Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)

[Todd]

Didn't Trump hijack the Republican party whilst not being a Conservative at heart on many issues?

That is correct.  However, McConnell and Ryan are more traditional conservatives, and despite focus on the president, it is Congress that controls the budget.  Trump will have to negotiate with his own party to get anything done.  Now, what that looks like is still developing.  For instance, how conservative does he go on the open SCOTUS seat to placate certain groups, and what does he get out of it?   

there is already talk behind the scenes on an European army.

Talk is fine, but I suspect the specter of substantial German remilitarization, which would be crucial to any effective European army, will cause many issues and delays.  Trump's non-interventionism - which should not be confused with true isolationism - will almost certainly prove far less potent than his campaign rhetoric promised.  I'm all for him putting the screws to Europe in terms of meeting defense expenditure targets, and in terms of European warm bodies replacing American warm bodies in some parts of Europe, but Trump will learn, if he doesn't already know, that simply redeploying tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of troops and shuttering multi-billion dollar facilities with valuable military assets has immediate electoral consequences at home.  Military contractors are hurt, which hits jobs in every state.  In addition, some defense programs are purposely designed to be multi-national (eg, the F35) to keep countries in the fold, though less to keep the US in the fold than fickle European nations.  (And then there are other arrangements like the surveillance programs with the English speaking countries.)  Combine that with what will probably be a fairly standard, and almost certainly more hawkish than Trump, national security team, and it is hard to see campaign rhetoric coming to fruition.  Hopefully he does soften the official US position to diplomatic relations with Russia and engage in more dialogue, and maybe he does work with Congress to weaken defense agreements with the Baltics and some other countries, but I seriously doubt NATO is going anywhere in the next four years.

As to how to pay for it, who are we kidding, from a political standpoint, deficits don't matter right now.  Trump should simply embrace the economic arguments of the left (eg, Paul Krugman), say that as a business decision, it is eminently sensible to borrow vast sums at current rates using 10 and 30 year maturity debt, and then splurge on infrastructure.  Only lip-service will be paid to controlling the budget, especially if promised tax cuts are made.

[Jo498]

Germany cannot be "re-militarized" without substantial re-negotiation of international treaties. It seems to be not sufficiently well known that one condition for the peaceful unification in 1990 was a reduction of the military as compared to the cold war status (Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Final_Settlement_with_Respect_to_Germany

I don't say that it absolutely cannot be done. But there are more hurdles than the unwillingness of Germany to pay more or sustain a larger military.

I know that it is a very unpopular opinion and I can understand why people from the former eastern bloc vehemently disagree but I think that re-enacting the cold war with the border pushed a little further east (so at least I can be grateful I will not be blasted to bits as I would have been in a 1980s WW III scenario but rather the Poles will) is not a great idea for peace in central/eastern Europe. This has to be achieved somehow together with Russia, not against them.
There is also no doubt that with the US gradually losing power in a global perspective and the emergence of a multipolar world "traditional" geostrategic alliances will matter again. A "central power" (geographically and economically, not militarily) like unified Germany cannot afford to cut all ties to Russia.

Therefore for me one of the few "silver linings" of Trump (as opposed to hawkish Hillary) is that with him the perspective for a less tense relation with Russia is better.

[Todd]

But there are more hurdles than the unwillingness of Germany to pay more or sustain a larger military.

The primary hurdle I see, existing treaties or not, is acceptance by other countries, starting with France.  If the German people prefer to not pay for a massive military, well, good for them.  But how could "Europe" have an effective military - meaning one with something even reasonably close to the scope and power of the US - without its largest, richest country in the mix?

The anti-Russian news stories (propaganda?) in the last few months of the campaign were troubling, to say the least.  Putin is a nasty guy, an autocrat, sure, but ratcheting up tensions with Russia when US security is not threatened is bad for America, and it would be worse for other countries if it escalated further.  US planners have the luxury of calculating damage done in other countries in the event of conventional warfare or skirmishes.  Let's try more jaw-jaw for now.

[James]

Trump may or may not be partisan, but he will have to appoint establishment Republicans to key roles.  Despite his brashness and promises to change things up, he will have to use many of the same people who other Republicans would have used.  His administration will be partisan.  And he has to rely on McConnell and Ryan to pass legislation.  I don't see them changing too terribly much.

This is it really. The country can expect little change in the next 4 years, more business-as-usual govt.

[James]

Contrary to tradition, it seems that Trump will not be living permanently in the White House, since he prefers New York, whereas Melania will.

Also, that "he was shocked to have won the election" (?), and plans to continue his rallies, which "are tremendous opportunities to get his messages out".

