The US Presidency 2018

[a_majoor]

Once again there is a multivalent game at play here.

1. President Trump strips the media of credibility yet again.  If you actually look at the events of the NATO conference and the Russia Summit. there is nothing to support the media narrative. Indeed, these is plenty of contravailing evidence for:

2. President Trump is defanging the disloyal elements inside his own government. Perhaps this was missed because it was buried under the fold, so to speak, but Putin did offer to allow the Russians indicted to be interviewed. While not as bold as the earlier event where Russian companies came forward after being indicted to demand trial and an early discovery process, the net result will be the same: exposing the Muller investigation as BS of the highest order and eliminating that as a factor in future political actions.

3. The President has plainly called out the disloyal elements of the US government. The election was won, the People had spoken but evidently elements of the Intelligence community as well as other parts of the government (often referred to as the Deep State) were not willing to accept the results, and have worked non stop to delegitimize the results of the election. Indeed, the record of the CIA, NSA, FBI etc. is pretty lacklustre when confronted with external threats to the United States, perhaps because they are no longer focused on their jobs....

4. The existing post war order set out in 1945 is no longer relevant due to changing economic, demographic and technological changes. Challenging the status quo through trade, diplomacy military actions etc. is what President Trump is attempting to do, and unseating long held positions in order to advance America's long term position is what he was elected to do, and indeed what any American President should be focused on. Simultaneously challenging NATO to rearm while working to reduce tensions with Russia (and possibly wooing Russia away from China) seems to be the long term goal.

While we may not like either the President's goals or the tools he uses to achieve them, his version fo the DIME (Diplomatic, Information, Military, Economic) strategy is certainly one of the boldest attempts to reset America and her position in the world, arguably since the New Deal and possibly since America's emergence as a Great Power after the Spanish American War.

We need to look at this through the lens of America's National Interest and Grand Strategy, as articulated by the President and his Cabinet, not though what we would like to believe or what the people who's self interest lays in preserving the status quo want to tell us. Once we strip away the rhetoric, things look very different.

 

[Altair]

Once again there is a multivalent game at play here.

1. President Trump strips the media of credibility yet again.  If you actually look at the events of the NATO conference and the Russia Summit. there is nothing to support the media narrative. Indeed, these is plenty of contravailing evidence for:

2. President Trump is defanging the disloyal elements inside his own government. Perhaps this was missed because it was buried under the fold, so to speak, but Putin did offer to allow the Russians indicted to be interviewed. While not as bold as the earlier event where Russian companies came forward after being indicted to demand trial and an early discovery process, the net result will be the same: exposing the Muller investigation as BS of the highest order and eliminating that as a factor in future political actions.

3. The President has plainly called out the disloyal elements of the US government. The election was won, the People had spoken but evidently elements of the Intelligence community as well as other parts of the government (often referred to as the Deep State) were not willing to accept the results, and have worked non stop to delegitimize the results of the election. Indeed, the record of the CIA, NSA, FBI etc. is pretty lacklustre when confronted with external threats to the United States, perhaps because they are no longer focused on their jobs....

4. The existing post war order set out in 1945 is no longer relevant due to changing economic, demographic and technological changes. Challenging the status quo through trade, diplomacy military actions etc. is what President Trump is attempting to do, and unseating long held positions in order to advance America's long term position is what he was elected to do, and indeed what any American President should be focused on. Simultaneously challenging NATO to rearm while working to reduce tensions with Russia (and possibly wooing Russia away from China) seems to be the long term goal.

While we may not like either the President's goals or the tools he uses to achieve them, his version fo the DIME (Diplomatic, Information, Military, Economic) strategy is certainly one of the boldest attempts to reset America and her position in the world, arguably since the New Deal and possibly since America's emergence as a Great Power after the Spanish American War.

We need to look at this through the lens of America's National Interest and Grand Strategy, as articulated by the President and his Cabinet, not though what we would like to believe or what the people who's self interest lays in preserving the status quo want to tell us. Once we strip away the rhetoric, things look very different.

Im going to ignore points one two and three as they are simply a matter of opinion,  but four caught my attention.

If america was trying to change the global economic order,  wouldn't having your closest allies on board be beneficial as opposed to having them working actively against them?

If this was framed as positioning the west to be in the best position to combat chinese unfair trade practices for example,  wouldn't canada and the EU been on board?

Instead,  now we have the global economy trying to extract their pound of flesh against the US economy,  and making Americas former allies work closer with its foes(or foes working together if we count the EU as a foe)

 

[FJAG]

Once again there is a multivalent game at play here.

1. President Trump strips the media of credibility yet again.  If you actually look at the events of the NATO conference and the Russia Summit. there is nothing to support the media narrative. Indeed, these is plenty of contravailing evidence for:

2. President Trump is defanging the disloyal elements inside his own government. Perhaps this was missed because it was buried under the fold, so to speak, but Putin did offer to allow the Russians indicted to be interviewed. While not as bold as the earlier event where Russian companies came forward after being indicted to demand trial and an early discovery process, the net result will be the same: exposing the Muller investigation as BS of the highest order and eliminating that as a factor in future political actions.

3. The President has plainly called out the disloyal elements of the US government. The election was won, the People had spoken but evidently elements of the Intelligence community as well as other parts of the government (often referred to as the Deep State) were not willing to accept the results, and have worked non stop to delegitimize the results of the election. Indeed, the record of the CIA, NSA, FBI etc. is pretty lacklustre when confronted with external threats to the United States, perhaps because they are no longer focused on their jobs....

4. The existing post war order set out in 1945 is no longer relevant due to changing economic, demographic and technological changes. Challenging the status quo through trade, diplomacy military actions etc. is what President Trump is attempting to do, and unseating long held positions in order to advance America's long term position is what he was elected to do, and indeed what any American President should be focused on. Simultaneously challenging NATO to rearm while working to reduce tensions with Russia (and possibly wooing Russia away from China) seems to be the long term goal.

While we may not like either the President's goals or the tools he uses to achieve them, his version fo the DIME (Diplomatic, Information, Military, Economic) strategy is certainly one of the boldest attempts to reset America and her position in the world, arguably since the New Deal and possibly since America's emergence as a Great Power after the Spanish American War.

We need to look at this through the lens of America's National Interest and Grand Strategy, as articulated by the President and his Cabinet, not though what we would like to believe or what the people who's self interest lays in preserving the status quo want to tell us. Once we strip away the rhetoric, things look very different.

Whether or not this is an attempt or not, I'm convinced that Trump will certainly "reset America and her position in the world." Unfortunately I also believe that it will definitely not be for the better.

We, and many others much more knowledgeable than we here, have looked at what the president has and is articulating and found his rhetoric simplistic, antagonistic and detrimental to the US interest. Looking at it through his eyes and agreeing with what we see are two vastly different things. Luckily many of his supporters are starting to see through his rhetoric.

Kevin Brady, an 11-term Congressman for suburban-rural Texas, wears a big hat in the House of Representatives as chairman of the ways and means committee. He was proudly at President Donald Trump’s side as Republicans rushed through a massive tax-cuts package last year. But he’s not letting any red “MAGA” hats near his bald pate this week, after the Trump administration slapped steel and aluminum tariffs on Canada, Mexico and the European Union.

“This action puts American workers and families at risk, whose jobs depend on fairly traded products from these important trading partners,” Brady said in a statement Thursday after the tariffs were announced. “And it hurts our efforts to create good-paying U.S. jobs by selling more ‘Made in America’ products to customers in these countries.”

https://www.macleans.ca/politics/washington/the-united-states-of-americans-opposed-to-trumps-tariffs-on-canada/

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is launching a campaign to oppose President Donald Trump's trade tariffs, arguing that he's risking a global trade war that could hurt U.S. consumers, Reuters reports.

