What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

The Trump Doctrine (1 Viewer)

timschochet

Footballguy
Yes yet another thread about Donald Trump. But I’m finally starting to see a pattern and method here. He’s not playing 5D chess, but he is consistently playing a game of sorts, the same game over and over. The Trump Doctrine: 

1. Talk crazy and chaotic.

2. Threaten the absolute worst result.

3. Take no actual step except with extreme caution. 

4. Hope the other side eventually caves. 

Lets look at 5 examples: 

Korea Trump spends months calling Kim names like Rocket Man.He freaks the world out by threatening nuclear annihilation of North Korea. Then he very cautiously does nothing except begin to re-impose some of the very same sanctions that were imposed before. North Korea comes to the table, and this may be in part because they were scared of Trump’s threats. If so, the Trump Doctrine in this instance is successful. 

Iran Trump promises to end the the Iran deal. He threatens that unless he gets a better deal he’ll blow the whole thing up. Europe freaks out, pleads with Trump not to do this. So far Trump, when push comes to shove, cautiously has continued the deal, while threatening to remove it. He is hoping for Iran to cave and offer him a better deal, and that Europe, scared of Trump, will pressure Iran to do so. 

Trade Trump announces tariffs. Freaks out the world, our trading partners, Wall Street. Trump only enacts a few tariffs very cautiously while promising a ton more. He’s waiting for other countries, scared of what he might do, to offer him concessions. 

Russian Scandal Trump attacks the credibility of the FBI. Threatens to fire Mueller, Rosenstein if this thing doesn’t go away. Acts unhinged and chaotic, yet never fires Mueller or Rosenstein or Sessions. Hoping that his threats and bluster will cause this story to go away or, at least bring enough public opinion to his side. 

Immigration Trump’s latest threat: he will shut down the government in September unless they fund his wall. 

Do you guys see the same pattern or am I just creating one where none exists? It seems to me that in each case (and in several others I haven’t mentioned,) Trump talks unhinged and crazy, threatens the worst, does very little and sits back and waits. Again, this is not some great mastermind strategy. But it does seem rather consistent to me. 

 
This is actually a pretty well-thought out posting. Sounds like exactly what he does. 

The Art Of The Deal and all that.  

 
Yes yet another thread about Donald Trump. But I’m finally starting to see a pattern and method here. He’s not playing 5D chess, but he is consistently playing a game of sorts, the same game over and over. The Trump Doctrine: 

1. Talk crazy and chaotic.

2. Threaten the absolute worst result.

3. Take no actual step except with extreme caution. 

4. Hope the other side eventually caves. 

Lets look at 5 examples: 

Korea Trump spends months calling Kim names like Rocket Man.He freaks the world out by threatening nuclear annihilation of North Korea. Then he very cautiously does nothing except begin to re-impose some of the very same sanctions that were imposed before. North Korea comes to the table, and this may be in part because they were scared of Trump’s threats. If so, the Trump Doctrine in this instance is successful. 

Iran Trump promises to end the the Iran deal. He threatens that unless he gets a better deal he’ll blow the whole thing up. Europe freaks out, pleads with Trump not to do this. So far Trump, when push comes to shove, cautiously has continued the deal, while threatening to remove it. He is hoping for Iran to cave and offer him a better deal, and that Europe, scared of Trump, will pressure Iran to do so. 

Trade Trump announces tariffs. Freaks out the world, our trading partners, Wall Street. Trump only enacts a few tariffs very cautiously while promising a ton more. He’s waiting for other countries, scared of what he might do, to offer him concessions. 

Russian Scandal Trump attacks the credibility of the FBI. Threatens to fire Mueller, Rosenstein if this thing doesn’t go away. Acts unhinged and chaotic, yet never fires Mueller or Rosenstein or Sessions. Hoping that his threats and bluster will cause this story to go away or, at least bring enough public opinion to his side. 

Immigration Trump’s latest threat: he will shut down the government in September unless they fund his wall. 

Do you guys see the same pattern or am I just creating one where none exists? It seems to me that in each case (and in several others I haven’t mentioned,) Trump talks unhinged and crazy, threatens the worst, does very little and sits back and waits. Again, this is not some great mastermind strategy. But it does seem rather consistent to me. 
Absolutely see the pattern and the results seem to be decent. Eventually people might start calling his bluff more often, I don't know. His reputation and bluster are definitely making this a somewhat effective approach for the moment. 

 
1. Talk crazy and chaotic.

2. Threaten the absolute worst result.

3. Take no actual step except with extreme caution. 

4. Hope the other side eventually caves. 
This is basically the behavior of a 5 year old.

1. Act out, cause controversy.

2. Threaten emotional blackmail ('I hate you!' 'You torture me!').

3. Contrition when faced with consequences. See if anyone notices.

4. Suggest a cookie snack or ice cream treat. Play like it never happened.

 
The Trump Doctrine:
In seriousness, I don't think there is a Trump Doctrine because doctrine implies policy or theory.

In Syria he bombs the site, not because of US interests, or human rights, but because he was embarrassed.

In NK he agrees to the meeting with KJU, not because of our military presence in the Pacific, or our commitment to democracy, or our alliance with Korea, but because he was there when the South Korean delegation popped in with a proposal from Moon and the press corps was waiting outside.

There were 9 sites presented for the meeting with KJU, the DMZ was not one of them. Trump wants it because he wants the TV moment Moon had with KJU.

I think if there's a doctrine, it's 'Disruption is Power' and its corollary is 'Optics is Power.' That's pretty much it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
This is basically the behavior of a 5 year old.

1. Act out, cause controversy.

2. Threaten emotional blackmail ('I hate you!' 'You torture me!').

3. Contrition when faced with consequences. See if anyone notices.

4. Suggest a cookie snack or ice cream treat. Play like it never happened.


SaintsInDome2006 said:
In seriousness, I don't think there is a Trump Doctrine because doctrine implies policy or theory.

In Syria he bombs the site, not because of US interests, or human rights, but because he was embarrassed.

In NK he agrees to the meeting with KJU, not because of our military presence in the Pacific, or our commitment to democracy, or our alliance with Korea, but because he was there when the South Korean delegation popped in with a proposal from Moon and the press corps was waiting outside.

There were 9 sites presented for the meeting with KJU, the DMZ was not one of them. Trump wants it because he wants the TV moment Moon had with KJU.

I think if there's a doctrine, it's 'Disruption is Power' and its corollary is 'Optics is Power.' That's pretty much it.
The doctrine is most definitely, "I'm the loudest bully on the playground and you'll do what I say because I said so....!!"

 
I mostly agree but he is differen In that he follows thorough like bombing Syria. He doesn’t say This is the redline and not follow through. I absolutely think other leaders take notice of this and know Trump doesn’t bluff. Or if he does gambling against him isn’t worth it. Too great a risk he may follow through. 

NK is coming around, 3 prisoners are being released, this is purely Trumps doing. Trump doesn’t care who he offends.  He knows what he wants and doesn’t care who he offends to get it. 

I personally don’t care for his style but he gets results. Depending on what side of the isle you’re on you either like those results or you don’t. 

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
This is basically the behavior of a 5 year old.

1. Act out, cause controversy.

2. Threaten emotional blackmail ('I hate you!' 'You torture me!').

3. Contrition when faced with consequences. See if anyone notices.

4. Suggest a cookie snack or ice cream treat. Play like it never happened.
Sounds like a crazy ex-girlfriend...

 
There's a lot going on in the world and I think that Trump's foreign policy tendencies and habits are cutting across issues now. This whole episode with KJU balking at trump's insistence on dictating the results of the summit before it happens is a good example, so is the insane withdrawal from the Iran pact. Not because of the pact itself but because of the complete lack of reasoning behind it. There seem to be similarities with these two events but also TPP, Nafta, the Paris accords, and the Chinese trade 'negotiations'.

*****************************

Anyway I thought this thread was interesting.

Ilan Goldenberg‏Verified account @ilangoldenberg

1. As someone who was part of diplomatic talks, this story on how Trump team screwed up China negotiations is a textbook case of nearly EVERY SINGLE THING you should NOT do. Bodes badly for North Korea summit. Let’s pick it apart step by grueling step

2. Before the talks. Fail to prepare. Don’t have sufficient deliberations to come to a common negotiating position as a team. This is where you need an engaged POTUS to listen to the disagreements among the team & set guidance. Of course Trump won’t do that

3. During the talks. Because you failed to prepare have “profanity laced shouting matches” amongst yourselves in front of the Chinese encouraging them to exploit splits in the US team

4. Have the President publicly tweet sensitive concessions he plans to make causing a backlash in Congress that shuts down those options before they’ve even been offered or negotiated. now you’ve taken away your negotiating space

5. Also leak China’s concession to the press causing them to have to deny the concessions publicly and forcing the Chinese to & take a harder line. Now you’ve taken away your counterpart’s negotiating space

6. After the talks fail have various members of the team come out with different positions that publicly criticize the results of the negotiations and each other. Because that sends a good signal before the next negotiating round

7. Top it off with a front page NY Times story where clearly many of the US negotiators disparaged each other to the press. Because I’m sure they’ll now work really well as a team going forward.

