4 ms·

I'm not convinced he really wants to do the things you list. We will all find out in time, but as I watched him sit with Obama yesterday and also with Paul Rya

I'm not convinced he really wants to do the things you list. We will all find out in time, but as I watched him sit with Obama yesterday and also with Paul Ryan, both of whom looked like seasoned politicians who knew what was expected of them, I saw in Trump a man who looked lost and uncertain. I suspect that he liked the idea of being president more than he will enjoy doing the job.

MichaelApproved 10y ago
Trump has been as consistent as Bernie over the decades with regards to foreign policy. Here he is in 1988 on Oprah saying similar things to what he's said on the campaign trail https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEPs17_AkTI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEPs17_AkTI I don't agree with Trump but to think he really doesn't want to do the things he's been saying over the decades seems wrong.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- paublyrne 10y ago
  Interesting. He also says in that interview he doesn't really have the inclination to be president. That's what I wonder about now, if he really wants this.
  - MichaelApproved 10y ago
    He said "if it got so bad, I would never want to rule it out totally". He's been saying this for decades. I guess he finally thought it's bad enough for him to step in. I feel like I need to keep adding a disclaimer that I'm not a Trump supporter because my comments make it seem like I agree with him. I'm simply stating his views because I keep seeing people project their own feelings onto him even though he has been clear about many parts of his platform. Sure, he's had to walk back many statements or clarify that he was "being sarcastic" but there are many parts of his platform where he is crystal clear, yet people don't think he'd actually pursue those policies.
    - Yetanfou 10y ago
      ...I feel like I need to keep adding a disclaimer that I'm not a Trump supporter... Please don't, it does not add anything to the discourse. It does not matter whether you support him or not when pointing out facts (or fallacies, for that matter). Having to add disclaimers all the time is a damper on any discussion and as such should be avoided. Those who lack the wisdom to separate their personal opinion on people who support a certain policy or person from the merits of what those people say need to take a gander at the following rant: President Trump: How & Why... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG9g7BcjKs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG9g7BcjKs
      - jessaustin 10y ago
        In one sense you're right, but without such disclaimers we might be subjected to long threads of asinine assumptions and uncharitable translations.
      - linkregister 10y ago
        Maybe you have the intense discipline and perfection to fail to make the mistake, but I doubt most of us on HN are devoting that much attention to our biases to completely avoid it. Most humans struggle to do this. I think it's useful to add a hedge or disclaimer. I see this come up frequently on HN, usually not as well-worded as your response. Typically it's just "ad hominem" with the link to the logical fallacy on wikipedia. But the source of a fact or argument is valuable information. Since humans have finite time and attention, it's useful to know why someone is making an argument. Wouldn't you want to know if a drug study was sponsored by its manufacturer before believing it?
        Yetanfou 10y ago
        Wouldn't you want to know if a drug study was sponsored by its manufacturer before believing it? That is not the same thing. I assume someone is not sponsored by a manufacturer unless such a sponsorship is explicitly stated. I also expect someone who is in fact sponsored by a manufacturer to state this explicitly as that would be relevant in the interpretation of that person's claims which, in the context of drug studies, can be judged objectively. In the context of a political or societal discussion it is much harder to be objective as those fields are largely subjective - there generally is no absolute truth. Seen in that light it is hardly relevant whether a person supports this or that party, policy or politician when discussing claims about their merits as other participants in the discussion can make up their own minds on the subject regardless of what the claimant thinks about them. I'd go on step further and claim that the discussion would actually improve when such disclaimers are left out as it would reduce the influence of group think and open up the possibility to discuss matters which fall outside of the comfort zone without needing to excuse oneself for even mentioning the subject. This would only work in a place where the discourse is generally polite and thoughtful, HN being an example of such.
snowwrestler 10y ago
He will be caught between his campaign promises, and the old guard GOP who are rapidly taking over his administration.
yolesaber 10y ago
His trillion dollar infrastructure plan, which is vitally needed in this country where bridges and trains are falling apart, is going to be stopped dead in its track by Mitch McConnell. He flat out said it wasn't a priority. It's going to be an awful four years where any of the good things Trump said (the stuff that resonated with Bernie supporters, renegotiating trade deals, infrastructure improvements, term limits and curtailing lobbyist influence ) are going to be flat out denied by this awful congress headed by one of the slimiest most cynical men in our history. Mitch McConnell's congress is a massive roadblock to progress.
- selimthegrim 10y ago
  I despise McConnell but he is looking down the barrel of a raid on the Fed - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12935834 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12935834 When push comes to shove and if Trump tries to suborn the Senate, McConnell, like Roberts on the Court, might be the great white hope.
- godzillabrennus 10y ago
  Reading the subreddit The_Donald on Reddit it's blatantly clear that they share no love for McConnel and want him purged as they "drain the swamp". I'm not a Trump supporter but I'd be behind purging the Old Guard and bringing in new ideas.
- SwellJoe 10y ago
  McConnell has opposed pretty much every reasonable element of Trump's campaign platform to "drain the swamp". On term limits, McConnell simply said, "We have term limits; they're called elections." And, was emphatic that Republican leadership would not be doing anything on that front. Interestingly, the last time term limits were a campaign promise was when Republicans swept the house back in 1994 with the "Contract with America", which included a Constitutional amendment to impose term limits on the house and senate...it turns out term limits are only attractive when you're not soundly in the majority. So, yeah, we're looking at four years of obstructing their own candidate on anything good or reasonable that an "outsider" might want to do. While pushing aggressively forward (or backward, as the case may be) on all the same stuff they've been outraged at Obama for over the past eight years.