The business lobbying group, which has three million members, mostly large corporations, used a state-by-state analysis to show how U.S. consumers could be negatively affected by the trade tariffs. For example, Texas could see $3.9 billion in exports targeted by retaliatory tariffs, while South Carolina could see $3 billion and Tennessee could see $1.4 billion, according to Reuters

https://www.inc.com/emily-canal/trump-tariffs-trade-war-chamber-of-commerce.html

[cheers]

 

[Altair]

Whether or not this is an attempt or not, I'm convinced that Trump will certainly "reset America and her position in the world." Unfortunately I also believe that it will definitely not be for the better.

We, and many others much more knowledgeable than we here, have looked at what the president has and is articulating and found his rhetoric simplistic, antagonistic and detrimental to the US interest. Looking at it through his eyes and agreeing with what we see are two vastly different things. Luckily many of his supporters are starting to see through his rhetoric.

https://www.macleans.ca/politics/washington/the-united-states-of-americans-opposed-to-trumps-tariffs-on-canada/

https://www.inc.com/emily-canal/trump-tariffs-trade-war-chamber-of-commerce.html

[cheers]

In these cases I'm happy America has the 3 branches of government that it has.

Because while the President might be above the whims of the average american who gets the stinky end of the stick here, the other two are acutely sensitive to the whims of the voting public. Eventually, those two will step in to oppose the President, if only for their own self preservation.

 

[a_majoor]

Once again, you need to look at history. President Trump has been on record since at least 1989 as saying American is being ripped off in trade deals and allies are "living like kings" because they put the cost of defending themselves on America. In his view, these are not the actions of friends and reliable allies, and it is his goal to change them.

The main way he seems set to do this is to make current positions untenable (this also explains his pulling the rug out from under Prime Minister May's attempts to do a "soft Brexit") and draw back American resources to supporting American interests. While it may have been in America's interest to support NATO and take on huge trade deficits in the period between 1945 and the end of the Cold War, it is clearly no longer tenable now, and indeed you would be hard pressed to make a clear case for doing so today. American institutions built during the Cold War have been largely driven by inertia rather than any declaration of intent, and the decay of American power since the 1990's is a pretty clear indication of this. Wars with no clear goals or declaration of how they support the National Interest or Grand Strategy, culminating in the disgraceful "Red Line" in Syria have shown the world that the United States is neither capable or willing to engage. The lack of attention while China expanded into the South China Sea and the hollow "pivot" is yet another example of the lack of American power and will.

President Trump evidently has no desire for America to remain the global police force, and is willing to shake up things so she no longer has to be (but can still remain secure in her borders). Look at things through these lenses and you will see a different story emerge.

 

[Altair]

Once again, you need to look at history. President Trump has been on record since at least 1989 as saying American is being ripped off in trade deals and allies are "living like kings" because they put the cost of defending themselves on America. In his view, these are not the actions of friends and reliable allies, and it is his goal to change them.

The main way he seems set to do this is to make current positions untenable (this also explains his pulling the rug out from under Prime Minister May's attempts to do a "soft Brexit") and draw back American resources to supporting American interests. While it may have been in America's interest to support NATO and take on huge trade deficits in the period between 1945 and the end of the Cold War, it is clearly no longer tenable now, and indeed you would be hard pressed to make a clear case for doing so today. American institutions built during the Cold War have been largely driven by inertia rather than any declaration of intent, and the decay of American power since the 1990's is a pretty clear indication of this. Wars with no clear goals or declaration of how they support the National Interest or Grand Strategy, culminating in the disgraceful "Red Line" in Syria have shown the world that the United States is neither capable or willing to engage. The lack of attention while China expanded into the South China Sea and the hollow "pivot" is yet another example of the lack of American power and will.

President Trump evidently has no desire for America to remain the global police force, and is willing to shake up things so she no longer has to be (but can still remain secure in her borders). Look at things through these lenses and you will see a different story emerge.

On, NATO, sure.

