Trump MAGAThread IV: Twixt Scylla & Some Bad Hombres

[Lady Scylla]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... 8750127106

What.

[Washington Resistance Army]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/832950628750127106

What.

I demand there be a Western White House, I feel sorely underrepresented.

[Philjia]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/832950628750127106

What.

Trump's holiday home is a subsidiary of The White House.

Obviously.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

As I said, he's no miracle worker. Sure, he managed to win the election on a shoestring, but shoestrings wear out and snap eventually. You're just going to have to hope his shoestring doesn't snap before the fourth year of his presidency. Whereas I am not putting any such hopes on him whatsoever.

While his reforms might be good, or bad, for the country, I don't see any reason to think he'll go about them in a competent manner. That just doesn't seem to be Trump's style of operation. Sure he's doing what he said he'd do, but his way is a messy way of doing it and he's encountering issues with it is the point.

I think the distinction between competent and orderly is an important one to make, for if the objection was with the latter then yes, I would agree entirely. Trump's buisness MO is practically sweeping into disorganised situations, make the right allies, bid low, and be the one standing with all the profits at the end.

I do agree that Trump will be disorderly in his approach, I do think even if his twitter shitposting dies down that it will not die out so to speak, but I do think they will be remarkably competent in a mission basis, that is, to work towards their intended changes even if said changes will not bring about the intended changes he'd want. In short, I suspect the high gear of change we are seeing to be at a lot swifter tempo than Obama ever had.

One thing I learned by working and being raised by a working man is that in order to be competent you need to have an order. You can't do things in a disarray all the time and expect to achieve competent results. Life teaches you sooner or later that you can't keep relying on chaos to get what you want done in a competent way. While you might define it as "running on shoestrings" like I said myself you're just going to have to hope Trump's shoestring doesn't snap too early.

Trump's disorder doesn't seem competent to me considering the issues he's already facing. Someone more orderly than Trump would seem far more competent. Which is why liberals are more scared of Pence taking the reigns than Trump having them. Because Pence is actually orderly, therefore more competent into getting what he wants done.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/832950628750127106

What.

I demand there be a Western White House, I feel sorely underrepresented.

I demand your Western White House be settled in Texas.

[Nimzonia]

I think this is the point at which we simply disagree on the core principle. Which is the concept of a competent vs an incomeptent administration rather than just the judicial conflict itself, and based on the campaign. Where he on a shoe-string budget managed to, despite all predictions, defeat Hillary Clinton with some margin to spare whom had national and international interests backing her from start to finish.

The GOP could have run Nixon's corpse against Hillary and still won (and probably would have won the popular vote as well).

[Lady Scylla]

I think Uxo has it in his head that the military is all honour bound rigorsity where obedience, integrity, and structure reign supreme. The actual military is full of shenanigans almost like it's composed of a few million individuals.

As far as the phones -- you could buy an old flip from one of the markets. They sell everything from bootleg movies to hash and put up shop around US installations in places like Baghdad.

That's the experience I've had as a team member, team leader, platoon leader, staff member and recently company commander.

You'll forgive me for calling that into question, but I'd rather not turn this conversation towards you as an individual. At that point it'd be constant attacks on you, and that won't spell anything good for either of us.

[Valrifell]

I think this is the point at which we simply disagree on the core principle. Which is the concept of a competent vs an incomeptent administration rather than just the judicial conflict itself, and based on the campaign. Where he on a shoe-string budget managed to, despite all predictions, defeat Hillary Clinton with some margin to spare whom had national and international interests backing her from start to finish.

The GOP could have run Nixon's corpse against Hillary and still won (and probably would have won the popular vote as well).

I think people overstate how unpopolar Clinton was. Had it not been for a surprise towards the end of the campaign/had she campaigned a bit more competently, she probably would have won.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

The GOP could have run Nixon's corpse against Hillary and still won (and probably would have won the popular vote as well).

I think people overstate how unpopolar Clinton was. Had it not been for a surprise towards the end of the campaign/had she campaigned a bit more competently, she probably would have won.

Thing is, she ran under the predictions that were "safe states" under Obama.

Nobody was predicting she'd lose the Rust Belt given their history of voting consistently Democrat during Obama's terms.

[Lady Scylla]

I dont think he'll rubberstamp everything Trump gives him, if anything, really. The fact he seemed to take insult at Trump's comments is promising.

I don't think it really means anything, but given that the house, senate and presidency is in the Republican hands, it would take a monumental fuck up to pick a second Kennedy with nothing really standing in their way of picking just about anyone they'd want.

