I agree 
Lets do this
Lets do this
RUSSIA/РОССИЯ THREAD—ASSANGE CHRGD W/ SPYING—DJT IMPEACHED TWICE-US TREASURY SANCTS KILIMNIK AS RUSSIAN AGNT
- Thread starter ☑︎#VoteDemocrat
- Start date
levitate
I love you, you know.
I agree
Lets do this
Agree with imposing more taxes on those who protest, brehs.
Read Excerpts From Senator Bob Corker’s Interview With The Times
By THE NEW YORK TIMESOCT. 9, 2017
In audio excerpts from an interview with Jonathan Martin, a New York Times reporter, Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee, spoke about President Trump's tweets and what Mr. Trump’s twitter feed means for diplomacy.
October 9, 2017. Photo by Tom Brenner/The New York Times. Watch in Times Video »
WASHINGTON — Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee, responded to President Trump’s tweets on Sunday in a phone interview with Jonathan Martin, a Times political reporter.
Following are excerpts from their exchange, as transcribed by The New York Times, which have been lightly edited for clarity.
Click here for more coverage of Mr. Corker’s remarks and his relationship with the president.
___________
Senator Bob CORKER: Hey Jonathan, how are you, sir?
Jonathan MARTIN: Senator, I didn’t know you could handle a blade that well.
CORKER: Well, we’ll see what happens. We know that we will see some tough times but it was the right thing to do.
MARTIN: Yeah I hear you, I hear you.
CORKER: So have at it. I understand we’re on the record. I don’t like normally talking to you on the record — I’m kidding you — but I will.
(Laughter)
MARTIN: So now that you’re a liberated free man who’s become like an instant Twitter sensation, I figured that it was now your obligation to step out of the shadows here and talk on the record. But in all seriousness, it wasn’t just the tweet. I mean, I heard you in the Capitol this week say what you did twice about Secretary Tillerson, first upstairs then downstairs when the cameras were running which of course is what prompted all of this. I also know for a fact that you purposefully said what you did during the recess back in August about the president after Charlottesville —
CORKER: Yeah
MARTIN: Which is all to say this is not an accident for you. This is not some off-the-cuff sort of gaffe. You very much know what you’re doing. So let me ask you this: Are you concerned for where the country is at right now, given who’s in the Oval Office? I mean, if you add up your comments it seems to be like that you’re trying to sound some kind of an alarm here.
CORKER: So, let me go back and then —
MARTIN: Sure.
CORKER: You know, Jonathan, I have been, felt liberated the entire time I have been in the Senate, okay. You know, so I’m not — The only thing that would have — it’s not as if because I’m not running that all of a sudden I’m liberated. I’ve said all of these things about, you know they were in a downward spiral, you know, lacked some of the stability necessary to be successful and competent. I mean all of those things were before I was not running.
MARTIN: I know, I know, I know.
CORKER: So but, what I am saying. But obviously, what happens, the thing that is different, if I’m running in a Republican primary, you know obviously you end up being constrained. But, I just, if you could, I’m not asking any different than I have the entire 10 years and eight months that I have been in office. You know, and one of the reasons, the main reason was the statement that I made. You know, I told people, I didn’t intend to serve more than two terms, that’s been a really big drag on me.
But in addition to that, the other part of our statement was true that the next 15 months we believe to be the most important time of our service and to be constrained by looking over your shoulder with some winger running against you, you know, let’s face it that impedes your ability to serve. So I just — again, I haven’t like changed course I just don’t have the worry.
I actually can continue over the next 15 months being the same senator that I’ve been. So, sure, I mean the president concerns me. I mean there’s no question. And, I like him. O.K., I enjoyed playing golf with him, you know, he’s a very courteous kind person. It’s not that I dislike him.
MARTIN: Right.
CORKER: I know for a fact that every single day at the White House it’s a situation of trying to contain him.
MARTIN: Yeah.
CORKER: Look, you know that. It’s not like —
MARTIN: Yes, you’re right.
CORKER: I mean, you’ve talked to enough people to know that that’s just a fact. So, thankfully we’ve got some very good people there. At least today, we’ve got some very good people there and they have been able to push back against his worst instincts.
MARTIN: Yeah.
