7 ms·

Trump doesn't make "shitty" decisions. Trump makes effective decisions that support goals you find shitty.

FireBeyond 9y ago
Are they effective? Take into consideration his travel bans. Even if you support the goals, you would be hard pressed to argue that his decision and enactment process was ham-fisted and half-cocked, leading to many of the legal challenges being able to hold water. Knee-jerk responses, supporting statements that belied the goal ("this is not a travel ban" - "today we are putting a travel ban into place"), and so on. Effective decisions are reasoned and well planned, not shot from the hip, which you could argue many of his decisions are, even removing the -substance- of the decision or the topic from the equation.
- smsm42 9y ago
  > Take into consideration his travel bans. The ones where the Supreme Court essentially agreed with him, at least partially? I'd say he got what he wanted, even if with a delay. The goal was curtailing immigration from "bad" countries, and I think that has been achieved by him. And he also consolidated his base by showing that the other side will oppose what Trump's side considers fighting terrorism by any means, including legal tactics that look very questionable to a common person, like arguments "if other person did it, it is legal, but if Trump does it, it's illegal". > leading to many of the legal challenges being able to hold water There would be legal challenges in any case, and given how many judges are from the opposing party, at least some of them would succeed at least temporarily. It's unavoidable in any case - what's the point then taking it slow? It would just give the opposition more time to stall. Could he do it in a softer and more gradual manner? Of course he could, but which one of his goals would that promote? His goals are curtailing immigration from "bad" countries and showing his base that he's ready to act on that and to deliver results. I don't see how soft approach would serve those goals.
  - Izkata 9y ago
    > And he also consolidated his base by showing that the other side will oppose what Trump's side considers fighting terrorism by any means, including legal tactics that look very questionable to a common person, like arguments "if other person did it, it is legal, but if Trump does it, it's illegal". He did it even better than you're saying, there's a missing piece that's almost never mentioned: The list of countries in the travel ban were identified in 2015 and early 2016 during the Obama administration, and already had restrictions due to being the most likely sources of terrorism. Inconvenient truths like that are something I'd be concerned about being kept off of something like WikiTribune by squatters.
    - snowwrestler 9y ago
      Everybody already knows that, so it's hardly inconvenient. If you're going to go back and rest your argument on what the Obama administration did, then you still have to explain why Trump needed to do what he tried to do. Calling back to the Obama adminstration's actions makes it harder, not easier to justify Trump's EO. You have to explain why the Obama administration's actions were insufficient--which Trump staff did not even try to do. They just asserted that he had the authority to do it, regardless of any proof it was necessary.
r00fus 9y ago
Trump makes decisions that serve himself and his business associates first and foremost.
dragonwriter 9y ago
I think Trump actually does both; his decisions pursue goals that I find distasteful, but they often do so in a shortsighted manner that obstructs building coalitions to advance those goals and to maintain the short-term gains he makes. Of course, he could be playing 10-dimensional chess and cleverly be seeking more to wreak long-term chaos and disorder than to advance the superficially apparent agenda his actions seem to be aimed at. In which case you'd be right.
- mythrwy 9y ago
  It could be also not about sowing discord but that failure itself is the goal in some cases. What is said many times doesn't correspond to the real agenda. Take healthcare. Possibly a good number of politicians who crow about the evils of Obamacare really don't want it to fail. Otherwise it's going to cost their local districts money even though it's (conceptually) wildly unpopular with the constituency. So gosh darn it, they are trying really hard to overturn that evil communist plot but the pesky Democrats just keep blocking them at every turn! With Trump who knows. He is a wildcard. It's hard to say what the real agenda is but it's probably not what he is verbalizing. Or if it is he isn't a real politician yet :)
smsm42 9y ago
He does both. Though most of the stuff that is shitty-ineffective is noise, like saying something that offends people (usually those Trump or his hardcore supporters don't mind too much to offend). But when he does stuff, unlike his tweeting, it's much more organized and goal-oriented. He often behaves like a buffoon, but only in words, when he needs something, he knows how to get it. Of course, one may severely disagree with his goals, but that's another question, as you noted.
- patrickk 9y ago
  A measure of a good politician is the ability to pass legislation, which is why Regan is regarded as an effective president regardless of what political view you had. A balanced view of Trump's pre-election promises and his ability to deliver on them is decidedly mixed, especially on the bigger promises like health and the wall: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37982000 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37982000
  - smsm42 9y ago
