But you can’t really go both ways. Either he will micromanage everything and listen to no one, or he will hit a point where he says “shit, what do I do now?” as posited upthread. If that latter point comes, he can hand everything off to his aides and go play golf or whatever.
That his oft-touted negotiating skills don’t actually involve getting people to do stuff, but just complaining about how that’s not faaaaaaaaair?
I seriously doubt he’ll ever reach that point. He will always have the Ultimate Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything.
Where’s Douglas Adams when you really need him?
Two things: Reagan and GWB may well have been out of their depth but the extent to which Trump is out of his depth when it comes to being POTUS is exponentially greater, by several orders of magnitude. I’m not a fan of either of those former Presidents but they both had experience as governors and a basic understanding of how government works.
Secondly, as regards the idea that you can surround yourself with people who basically tell you what to do and run things for you I see one insurmountable problem - Trump doesn’t appear to have the capacity to listen to others or consider the fact his ideas may not be all that good. He is surrounded by yes men and women and blusters his way from one situation to the next.
I would encourage Mr. Trump to sit down with a copy of the Constitution and read what powers it actually grants the President.
I’d pay to see the moment it finally sinks in that being the PotUS and being [DEL][COLOR=“Black”]the[/DEL][/COLOR] a president ain’t the same thing!
CMC fnord!
Sure, but he can just give some vague platitudes about what he wants done, and then they can go use their greater knowledge of how stuff works to make it happen. (Or, more cynically, run things as they wish, within the constraints of not doing anything he’ll find out about, understand, and complain was not what he desired.)
I guess my sense is that the president doesn’t have to have a deep and detailed understanding of how the sausage is made. He can order the flavor of sausage he likes, and there will be lots of people who will scurry around to provide it for him.
I think that you can assess a lot about a candidate by how he or she runs a campaign. Trump is outstanding when it comes to marketing and promotion – he really hasn’t needed help in that area. Where he’s failed is in hiring people who can do the ugly gritty work, which is why he ended up losing delegates in Louisiana despite winning the state. You need people around you who understand process and know have to navigate rules and bureaucracy. You need people who know how the bureaucracy works and who can form strategic partnerships. I don’t see an iota of evidence in that in Trump’s campaign. When’s the last time a campaign manager of a serious candidate got arrested for battery? Exactly. Right around never. Trump is winning because he’s been allowed to play to his strengths and nobody’s been able to expose his weaknesses to date. But that will eventually change the farther he gets into this contest. And should he become president, God forbid, his inability to administer government would be on display for all to see.
It’s tulip mania all over again. Sometimes, the bubble just bursts.
Are you serious. America suffered from all those wonderful people those two clowns surrounded themselves with.
Yes, where did I say otherwise? My point was that it wasn’t subjectively overwhelming for them. They worked short hours and weren’t required to really know anything.
ETA: Similarly, Drumpf’s goons would no doubt be terrible for America. But The Donald would not have to be mired in policy or process.
A few consecutive weeks with no primary. That has forced the media to resort to covering what he’s actually said instead of their usual lazy horse-race “reporting”.
I’m rather stunned by Trump’s open refrain of “It’s not fair! It’s not fair!”. Such petulance one might expect in a spoiled child, but in a grown man running for President? Will he hold his breath until his face turns bluish-orange if things don’t go his way at the G20 meeting? Will he stamp his feet if China don’t agree to the trade terms he wants? Will he cry if Iran says mean things about him?
Someone needs to tell him what my mother told me at an early age: Life’s not fair, and you need to learn to deal with that.
It’s only petulance if you can’t do anything about it. If you can make it fair, it becomes something else. Like a third-party run specifically to spoil the chances of the party which was unfair to you.
And sometimes dealing with it involves making as much noise about it as possible, like a union going on strike and picketing in the streets. People say “Deal with it” or “Life’s not fair” to people they wish to silence, never realizing that it’s an open invitation to act to make things fair. Which, if you’re one of the disaffected uneducated white people who feels the whole damned system is unfair, involves voting for Trump specifically to punish what you see as an Establishment GOP which has done precisely shit for you and your concerns. Remember, suffering in silence isn’t maturity if you have a better option, and in Trump, the disaffected voters think they’ve found that better option.
I hate Trump and his band of hateful xenophobes who are incapable of seeing change without blaming it on some Other. I also hate people whose idea of “maturity” consists of attempts to silence the people they see as beneath them. Is it any wonder the 2016 Republican Nomination Race has caused in me transports of evil laughter? It’s fun to watch bullies beat up on each other, isn’t it?
While we’re talking about things we hate, I hate it when people categorize expressing dissenting opinions as “attempts to silence”. As Trump supporters have been wont to do. No one is being silenced.
Politics is a brutal game, and Trump knew the rules when he joined. I see no evidence that he wants things to be “fairer”; what he wants is to be able to play the game by his **own **rules, and what he’s doing is complaining that no one else will use his rules over their own. That’s not fighting injustice; that’s actual petulance.