But, again, we are on the outside, so I suspect only time will tell. I would be surprised if he turned out to be a de-facto centrist though.

Well, if his colleagues remarks about him being a copy of Scalia are true, then I would expect that -- while he may be conservative -- he'll be very rationally based. This would spell problems for Trump because anything that couldn't hold up in court, as with Scalia, would be struck down by Gorsuch. Scalia might not have agreed with homosexuality, but the recent case SCOTUS ruled on taking the power from the states on that matter was in part to Scalia's surprising decision among his colleagues where he argued there was just no logical reason to uphold a ban. If Gorsuch behaves similarly, then cases such as Trump's 'Muslim Ban' would earn a definite 'No' from Gorsuch and he'd likely be the tie-breaker if there was such a deadlock among the Justices.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I don't think it really means anything, but given that the house, senate and presidency is in the Republican hands, it would take a monumental fuck up to pick a second Kennedy with nothing really standing in their way of picking just about anyone they'd want.

But, again, we are on the outside, so I suspect only time will tell. I would be surprised if he turned out to be a de-facto centrist though.

Well, if his colleagues remarks about him being a copy of Scalia are true, then I would expect that -- while he may be conservative -- he'll be very rationally based. This would spell problems for Trump because anything that couldn't hold up in court, as with Scalia, would be struck down by Gorsuch. Scalia might not have agreed with homosexuality, but the recent case SCOTUS ruled on taking the power from the states on that matter was in part to Scalia's surprising decision among his colleagues where he argued there was just no logical reason to uphold a ban. If Gorsuch behaves similarly, then cases such as Trump's 'Muslim Ban' would earn a definite 'No' from Gorsuch and he'd likely be the tie-breaker if there was such a deadlock among the Justices.

I mean the problem is that people don't understand how overruling a court order works.

Generally a case with a similar but differently worded question needs to arrive to the Supreme Court. It's why Plessy v. Fergusson was managed to be overruled many years later, for instance, because while the question was different, it was similar enough to revisit Plessy v. Fergusson's decision.

In this case, sodomy was already made unconstitutional, and they were arguing about gay marriages, so there was no reason to revisit the former sodomy ruling, and so no logical basis or judicial precedent was in favor of the states that time, because with sodomy being unconstitutional, there was no possible reason why gay marriage should be banned considering fucking another man in the ass is legal now.

[Herskerstad]

I think the distinction between competent and orderly is an important one to make, for if the objection was with the latter then yes, I would agree entirely. Trump's buisness MO is practically sweeping into disorganised situations, make the right allies, bid low, and be the one standing with all the profits at the end.

I do agree that Trump will be disorderly in his approach, I do think even if his twitter shitposting dies down that it will not die out so to speak, but I do think they will be remarkably competent in a mission basis, that is, to work towards their intended changes even if said changes will not bring about the intended changes he'd want. In short, I suspect the high gear of change we are seeing to be at a lot swifter tempo than Obama ever had.

One thing I learned by working and being raised by a working man is that in order to be competent you need to have an order. You can't do things in a disarray all the time and expect to achieve competent results. Life teaches you sooner or later that you can't keep relying on chaos to get what you want done in a competent way. While you might define it as "running on shoestrings" like I said myself you're just going to have to hope Trump's shoestring doesn't snap too early.

Trump's disorder doesn't seem competent to me considering the issues he's already facing. Someone more orderly than Trump would seem far more competent. Which is why liberals are more scared of Pence taking the reigns than Trump having them. Because Pence is actually orderly, therefore more competent into getting what he wants done.

Oh Pence is both Trump's insurance as well as part of what bought him the alliance of the GOP. If Trump for whatever reason is removed from office, then Mike Pence will take over, but being someone who's worked long in uni's by now I can safely attest that power is not always found in order, and I suspect that Trump will use his power to reshape parts of the nation to his intended image, and I do not think there is social capital, at least in the first two years, to really stop him from doing so.

Trump's shoestring is long since gone, it's not as if he is only running half of a white house. He just achieved maximum results with minimal efforts election-wise. Now that he has the power I quite suspect he will do what all strongmen do. Make friends with some enemies and get rid of the irredeemable ones, at least as far as relative power goes. Assert his authority over a shockingly disorganised political foe probably starting with low hanging fruit like sanctuary cities, and from there move on into the inner cities. I think it will be very exciting as Trump himself is not disorganized in his approach, he just tends to raise quite the ruckus which more often that not ultimately ends to his advantage.

[Maichuko]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/832950628750127106

What.

So that Golf Club he loves so much is now a second white house.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

One thing I learned by working and being raised by a working man is that in order to be competent you need to have an order. You can't do things in a disarray all the time and expect to achieve competent results. Life teaches you sooner or later that you can't keep relying on chaos to get what you want done in a competent way. While you might define it as "running on shoestrings" like I said myself you're just going to have to hope Trump's shoestring doesn't snap too early.

Trump's disorder doesn't seem competent to me considering the issues he's already facing. Someone more orderly than Trump would seem far more competent. Which is why liberals are more scared of Pence taking the reigns than Trump having them. Because Pence is actually orderly, therefore more competent into getting what he wants done.

Oh Pence is both Trump's insurance as well as part of what bought him the alliance of the GOP. If Trump for whatever reason is removed from office, then Mike Pence will take over, but being someone who's worked long in uni's by now I can safely attest that power is not always found in order, and I suspect that Trump will use his power to reshape parts of the nation to his intended image, and I do not think there is social capital, at least in the first two years, to really stop him from doing so.

Trump's shoestring is long since gone, it's not as if he is only running half of a white house. He just achieved maximum results with minimal efforts election-wise. Now that he has the power I quite suspect he will do what all strongmen do. Make friends with some enemies and get rid of the irredeemable ones, at least as far as relative power goes. Assert his authority over a shockingly disorganised political foe probably starting with low hanging fruit like sanctuary cities, and from there move on into the inner cities. I think it will be very exciting as Trump himself is not disorganized in his approach, he just tends to raise quite the ruckus which more often that not ultimately ends to his advantage.

No, you're right, he's not running half of a white house, he's running with at least only 1/10th of a white house. Which shows. He doesn't have the halls of power addled with his people, and that's something that's biting him hard.

He still has a lot of appointments to do, and while you might think they're not a big deal, they actually are.

While power might not be found in order, competence is. Competent leaders aren't disorderly. That much is a constant.

Also, sanctuary cities are not low-hanging fruit, considering which cities are low-hanging fruits. Low-hanging fruits would be more along the lines of electoral reform, which is a rather low-hanging fruit for Republicans considering the state of gerrymandering in this nation. Now, while Democrats have also done this, is not like Republicans are not more efficient at it.

[Herskerstad]

I don't think it really means anything, but given that the house, senate and presidency is in the Republican hands, it would take a monumental fuck up to pick a second Kennedy with nothing really standing in their way of picking just about anyone they'd want.

But, again, we are on the outside, so I suspect only time will tell. I would be surprised if he turned out to be a de-facto centrist though.

Well, if his colleagues remarks about him being a copy of Scalia are true, then I would expect that -- while he may be conservative -- he'll be very rationally based. This would spell problems for Trump because anything that couldn't hold up in court, as with Scalia, would be struck down by Gorsuch. Scalia might not have agreed with homosexuality, but the recent case SCOTUS ruled on taking the power from the states on that matter was in part to Scalia's surprising decision among his colleagues where he argued there was just no logical reason to uphold a ban. If Gorsuch behaves similarly, then cases such as Trump's 'Muslim Ban' would earn a definite 'No' from Gorsuch and he'd likely be the tie-breaker if there was such a deadlock among the Justices.

I doubt Scalia would have gone against a ban against certain unstable nations as revoking visas which already has established precedence judicially. Furthermore, it is not a muslim ban in writing but a national one which is an important one. So I suspect the nominee would default with the past if it comes down to it, not to mention I am fairly certain Trump has already discussed such matters with him.

The problem is Gorsuch is almost impossible to judge from an outsiders perspective so I may be entirely within the wrong on what I am saying, but I just don't think Trump is the sort of person who'd willingly take silver over gold so to speak.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Well, if his colleagues remarks about him being a copy of Scalia are true, then I would expect that -- while he may be conservative -- he'll be very rationally based. This would spell problems for Trump because anything that couldn't hold up in court, as with Scalia, would be struck down by Gorsuch. Scalia might not have agreed with homosexuality, but the recent case SCOTUS ruled on taking the power from the states on that matter was in part to Scalia's surprising decision among his colleagues where he argued there was just no logical reason to uphold a ban. If Gorsuch behaves similarly, then cases such as Trump's 'Muslim Ban' would earn a definite 'No' from Gorsuch and he'd likely be the tie-breaker if there was such a deadlock among the Justices.