CORKER: But yes, I mean, you know, yes. He concerns me. I mean he would have to concern anyone who cares about our nation. But a lot people that — Let me put it this way, I think that — So I’ll just stop there. Sure, I mean, do I want him to be successful? Absolutely.
MARTIN: Let me just —
CORKER: Have we worked with him. Are you still here?
MARTIN: Yes, sir. I’m here, I’m here. Yes, sir. I’m here, I can hear you.
CORKER: So, look. I want him to be successful and we have worked with them in every way possible. I’m constantly — I talked to Tillerson at length yesterday morning, I mean we’re working with them constantly on core policy issues. I met with Mnuchin on the tax issues.
___________
CORKER: Do I understand that it’s a daily exercise at the White House to keep him in the middle of the road? Yes. Do I want our nation to be successful? Yes.
MARTIN: Yeah.
CORKER: Have I even weighed in from time to time to help keep things in the middle of the road? Yes.
MARTIN: What have you done? What have you done?
CORKER: I don’t wish him harm. I don’t. I just — But the volatility is, to anyone who has been around, is to a degree alarming. But again, I don’t wish him harm. He’s got people around him that have been able to keep him, generally speaking, in the middle of the road. The tweets, especially as it relates to foreign policy issues, I know have been very damaging to us, O.K..
MARTIN: Yeah.
CORKER: I do wish that would stop. But as evidenced this morning, he just — it’s just something he has to do.
___________
MARTIN: Senator let me ask you this: Have you talked to other colleagues who feel the same way but who aren’t speaking as candidly as you are in the Senate?
(Phone connection drops out briefly)
CORKER: Oh yeah. Are you kidding me? Oh yeah.
MARTIN: So why are they not speaking out?
CORKER: Say again?
MARTIN: Why are they not speaking out? Why are your colleagues not speaking out like you are?
CORKER: I don’t know, I don’t know. Look I — I don’t know. Look, there’s people trying to manage — I don’t want to be a drawn out deal myself. (Inaudible) I told Mitch McConnell earlier today on a call.
Look, I want to be the same person I’ve always been on the policy issues. I want to see good things happen. None of this to me is personal in any way. I don’t know why the president tweets out things that are not true. You know he does it. Everyone knows he does it. But, he does and I think people — Sure I mean, I would say —
Look, except for a few people. The vast majority of our caucus understands what we’re dealing with here. There will be some — if you write that, I’m sure there will be some that say, ‘no, no, no I don’t believe that,’ but of course they understand the volatility that we are dealing with and the tremendous amount of work that it takes from people around him to keep him in the middle of the road. No question.
MARTIN: Is the country in jeopardy do you think?
CORKER: Again, as long as those — One of the reasons that I’ve supported Mattis and Tillerson and Kelly last week is, again, as long as there’s people like that around him who are able to talk him down, you know, when he gets spun up, you know, calm him down and continue to work with him before a decision is made.
I think we’ll be fine. I do worry that these — Sometimes I feel like he’s on a reality show of some kind, you know, when he’s talking about these big foreign policy issues. And, you know, he doesn’t realize that, you know, that we could be heading towards World War III with the kinds of comments that he’s making.
And it’s like he — it’s like it’s an act to him and sure that bothers me, just from the standpoint of, I mean, I know that he isn’t necessarily a warmonger. I don’t believe that he is a warmonger in any way. But I don’t think he understands —
(Phone connection drops out)
___________
CORKER: When I watch him on television, and even, you know, sometimes — Well, when I watch his performances, you know, it very much feels to me like he thinks as president he’s on a reality television show.
And I just mean — I don’t think he understands that the messages that he sends out, especially when you take into account they’re being received in other languages around the world, what that does. I know he’s hurt, in several instances, he’s hurt us as it relates to negotiations that were underway by tweeting things out. And I just — It worries me. Again, I don’t think he’s a warmonger.
But I don’t think he fully, I don’t think he appreciates that when the president of the United States speaks, and says the things that he does, the impact that it has around the world, especially in the region that he’s addressing. And so yeah, I mean, yeah, it’s concerning to me. A lot of people think that there’s some good cop, bad cop act underway, but that’s just not true. That’s just not true.
MARTIN: It’s just totally impulsive, it’s just totally impulsive?