But to engage in a trade war with Europe, Canada and Mexico at the same time as engaging in one against China is asking to fail. And it's a lost opportunity. Instead of Europe, Canada, Mexico putting pressure in a united front against China, now it's the opposite. China has tariffs on US goods. Canada, same, Mexico,same, the EU, same, India, same, Turkey, same, just off the top of my head.

Now instead of seeing if China buckles under the combined economic strength of the world to change their trade practices, the opposite is true. How long before America buckles under the weight of global trade tariffs?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Let's put it this way. Russia was found trying to destabilize American democracy through their cyber assaults. Those activities continue.

Per DNI Dan Coates:

https://www.npr.org/2018/07/18/630164914/transcript-dan-coats-warns-of-continuing-russian-cyberattacks

You do not deal with a situation like that by being a sycophant. You deal with it by drawing a line in the sand and saying we won't treat with you until all these activities come to a full stop.

Trump's overtures, for whatever reason he is making them, are the worst form of appeasement. Not only does it show the Russians that their activities have worked but, in large part, it also shows them that the White House won't take any concrete steps to oppose any future interference. Trump's entire approach to this very serious issue will do nothing less than embolden Putin to continue these activities both in the US and other western democracies.

To use your position: it is clear that the Russians have not been cooperating and are continuing to not cooperate. They are simply denying when they've been caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

[cheers]

I have to wonder how many countries elections have been hacked and manipulated by the US. How many foreign policies have been trashed from interference by the US. The ME, under Bush, Clinton and Obama is a current example. Arab Spring was not a local initiative in those countries. How many regimes have been decapitated, not for the citizens, but for US interests. We all know they do it, but in the interest of impeaching Trump, all of that is conveniently forgotten. Kinda hypocritical, if you ask me. You can deny it happens, but history is replete with US interference with sovereign nations.

I don't like polls, but another post I made today had a 76% approval rate for Trump's actions. Regardless of what the MSM, Democrats and phony Republicans like McCain say.

 

[Altair]

I have to wonder how many countries elections have been hacked and manipulated by the US. How many foreign policies have been trashed from interference by the US. The ME, under Bush, Clinton and Obama is a current example. Arab Spring was not a local initiative in those countries. How many regimes have been decapitated, not for the citizens, but for US interests. We all know they do it, but in the interest of impeaching Trump, all of that is conveniently forgotten. Kinda hypocritical, if you ask me. You can deny it happens, but history is replete with US interference with sovereign nations.

I don't like polls, but another post I made today had a 76% approval rate for Trump's actions. Regardless of what the MSM, Democrats and phony Republicans like McCain say.

To continue on this line of thought, America has attacked and invaded other countries as well, but I don't think the correct response if America is attacked and invaded is to shrug and say it's hypocritical to get upset about it.

And make no mistake, a cyber attack on american democracy is an attack. just because bullets aren't flying and people aren't dying doesn't diminish it's seriousness. 

 

[PuckChaser]

And make no mistake, a cyber attack on american democracy is an attack. just because bullets aren't flying and people aren't dying doesn't diminish it's seriousness.

If that were the case, the US would have declared war on China 15 years ago. Its not a coincidence that the J-20 looks exactly like the F22/F35. They've been ravaging US corporate and government networks for years.

 

[Altair]

If that were the case, the US would have declared war on China 15 years ago. Its not a coincidence that the J-20 looks exactly like the F22/F35. They've been ravaging US corporate and government networks for years.

You're not wrong.

 

[FJAG]

Once again, you need to look at history. President Trump has been on record since at least 1989 as saying American is being ripped off in trade deals and allies are "living like kings" because they put the cost of defending themselves on America. In his view, these are not the actions of friends and reliable allies, and it is his goal to change them.

