Thread: Focused on Trump’s Successes, Many Supporters Are Unfazed by His Reversals

Focused on Trump’s Successes, Many Supporters Are Unfazed by His Reversals

By JEREMY W. PETERS
APRIL 14, 2017

WASHINGTON — As some on the right howled about a series of reversals by President Trump on a number of his campaign promises — conned, betrayed, sold out, they said — Rush Limbaugh asked his listeners on Thursday whether any of that flip-flopping really mattered.

“See what Jeff Sessions is doing?” Mr. Limbaugh said of the attorney general, answering his own question: “Damn straight.”

“Have you seen what the job situation is?” he asked.

“Have you seen what the economic forecasts in the future are?” he went on.

The sentiment that Mr. Limbaugh was homing in on — the undented confidence that many Trump supporters have in the president as a get-things-done leader and deal maker — is the reason many conservatives say they do not think Mr. Trump will suffer much as he abandons some of his policy stances. They are not inclined to punish him, they say, even after he backed off his hard lines on NATO, the Chinese and the Export-Import Bank, and attacked Syria after having opposed such intervention.

No matter how many people try to tell them they have been played for fools, much to their annoyance, that is not a conclusion they seem likely to reach before Mr. Trump even marks his 100th day in office.

They knew all along that they were not voting for a man with concrete convictions. And they continue to see that lack of rigidity — his preference for the transactional over the dogmatic — as a quality they want in a chief executive.

So while much of the country sees the swerving on policy as another sign of White House dysfunction, many conservatives shrug it off as esoteric jockeying over foreign alliances, currency manipulation and economic policy. They are focused more, they say, on what they see as a litany of recent victories.

Illegal border crossings are down sharply, a development that Mr. Sessions promoted in a visit to Arizona this week. The Department of Homeland Security just closed its process for accepting bids for construction of a border wall. A new Supreme Court justice adored by conservatives, Neil M. Gorsuch, joined the court this week. And Mr. Trump signed legislation on Thursday aimed at cutting off federal funding for Planned Parenthood.

“All of these things that people think are just minor issues, for people like me are huge,” said Joyce Kaufman, a conservative radio host in West Palm Beach, Fla., who dismisses the cries of hypocrisy from others on the right. “They can wring their hands all they want,” she scoffed.

As Mr. Trump’s policy reversals and other contentious moves draw scrutiny from the news media and criticism from his political adversaries, many Trump supporters seem to be rallying around him in the face of what they see as a relentless onslaught.

“That does tend to bond them to him — every day they see him attacked,” said Tim Phillips, president of Americans for Prosperity, which is backed by the billionaire Koch brothers. The group has been canvassing voters recently in the suburban Atlanta district that will hold a special congressional election next week that many see as a bellwether for Mr. Trump’s popularity.

Trump’s Policy Reversals, in His Own Words

President Trump has reversed himself on several longstanding positions over the past week.

Listing a number of Mr. Trump’s conservative moves — the Gorsuch nomination, executive orders cutting back on regulation and proposed budget cuts — Mr. Phillips said many conservatives wanted to give Mr. Trump a shot.

“They’re hopeful on the policy front,” he added.

Polls have shown that Mr. Trump’s popularity has not suffered significantly because of his contradictions and backsliding. The sense of whiplash, of course, is nothing new: He said he would build a wall along the entire southern border; but now, maybe, it will not go all the way across. He said he would deport everyone illegally in the United States; but, it is now clear, he has no such intention. He said he would put in place a “total and complete shutdown” of entry into the country by Muslims; but, he now says, it is not really a Muslim ban.

By this point, supporters seem to be getting used to it all, forgiving of what they see as logical shifts away from more extreme positions as part of the deal-making process.

“We’ve learned absolutely nothing about Donald Trump since he was inaugurated that wasn’t patently obvious for the last year and a half,” said Whit Ayres, a Republican pollster. “Nothing new about his temperament, his knowledge base, his personality or his management style. Nothing.”

But when Mr. Trump is perceived as incompetent and incoherent, his image suffers far more.