8. Good luck with the North Korea summit. Glad we got rid of the JCPOA to negotiate a better deal. And of course we’ll get the ultimate deal on Israel-Palestine. God help us all

A late additional point. Diplomatic negotiations on tough issues are really really hard. Even without all these basic unforced errors, likelihood of success is often low. With these errors it’s impossible

*****************************

- Helpful snips and links in the thread.

 
  • Smile
Reactions: Zow
John Feeley, the Ambassador to Panama and a former Marine helicopter pilot, is not averse to strong language, but he was nevertheless startled by his first encounter with President Donald Trump. Summoned to deliver a briefing in June, 2017, he was outside the Oval Office when he overheard Trump concluding a heated conversation, “#### him! Tell him to sue the government.” Feeley was escorted in, and saw that Mike Pence, John Kelly, and several other officials were in the room. As he took a seat, Trump asked, “So tell me—what do we get from Panama? What’s in it for us?”
Former Ambassador to Panama.

 
I ordinarily wouldn't post a link to Breitbart but this bears mentioning. An interview with new US ambassador to Germany Rick Grenell.
 

BERLIN, Germany: Trumpian U.S. Ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell has expressed great excitement over the wave of anti-establishment conservatism in Europe, saying he wants to “empower” leaders of the movement.

At a sit-down interview at his official residence in Berlin with Breitbart London, Ambassador Grenell said: “There are a lot of conservatives throughout Europe who have contacted me to say they are feeling there is a resurgence going on.”

“I absolutely want to empower other conservatives throughout Europe, other leaders. I think there is a groundswell of conservative policies that are taking hold because of the failed policies of the left,” he added.

“There’s no question about that and it’s an exciting time for me. I look across the landscape and we’ve got a lot of work to do but I think the election of Donald Trump has empowered individuals and people to say that they can’t just allow the political class to determine before an election takes place, who’s going to win and who should run.”

The U.S. ambassador spoke of the small circle of political and media elites saying, “That’s a very powerful moment when you can grasp the ability to see past the group-think of a very small elitist crowd telling you you have no chance to win or you’ll never win, or they mock you early on.”

...

Unafraid to name names, Mr Grenell expressed a deep respect and admiration for the young Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz saying, “Look, I think Sebastian Kurz is a rockstar. I’m a big fan.”

Chancellor Kurz, leader of the conservative Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP), formed a coalition with the populist Freedom Party (FPÖ) earlier this year, and has been one of the strongest advocates for securing the European Union’s external border.

Not long after the formation of the coalition, Kurz stood up to German Chancellor Angela Merkel, rejecting the controversial European Union migrant quota system.

He was also been a leading conservative on the topic of counter-Islamisation while Foreign Minister in the previous coalition government, advocating and helping to pass a ban on the full-face Islamic veil.
- These groups are also typically anti-NATO & anti-EU.

 
As Trump’s dramatic moves have played out this spring and hardened into a Presidential narrative of American victimization at the hands of free-riding allies, senior government officials in Washington, London, Berlin, and other European capitals have told me they now worry that Trump may be a greater immediate threat to the alliance than even authoritarian great-power rivals, such as Russia and China. Equally striking is the extent to which America’s long-term allies have no real strategy for coping with the challenges posed by such an American President. Trump may be reorienting U.S. foreign policy away from its closest historical friends, such as Great Britain and Germany, and toward those with whom Trump is more politically aligned in Israel, the Gulf, and along Europe’s restive fringes, but his traditional partners have no real strategy for how to respond.

Last year, the German Foreign Office embarked on what two sources described to me as its first-ever effort to produce an America strategy aimed at answering that question, with the goal of producing a strategy document similar to those it has for adversaries. “Essentially, it’s an overhaul of German foreign policy,” a senior German official told me, “since the key assumption being called into question is the total reliance we have on the friendship with the U.S.” Work on the new strategy began after Trump’s Inauguration but accelerated last spring, after the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, returned from Trump’s initial foray into international summitry rattled by him and announced that “Europeans must really take our fate into our own hands.” The painful realization, the senior German official said, was that “we might get to a situation where we see Americans not only as friends and partners but also as competitors and adversaries. We don’t want to do that. That is how we treat other great powers around the globe, like Russia and China.”
- Germany is developing an "America strategy."

 
At a meeting devised for cooperation and comity, public smiles and descriptions of “cordial” conversations were undercut by what officials said was a struggle to agree on a common direction. The likelihood grew that the United States could be frozen out of a joint statement of principles by the countries that have so often followed America’s lead.