I doubt Scalia would have gone against a ban against certain unstable nations as revoking visas which already has established precedence judicially. Furthermore, it is not a muslim ban in writing but a national one which is an important one. So I suspect the nominee would default with the past if it comes down to it, not to mention I am fairly certain Trump has already discussed such matters with him.

The problem is Gorsuch is almost impossible to judge from an outsiders perspective so I may be entirely within the wrong on what I am saying, but I just don't think Trump is the sort of person who'd willingly take silver over gold so to speak.

That depends on how the ban was written. As far as I understand, the entire concept of carving an exception for religious minorities into a ban would be, for sure, a religious test and it'd be found unconstitutional on just the First Amendment.

If you want to spin it in the 14th amendment, you have dual citizens who are denied entry. Even if you can successfully argue that permanent resident and other non-visa holders have no rights (which is really difficult to argue) you still have a problem with dual citizens since you can't exactly deny rights to an American citizen, even if they happen to hold two citizenships.

Gorsuch probably hasn't talked with Trump about it. I mean, I sincerely doubt they hold much communication other than the nomination. I said it once before, and I repeat myself again, Trump doesn't seem to be running on some overarching plan to make his agenda come true. If he did he would have known what was allowed and what wasn't on his ban, but he didn't and he doesn't.

[Herskerstad]

Oh Pence is both Trump's insurance as well as part of what bought him the alliance of the GOP. If Trump for whatever reason is removed from office, then Mike Pence will take over, but being someone who's worked long in uni's by now I can safely attest that power is not always found in order, and I suspect that Trump will use his power to reshape parts of the nation to his intended image, and I do not think there is social capital, at least in the first two years, to really stop him from doing so.

Trump's shoestring is long since gone, it's not as if he is only running half of a white house. He just achieved maximum results with minimal efforts election-wise. Now that he has the power I quite suspect he will do what all strongmen do. Make friends with some enemies and get rid of the irredeemable ones, at least as far as relative power goes. Assert his authority over a shockingly disorganised political foe probably starting with low hanging fruit like sanctuary cities, and from there move on into the inner cities. I think it will be very exciting as Trump himself is not disorganized in his approach, he just tends to raise quite the ruckus which more often that not ultimately ends to his advantage.

No, you're right, he's not running half of a white house, he's running with at least only 1/10th of a white house. Which shows. He doesn't have the halls of power addled with his people, and that's something that's biting him hard.

He still has a lot of appointments to do, and while you might think they're not a big deal, they actually are.

While power might not be found in order, competence is. Competent leaders aren't disorderly. That much is a constant.

Also, sanctuary cities are not low-hanging fruit, considering which cities are low-hanging fruits. Low-hanging fruits would be more along the lines of electoral reform, which is a rather low-hanging fruit for Republicans considering the state of gerrymandering in this nation. Now, while Democrats have also done this, is not like Republicans are not more efficient at it.

And at that point I think the disagreements reached a place where we are simply communicating over each-other. Although I think we have established that you imagine Trump, the billionaire POTUS, to be incompetent whereas I dissent, I never communicated that Trumps future appointments would not be important. In fact, they will form part of the basis for his power and it is not as if he would not fill said positions.

[The Grim Reaper]

The problem is Gorsuch is almost impossible to judge from an outsiders perspective so I may be entirely within the wrong on what I am saying, but I just don't think Trump is the sort of person who'd willingly take silver over gold so to speak.

I've never been so much as aware of a person alive or fictional who would willingly take silver over gold, save a few RPG characters dealing with werewolf infestations.

The question is whether Trump has the capacity to distinguish between gold and fool's gold, and I don't think he is particularly well qualified to do so based solely on the gold and fool's gold's jurisprudential merits.

[Lady Scylla]

I think the distinction between competent and orderly is an important one to make, for if the objection was with the latter then yes, I would agree entirely. Trump's buisness MO is practically sweeping into disorganised situations, make the right allies, bid low, and be the one standing with all the profits at the end.

I do agree that Trump will be disorderly in his approach, I do think even if his twitter shitposting dies down that it will not die out so to speak, but I do think they will be remarkably competent in a mission basis, that is, to work towards their intended changes even if said changes will not bring about the intended changes he'd want. In short, I suspect the high gear of change we are seeing to be at a lot swifter tempo than Obama ever had.