CORKER: It’s just total — I mean, again, it’s like he’s doing “The Apprentice” or something. He’s just putting on an act. And it’s worrisome. You have people out there working hard to bring some — to solve problems, and those kinds of statements set us back. They just do.
MARTIN: So last weekend, when he pops off about, ‘Rex, don’t bother with North Korea, it’s not worth it.’ That’s not some like preplanned, super savvy, John Kelly, Jim Mattis deal, where he’s the bad cop and Rex is the good cop? That’s just him —
CORKER: No, absolutely not. Absolutely not. No. Absolutely not. And you know, just the comments, the comments that were made. You know, just the other day with the military thing. I mean, we’ve gotten to where as a nation, we just accept these things.
You know, it’s kind of like every day, you know, well, he acted O.K. yesterday. But I mean it concerns me, because I know apparently he was just, you know, quote messing with the press, if you will. But it’s just not the way a president acts. We are a military might around the world. We are respected.
___________
MARTIN: Tell me what happened, because obviously, his account of this is that you begged for his support, he said no, and so you chickened out and didn’t run. What actually was the conversation in terms of your re-election when you met him in the Oval Office last month?
CORKER: Yeah. I think I’ve had four conversations with him about my re-election. The first was on the plane going down to the Andrew Jackson event at the Hermitage in Nashville. I spent some time with him up in his office privately where he encouraged me to run for the Senate, that he would do a big rally event for me if I would do so.
He told me that if I would do it early — He wanted me to announce and get going early so he could do the rally early on before a bunch of other people got into the race. O.K.? So I don’t know what date that was. I talked to him this month.
MARTIN: He told you that during the trip to the Hermitage?
CORKER: That’s right. That’s right. Absolutely.
MARTIN: O.K., got it, got it.
CORKER: And you know, and then, I talked to him this summer. At some point, I was down in the panhandle of Florida on one of our recesses for a couple days. For one day before I started traveling the state. And we ended up having a conversation about something. I don’t remember what it was.
But again, he encouraged me to run and said he would do a rally and endorse me. And by the way, in none of those cases was I begging him to do something for me. That just wasn’t the case. And then, I guess — Gosh, what was the — Oh! When I went over there after, you know, I’d made the most recent comments —
MARTIN: Sure. Last month.
CORKER: I went over Friday afternoon at 1 o’clock. You know, in that meeting — again — he told me he wanted me to run again. I mean there were reports to that end. Some people apparently from the White House even leaked that out, O.K.? That he wanted me to run again. And that he would endorse me, O.K.?
And then he called me again after I announced that I was not going to run. He called me just last week, asked me if I would reconsider. And when I told him that just wasn’t in the cards, he said, well, you know, if you run, I’ll endorse you.
I said, well Mr. President, it’s just not in the cards. I’ve already made my decision. And so then we began talking about some of the other candidates that were running.
___________
MARTIN: Hey, one last thing. You mentioned that McConnell called you. Was McConnell upset that you had tweeted what you did this morning?
CORKER: No, no, no no no. Absolutely not.
MARTIN: What did McConnell say about it?
CORKER: It was totally unrelated.
MARTIN: Oh, it wasn’t related to that?
(Connection drops)
CORKER AIDE: I think we lost him.
@DonKnock @SJUGrad13 @88m3 @Menelik II @wire28 @smitty22 @Reality @fact @Hood Critic @ExodusNirvana @Blessed Is the Man @THE MACHINE @OneManGang @dtownreppin214 @JKFrazier @tmonster @blotter @BigMoneyGrip @Soymuscle Mike @Grano-Grano @.r.
Last edited:
fukk that. The NFL been riding high on the public dole WAY too long. Either it was too public stadiums or random ass team expansions.
They got the bread. Spend it.
levitate
I love you, you know.
I got it. But let's separate that from the protests, though.
Reading between the lines, Trump is basically saying let's punish the NFL with taxes since they are allowing protests. Not co with that.