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/12/us/politics/trump-president.html?_r=0

I'm still scratching my head why he wanted the job at all. He's 70. How many summers does he have left? And his Mar-a-lago estate is absolutely beautiful, the privates jets, Trump tower etc. .. this whole president gig is a lifestyle downgrade and tonnes of aggravation & stress. He is his own man. He certainly can't be adding years!

[Turner]

The drastic cuts in European military has been going on for 25 years, so I doubt they are the result of any 1990-agreements concerning Germany. As the Wikipedia link above informs, the German army has only 2/3 of the soldiers allowed in the treaty.

This is overall changing now in Europe, reports say.

To me it´s quite absurd that for example the Russian, so-called "rebel army" in the miniature Donbass-Ukraine "republics" has more tanks than the combined armies of say the UK, Germany and the Czech Republic taken together.
( http://euromaidanpress.com/2015/05/26/separatists-in-donbas-have-more-tanks-than-germany-france-and-czech-republic-combined/
is one of many sources ).

Foreign policy should be a combination of both strength, as well as peace-seeking idealism acquainted with the most sophisticated conflict-handling.

The situation with Ukraine is complicated. There´s an aggression from Russia and some less fortunate acting from the West too, including that of idiotic visits to Ukraine by US generals literally giving American, worthless plastic medals to heavily wounded Ukraine soldiers, as if they were in American service. A total propaganda gift to Russia and a smack in the face to Ukrainian pride.

Obama seemed to recognize Ukraine as partly in Russia´s sphere of interest, and to give it low priority, not wanting to arm Ukraine. There´s a detailed interview with him telling of this. Whereas other US politicians wanted more intervention.

Somehow we don´t hear much of a possible international conference (also suggested by the more sensible Russian Yabloko politician Yavlinsky, unfortunately now completely marginalized) resulting in 1) the withdrawal of Russian troops 2) the establishing of UN/OSCE protection forces (Ukraine wants that, Russia is against it) 3) the establishing of a longer procedure leading to a new, lawful vote in Crimea 4) a new international treaty for the whole region.

Some international pressure for this could lead to a positive development.

[Turner]

I'm still scratching my head why he wanted the job at all. He's 70. How many summers does he have left? And his Mar-a-lago estate is absolutely beautiful, the privates jets, Trump tower etc. .. this whole president gig is a lifestyle downgrade and tonnes of aggravation & stress. He is his own man. He certainly can't be adding years!

I can´t say, but there´ll probably (?) be no more of him doing appearances like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMKFIHRpe7I

[Todd]

I can´t say, but there´ll probably (?) be no more of him doing appearances like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMKFIHRpe7I

Well, Donald Trump is the first president in the WWE Hall of Fame.  He is also the first president roasted on Comedy Central.  ("...they should call him the twentieth hijacker.")

[James]

And possibly one of the hottest, if not thee hottest first lady...

[James]

I can´t say, but there´ll probably (?) be no more of him doing appearances like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMKFIHRpe7I

Hahahaha ... or just being a great guest on the Howard Stern Show .. I always enjoyed his appearances there down through the years, he knew how to have fun in the spirit of that show.

[Kontrapunctus]

I'm hopeful that there are enough semi-same Republicans who will not go for some of his more extreme ideas (building the wall, deporting every illegal immigrant, arresting Hilary, etc.). He's already started back pedaling on some of his promises, such as completely dismantling Obamacare. Since he changes his position on issues more often than most people change their underwear, it's rather hard to predict what the next 4 years will look like! If nothing else, he's given comedians a lot of fresh material.

[Pat B]

Talk is fine, but I suspect the specter of substantial German remilitarization, which would be crucial to any effective European army, will cause many issues and delays.  Trump's non-interventionism - which should not be confused with true isolationism - will almost certainly prove far less potent than his campaign rhetoric promised.  I'm all for him putting the screws to Europe in terms of meeting defense expenditure targets, and in terms of European warm bodies replacing American warm bodies in some parts of Europe, but Trump will learn, if he doesn't already know, that simply redeploying tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of troops and shuttering multi-billion dollar facilities with valuable military assets has immediate electoral consequences at home.  Military contractors are hurt, which hits jobs in every state.  In addition, some defense programs are purposely designed to be multi-national (eg, the F35) to keep countries in the fold, though less to keep the US in the fold than fickle European nations.  (And then there are other arrangements like the surveillance programs with the English speaking countries.)  Combine that with what will probably be a fairly standard, and almost certainly more hawkish than Trump, national security team, and it is hard to see campaign rhetoric coming to fruition.  Hopefully he does soften the official US position to diplomatic relations with Russia and engage in more dialogue, and maybe he does work with Congress to weaken defense agreements with the Baltics and some other countries, but I seriously doubt NATO is going anywhere in the next four years.