One thing I learned by working and being raised by a working man is that in order to be competent you need to have an order. You can't do things in a disarray all the time and expect to achieve competent results. Life teaches you sooner or later that you can't keep relying on chaos to get what you want done in a competent way. While you might define it as "running on shoestrings" like I said myself you're just going to have to hope Trump's shoestring doesn't snap too early.

Trump's disorder doesn't seem competent to me considering the issues he's already facing. Someone more orderly than Trump would seem far more competent. Which is why liberals are more scared of Pence taking the reigns than Trump having them. Because Pence is actually orderly, therefore more competent into getting what he wants done.

I'm going to argue that chaos can be very beneficial to someone that is competent, if engineered by someone competent. You can use chaos as an effective method of control among subordinates by fostering disillusion and competitiveness which makes it difficult for wolves to challenge you. Those that come out of this conflagration can be rewarded for their expertise and cunning, but treated still as enemies needing close observation and a very tight leash. The issue here is that such an approach is only viable in dictatorships or other authoritarian governments, but Trump does not have such a system at his disposal.

He can throw the Executive into disarray, and both the Legislative and the Judicial can look on as the man throws himself into a fit. However, this is assuming Trump is truly capable of intentionally trying to cause such chaos for such benefit. Which I doubt. Running a business is nowhere near equivalent to managing and working within a bureaucracy. In a business environment, you might throw one punch and get a few back -- in a bureaucracy, you throw one out and you're going to get one, their sister, and every extended family member's punch back from every direction imaginable. And so it takes political and monetary capital to build carefully crafted alliances and nets among the system to ensure that you have people punching with you as well. Trump's egoism is getting in the way of this, and the wolves can smell this.

Trump is a narcissist. He is concerned about his self-image and legacy beyond what would be considered normal. Unfortunately for him, other politicians can use this against him. Bannon is a good example. What Trump is becoming is a two-way mirror for those really running the show behind him. They'll let him take the credit for this admin's success and failure, and do so with every intention of letting him think and believe he's in charge and doing it. Inevitably, his egoism is going to be his downfall. There'll reach a point where some scandal, or situation will arise -- he'll do his usual deflection, and it won't succeed, and in response, he'll lash out at both friend and foe and alienate himself. When that happens, this 'shadow' behind him will cut him loose and let him topple his entire political career while they escape clean and perfectly fine. They'll have the policy changes they needed, and Trump will be the fall-guy.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

And at that point I think the disagreements reached a place where we are simply communicating over each-other. Although I think we have established that you imagine Trump, the billionaire POTUS, to be incompetent whereas I dissent, I never communicated that Trumps future appointments would not be important. In fact, they will form part of the basis for his power and it is not as if he would not fill said positions.

You're thinking that competence is defined by how much money you have in your bank account by the fact you keep calling him "billionaire POTUS".

He's not as competent as you make him seem by repeating the same line over and over about his fortune. And the more you do repeat the same line about his wealth, the more incompetent you make him seem because apparently to you that's his only redeeming quality, that he made lots of money.

[Herskerstad]

The problem is Gorsuch is almost impossible to judge from an outsiders perspective so I may be entirely within the wrong on what I am saying, but I just don't think Trump is the sort of person who'd willingly take silver over gold so to speak.

I've never been so much as aware of a person alive or fictional who would willingly take silver over gold, save a few RPG characters dealing with werewolf infestations.

The question is whether Trump has the capacity to distinguish between gold and fool's gold, and I don't think he is particularly well qualified to do so based solely on the gold and fool's gold's jurisprudential merits.

Eh, there was even a time where a nation would pick tulips over gold, but such is the course of time.

I think if I had to ascribe a single quality to Trump it would be selecting the right sort of people for the jobs he want done. No other metric really exists to which to judge his various successes by. Of course, my observations may be entirely erroneous, but given the amount of time him and RNC has spent on the case I would be suprised if he would not be a pretty solid conservative.

[Lady Scylla]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/832950628750127106

What.

So that Golf Club he loves so much is now a second white house.

Maybe it was an auto-correct. He meant 'Second Wife's House'

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I'm going to argue that chaos can be very beneficial to someone that is competent, if engineered by someone competent. You can use chaos as an effective method of control among subordinates by fostering disillusion and competitiveness which makes it difficult for wolves to challenge you. Those that come out of this conflagration can be rewarded for their expertise and cunning, but treated still as enemies needing close observation and a very tight leash. The issue here is that such an approach is only viable in dictatorships or other authoritarian governments, but Trump does not have such a system at his disposal.