Although his approval ratings have been low from the start, his popularity began a slide after the first week in March, when he insisted, without any evidence, that President Barack Obama had wiretapped Trump Tower. His numbers got worse after he failed to get through Congress his first major legislative initiative: the repeal and replacement of the Affordable Care Act.

His policies appear to have had little to do with the slide, though it probably did not help that one of them — the ban on travel from seven predominantly Muslim countries — has been tangled up and tainted by the continuing fight in the courts over its constitutionality.

But the policy reversals have left some on the right feeling betrayed, often bitterly so. The writer and pundit Ann Coulter, in a column prominently featured on the Breitbart News home page under the headline “Lassie, Come Home,” said Mr. Trump had turned his back on supporters like her who want America less engaged in conflicts overseas.

“We want the ‘president of America’ back — not ‘the president of the world,’” she wrote.

Laura Ingraham, the radio host and writer, has said she worries that Mr. Trump is drifting from the tenets of his campaign: anti-globalism, a smaller military footprint and conservative populism. But she does not sense that everyone shares her disappointment.

There are quantifiable signs of inching forward. There are the American companies like Ford and Carrier that say they are retaining jobs in the United States, even if those represent just a tiny sliver of overall employment. There has been a three-tenths-of-a-point drop in unemployment since January.

“Trump supporters who call in to my show are all over the map,” Ms. Ingraham said. And she is, for now, giving the president the benefit of the doubt, guessing that his shifts are intended to bring up his abysmal poll numbers so he can be a strong leader — the very trait that led people like her to support him.

“But why is that a bad thing?” she asked. “Should he want to be unpopular and see initiatives fail? After all, the higher his approval ratings, the more leverage he has with Congress and other foreign leaders.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/14/u...-limbaugh.html

I hope everyone, conservatives, moderates, and all others including Democrats and Independents pay close attention if they're interested to the facts.

For example, on NATO, Trump hasn't reversed his position on NATO. He always supported NATO but said during the campaign they're obsolete unless they're focusing on terrorism. So NATO decided to form an Anti-Terrorism Commission or Task Force to focus on fighting terrorism in their region and regions that impact them. This happened during the campaign when Trump was making such a big deal out of it. So NATO has changed course to make themselves and their expenditures more relevant. When you're relevant and dealing with modern issues, you're no longer obsolete. In addition, Trump was adamant during the campaign and to this day that NATO members must spend their agreed upon amounts on defense. The countries and NATO organization has promised that will be the case and all the countries will comply, some sooner, some later, but all by 2024. So Trump's support now for NATO is not a reversal, it's an accomplishment because he got done what he felt was needed to continue the organization with the US involved in it.

The same with China. His attacks on China about trade issues were based on currency manipulation and trade deficits. Well, since the election, China has stopped manipulating its currency. You can't take action against a country for currency manipulation when they are no longer doing it. On trade, China got the message and is ordering all types of big ticket items from the United States to shrink the trade deficit and it's already showing up in the figures. What are US exports are they buying? Oil and Coal. That's to move towards a more balanced trade situation. When you see improvement and much more needs to be done but when things are moving in the right direction in a noticeable way, you don't hail about tariffs, you want and see if we can get our trade deficits in balance. And Trump hasn't ended his plan for protected trade. He's working with his staff and I guess the useless in Congress to find out how best to use tariffs and taxes to systematize a more balanced and US advantageous trade and commerce picture with the world. Tax reform can fix part of it, renegotiating NAFTA can fix part of it, forcing China to fix their part of it, the same with Europe, Japan and many other countries. So the false narrative that Trump has "reversed" on trade, is just bunk. He's not reversed on anything related to trade. Trump wants a balanced or surplus trade situation for the United States, he won't stop fixing until he gets it, and you all can take that to the bank, but to balance an $800 billion a year deficit takes time and a multitude of initiatives, if you don't pass the FairTax. If you pass the FairTax, the trade issue solves itself.