    Trump's legislative record is indeed a mixed bag at best, and the healthcare reform attempt has been an unquestionable failure. But he can't legislate by himself, so the Congress plays a major role there. But if you look at his regulatory record, where he can act alone, his actions has been much more efficient. > http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37982000 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37982000 This is not really a good list - e.g. Trump never really promised "Ban on Muslims" - it said once something that could be interpreted this way, and walked it back very quickly. And, as you know, Supreme Court did agree with him on travel restrictions (which aren't "ban on Muslims"). Also, saying all illegal immigrants "have to go" is not the same as saying he will deport all of them, let alone in the first year. It's like politician saying "murder is wrong" and then BBC would quote statistics of murder still happening as evidence of broken campaign promise. One should distinguish ideal picture as a statement and realistic possible picture as a policy. He also never promised to "ditch NATO", not even close. He made some sounds that how the alliance is arranged is obsolete, but walked most of it back, and what remained was about how much money each member pays. He did not make any specific promise on prosecuting Clinton. Even BBC notes the most he said is "fresh investigation", not prosecution. Investigation and prosecution are very different things. Of course, many Trump supporters would like to see Clinton prosecuted, but that doesn't mean Trump promised anything specific there. Overall, BBC interpretation sounds very distorted, treating genuine campaign promises (like Obamacare reform) and random campaign rhetoric or random interview phrasethat was subsequently either substantially modified or completely abandoned by the election time as same kind of promise and rating them alike. This is a shoddy job.
peteretep 9y ago
> Trump doesn't make "shitty" decisions Shouldn't he have a string of some kind of victories by now, then? The only thing he can point to as an achievement to date appears to be the Gorsuch confirmation.
- rdtsc 9y ago
  > The only thing he can point to as an achievement to date appears to be the Gorsuch confirmation. I don't even know if that counts as a goal or achievement. There was a seat to fill so it was filled. I guess depends how you look at it. Maybe pulling out of TPP? That was a major issue with Bernie supporters and was one the first things he did. Even then I remember being on /r/politics afterward and seeing comments about how "Maybe TPP is good and we should support it now that Trump took action against it". Externally maybe making progress with ISIS? There was a pretty significant reduction of its territory. I was always baffled how during the last 8 years the rise of ISIS was portrayed as a complete surprise the US government, CIA just "couldn't believe" how fast it spread. Wonder how hard they worked to stop it, if even an amateur TV personality could make relatively quick progress of it in a short time. Many supporters would say economy. It's hard to deny that the stock market has been doing pretty well. And, yes, the argument is that presidents don't really have that much influence on long term trends, which I agree with. However, in the PR domain, I imagine had the stock market gone down by the same amount, there would be no end to articles claiming "look what Trump" did. Consumer confidence is allegedly at a 17 year high. At least Bloomberg says so https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-31/u-s-consumer-confidence-index-rises-to-highest-level-since-2000 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-31/u-s-consu.... Kind of like the stock market thing, who's the president probably doesn't matter, but had it gone the opposite way there would be a lot of talk how the president caused it go down. As they say, give the devil what belongs to the devil. Trump should be criticized and scrutinized. But it has to be an intelligent and effective criticism. It is rather disappointed to see things like how many scoops of ice-cream he ate, or how long he shook Macron's hand, or that he is stupid and has orange hair. A lot of the media has been reduced to those kind of stories.
  - forapurpose 9y ago
    > making progress with ISIS They follow the same plan as the Obama administration: Build up Iraqi political authority and military effectiveness until they are ready to both drive out ISIS themselves, and to maintain military and political control of the areas on the long term. Under Obama, they built up the Iraqi army from the one that fled ISIS en mass to one that could fight long, difficult battles and hold ground permanently, and they built up the Iraqi central government's political authority. Under Obama were the first few victories and tests of the rebuilt Iraqi army, and they continued moving forward under the Trump administration. It's based on a lesson the U.S. (re)learned in both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars: Driving out the enemy militarily is only the first step, and not at all sufficient. Then someone must establish political authority, including military control over the area and its people, or the enemy will simply return to claim it themselves - which is what happened with ISIS. The most famous dictum in military affairs is that 'war is politics by other means'. (Also, it makes more sense for the Iraqis to die for the nation of Iraq than the Americans.) It's very hard for a foreign occupier to establish that political authority and maintain military control - imagine the prospect of the Iraqi army, no matter what their resources, trying to establish political authority in your town - and it requires lives and massive expenditures over decades, more than the U.S. is willing to invest (thankfully). Note that even the great historical empires used locals to run their foreign territories - overseen, of course, by an imperial governor and garrison.
snowwrestler 9y ago
Yes, he's so effective that all of his major executive actions and legislative priorities have failed so far. And this doesn't even get into his goals whose impossibility is obvious to people with real information--like getting Mexico to pay for the wall, or boosting the U.S. economy by starting trade wars, or getting China to put a leash on North Korea's nuclear program, or growing jobs in the coal power industry, etc.