MichaelApproved 10y ago

Trump has been as consistent as Bernie over the decades with regards to foreign policy. Here he is in 1988 on Oprah saying similar things to what he's said on the campaign trail https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEPs17_AkTI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEPs17_AkTI I don't agree with Trump but to think he really doesn't want to do the things he's been saying over the decades seems wrong.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
paublyrne 10y ago
Interesting. He also says in that interview he doesn't really have the inclination to be president. That's what I wonder about now, if he really wants this.
- MichaelApproved 10y ago
  He said "if it got so bad, I would never want to rule it out totally". He's been saying this for decades. I guess he finally thought it's bad enough for him to step in. I feel like I need to keep adding a disclaimer that I'm not a Trump supporter because my comments make it seem like I agree with him. I'm simply stating his views because I keep seeing people project their own feelings onto him even though he has been clear about many parts of his platform. Sure, he's had to walk back many statements or clarify that he was "being sarcastic" but there are many parts of his platform where he is crystal clear, yet people don't think he'd actually pursue those policies.
  - Yetanfou 10y ago
    ...I feel like I need to keep adding a disclaimer that I'm not a Trump supporter... Please don't, it does not add anything to the discourse. It does not matter whether you support him or not when pointing out facts (or fallacies, for that matter). Having to add disclaimers all the time is a damper on any discussion and as such should be avoided. Those who lack the wisdom to separate their personal opinion on people who support a certain policy or person from the merits of what those people say need to take a gander at the following rant: President Trump: How & Why... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG9g7BcjKs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG9g7BcjKs
    - jessaustin 10y ago
      In one sense you're right, but without such disclaimers we might be subjected to long threads of asinine assumptions and uncharitable translations.
    - linkregister 10y ago
      Maybe you have the intense discipline and perfection to fail to make the mistake, but I doubt most of us on HN are devoting that much attention to our biases to completely avoid it. Most humans struggle to do this. I think it's useful to add a hedge or disclaimer. I see this come up frequently on HN, usually not as well-worded as your response. Typically it's just "ad hominem" with the link to the logical fallacy on wikipedia. But the source of a fact or argument is valuable information. Since humans have finite time and attention, it's useful to know why someone is making an argument. Wouldn't you want to know if a drug study was sponsored by its manufacturer before believing it?
      - Yetanfou 10y ago
        Wouldn't you want to know if a drug study was sponsored by its manufacturer before believing it? That is not the same thing. I assume someone is not sponsored by a manufacturer unless such a sponsorship is explicitly stated. I also expect someone who is in fact sponsored by a manufacturer to state this explicitly as that would be relevant in the interpretation of that person's claims which, in the context of drug studies, can be judged objectively. In the context of a political or societal discussion it is much harder to be objective as those fields are largely subjective - there generally is no absolute truth. Seen in that light it is hardly relevant whether a person supports this or that party, policy or politician when discussing claims about their merits as other participants in the discussion can make up their own minds on the subject regardless of what the claimant thinks about them. I'd go on step further and claim that the discussion would actually improve when such disclaimers are left out as it would reduce the influence of group think and open up the possibility to discuss matters which fall outside of the comfort zone without needing to excuse oneself for even mentioning the subject. This would only work in a place where the discourse is generally polite and thoughtful, HN being an example of such.

snowwrestler 10y ago

He will be caught between his campaign promises, and the old guard GOP who are rapidly taking over his administration.

yolesaber 10y ago

His trillion dollar infrastructure plan, which is vitally needed in this country where bridges and trains are falling apart, is going to be stopped dead in its track by Mitch McConnell. He flat out said it wasn't a priority. It's going to be an awful four years where any of the good things Trump said (the stuff that resonated with Bernie supporters, renegotiating trade deals, infrastructure improvements, term limits and curtailing lobbyist influence ) are going to be flat out denied by this awful congress headed by one of the slimiest most cynical men in our history. Mitch McConnell's congress is a massive roadblock to progress.

selimthegrim 10y ago
I despise McConnell but he is looking down the barrel of a raid on the Fed - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12935834 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12935834 When push comes to shove and if Trump tries to suborn the Senate, McConnell, like Roberts on the Court, might be the great white hope.
godzillabrennus 10y ago
Reading the subreddit The_Donald on Reddit it's blatantly clear that they share no love for McConnel and want him purged as they "drain the swamp". I'm not a Trump supporter but I'd be behind purging the Old Guard and bringing in new ideas.
SwellJoe 10y ago
McConnell has opposed pretty much every reasonable element of Trump's campaign platform to "drain the swamp". On term limits, McConnell simply said, "We have term limits; they're called elections." And, was emphatic that Republican leadership would not be doing anything on that front. Interestingly, the last time term limits were a campaign promise was when Republicans swept the house back in 1994 with the "Contract with America", which included a Constitutional amendment to impose term limits on the house and senate...it turns out term limits are only attractive when you're not soundly in the majority. So, yeah, we're looking at four years of obstructing their own candidate on anything good or reasonable that an "outsider" might want to do. While pushing aggressively forward (or backward, as the case may be) on all the same stuff they've been outraged at Obama for over the past eight years.