Inside Donald Trump’s Head
- OCT 10, 2017 @ 05:30 AM
EDITORS PICK
Inside Trump’s Head: An Exclusive Interview With the President, And The Single Theory That Explains Everything
By Randall Lane, FORBES STAFF
- If Trump really did call the White House a "dump," he's over it. Inside the small West Wing study--where he stacks his papers and takes his meals atop what he calls his "working desk," the president talks volubly about a chandelier he had installed and the oil paintings of Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt. He pokes open the door to his pristine private bathroom, a must for the germophobe-in-chief. He takes us outside to see the serene swimming pool. And inside the Oval Office, freshly renovated with drapes, carpet and fixtures that lean heavily on gold, he slides his hand across the same Resolute desk where JFK handled the Cuban Missile Crisis and Reagan fought the Cold War, adorned with nothing but two telephones and a call button. "This looks very nice," says the president.
He could as easily be pitching a Trump Tower penthouse or a Doral golf club membership, and over the course of a nearly one-hour interview in the Oval Office, President Trump stays true to the same Citizen Trump form that Forbes has seen for 35 years.
He boasts, with a dose of hyperbole that any student of FDR or even Barack Obama could undercut: "I've had just about the most legislation passed of any president, in a nine-month period, that's ever served. We had over 50 bills passed. I'm not talking about executive orders only, which are very important. I'm talking about bills."
He counterpunches, in this case firing a shot at Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who reportedly called his boss a moron: "I think it's fake news, but if he did that, I guess we'll have to compare IQ tests. And I can tell you who is going to win."
- And above all, he sells : "I also have another bill ... an economic-development bill, which I think will be fantastic. Which nobody knows about. Which you are hearing about for the first time... . Economic-development incentives for companies. Incentives for companies to be here." Companies that keep jobs in America get rewarded; those that send operations offshore "get penalized severely." "It's both a carrot and a stick," says the president. "It is an incentive to stay. But it is perhaps even more so--if you leave, it's going to be very tough for you to think that you're going to be able to sell your product back into our country."
And so here we are, the first president to come solely from the private sector, representing the party that for more than a century championed laissez-faire capitalism and free trade, proposing that government punish and reward companies based on where they choose to locate factories and offices. Is the president comfortable with that idea?
"Very comfortable," he replies. "What I want to do is reciprocal. See, I think the concept of reciprocal is a very nice concept. If somebody is charging us 50%, we should charge them 50%. Right now they charge us 50%, and we charge them nothing. That doesn't work with me."
It never has. Donald Trump didn't get rich building businesses, despite years of brand-burnishing via The Apprentice and millions of votes from people who craved exactly that experience. Instead, his forte lies in transactions--buying and selling and cutting deals that assure him a win regardless of the outcome for others. The nuance is essential. Entrepreneurs and businesspeople create and run entities that have any number of interested parties--shareholders and customers and employees and partners and hometowns--that in theory all share in success. Under Steve Jobs and Tim Cook, Apple has helped early shareholders multiply their investments nearly 400-fold, turned thousands of options-wielding employees into millionaires (swelling the local tax base), performed similar wonders for Taiwanese supplier Foxconn and made customers so deliriously happy that they wait all night to fork over hundreds of dollars for products that will be obsolete two years later.
- Dealmakers rarely seek that kind of win-win-win-win-win. Whether it's a stock trade, a swap of middle relievers or optioning a real estate parcel, a deal tends to involve just two parties and generally results in one coming out ahead of the other (so much so that a "win-win" is considered a noteworthy aberration). "Man is the most vicious of all animals," Trump told People in 1981 (and it merited a mention the first time he appeared in Forbes , a year later). "Life is a series of battles ending in victory or defeat." It's a mentality that remains hard-wired in President Trump.
Nearly a year after the most stunning Election Day in many decades, pundits still profess to find themselves continually shocked by President Trump. They shouldn't be: His worldview has been incredibly consistent. Rather than as an opportunity to turn ideology into policy, he views governing the way he does business--as an endless string of deals, to be won or lost, both at the negotiating table and in the court of public opinion. Look at his first year through this prism, and it makes sense. And it offers clues for the next three years--or seven.
Ask President Trump if he's having fun in his new job, and he has a quick answer: "I am having fun. I'm enjoying it. We're accomplishing a lot. Your stock market is at an all-time high.
"Your jobs, your unemployment is at the lowest point in almost 17 years. We have fantastic numbers coming out."
