Do you guys see the pattern yet?

File: Dilbertman.jpg (79KB, 1024x979px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 1024x979px

>>127491119
The master persuader strikes again

he can't keep getting away with it

>>127491119
This has been obvious from the very beginning. It's amazing there are still so many that have yet to catch on. He even said so up front in the debates when he said you need to be flexible in policy, and while everyone on stage called him a flipflop, he just made a practical case on how to get things done properly.

He's still just a Civic Nationalist, so he's not the hero we need, but he can still be trusted to at least put a halt, even temporarily, to the absolute full throttle downward spiral the left has taken us down. He's like a second Reagan, but Reagan fucked up too, so we still need to watch out for bullshit he does by mistake, like when Reagan gave amnesty, or no-fault divorce, both things even he considered terrible mistakes in retrospect.

File: 632188932.jpg (111KB, 594x396px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 594x396px

>>127491119
I think you're probably correct as a general matter, but the analysis doesn't make sense in some cases.

There are certain issues in which Trump is not engaged in a negotiation with anyone in particular. Normally in a negotiation setting, you would throw out a hi ball offer at first, but eventually make your way to something lower. The reason you ultimately are willing to agree to a lower number is because you ultimately need approval from the other side of the table to get done whatever you seek out of the transaction (e.g., to buy a piece of property, both sides ultimately have to agree on a price). By moving away from your initial high-ball offer (which they would not accept), you gain something that you otherwise would not have (i.e., you gain their willingness to say ‘yes,’ and thus you get the property you are bargaining for).

The problem is that there are many issues on which Trump has made a concession from his “opening offer” so to speak, but in which he does not stand to gain anything in return. After Trump initially said he only wants to allow X number of refugees in the country, he does not stand to gain anything by now saying he will allow X+Y in. Trump had the authority to simply set the number at X. He didn’t need anyone’s approval to do so. So when Trump says he will offer to take in more than he originally stated, he does not gain anything that he otherwise did not have (unlike the example above, Trump didn’t need anyone’s willingness to say ‘yes’ on the offer).

An issue like NAFTA, on the other hand, is something that does make sense under your framework -- its a renegotiation of a deal that would require approval from the other parties to the deal. But the refugee issue...not so much...

>>127494144
I disagree. Trump does stand to gain things even in the case of refugees. He can't just go with his initial high ball offered as district courts, the press, and even general public will hammer him. His image and reputation is at stake, and, more practically speaking, so are his policies.

We saw this with the initial immigration halt, it was rejected by the district courts, the press absolutely slammed him, and the narrative got out that Trump was an incompetent Hitler. Trump learned and now has backed off on his initial ban, as have the press. The refugee flow is slower than it was but not so much that the Trump admin will take a ton of heat over it

>>127496985

This is nonsense.

>>127491119
wtf, duterte just signed that paris shit... Can we join trump?

>>127494144
He's negotiating with the GOP, which consist almost entirely of controlled opposition cucks who want nothing more than to suck liberal cock in the vain hopes of staying in office long enough to get enough money for a few new mansions paid by special interests and Soros subsidiaries.

Also (((Kushner)))

Point is, everything is a debate, and the other side he has to deal with is the entirety of Washington, all of which wants him dead, figuratively and possibly literally. We have no way of knowing what kind of deals he is making behind the scenes in order to get his policy plans through congress, all we can do is voice our concerns when we see things that look off, hope it turns out for the best, and judge the result in the next election year.

I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for four years, at which point I expect I will either consider him to be a net positive for the nation, or an obvious better option than whatever outright globalist minority checkbox disguised as a human the Democrats put up as a candidate and vote Trump in again anyways.

>>127497602
In what way? Care to elaborate?

It's a balancing act

Not sure why anyone is *surprised* by anything Trump does. He literally wrote the book on himself 30+ years ago.

NATO is a funny one. Guy has been bitching about NATO ally spending of 30+ years and was praised for it by both sides when he was trolling GHWB in the early 90s.

>>127494144
I'm sure when he was elected they showed him their personal copy of the Zapruder film and told him there are some lines he may not cross

>>127494144
I think that in the case of refugees he is negotiating with public opinion. That highball offer could open up the citizenry to accept the more moderate one he intended all along. Maybe.