Are they effective? Take into consideration his travel bans. Even if you support the goals, you would be hard pressed to argue that his decision and enactment process was ham-fisted and half-cocked, leading to many of the legal challenges being able to hold water. Knee-jerk responses, supporting statements that belied the goal ("this is not a travel ban" - "today we are putting a travel ban into place"), and so on. Effective decisions are reasoned and well planned, not shot from the hip, which you could argue many of his decisions are, even removing the -substance- of the decision or the topic from the equation.

smsm42 9y ago
> Take into consideration his travel bans. The ones where the Supreme Court essentially agreed with him, at least partially? I'd say he got what he wanted, even if with a delay. The goal was curtailing immigration from "bad" countries, and I think that has been achieved by him. And he also consolidated his base by showing that the other side will oppose what Trump's side considers fighting terrorism by any means, including legal tactics that look very questionable to a common person, like arguments "if other person did it, it is legal, but if Trump does it, it's illegal". > leading to many of the legal challenges being able to hold water There would be legal challenges in any case, and given how many judges are from the opposing party, at least some of them would succeed at least temporarily. It's unavoidable in any case - what's the point then taking it slow? It would just give the opposition more time to stall. Could he do it in a softer and more gradual manner? Of course he could, but which one of his goals would that promote? His goals are curtailing immigration from "bad" countries and showing his base that he's ready to act on that and to deliver results. I don't see how soft approach would serve those goals.
- Izkata 9y ago
  > And he also consolidated his base by showing that the other side will oppose what Trump's side considers fighting terrorism by any means, including legal tactics that look very questionable to a common person, like arguments "if other person did it, it is legal, but if Trump does it, it's illegal". He did it even better than you're saying, there's a missing piece that's almost never mentioned: The list of countries in the travel ban were identified in 2015 and early 2016 during the Obama administration, and already had restrictions due to being the most likely sources of terrorism. Inconvenient truths like that are something I'd be concerned about being kept off of something like WikiTribune by squatters.
  - snowwrestler 9y ago
    Everybody already knows that, so it's hardly inconvenient. If you're going to go back and rest your argument on what the Obama administration did, then you still have to explain why Trump needed to do what he tried to do. Calling back to the Obama adminstration's actions makes it harder, not easier to justify Trump's EO. You have to explain why the Obama administration's actions were insufficient--which Trump staff did not even try to do. They just asserted that he had the authority to do it, regardless of any proof it was necessary.

r00fus 9y ago

Trump makes decisions that serve himself and his business associates first and foremost.

dragonwriter 9y ago

I think Trump actually does both; his decisions pursue goals that I find distasteful, but they often do so in a shortsighted manner that obstructs building coalitions to advance those goals and to maintain the short-term gains he makes. Of course, he could be playing 10-dimensional chess and cleverly be seeking more to wreak long-term chaos and disorder than to advance the superficially apparent agenda his actions seem to be aimed at. In which case you'd be right.

mythrwy 9y ago
It could be also not about sowing discord but that failure itself is the goal in some cases. What is said many times doesn't correspond to the real agenda. Take healthcare. Possibly a good number of politicians who crow about the evils of Obamacare really don't want it to fail. Otherwise it's going to cost their local districts money even though it's (conceptually) wildly unpopular with the constituency. So gosh darn it, they are trying really hard to overturn that evil communist plot but the pesky Democrats just keep blocking them at every turn! With Trump who knows. He is a wildcard. It's hard to say what the real agenda is but it's probably not what he is verbalizing. Or if it is he isn't a real politician yet :)

smsm42 9y ago

He does both. Though most of the stuff that is shitty-ineffective is noise, like saying something that offends people (usually those Trump or his hardcore supporters don't mind too much to offend). But when he does stuff, unlike his tweeting, it's much more organized and goal-oriented. He often behaves like a buffoon, but only in words, when he needs something, he knows how to get it. Of course, one may severely disagree with his goals, but that's another question, as you noted.