He can throw the Executive into disarray, and both the Legislative and the Judicial can look on as the man throws himself into a fit. However, this is assuming Trump is truly capable of intentionally trying to cause such chaos for such benefit. Which I doubt. Running a business is nowhere near equivalent to managing and working within a bureaucracy. In a business environment, you might throw one punch and get a few back -- in a bureaucracy, you throw one out and you're going to get one, their sister, and every extended family member's punch back from every direction imaginable. And so it takes political and monetary capital to build carefully crafted alliances and nets among the system to ensure that you have people punching with you as well. Trump's egoism is getting in the way of this, and the wolves can smell this.

Trump is a narcissist. He is concerned about his self-image and legacy beyond what would be considered normal. Unfortunately for him, other politicians can use this against him. Bannon is a good example. What Trump is becoming is a two-way mirror for those really running the show behind him. They'll let him take the credit for this admin's success and failure, and do so with every intention of letting him think and believe he's in charge and doing it. Inevitably, his egoism is going to be his downfall. There'll reach a point where some scandal, or situation will arise -- he'll do his usual deflection, and it won't succeed, and in response, he'll lash out at both friend and foe and alienate himself. When that happens, this 'shadow' behind him will cut him loose and let him topple his entire political career while they escape clean and perfectly fine. They'll have the policy changes they needed, and Trump will be the fall-guy.

Oh yes, you can foster chaos. But note how you basically said that the chaos-maker wants to be in control by throwing others into disarray, not by throwing his own plans into disarray.

In other words, even the chaos-maker's disorder has an order he follows and he just doesn't do things randomly and haphazardly. He has a reason for every calculated move. Trump doesn't seem to have calculated moves and his style centers more around rolling with the punches.

[Lady Scylla]

I'm going to argue that chaos can be very beneficial to someone that is competent, if engineered by someone competent. You can use chaos as an effective method of control among subordinates by fostering disillusion and competitiveness which makes it difficult for wolves to challenge you. Those that come out of this conflagration can be rewarded for their expertise and cunning, but treated still as enemies needing close observation and a very tight leash. The issue here is that such an approach is only viable in dictatorships or other authoritarian governments, but Trump does not have such a system at his disposal.

He can throw the Executive into disarray, and both the Legislative and the Judicial can look on as the man throws himself into a fit. However, this is assuming Trump is truly capable of intentionally trying to cause such chaos for such benefit. Which I doubt. Running a business is nowhere near equivalent to managing and working within a bureaucracy. In a business environment, you might throw one punch and get a few back -- in a bureaucracy, you throw one out and you're going to get one, their sister, and every extended family member's punch back from every direction imaginable. And so it takes political and monetary capital to build carefully crafted alliances and nets among the system to ensure that you have people punching with you as well. Trump's egoism is getting in the way of this, and the wolves can smell this.

Trump is a narcissist. He is concerned about his self-image and legacy beyond what would be considered normal. Unfortunately for him, other politicians can use this against him. Bannon is a good example. What Trump is becoming is a two-way mirror for those really running the show behind him. They'll let him take the credit for this admin's success and failure, and do so with every intention of letting him think and believe he's in charge and doing it. Inevitably, his egoism is going to be his downfall. There'll reach a point where some scandal, or situation will arise -- he'll do his usual deflection, and it won't succeed, and in response, he'll lash out at both friend and foe and alienate himself. When that happens, this 'shadow' behind him will cut him loose and let him topple his entire political career while they escape clean and perfectly fine. They'll have the policy changes they needed, and Trump will be the fall-guy.

Oh yes, you can foster chaos. But note how you basically said that the chaos-maker wants to be in control by throwing others into disarray, not by throwing his own plans into disarray.

In other words, even the chaos-maker's disorder has an order he follows and he just doesn't do things randomly and haphazardly. He has a reason for every calculated move. Trump doesn't seem to have calculated moves and his style centers more around rolling with the punches.

Which is another issue. I'd describe his plan so far as throwing different types of goo at the wall, and seeing what sticks.

And to pull off the chaos bit, you'd need to be calculating and reserved with a full understanding of the system you're toying with. Trump has none of these.

[Uxupox]

That's the experience I've had as a team member, team leader, platoon leader, staff member and recently company commander.

You'll forgive me for calling that into question, but I'd rather not turn this conversation towards you as an individual. At that point it'd be constant attacks on you, and that won't spell anything good for either of us.

Then tg me if you'd like.