Meeting Mr Trump

Running a country is harder than running a company, especially where the country concerned has a system of checks and balances to prevent the person who actually runs the country from acting in ways that are unconstitutional or illegal. Also there are differences in objectives between the two tasks. He or she who runs a company does so in order to profit and benefit a defined group of people, who are shareholders in the company. The person who runs a country should do so in order to benefit all citizens of that country and where there are conflicts between several groups of citizens’ interest the person in charge must balance and distinguish and act so as to ensure fair treatment of all.

I think that these differences between running Trump Enterprises and running the United States of America have now become apparent to Mr Trump. His first steps have in some cases been sure and in other cases have faltered into stumbling. He starts of course from a difficult position. He has not a particularly coherent set of policies which he offered the electorate; some of his ideas have not been properly defined. “Build the Wall” and “Drain the Swamp” are unlikely to be achieved by any president.

Mr Trump lost the popular vote and was elected on the basis of the Electoral College vote, so although his election was perfectly in accordance with the democratically agreed rules, he does not have majority backing from the population. Perhaps for this reason he also seems to engender a great amount of popular animosity, and I do not doubt that much of what has been said about him is not based on truth and Mr Trump responds in kind; we live in times where every private statement or half thought idea may be recorded and made public. I have no doubt that if virtually all past presidents of the USA, if seeking election today, would be capable of being despised just as much as many people despise Mr Trump. It is the nature of the beast that politicians and businessmen have serious flaws.

In the United Kingdom there has been an attempt to deny Mr Trump a state visit; such visits have been accorded to tyrants and dictators in the past with only minor demonstrations of disapproval. The Queen, as head of state, has had the misfortune to meet many tyrants who murdered their own people and committed far more outrageous sins than any Mr Trump has committed. Prime Ministers regularly meet tyrants and despots, and whatever he may be Mr Trump is neither a tyrant nor a despot.

Mr Trump will likely benefit from understanding, from the mouths of the UK’s politicians their objections to his policies  expressed politely and coherently just as UK politicians will benefit from understanding Mr Trump’s policies expressed in the same way, although on present circumstances it is hard to see either thing happening.

4 Responses

  1. Your comment on a so called ‘popular’ vote is misleading.

    It’s true that Clinton trounced Trump in California (home of the luvvies, cocaine socialists and weirdos) by 4.3million votes. However, the Electoral college system is designed to prevent votes for regional candidates from unfairly swamping/swinging the presidential election. It did just that in this election. No matter how many votes were cast in California, there were only 55 electoral college seats up for grabs.

    The electoral college system, properly, gave a voice to middle income America, farmers, fishermen, factory workers and miners. All of whom have lost out to the big corporations, illegal and out of control immigration, crony capitalism, and the corruption of politicians.

    Just imagine what would happen if the voters of London could swing any General Election to one party. Farmers, fishermen, factory workers, and the unemployed would effectively be disenfranchised because there are none or few in London.

    Trump won 30 states Clinton 20. That’s a sizeable difference and is the true measure of democracy.

    Of course the real problem for Mr Trump is that CNN and the rest of the US media is owned by Mr Trump’s enemies and the media is constantly trying to prejudice the publics’ view of Mr Trump. The BBC, funded by EU grants, does the same because Mr Trump has no time for the EU

    So, are you also on the side of the media, corporations and the EU. Is it fashionable to knock Trump just to be ‘on trend’? or, do you support hard-working bread-winners whose incomes reduce and job options get fewer due to the ‘glut of labour’ policies pursued by the globalists and their puppet politicians?

    As it happens I think politicians should be obliged to spend at least 20 years in commerce or industry before becoming politicians. Then, running a country is not hard but easy.

    • I make it clearer – Mr Trump won by the rules and these are the rules that have served the USA for more than two hundred years. I have not problem with them and in many ways they are very satisfactory because they balance states rights against individual rights and are perfectly fair.

      I was not knocking Mr Trump. It is clear that he has a lot to learn but that is not a bad thing.

      I really detest the hysteria that the media drum up against him. For example the present hysteria about Russia and sanctions, which when imposed were only really symbolic, seems a nonsense to me.

      Robert

  2. First it was Farage, then Corbyn, then Putin, then Trump, next will be Le Pen. I wonder when, if ever, the Corporate Media will stop attacking so called ‘populists’ or ‘enemies’ with smear, half truths, exaggeration and hypocrisy. Just look at Bercow, he regularly hob-nobs with the world’s despots, murderers, and mysogenists yet he jumped on the anti-Trump bandwagon despite his parliamentary obligation to be non partisan.

    Did the Media vilify his hypocrisy? No!
    Guardian: “Bravo to Bercow”
    Telegraph: “Public support Speaker Bercow on barring Donald Trump from Parliament speech, poll finds”

    • I agree. there is so much distortion of what people have said – it is a classic way of arguing but also intellectually dishonest. First you seize on a statement that someone makes, then you “spin it” to mean something that was not said and then you argue against what was not said! This particularly happened to Mr Farage’s statements. Career politicians specialise in this way of arguing in debates.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: