7 ms·

All these comments about Trump changing his mind or being swayed miss the obvious indicators that he's just following the Putin/Surkov strategy for creating a m

All these comments about Trump changing his mind or being swayed miss the obvious indicators that he's just following the Putin/Surkov strategy for creating a managed democracy. You destabilize the narrative coherency with opposing, even random, signals (meet with Al Gore, then appoint Rex Tillerson, add Kanye for good measure). As your opponents scramble for some logical imperative along the lines of received political/economic narratives, you dismantle the institutions that oppose you(both literal and civilly constructed), so you can rob and rule however you see fit.

chasing 10y ago
My read is that Trump doesn't have any particular plan beyond fame and feeling important. If that means holding completely opposing views one day to the next, so be it. This is dangerous, don't get me wrong. And he's absolutely going to get used as a tool in smarter people's schemes. Let's just hope the good smarter people can get control of him instead of the bad smarter people...
- singularity2001 10y ago
  That seems pretty naïve to me. Remember he is not (solely) acting as an individual but as the front man for interest groups (Army, Exxon etc, not dissimilar to the Cheney gang)
  - alphonsegaston 10y ago
    Yes, a major part of Trump's success is convincing both his supporters and opponents that he is the sole conduit through which power will operate. To his supporters, anything untoward among his underlings will be checked by the great man himself, while simultaneously, to his opponents, his obvious character flaws will be his undoing. Both create a false of impression of the need to withhold judgement/action, which allows his agents to continue their work unabated.
- Retric 10y ago
  He may be an incompetent businessman, but he is not an idiot. After near bankruptcy his current wealth is based on connections and an aura of competence. Basically, he puts his name up but not any wealth while getting a cut of a deal. But, his stick of saying things and then retracting them as 'not serious' statements is a very useful tool. Over time people notice they heard what they wanted to hear and his words are meaningless signals. But, there is a really long line of suckers ready to believe anyone that says what they want to hear. Making a moonshot for the presidency viable in ways where a career politician would have a long line of failures to follow though using the same approach.
  - woofyman 10y ago
    >After near bankruptcy He declared chapter 11 bankruptcy 4 times. Edit: his businesses filed 4 times
    - Retric 10y ago
      His companies declared bankruptcy, but he personally did not. I recall some clip where he references walking with his son past a homeless guy and say "that guy has a billion dollars more than I do." referencing his at the time negative net worth. However, he continued to service or refinance that debt without declaring bankruptcy. PS: This is actually fairly common with real estate fortunes. They are based on leverage so dips can erase fortunes, but if they keep making payments they can get past that and end up positive.
    - MichaelGG 10y ago
      He filed for chapter 11 as an individual? I don't think that's correct, is it?
    - ams6110 10y ago
      Here, failure and bankruptcy is normally celebrated as part of the process of building successful companies.
      - Retric 10y ago
- jinjin2 10y ago
  > he's absolutely going to get used as a tool in smarter people's schemes This is already happening. Just see how the president of Taiwan played him, calling him up without going through the state department, in the full knowledge that he was probably not aware that he shouldn't take the call. She essentially forced him into a position where he had to say that changing the relation with Taiwan was his plan all along.
  - mistermann 10y ago
    If anyone's playing him, it isn't the President of Taiwan. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/bob-dole-trump-taiwan-call http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/bob-dole-trump-taiwan-... http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/henry-kissinger-meets-china-president/2016/12/02/id/761953/ http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/henry-kissinger-meets-china-...
aetherson 10y ago
I think that you're overestimating Trump's ability to dismantle institutions, even if we stipulate that he's a machiavellian schemer who's successfully sowing chaos among his opponents by "destabilizing the narrative coherency."
- MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
  But he doesn't have to do any of the dismantling work himself. He's just installing the loyalists and sycophants who already understand that the mission is to raid the institutions/country of riches and integrity. He doesn't even need to openly give them instructions, just nod and say "Fantastic job."
  - aetherson 10y ago
    You don't feel like your rhetoric is a little overblown? How does one "raid the institutions of integrity"? Even if that were your explicit job? Do you visit in the dark of night and go to their integrity safe, crack it, and then bring your stolen integrity home to add to your family's integrity store? At any rate, I wasn't saying that Trump is personally incompetent (I'm agnostic in that respect), and thus that he will not succeed in dismantling institutions. I'm saying that he's a figure within a Constitutional democracy with limited power, who does not have any kind of enormous political support, in a country with a long, stable government, and going up against entrenched interests. Might he do some damage? Of course. But in general, Presidents break against the entrenched powers in Washington, not the other way around. Four years from now, we'll have another election and probably Trump will be gone. Eight years from now, he'll definitely be gone. There's no sign that Trump has the ability to dismantle the government in the way that Putin did in Russia.
    - MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
      > You don't feel like your rhetoric is a little overblown? I hope it proves to be! Also I lol'ed at the integrity safe metaphor. >I'm saying that he's a figure within a Constitutional democracy with limited power, who does not have any kind of enormous political support, in a country with a long, stable government, and going up against entrenched interests. But to be serious, I think this response is making a number of dangerous assumptions, which I hear from a lot of moderate voices urging hope/non-alarm/give him a chance. To address them point by point: - The power of the executive branch relative to the others has steadily risen in the modern era. - I think he does have significant political support - the senate would likely have flipped if not for the party line support he generated. - Our "long, stable government" is only 238 years old, not really that significant on any timescale, even compared to other governments in recorded history. And has already included a catastrophic civil war that almost ended it. It's a hard cognitive bias to buck, underestimating our society's fragility. - Who are these entrenched interests he's going against? The "entrenched interests" of the left, well they may be entrenched, but they don't have trillions or even billions of dollars in their war chests. The actually powerful ones are all going to be represented on his cabinet. Like I said, I hope I'm being wrong and alarmist, but it seems like the prudent side to err on.
pm 10y ago
I agree somewhat, but I don't think that it's going to be Trump specifically disrupting institutions, so much as everyone else round him.
- MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
  Exactly. The disheartening thing is that he's so persuadable it's conceivable that damage could be prevented, but anyone half decent abandoned and denigrated him during the campaign, and he cares about loyalty, so his inner circle is already self-selected for maximum sycophancy and valuelessness.
- alphonsegaston 10y ago
  All autocratic rulers are some form of a cipher, both for the cabal that does their dirty work and the totalitarian masses that enable them. It's irrelevant whether this is done by Trump directly, his administration, or thugs on the street. You can employ whichever tool accomplishes your aim, then reign it in to give the appearance of political normalcy.
- rayiner 10y ago
  They said that about GWB too. No institutions got dismantled. Despite the rhetoric, there is broad, bi-paratisan support for our big institutions: http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2015/11/Overview-1.png http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/201.... 87% of Americans think there is a "major role for government" in ensuring safe food and drugs. 75% of Americans think the same about protecting the environment. 70% think the same for education. 61% think that about healthcare. The FDA, EPA, Dept. of Ed., DHHS aren't going anywhere. Americans don't dislike our institutions. They dislike the people running our institutions (74% think politicians put their own interests ahead of the country's).
  - losvedir 10y ago
    Exactly. I feel like some of this rhetoric is a little overblown. That said, there are, I feel, realistic causes for concern. Although GWB didn't "dismantle institutions" he did get us into an unnecessary war with Iraq. Similarly, I'm getting a little afraid with Trump's appointments about what's going to happen in Iran. (That said, had Hillary won, I'd be feeling the same right now, probably, but towards Russia.)
spiderfarmer 10y ago
Seems like a sound strategy, but there's nothing preventing people Page, Musk, Gore, Bezos and others from walking out and speaking out in the future. "We know the man, tried to work with him, but he's a danger to society" sounds better than "we think he will be dangerous".
- alphonsegaston 10y ago
  Page, Musk, et al are the figures at the front of massive economic/political organizations with inertia far beyond their individual moral compunctions. So while you might see superficial defections, the collaboration will continue unabated by the larger forces that drive them.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
vinhboy 10y ago
I want to bookmark your comment, because I think you are so on point with what is happening. The greatest threat to the moderate people of this country is our insistent on believing that everyone is good, and that everything will be ok. We want to believe that so much we don't see the veil that has been pulled over our eyes. All his cabinet picks, all the things he has done with his businesses are a clear factual indicator of the kind president he will be, yet everyone in these high-minded forums, educated journalists, still want to give him the benefit of the doubt. It saddens me greatly that so many educated people continue to believe they can work with him, when it's clear that he has no intention of working with anyone, for anyone, but himself. I think this is because most of us have lived in relatively peace and prosperity our entire life. I hope I am wrong and that my stupidity will be laughed at in the coming months.

chasing 10y ago

My read is that Trump doesn't have any particular plan beyond fame and feeling important. If that means holding completely opposing views one day to the next, so be it. This is dangerous, don't get me wrong. And he's absolutely going to get used as a tool in smarter people's schemes. Let's just hope the good smarter people can get control of him instead of the bad smarter people...

singularity2001 10y ago
That seems pretty naïve to me. Remember he is not (solely) acting as an individual but as the front man for interest groups (Army, Exxon etc, not dissimilar to the Cheney gang)
- alphonsegaston 10y ago
  Yes, a major part of Trump's success is convincing both his supporters and opponents that he is the sole conduit through which power will operate. To his supporters, anything untoward among his underlings will be checked by the great man himself, while simultaneously, to his opponents, his obvious character flaws will be his undoing. Both create a false of impression of the need to withhold judgement/action, which allows his agents to continue their work unabated.
Retric 10y ago
He may be an incompetent businessman, but he is not an idiot. After near bankruptcy his current wealth is based on connections and an aura of competence. Basically, he puts his name up but not any wealth while getting a cut of a deal. But, his stick of saying things and then retracting them as 'not serious' statements is a very useful tool. Over time people notice they heard what they wanted to hear and his words are meaningless signals. But, there is a really long line of suckers ready to believe anyone that says what they want to hear. Making a moonshot for the presidency viable in ways where a career politician would have a long line of failures to follow though using the same approach.
- woofyman 10y ago
  >After near bankruptcy He declared chapter 11 bankruptcy 4 times. Edit: his businesses filed 4 times
  - Retric 10y ago
    His companies declared bankruptcy, but he personally did not. I recall some clip where he references walking with his son past a homeless guy and say "that guy has a billion dollars more than I do." referencing his at the time negative net worth. However, he continued to service or refinance that debt without declaring bankruptcy. PS: This is actually fairly common with real estate fortunes. They are based on leverage so dips can erase fortunes, but if they keep making payments they can get past that and end up positive.
  - MichaelGG 10y ago
    He filed for chapter 11 as an individual? I don't think that's correct, is it?
  - ams6110 10y ago
    Here, failure and bankruptcy is normally celebrated as part of the process of building successful companies.
    - Retric 10y ago
jinjin2 10y ago
> he's absolutely going to get used as a tool in smarter people's schemes This is already happening. Just see how the president of Taiwan played him, calling him up without going through the state department, in the full knowledge that he was probably not aware that he shouldn't take the call. She essentially forced him into a position where he had to say that changing the relation with Taiwan was his plan all along.
- mistermann 10y ago
  If anyone's playing him, it isn't the President of Taiwan. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/bob-dole-trump-taiwan-call http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/bob-dole-trump-taiwan-... http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/henry-kissinger-meets-china-president/2016/12/02/id/761953/ http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/henry-kissinger-meets-china-...

aetherson 10y ago

I think that you're overestimating Trump's ability to dismantle institutions, even if we stipulate that he's a machiavellian schemer who's successfully sowing chaos among his opponents by "destabilizing the narrative coherency."

MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
But he doesn't have to do any of the dismantling work himself. He's just installing the loyalists and sycophants who already understand that the mission is to raid the institutions/country of riches and integrity. He doesn't even need to openly give them instructions, just nod and say "Fantastic job."
- aetherson 10y ago
  You don't feel like your rhetoric is a little overblown? How does one "raid the institutions of integrity"? Even if that were your explicit job? Do you visit in the dark of night and go to their integrity safe, crack it, and then bring your stolen integrity home to add to your family's integrity store? At any rate, I wasn't saying that Trump is personally incompetent (I'm agnostic in that respect), and thus that he will not succeed in dismantling institutions. I'm saying that he's a figure within a Constitutional democracy with limited power, who does not have any kind of enormous political support, in a country with a long, stable government, and going up against entrenched interests. Might he do some damage? Of course. But in general, Presidents break against the entrenched powers in Washington, not the other way around. Four years from now, we'll have another election and probably Trump will be gone. Eight years from now, he'll definitely be gone. There's no sign that Trump has the ability to dismantle the government in the way that Putin did in Russia.
  - MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
    > You don't feel like your rhetoric is a little overblown? I hope it proves to be! Also I lol'ed at the integrity safe metaphor. >I'm saying that he's a figure within a Constitutional democracy with limited power, who does not have any kind of enormous political support, in a country with a long, stable government, and going up against entrenched interests. But to be serious, I think this response is making a number of dangerous assumptions, which I hear from a lot of moderate voices urging hope/non-alarm/give him a chance. To address them point by point: - The power of the executive branch relative to the others has steadily risen in the modern era. - I think he does have significant political support - the senate would likely have flipped if not for the party line support he generated. - Our "long, stable government" is only 238 years old, not really that significant on any timescale, even compared to other governments in recorded history. And has already included a catastrophic civil war that almost ended it. It's a hard cognitive bias to buck, underestimating our society's fragility. - Who are these entrenched interests he's going against? The "entrenched interests" of the left, well they may be entrenched, but they don't have trillions or even billions of dollars in their war chests. The actually powerful ones are all going to be represented on his cabinet. Like I said, I hope I'm being wrong and alarmist, but it seems like the prudent side to err on.

pm 10y ago

I agree somewhat, but I don't think that it's going to be Trump specifically disrupting institutions, so much as everyone else round him.

MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
Exactly. The disheartening thing is that he's so persuadable it's conceivable that damage could be prevented, but anyone half decent abandoned and denigrated him during the campaign, and he cares about loyalty, so his inner circle is already self-selected for maximum sycophancy and valuelessness.
alphonsegaston 10y ago
All autocratic rulers are some form of a cipher, both for the cabal that does their dirty work and the totalitarian masses that enable them. It's irrelevant whether this is done by Trump directly, his administration, or thugs on the street. You can employ whichever tool accomplishes your aim, then reign it in to give the appearance of political normalcy.
rayiner 10y ago
They said that about GWB too. No institutions got dismantled. Despite the rhetoric, there is broad, bi-paratisan support for our big institutions: http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2015/11/Overview-1.png http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/201.... 87% of Americans think there is a "major role for government" in ensuring safe food and drugs. 75% of Americans think the same about protecting the environment. 70% think the same for education. 61% think that about healthcare. The FDA, EPA, Dept. of Ed., DHHS aren't going anywhere. Americans don't dislike our institutions. They dislike the people running our institutions (74% think politicians put their own interests ahead of the country's).
- losvedir 10y ago
  Exactly. I feel like some of this rhetoric is a little overblown. That said, there are, I feel, realistic causes for concern. Although GWB didn't "dismantle institutions" he did get us into an unnecessary war with Iraq. Similarly, I'm getting a little afraid with Trump's appointments about what's going to happen in Iran. (That said, had Hillary won, I'd be feeling the same right now, probably, but towards Russia.)

spiderfarmer 10y ago

Seems like a sound strategy, but there's nothing preventing people Page, Musk, Gore, Bezos and others from walking out and speaking out in the future. "We know the man, tried to work with him, but he's a danger to society" sounds better than "we think he will be dangerous".

alphonsegaston 10y ago
Page, Musk, et al are the figures at the front of massive economic/political organizations with inertia far beyond their individual moral compunctions. So while you might see superficial defections, the collaboration will continue unabated by the larger forces that drive them.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

vinhboy 10y ago

I want to bookmark your comment, because I think you are so on point with what is happening. The greatest threat to the moderate people of this country is our insistent on believing that everyone is good, and that everything will be ok. We want to believe that so much we don't see the veil that has been pulled over our eyes. All his cabinet picks, all the things he has done with his businesses are a clear factual indicator of the kind president he will be, yet everyone in these high-minded forums, educated journalists, still want to give him the benefit of the doubt. It saddens me greatly that so many educated people continue to believe they can work with him, when it's clear that he has no intention of working with anyone, for anyone, but himself. I think this is because most of us have lived in relatively peace and prosperity our entire life. I hope I am wrong and that my stupidity will be laughed at in the coming months.