And while the system is unfair, will Trump’s phone line make things fairer? Or will it just net his campaign money and contact numbers of supporters (to squeeze for more money)? What do you think he’s really trying to accomplish here? Is it fairness? Or is it another attempt to have his cake and eat it too?
Telling someone to stop whining isn’t expressing a dissenting opinion. It’s nothing more or less than an attempt to silence. Attempts to silence might be necessary or even laudable, however. I do agree that nobody is being silenced in this case.
My point is that what’s “fair” is always what the people in charge say is fair, and that changing it necessarily involves doing things which are categorized as petulance and whining and throwing tantrums by those the current system benefits. I’m not claiming Trump or his followers want things to be fair in an absolute sense, even if we think that concept is sensical, I’m claiming they’re doing something which has been done by marginalized out-groups since time immemorial, and that dismissing it out of hand means you are denying yourself the ability to understand them.
Trump and his followers want a system which is fair to them, or at least that’s how they perceive it. They are, among other things, an insurgent movement, and insurgencies are always motivated by a desire to fix a system their members see as unfair.
Obviously, Trump wants a system which benefits Trump, because he’s a garden-variety asshole who sees other people as noise-holes with levers he can pull to get what he wants. Granted. His followers interpret that as Trump being a great deal-making asshole who will sock the system in the nose on their behalf in the process of making deals to make the world fair to Trump supporters. They’re wrong, and Trump is duping them just as the Establishment GOP has long duped them.
They’re not going to get what they want. The only question is how bad they’re going to hurt the GOP when they realize that.
Derleth’s last couple of posts here nailed both the reality and what I was trying to say about what’s going on beneath the surface of both Trump and his followers.
The appeal to “fairness” is always an effective gambit because, unexamined, “fairness” is a USA value right up there with Mom & apple pie. The gotcha of course, as I said & Derleth eloquently expanded on, is that “fairness” means different things to different people. It’s a blank slate upon which you can hang your own individual set of grievances. As such it’s super-powerful amongst the disaffected that think (rightly or wrongly) that the deck is stacked against them and have a long list of perceived, if not real, grievances.
Trump whining about “unfairness” is essentially him trying to adopt the plucky underdog position. While simultaneously occupying the grandiloquent winner position out the other side of his mouth.
His base will eat that up. As will lots of folks near, but not really within, his current base. Garnering that second group is what puts him over 1237 and/or puts him in the White House.
Much of his campaign is based around the idea that the system is rigged against the American people (i.e. “unfair”). Saying that the RNC or media or state parties are being “unfair” to Trump is just reinforcing his message that America is being run by the machine and people need to fight against it. Priming his supporters to be outraged if the nomination is “stolen” from him despite his lead in votes/delegates is just part of his leverage.
The RNC is in the unfavorable position of explaining that the rules say it’s okay to ignore the votes – when it’s the RNC writing the convention/delegate rules. Trump gets to rely on the easy bumper-sticker logic of the guy with the most points should win.
If the RNC denies the nomination to both Trump and Cruz (which the establishment would certainly prefer to do), the optics will be even worse, both because they are the top two in votes and delegates and because a specific pre-convention rule change (abolishing the eight-state requirement) will then be required to have any candidate at all.
Trump’s latest plan to get Mexico to pay for the wall: prevent undocumented workers from wiring money from the USA to Mexico until it does, which he thinks he would be allowed to do under the USA Patriot Act.
Hands up, whoever else immediately had the idea of starting a business of being a middleman between undocumented workers and Western Union. Of course, it would result in requiring the middlemen to require their customers show documentation, but that just adds another level to the chain. (Also apparently, the obvious solution - tax money transfers into Mexico and “pay for the wall that way” - probably isn’t something he could do without approval of Congress.)
Trump statesthat citizens in Mexico receive $24 billion in remittances from the US yearly, “the majority of that” from undocumented immigrants. He says Mexico will agree (in 3 days!) to pony up $10 billion to pay for the wall “to ensure that $24 billion continues to flow into their country year after year.” But the wall is supposed to keep undocumented immigrants out… and they’re the ones who send the majority of the $24 billion to Mexico every year… so assuming Trump’s plan works, isn’t Mexico going to lose the money in either case? Isn’t Trump really expecting them to pay $10B for the privilege of losing most of that $24B in yearly remittances? Just a hunch, but Mexico’s leaders might see through that.
They might also just assume that people will still find a way to send money, since it’s awful hard to stop the flow of money between people who are really determined to move it.
Suppose Trump’s plan is somehow implemented, but Mexico refuses to be extorted. Their economy is damaged by the loss of remittances, and millions of Mexicans are thrown out of work. Won’t that just create more undocumented immigrants crossing the border to escape economic hardship?