning that his prior bluster did inflame the situation. Now he is letting Un wallow in his own kimchi.

It's certainly possible that Un will try again while Pence is in South Korea, but the failure was there for the world to see.

And here's what might be the biggest flipflop of all (how many politicians make this big a shift?):

Trump in '04: 'I probably identify more as Democrat'

Before Donald Trump was a front-running Republican presidential candidate, the real estate mogul believed that the nation's economy ran better when Democrats were in control and that Hillary Clinton would be a strong negotiator with foreign nations.

"In many cases, I probably identify more as Democrat," Trump told CNN's Wolf Blitzer in a 2004 interview. "It just seems that the economy does better under the Democrats than the Republicans.

In another interview with CNN's Blitzer in 2007, he praised her ability to negotiate when asked if she could successfully work out a deal with Iran."Hillary's always surrounded herself with very good people. I think Hillary would do a good job," Trump said in another interview with Blitzer.

He once supported abortion rights, donated thousands to Democrats and questioned the heroism of Arizona Sen. John McCain a prisoner of war during Vietnam.

(Again-- I am not saying that other presidents have not flip-flopped. Rather, I've noticed how unusually frequently Trump does this-- IMO its a major key in understanding him.

And I'm am not judging Trump's tendency to frequently shift positions as either good or bad. But IMO  this is a psychological trait of his that is of major importance

.I'm just observing-- and looking for any personality traits that stand out. 

In order to better to understand him..(Its not my intent here to attempt to "win points" in a political debate)

President Trump is not a career politician.  That, IMO, is the number one reason why some cannot wrap their heads around what he says.

I, also, identify as a Republican, but have a close tie with some values that, supposedly, only a Democrat can encompass. 

As a businessman, I am certain that donations were made to groups that Pres. Trump had no knowledge of.  I support a woman's choice insofar as abortions go, however, I do not support abortions paid for by our tax money.  Planned Parenthood should stay away from abortions and treat a woman's health issues and, I believe that is where Pres. Trump is. 

Interesting .....when N. Korea's missile launch failed Pres. Trump said nothing in retaliation. 

President Trump is not a career politician.  That, IMO, is the number one reason why some cannot wrap their heads around what he says.

I, also, identify as a Republican, but have a close tie with some values that, supposedly, only a Democrat can encompass. 

As a businessman, I am certain that donations were made to groups that Pres. Trump had no knowledge of.  I support a woman's choice insofar as abortions go, however, I do not support abortions paid for by our tax money.  Planned Parenthood should stay away from abortions and treat a woman's health issues and, I believe that is where Pres. Trump is. 

Interesting .....when N. Korea's missile launch failed Pres. Trump said nothing in retaliation. 

Jim Cramer has a popular TV show about the stock market-- I get a summary of the main points in my email which I just checked. Here's a paragraph from his latest, making the point that market prediction is more difficult than ever because-- Trump's so unpredictable. But this paragraph relates directly to what we've been discussing-- how much Trump flip-flops:

President Trump confused investors further by reversing his stance on many ideas that he used to fight the election.

"A man who ran on the idea that America comes first, that China hurt our country with its currency manipulation, that interest rates may be too low, that Fed chief Janet Yellen is toast, that NATO is no longer relevant and that the Export-Import bank is a boondoggle for big companies, suddenly repudiated every single one of those principles in a single 24-hour news cycle," added Cramer.

the real estate mogul believed that the nation's economy ran better when Democrats were in control 

He was right. There is debate about how much impact a President has on the economy, but there is no doubt that , historically, the economy has done better with Democratic Presidents than Republican. Here is employment growth, but you can easy find similar graphics for GDP.

Makes sense people need two jobs when the Dems are busy stealing their earnings. One to pay the taxes and one to put food on the table. 

So... to improve the situation, the GOP wants to lower taxes on the rich and raise them on everyone else.

You are so-o-o-o-o astute, Dean!

An "oldie but goodie-- ENJOY!