Trump didn't reverse himself on the Muslim travel ban. The 9th Circuit stopped it. We have 3 branches of government, and the Executive Branch can't over-ride the Judicial Branch except through the Judicial Branch. On immigration, from our side, the courts are not the answer. You have to back-up and try another route to solve the issue. Courts historically have been very anti-American throughout our history on the issue of immigration, all the way to the US Supreme Court, even when the majority was Republican. It's an odd thing and makes you wonder about SCOTUS, but that's the way it is and more than likely that's the way it will continue to be.

Interventionism. Trump hasn't reversed a policy on interventionism. Trump said he was going after ISIS and Radical Islamic Terrorism. He approved the raid in Yemen. Although it had problems, the raid was successful due to the information retrieved and the number of Al Qaeda leaders killed. The Syria strike, although I'm mixed on it and don't think Assad was responsible for the "chemical attack" if there even was one, I think I understand why he did it and it didn't have anything to do with Syria, it had to do something bigger, somewhere else. The big attack yesterday in Afghanistan to close up this ratway in the mountains where terrorists have been traveling back and forth between Afghanistan and Pakistan should have been taken out in 2003 or any year since. This ratway is how Obama bin Laden escaped Afghanistan years ago. Yes, it took a big expensive bomb to do it because of the terrain, but that's what big expensive bombs are made and paid for to do. Many Americans have been killed in Afghanistan because of this ratway. Well, this ratway is no more now. It's history.

So it's really amazing how the corrupt media can manipulate so many people into believing that winning your objectives and taking care of business are "reversals of position". But like Trump has always said, not all media are corrupt and dishonest. I have to hand it to some of the women on Fox News "Outnumbered". They not only get it, they are extremely articulate and knowledgeable in expressing it. Thank you Ladies!!

I haven't paid any attention to Rush Limbaugh since I realized he was nothing more than a cheerleader for Pres. Bush.

At least he was after he got caught doing a no-no with drugs in a state where the President's brother was governor and managed to somehow stay out of trouble.

So, since NATO is wonderful again, does that mean we, the US taxpayers, will not have so much of our monies spent on NATO. Will we only spend up to the designated percentage?

Does that mean that China isn't going to continue to send cheap, shoddy, dangerous goods into the US?

Was Bin Laden actually in a cave during all that bombing? Some stories say not. Many have him living in Pakistan until his death much earlier than the 'raid' charade put on by Pres. Obama. I think he was dead when Pres. Bush was asked about Bin Laden and he declared, 'he's no longer a priority'. Why would he say that unless he knew for sure.


Now we could charge Halliburton and get back some of the billions they scammed from the taxpayers. That might help rebuild Iraq. We could also demand that all those 'allies' and corporations that swooped in to take over the various resources in Iraq come forward and pay up - that would help.

He could be right - it just looks so wrong -it sounds so wrong. It looks so much like business as usual for our corporate feudal lords.

If it looks good to the media - it is definitely wrong.

Was Bin Laden actually in a cave during all that bombing? Some stories say not. Many have him living in Pakistan until his death much earlier than the 'raid' charade put on by Pres. Obama. I think he was dead when Pres. Bush was asked about Bin Laden and he declared, 'he's no longer a priority'. Why would he say that unless he knew for sure.

Exactly. Whoever they killed and whoever they threw overboard with the burial at sea was not Osama bin Laden, it was someone else. Someone investigated and tracked him to Iran, where they discovered he's lived there for years, died in Iran from kidney failure I think in 2003 and was buried there. He had kidney disease and required dialysis.

Originally Posted by Judy

Exactly. Whoever they killed and whoever they threw overboard with the burial at sea was not Obama bin Laden, it was someone else. Someone investigated and tracked him to Iran, where they discovered he's lived there for years, died in Iran from kidney failure I think in 2003 and was buried there. He had kidney disease and required dialysis.

It couldn't have been Obama Bin Laden, but it could have been Osama Bin Laden.

Well, nice to see which conspiracy theory you buy into. I believe there have been about 9 different stories surrounding Osama Bin Laden's death. To deny our governments version of Osama Bin Laden's death is to implicate SEAL Team 6 in several criminal acts, which include fraud.