patrickk 9y ago
A measure of a good politician is the ability to pass legislation, which is why Regan is regarded as an effective president regardless of what political view you had. A balanced view of Trump's pre-election promises and his ability to deliver on them is decidedly mixed, especially on the bigger promises like health and the wall: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37982000 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37982000
- smsm42 9y ago
  Trump's legislative record is indeed a mixed bag at best, and the healthcare reform attempt has been an unquestionable failure. But he can't legislate by himself, so the Congress plays a major role there. But if you look at his regulatory record, where he can act alone, his actions has been much more efficient. > http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37982000 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37982000 This is not really a good list - e.g. Trump never really promised "Ban on Muslims" - it said once something that could be interpreted this way, and walked it back very quickly. And, as you know, Supreme Court did agree with him on travel restrictions (which aren't "ban on Muslims"). Also, saying all illegal immigrants "have to go" is not the same as saying he will deport all of them, let alone in the first year. It's like politician saying "murder is wrong" and then BBC would quote statistics of murder still happening as evidence of broken campaign promise. One should distinguish ideal picture as a statement and realistic possible picture as a policy. He also never promised to "ditch NATO", not even close. He made some sounds that how the alliance is arranged is obsolete, but walked most of it back, and what remained was about how much money each member pays. He did not make any specific promise on prosecuting Clinton. Even BBC notes the most he said is "fresh investigation", not prosecution. Investigation and prosecution are very different things. Of course, many Trump supporters would like to see Clinton prosecuted, but that doesn't mean Trump promised anything specific there. Overall, BBC interpretation sounds very distorted, treating genuine campaign promises (like Obamacare reform) and random campaign rhetoric or random interview phrasethat was subsequently either substantially modified or completely abandoned by the election time as same kind of promise and rating them alike. This is a shoddy job.

peteretep 9y ago

> Trump doesn't make "shitty" decisions Shouldn't he have a string of some kind of victories by now, then? The only thing he can point to as an achievement to date appears to be the Gorsuch confirmation.

rdtsc 9y ago
> The only thing he can point to as an achievement to date appears to be the Gorsuch confirmation. I don't even know if that counts as a goal or achievement. There was a seat to fill so it was filled. I guess depends how you look at it. Maybe pulling out of TPP? That was a major issue with Bernie supporters and was one the first things he did. Even then I remember being on /r/politics afterward and seeing comments about how "Maybe TPP is good and we should support it now that Trump took action against it". Externally maybe making progress with ISIS? There was a pretty significant reduction of its territory. I was always baffled how during the last 8 years the rise of ISIS was portrayed as a complete surprise the US government, CIA just "couldn't believe" how fast it spread. Wonder how hard they worked to stop it, if even an amateur TV personality could make relatively quick progress of it in a short time. Many supporters would say economy. It's hard to deny that the stock market has been doing pretty well. And, yes, the argument is that presidents don't really have that much influence on long term trends, which I agree with. However, in the PR domain, I imagine had the stock market gone down by the same amount, there would be no end to articles claiming "look what Trump" did. Consumer confidence is allegedly at a 17 year high. At least Bloomberg says so https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-31/u-s-consumer-confidence-index-rises-to-highest-level-since-2000 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-31/u-s-consu.... Kind of like the stock market thing, who's the president probably doesn't matter, but had it gone the opposite way there would be a lot of talk how the president caused it go down. As they say, give the devil what belongs to the devil. Trump should be criticized and scrutinized. But it has to be an intelligent and effective criticism. It is rather disappointed to see things like how many scoops of ice-cream he ate, or how long he shook Macron's hand, or that he is stupid and has orange hair. A lot of the media has been reduced to those kind of stories.
- forapurpose 9y ago
  > making progress with ISIS They follow the same plan as the Obama administration: Build up Iraqi political authority and military effectiveness until they are ready to both drive out ISIS themselves, and to maintain military and political control of the areas on the long term. Under Obama, they built up the Iraqi army from the one that fled ISIS en mass to one that could fight long, difficult battles and hold ground permanently, and they built up the Iraqi central government's political authority. Under Obama were the first few victories and tests of the rebuilt Iraqi army, and they continued moving forward under the Trump administration. It's based on a lesson the U.S. (re)learned in both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars: Driving out the enemy militarily is only the first step, and not at all sufficient. Then someone must establish political authority, including military control over the area and its people, or the enemy will simply return to claim it themselves - which is what happened with ISIS. The most famous dictum in military affairs is that 'war is politics by other means'. (Also, it makes more sense for the Iraqis to die for the nation of Iraq than the Americans.) It's very hard for a foreign occupier to establish that political authority and maintain military control - imagine the prospect of the Iraqi army, no matter what their resources, trying to establish political authority in your town - and it requires lives and massive expenditures over decades, more than the U.S. is willing to invest (thankfully). Note that even the great historical empires used locals to run their foreign territories - overseen, of course, by an imperial governor and garrison.

snowwrestler 9y ago

Yes, he's so effective that all of his major executive actions and legislative priorities have failed so far. And this doesn't even get into his goals whose impossibility is obvious to people with real information--like getting Mexico to pay for the wall, or boosting the U.S. economy by starting trade wars, or getting China to put a leash on North Korea's nuclear program, or growing jobs in the coal power industry, etc.