“The rules-based international order is being challenged, quite surprisingly, not by the usual suspects, but by its main architect and guarantor, the U.S.,” Donald Tusk, the president of the European Council, said as the summit meeting got underway in Quebec’s picturesque resort town of La Malbaie on the banks of the St. Lawrence River.

he trans-Atlantic rift manifested itself in a behind-the-scenes debate about the wording of the traditional summit communiqué. The American side objected to including the phrase “rules-based international order,” even though it is boilerplate for such statements, according to two people briefed on the deliberations. The Europeans and Canadians were pushing back, but it remained unclear whether the Trump administration would ultimately sign the statement or be left on its own.

The behind-the-scenes dispute over language sharpened the sense of isolation for the American president at a conference that some have branded the “G-6 plus 1,” a snide reference to Mr. Trump. By the end of a long day of meetings, American officials said they still hoped to find some way to a common statement.
- NYT

 
Last edited by a moderator:
thought this was an interesting article from wapo: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/it-doesnt-matter-well-see-the-trump-doctrine-is-sounding-more-fatalistic-every-day/2018/10/18/218d3b8a-d14d-11e8-83d6-291fcead2ab1_story.html?utm_term=.7728c14ea0ca

“I try and tell myself it doesn’t matter,” Trump replied. “Nothing matters. If you tell yourself it doesn’t matter — like you do shows, you do this, you do that, and then you have earthquakes in India where 400,000 people get killed. Honestly, it doesn’t matter.”

.....

“It doesn’t matter,” Trump said eventually. “We won.”

.....

“We’ll see what happens with Iran,” Trump said Sept. 5. “Whether they want to talk or not, that’s up to them, not up to me. I will always be available, but it doesn’t matter one way or the other.”

.....

“Life is what you do while you’re waiting to die,” Trump told Playboy in 1990. “ . . . We’re here and we live our 60, 70 or 80 years and we’re gone. You win, you win, and in the end, it doesn’t mean a hell of a lot.”

.....

“We’re going to see what happens,” he said in reference to U.S. troops in Syria. “We’re going to see what happens.”

.....

“It doesn’t matter,” Trump said in January 2016, when asked about his flip-flopping political views.

“It doesn’t matter,” a White House aide said in May about John McCain and his opposition to Trump’s nominee for CIA director. “He’s dying anyway.”

“It doesn’t matter,” Trump said two separate times during his Sept. 20 rally in Las Vegas, where he also said “let’s see what happens” twice.

 
FULL PRICE PLUS 50% OR MORE: TRUMP SEEKS FINANCIAL COMPENSATIONS FROM FROM NATIONS HOSTING U.S. TROOPS

The Trump administration is drawing up demands that Germany, Japan and eventually any other nation hosting US troops pay the full price of US soldiers deployed on their soil – plus 50% or more for the privilege of hosting them, according to multiple reports in US media citin various anonymous officials and ‘informed sources’.

According to reports, in some cases, nations hosting US troops could be asked to pay 5 to 6 times as much as they do now under the “Cost Plus 50” formula

“Trump has championed the idea for months. His insistence on it almost derailed recent talks with South Korea over the status of 28,000 US troops in the country when he overruled his negotiators with a note to National Security Advisor John Bolton saying, “We want cost plus 50.”

The president’s team sees the move as one way to prod Nato partners into accelerating increases in defence spending – an issue Trump has hammered allies about since taking office. While Trump claims his pressure has led to billions of dollars more in allied defence spending, he’s chafed at what he sees as the slow pace of increases.

“Wealthy, wealthy countries that we’re protecting are all under notice,” Trump said in a speech at the Pentagon on Jan 17. “We cannot be the fools for others.”

Officials caution that the idea is one of many under consideration as the US presses allies to pay more, and it may be toned down. Yet even at this early stage, it has sent shock waves through the departments of Defence and State, where officials fear it will be an especially large affront to stalwart US allies in Asia and Europe already questioning the depth of Trump’s commitment to them,” The Straits Times reported on the issue.

So far, Trump’s idea to raise funds from US allies have faced a large wave of criticism in the mainstream media. The common argument is that this move would demonstrate a lack of “commitment” to US allies in Europe and Asia. On the other hand, this move seems logical in the framework of the Trump-declared strategy to strengthen the US national industry, including the military industrial complex. The Trump administration is not going to abandon US military infrastructure around the world, but it does not want to pay for it as much as it does.

From the European perspective, all EU nations, which have been for a long time exploiting the US military presence as a political tool to justify a low-scale military spending, this could be seen as an “unfriendly” move. They get used to the fact that the US takes a military spending burden off their back thus buying their loyalty.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top