- Fantastic numbers aren't generally how most people would measure fun. But Trump always has. "Other people paint beautifully on canvas or write wonderful poetry," he wrote in The Art of the Deal 30 years ago. "I like making deals, preferably big deals. That's how I get my kicks."
Numbers offer Trump validation. They determine the winner or loser of any deal and establish an industry hierarchy. It's why Trump, more than any of the 1,600 or so people who've been on The Forbes 400, has spent more time lobbying and cajoling Forbes to get a higher valuation--and validation.
In the Oval Office, when I tell him the markets are up 20% during his term, he stretches the time period to yield an even glossier figure. "No, 25 since the election. You have to go since the election."
That depends on the index, of course (he's conveniently using the most Trump-friendly one, Nasdaq), but the president will brook no such subtlety. "Since Election Day it's 25%. It has gone up since Election Day $5.2 trillion--$5.2 trillion. If Hillary Clinton would have won, the markets would have gone down substantially."
He's similarly proud of the GDP. "So GDP last quarter was 3.1%. Most of the folks that are in your business, and elsewhere, were saying that would not be hit for a long time. You know, Obama never hit the number."
- IN HIS OWN WORDS
"I think it’s fake news. But if he did that, I guess we’ll have to compare IQ tests. And I can tell you who is going to win.”
President Trump on Secretary of State Rex Tillerson
- When informed that his predecessor did, several times, Trump pivots immediately. "He never hit it on a yearly basis. Never hit it on a yearly basis. That's eight years. I think we'll go substantially higher than that. And I think this quarter would have been phenomenal, except for the hurricanes."
And what of those storms? "Well, I've gotten very high marks for the hurricanes," he says, two days before he tweets about how he wasn't getting enough personal credit. The president's much-maligned Twitter stream provides a modern way to self-validate. Anything he says registers thousands of likes, thousands of retweets and, over time, millions of new followers. So what if some of those followers are fake accounts? Big numbers have always attracted Trump, regardless of their accuracy. He numbered the floors in Trump Tower to make the building seem taller, obsessed over his Apprentice ratings and lied about the square footage of his penthouse. All of this explains the inexplicable--the need to exaggerate crowd sizes or shoot the messenger any time a bad poll comes out.
For Trump, numbers also serve as a pliant tool. American business has fully embraced Big Data, Moneyball -style analytics and machine learning, where figures suggest the best course of action. But Trump, for decades, has boasted about how he conducts his own research--largely anecdotal--and then buys or sells based on instinct. Numbers are then used to justify his gut. He governs exactly that way, sticking with even his most illogical campaign promises--the kind other politicians walk back from once confronted with actual policy decisions, whether making Mexico pay for a border wall when illegal immigration is historically low or pulling the U.S. from the Paris climate accords, despite the fact that compliance is voluntary--citing whatever figures he can to justify his stances. When asked about Russian interference in the election, for example, he notes that he got 306 electoral votes and adds that the Democrats need "an excuse for losing an election that in theory they should have won." For the greatest-ever American salesman (yes, including P.T. Barnum), statistics serve as marketing grist.
@DonKnock @SJUGrad13 @88m3 @Menelik II @wire28 @smitty22 @Reality @fact @Hood Critic @ExodusNirvana @Blessed Is the Man @THE MACHINE @OneManGang @dtownreppin214 @JKFrazier @tmonster @blotter @BigMoneyGrip @Soymuscle Mike @Grano-Grano @.r.
Part 2:
- He also uses numbers as leverage, a way to set parameters and eventually declare victory. Back when he bought the New Jersey Generals of the United States Football League in 1984, he reportedly described his bidding style to his fellow owners thusly: "When I build something for somebody, I always add $50 million or $60 million onto the price. My guys come in, they say it's going to cost $75 million. I say it's going to cost $125 million and I build it for $100 million. Basically, I did a lousy job. But they think I did a great job."
According to Trump, that trick explains the current proposal to cut the corporate tax rate to 20%, after months of saying he wanted to go even lower, to 15%. "I was actually saying 15 for the purpose of getting to 20," he says, adding, "As you know, this will be a negotiation for the next 30 days. But I wanted the 15 in order to get to 20."