The main way he seems set to do this is to make current positions untenable (this also explains his pulling the rug out from under Prime Minister May's attempts to do a "soft Brexit") and draw back American resources to supporting American interests. While it may have been in America's interest to support NATO and take on huge trade deficits in the period between 1945 and the end of the Cold War, it is clearly no longer tenable now, and indeed you would be hard pressed to make a clear case for doing so today. American institutions built during the Cold War have been largely driven by inertia rather than any declaration of intent, and the decay of American power since the 1990's is a pretty clear indication of this. Wars with no clear goals or declaration of how they support the National Interest or Grand Strategy, culminating in the disgraceful "Red Line" in Syria have shown the world that the United States is neither capable or willing to engage. The lack of attention while China expanded into the South China Sea and the hollow "pivot" is yet another example of the lack of American power and will.

President Trump evidently has no desire for America to remain the global police force, and is willing to shake up things so she no longer has to be (but can still remain secure in her borders). Look at things through these lenses and you will see a different story emerge.

1. Trump's incoherent ramblings are not history; even if they go back to 1989. Here's a quick summary of his flip flops over the years.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/08/sunday-review/a-trump-sampler-his-changing-views.html

2. American institutions during the Cold War years were not driven by stagnation but by innovation and change. The US's real GDP has grown from $2 Trillion in 1946 to $17 Trillion in 2017.

https://www.thebalance.com/us-gdp-by-year-3305543

There was growth of several percent for most years.

Yes there have been changes: the primary method of commercial transport is no longer coal fired trains and while manufacturing has definitely changed to cheaper labor methods (whether to off shore plants or to robotics) it has also created a tremendous boost in the affordability to American consumers. Change will continue, whether it is the elimination of the print industry to electronics; the trucking industry to robotic trucks; money handlers (such as bank clerks, check out clerks, etc) to automated terminals and smart phone apps.

Trump and his advisors are living in the dark ages and trying to figure out how to bring rust-belt jobs back on-shore. Thomas Wolfe was right: You Can't Go Home Again. Some things are just gone and, as far as the consumer is concerned, it's for the better. What they should be doing is seeing how to meet the future head. But that's the problem when you're an anarchist; all that you can do is complain that everyone has done things wrong and then tear down what they have built up over the generations without offering concrete plans for a better society.

3. If Trump is getting out of the business of being the world's policeman, why has he increased the defence budget by USD80 Billion to USD691 Billion? When you've broken down international trade agreements what need is there to police international trade routes? What need is there to retain forces in Europe, the Middle East, Africa, South or Central Asia? Practically speaking an isolationist US can get by with it's missile defence and a greatly reduced coastal navy.

Sorry. The man's policies are incoherent and, because he has little experience in anything but questionable real estate, it is based on a close group of extremist advisors who have constantly been criticised by the experts in the field (both before and after they started working for Trump). I know. To you those critics are the status quo or the deep state or other pejorative terms. Like you I believe that government can do much better but this isn't the way.

[cheers]

 

[FJAG]

I have to wonder how many countries elections have been hacked and manipulated by the US. How many foreign policies have been trashed from interference by the US. The ME, under Bush, Clinton and Obama is a current example. Arab Spring was not a local initiative in those countries. How many regimes have been decapitated, not for the citizens, but for US interests. We all know they do it, but in the interest of impeaching Trump, all of that is conveniently forgotten. Kinda hypocritical, if you ask me. You can deny it happens, but history is replete with US interference with sovereign nations.

I don't like polls, but another post I made today had a 76% approval rate for Trump's actions. Regardless of what the MSM, Democrats and phony Republicans like McCain say.

I don't disagree with you that the US in the past, and even now, has interfered mightily in the internal affairs of foreign countries.

IMHO this is no reason to applaud Trump for rolling over onto his back and letting Putin scratch his belly.

[cheers]

 

[Altair]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/19/politics/donald-trump-vladimir-putin-summit-poll/index.html

A majority of Americans disapprove of the way President Donald Trump handled the summit in Helsinki with Russian President Vladimir Putin, a new CBS News poll finds.

Fifty-five percent of respondents said they disapproved of Trump's handling of the summit, including 83% of Democrats and 53% of independents.
Just 21% of Republicans disapprove -- with 68% of Republicans saying the approve of how Trump dealt with the meeting.

Overall, 32% approve of the President's handling of the summit -- with 8% of Democrats and 29% of independents saying so.

Seven in 10 Americans believe findings by US intelligence agencies that Russia interfered in the 2016 election, though a larger share of Democrats do (89%) than independents (67%) or Republicans (51%). More than four-in-10 Republicans (42%) say they do not believe the intelligence assessments.

Forty-six percent of Americans say the President's approach to Russia is too friendly, up from 35% in April 2017.

Looking ahead to 2018, 61% of Americans say they are very or somewhat concerned about Russian interference in the midterm elections, including 87% of Democrats, but just 38% of Republicans.

More than six-in-10 Republicans (61%) say they are not very or not at all concerned about possible interference.

Looking beyond the polarization of the US electorate, most people do not approve of how that summit went down.

And looking beyond that, I think a very important point has yet to be made. If the general public saw the US president as weak compared to the Russian president, what do people around the world think? This is the 3rd US President in a row Putin has outmaneuvered and outsmarted. For countries stuck in the middle between these two "powers" one has to start to think that siding with Russia and Putin is a safer bet in the long run.

 

[FJAG]

As a slight aside, the degree of polarization between conservative Americans and liberal ones has been ongoing for some time.

I recently came across the art work of Jon McNaughton (who incidentally I think is a very fine artist) and whose themes over the years very much reflect the times and these differences.

http://jonmcnaughton.com/

[cheers]

 

[PuckChaser]

You left out one thing:

The CBS News poll was conducted by telephone July 17-18, 2018 among a random sample of 1,007 adults nationwide. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

The "majority" is within the margin of error. CBS News has been terribly wrong before: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-news-poll-state-of-the-race-the-day-before-election-day/

 

[Altair]

As a slight aside, the degree of polarization between conservative Americans and liberal ones has been ongoing for some time.

I recently came across the art work of Jon McNaughton (who incidentally I think is a very fine artist) and whose themes over the years very much reflect the times and these differences.

http://jonmcnaughton.com/

[cheers]

I've always believed that one of the greatest mistakes in American history was destroying the CSA.

Union should have gone down, freed the slave, and left. The two sides of America have been moving in different directions for some time, with only external pressures keeping them together, from the world wars, and the treat of communism.

Once the wall fell, and there was no external enemy to rally against, Americans, naturally, have turned on each other.

 

[Altair]

You left out one thing:

The "majority" is within the margin of error. CBS News has been terribly wrong before: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-news-poll-state-of-the-race-the-day-before-election-day/

Quick question.

How was this wrong?

With just one day left in the 2016 presidential race, Hillary Clinton holds a four-point lead over Donald Trump nationally, 45 percent to 41 percent -- similar to last week. Few voters say their minds could change.

Final election results.

Donald Trump 62,984,828

Hillary Clinton 65,853,514

It ended with a 2 point advantage for Clinton, well within the CBS poll margin of error.

The margin of error for the sample of likely voters is plus or minus three points

 

[PuckChaser]

How was this wrong?

Its not wrong. But you used the CBS News poll to show us how bad Trump did in Helsinki. Using that logic, a majority of Americans believed Trump did a good job in Helsinki and its a non-issue.

 

[Altair]

Its not wrong. But you used the CBS News poll to show us how bad Trump did in Helsinki. Using that logic, a majority of Americans believed Trump did a good job in Helsinki and its a non-issue.

No, the +/- of that poll was 4 points.

55% of americans disapprove of the Presidents handling of the Helsinki summit. Using the 4 point plus minus, at worst, 51 percent of Americans disapprove of the presidents handling of the Helsinki summit. 32 Percent approved of it. using the 4 point plus minus, at most, 36 percent of americans approved of it.

So no matter how you spin it, the majority of Americans disapproved of how the President handled the Helsinki summit.

Also, because politics is a team sport, the only place where this matters is the independents, since they are really the only ones moving their votes.

53 percent disapprove.

29 percent approve.

That's where this hurts the President.

 

[Altair]

Merged with above.