Every single time a newsworthy event like this happens a load of conspiracy theories start flying. For example, there are still many people that believe the Bush administration was involved the destruction of the WTC, There were all kinds of 9/11 conspiracy theories ....... same with Osama Bin Laden's death.

Here's a thought on conspiracy theories: The more elaborate a conspiracy theory is, and the more people that would need to be involved, the less likely it is true.

LOL!!! Oh sorry about that!

No, it wasn't any conspiracy theories. It was a compilation of facts that actually came from the government that convinced me he'd died a long time before starting with the statement Bush made that nntrixie pointed out. My husband and I both heard that and went, "what?" And from there we went information digging and it was conclusive for us. It only takes one or two slip-ups and we found 9 or 10 that convinced us.

Originally Posted by Judy

No, it wasn't any conspiracy theories. It was a compilation of facts that actually came from the government that convinced me he'd died a long time before starting with the statement Bush made that nntrixie pointed out. My husband and I both heard that and went, "what?" And from there we went information digging and it was conclusive for us. It only takes one or two slip-ups and we found 9 or 10 that convinced us.

Conspiracy theory started by Alex Jones.

This is how a good conspiracy theory starts:

"Alex Jones was told live on the radio in 2002 by high-level Council on Foreign Relations members that Osama Bin Laden had died of kidney failure in early 2002.

“I have it from high level [sources] from inside the Bush administration…that bin Laden died of natural causes and that his family has given the body to the CIA, that they’re gonna roll him out right before the election, that he’s on ice right now. They will claim they killed him right before the election,” Alex said at the time.

“Jones gave a caution that the intelligence could be disinformation but claimed that his base in Austin was extremely close to the Bush administration and similar information received in the past had been credible,” Paul Joseph Watson wrote in August of 2002.

During the 2004 election, CNN reported that Democratic insiders had been told that George W. Bush was going to use the Bin Laden body as an ace-in-the-hole if he thought he was in danger of losing the 2004 election. This confirmed the evidence that Jones had been given by the CFR and others.

In 2003, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright told Fox News Channel analyst Morton Kondracke she suspected Bush knew the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden and was waiting for the most politically expedient moment to announce his capture."

https://www.prisonplanet.com/osama-b...for-years.html

Note the obvious absence of names, facts, and hard evidence. Personally, I would never consider using Alex Jones, INFOWARS, or PrisonPlanet.com in a fact gathering mission, However, I have noticed that you utilize Alex Jones and INFOWARS for a lot of your information. Well, guess that is your prerogative.

Really? Could you find some examples to support your claim?

I never watch Alex Jones and other than a repost of a nice video that someone else had made and put up on YouTube about Trump from 1980 to 2015 during the campaign, which I posted here during the campaign simply because Jones's link at InfoWars was the first one on Google, to my knowledge I've never gotten any information from InfoWars.

I have no problem with Alex Jones and his InfoWars, but he's not a source of any of my information. And yes, it would be my prerogative if it were true, but it's a complete fabrication (nice word for lie) on your part.

You seem to be getting very agitated, that's when you make a lot of sloppy mistakes like this one, MW. Best you calm down.

And to your InfoWars posting about bin Laden, LOL!! No, none of that is what we based on opinions on. Different facts, different sources, top to bottom.

Originally Posted by Judy

Really? Could you find some examples to support your claim?

I never watch Alex Jones and other than a repost of a nice video that someone else had made and put up on YouTube about Trump from 1980 to 2015 during the campaign, which I posted here during the campaign simply because Jones's link at InfoWars was the first one on Google, to my knowledge I've never gotten any information from InfoWars.

I have no problem with Alex Jones and his InfoWars, but he's not a source of any of my information. And yes, it would be my prerogative if it were true, but it's a complete fabrication (nice word for lie) on your part.

You seem to be getting very agitated, that's when you make a lot of sloppy mistakes like this one, MW. Best you calm down.

And to your InfoWars posting about bin Laden, LOL!! No, none of that is what we based on opinions on. Different facts, different sources, top to bottom.

Please .......