It's a trait he has apparently long admired in presidents. Back in the 1980s, he recalled getting a $5 million request from Jimmy Carter to help build his presidential library. "Jimmy Carter had the nerve, the guts, the balls, to ask for something extraordinary," he wrote in The Art of the Deal . "That ability above all helped him get elected president."
One bid, however, isn't enough. In a transactional mindset, when the person across the table is a competitor rather than a partner, the best terms come from creating multiple bidders. Which explains his sudden fondness for Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, whether on the debt-limit increase, immigration proposals for Dreamers (at least briefly) or health care. "I think the Democrats want to make a deal," says Trump, referring to Obamacare. "At the same time, I think I have a deal with the Republicans. So I have the best of both worlds. That's business to a certain extent... . I'm very able to make deals with Democrats if I have to." The specter of playing each side off the other also looms over tax negotiations. "We'll be talking about all of it. You know, it will be a very serious set of negotiations going on over the next period of time."
Of course, those who don't see eye-to-eye with the president will feel his Twitter lash: Ask Ryan ("does zilch!"), McConnell ("get back to work"), Schumer ("Cryin' Chuck"), Lindsay Graham ("dumb mouthpiece"), Elizabeth Warren ("Very racist!"), John McCain ("dummy!") or approximately 1,000 others in the past year who have had the temerity to stand up to the president. Much as these digs seem personal, in truth he's just sticking with a business tactic he's long employed. Again, from The Art of the Deal: "I'm the first to admit that I am very competitive and that I'll do nearly anything within legal bounds to win. Sometimes, part of making a deal is denigrating your competition."
- QUICK TAKE
"Rather than an opportunity to turn ideology into policy, he views governing the way he views business – as an endless string of deals."
- Or denigrating your own team. In any situation, Trump must be the alpha dog. Delegation isn't his strong suit. Witness what happened when Tillerson apparently reopened a dialogue with the North Koreans. "He was wasting his time," Trump now says. But doesn't publicly upbraiding his top diplomat effectively neuter him? "I'm not undermining," Trump says. "I think I'm actually strengthening authority." It's hard to see whose authority he's strengthening, other than his own.
In Donald Trump's orbit, clearly, no one is off-limits. A decade ago, Donald Trump Jr. told Forbes this story about his now-presidential father. "I'd be going to work with my dad when I was 5 or 6 years old... .
"Besides telling me again and again not to drink, not to smoke and not to chase women, he always told me: 'Never trust anybody.' Then he'd ask me if I trusted anybody. I'd say, 'No.' 'Do you trust me?' he'd ask. I'd say, 'Yes.' "
"And he'd say: 'No! Don't even trust me!' "
Thanks to The Apprentice, most people think Donald Trump ran a big company. He did not. The Trump Organization has 22 real estate assets, with their own management teams. Trump licenses his brand to over a dozen entities, collecting royalties. All in all, it's a valuable company that's more impressive for its efficiency than its breadth. Trump leveraged that mindset, and his formidable skills as a marketer and showman, to run a historically efficient political campaign. "Nobody talks about it, but I spent much less money and won," he says. He's absolutely right.
But there's precious little about running the Trump Organization that provides the kind of experience that it takes to run the ultimate organization in America: the U.S. government. At the Trump Organization, he owns basically everything. There's no known board of directors, no outside shareholders and no real customer base, save onetime luxury real estate buyers and golf club members. It's far closer to running a family office than running Wal-Mart. When it comes to moguls turned presidential aspirants, compare him with the two private-sector leaders who previously came closest to going directly to the Oval Office: Wendell Willkie, who ran a giant public utility before losing to FDR in 1940, and Ross Perot, whose quixotic third-party bid in 1992 was based on a career building two huge public companies, most notably Electronic Data Systems, a global firm that had its own de facto foreign policy, including a famous Iranian hostage rescue.
Trump does have experience leading public companies, but even then there was only one shareholder who mattered. When Trump controlled 40% of publicly traded Trump Hotels & Casino, he used it to buy a casino he privately owned for $500 million, even though one analyst thought it was worth 20% less. At one point, he also owned more than 10% of Resorts International. He cut a deal with that company that garnered him millions in fees at the expense of other owners. Neither ended well: Trump Hotels filed for bankruptcy (for the first time) in 2004; Resorts had gone bankrupt some years earlier after Trump cashed out.
- Inheriting the keys to American government is akin to a succession at General Electric or Microsoft. Continuity is generally assumed--honoring prior commitments and running the company/country as best as possible, while pivoting to new priorities and policies.
Trump's transactional mindset, however, doesn't see it that way (nor do many of his core supporters, who expect radical change above all else). If previous policies were bad deals, he sees no reason to honor them, even at the cost of America's reputation or the perception of stable American policy.
Take Obamacare. "It's a total mess," Trump says. Fair point. But doesn't Trump, as the CEO of America, have an obligation to operate it as well as he can until he has an alternative, rather than threaten to withhold payments to insurance companies, shrink the enrollment period and slash the advertising budget?
"What we're doing is trying to keep it afloat, because it's failing," he says. "I mean the insurance companies are fleeing and have fled. They fled before I got here. But with that being said, no, Obamacare is Obama's fault. It's nobody else's fault."
But isn't it now his administration's responsibility? "Yes. But I've always said Obamacare is Obama's fault. It's never going to be our fault."
The same approach comes through in foreign policy, again and again, whether it's the Iran deal, the Paris climate agreement or, especially, free-trade deals. Doesn't he feel a responsibility to honor agreements from previous administrations?
President Trump has a quick response: "No."
It's a dangerous precedent: an America where each administration, rather than building on the agreements of its predecessors, undoes each other's deals--effectively undermining the authority of any American head of state. Again, Trump shrugs.
- "I happen to think that NAFTA will have to be terminated if we're going to make it good. Otherwise, I believe you can't negotiate a good deal... . [The Trans-Pacific Partnership] would have been a large-scale version of NAFTA. It would have been a disaster. It's a great honor to have--I consider that a great accomplishment, stopping that. And there are many people that agree with me. I like bilateral deals."
Of course he does. Trump has been doing bilateral deals his whole life. But bilateral deals are just that--one-on-one bargains carrying the implicit prospect of a negotiation that will create a winner and a loser. Doesn't this fly in the face of our multilateral world?
"You can have it this way and do much more business. And if it doesn't work out with a country, you give them a 30-day notice, and you either renegotiate or not."
Trump's bilateral world, of course, explains why foreign aid gets cut. It comes with a huge downside. Deals score points, but deals don't create long-term investments. It's impossible to think of something like the Marshall Plan, which teed up more than six decades of peace and prosperity, coming out of the Trump White House. To that, he shrugs again.
"For me, it's America first. We've been doing that so long that we owe $20 trillion, okay?"
Trump intends to run the country more like the Trump Organization in other ways. Much has been made about how slow he's been to nominate people to key positions. In the State Department, for example, he has failed to put up names for more than half of the comfirmable positions. That's apparently not an accident.
"I'm generally not going to make a lot of the appointments that would normally be--because you don't need them," he says. "I mean, you look at some of these agencies, how massive they are, and it's totally unnecessary. They have hundreds of thousands of people."
And how does this man, who's never really had a boss, feel about now having 330 million of them, to be exact? He acknowledges the fact, but then answers in a way that is perfect, consistent Trump: "It doesn't matter, because I'm going to do the right thing."
Photography by Jamel Toppin for Forbes
@DonKnock @SJUGrad13 @88m3 @Menelik II @wire28 @smitty22 @Reality @fact @Hood Critic @ExodusNirvana @Blessed Is the Man @THE MACHINE @OneManGang @dtownreppin214 @JKFrazier @tmonster @blotter @BigMoneyGrip @Soymuscle Mike @Grano-Grano @.r.
AZBeauty
Stop lyin' nicca.
Who's at the wheel this morning? This dude is off the rails. He tweeted about Jemele Hill & ESPN after tweeting about healthcare. Then, he endorsed a book and followed up by attacking NY Time and Bob Crocker. This cokehead is going to get us all killed, his mind is on the wrong shyt.
This dude
GnauzBookOfRhymes
Superstar
That's him calling Tillerson a moron. Let's see what happens next.
Tillerson should post his college transcripts on Twitter lol
GnauzBookOfRhymes
Superstar
Trump must have an inverted penis or something. There's just no way a grown ass man can be so goddamn insecure????