As to how to pay for it, who are we kidding, from a political standpoint, deficits don't matter right now.  Trump should simply embrace the economic arguments of the left (eg, Paul Krugman), say that as a business decision, it is eminently sensible to borrow vast sums at current rates using 10 and 30 year maturity debt, and then splurge on infrastructure.  Only lip-service will be paid to controlling the budget, especially if promised tax cuts are made.

Trump's messaging on this stuff was characteristically inconsistent. He'd say we're spending too much for NATO and debt is out of control; then he'd turn around and say we're going to have the strongest military and you print the money.

I basically agree with your predictions.

[BasilValentine]

I'm hopeful that there are enough semi-same Republicans who will not go for some of his more extreme ideas (building the wall, deporting every illegal immigrant, arresting Hilary, etc.). He's already started back pedaling on some of his promises, such as completely dismantling Obamacare. Since he changes his position on issues more often than most people change their underwear, it's rather hard to predict what the next 4 years will look like! If nothing else, he's given comedians a lot of fresh material.

Is anyone actually gullible enough to think Trump plans to fulfill any promise that is not currently expedient? Seriously? Has anyone failed to notice what has happened to everyone who has trusted in Trump's name and promises over the last 40 years?

[Pat B]

Is anyone actually gullible enough to think Trump plans to fulfill any promise that is not currently expedient? Seriously? Has anyone failed to notice what has happened to everyone who has trusted in Trump's name and promises over the last 40 years?

It's not just his history. Presidential candidates have very little incentive to be honest about their agenda. They only have one more campaign and won't face a primary challenger in that. George W. Bush campaigned on opposition to nation-building, did the exact opposite, and still won re-election.

[Florestan]

It's not just his history. Presidential candidates have very little incentive to be honest about their agenda. They only have one more campaign and won't face a primary challenger in that. George W. Bush campaigned on opposition to nation-building, did the exact opposite, and still won re-election.

Yes.

Donald Trump promised a lot of things shamelessly lied in order to get elected. So what? He´s not the first, nor will he be the last, to do so.

But what strikes me as inconsistent is the "liberal" outrage at his backstepping. Had he confirmed his electoral agenda, he´d have been accused of being a far-right ideologue unable to comprehend the very notions of political negotiation and compromise; now that he´s soften his stances and seems to steer precisely towards negotiation and compromise, he is condemned for not being true to his promises. Damn if you do, damned if you don´t.

[Kontrapunctus]

Yes.

Donald Trump promised a lot of things shamelessly lied in order to get elected. So what? He´s not the first, nor will he be the last, to do so.

But what strikes me as inconsistent is the "liberal" outrage at his backstepping. Had he confirmed his electoral agenda, he´d have been accused of being a far-right ideologue unable to comprehend the very notions of political negotiation and compromise; now that he´s soften his stances and seems to steer precisely towards negotiation and compromise, he is condemned for not being true to his promises. Damn if you do, damned if you don´t.

I'm not condemning him for it, just pointing out as a possible source of comfort! I absolutely hope he operates with negotiation and compromise.

[Turner]

Donald Trump promised a lot of things shamelessly lied in order to get elected. So what? He´s not the first, nor will he be the last, to do so.

The scale of his lying on all subjects, the demagogical methods and destroying of a meaningful political debate was unprecedented in recent, developed Western democracies. There´s statistical evidence for it. Where do political debates go after this? Maybe a television-drugged American public got what it deserved, but there´s no doubt that because of his campaign, he´ll go down as an absolutely iconic figure in early 21st century Western history, as the most important promoter of post-factual politics.

[Florestan]

The scale of his lying on all subjects, the demagogical methods and destroying of a meaningful political debate was unprecedented in recent, developed Western democracies.

No, it wasn´t. Nigel Farage and the Brexit gang were at it before him.

a television-drugged American public got what it deserved

As opposed to the educated, autonomous, immaculate, benevolent and honest "liberal" elites who are nothing to be blamed for. Their only problem is that they should dissolve the people and elect another...

[Pat B]

But what strikes me as inconsistent is the "liberal" outrage at his backstepping. Had he confirmed his electoral agenda, he´d have been accused of being a far-right ideologue unable to comprehend the very notions of political negotiation and compromise; now that he´s soften his stances and seems to steer precisely towards negotiation and compromise, he is condemned for not being true to his promises. Damn if you do, damned if you don´t.

Liberals are outraged that he was elected, not that he has already started backtracking.

The liberal response to the latter is more like mild relief, and maybe a wry chuckle. The left certainly did not expect him to keep all of his promises.

[PerfectWagnerite]

I am just curious, which one of these talking points is Trump going to take action in? Forget accomplishing it:

1) Build a wall (and make Mexico pay for it)
2) deport 11million illegals
3) stand up to Putin
4) bring manufacturing jobs back
5) Achieve 6% (or is it 10%) GDP growth every year