You don’t need a Psychology textbook to see through this tactic by Trump. You need a textbook on Negotiation. His “first yes, then no, then yes” is known in negotiating parlance as the shady practice of bland withdrawal.
The Negotiator works out an apparent deal with his adversary or counterpart, and causes tthe latter to sell the deal to superiors or otherwise get invested in it. Then, as close to the originally planned finalization as possible, the “Trump” figure pulls out with no explanation, then returns to milk the reopened negotiation for an even better deal.
It’s a completely inappropriate tactic for governance or any other negotiation between long-term participants, but of course that doesn’t bother Dear Leader.
Note that the title includes “Art”. The book is essentially an encyclopedia of techniques, legit and shady.
This is a great book. As an aside, remember, back when celebrity endorsements were less prevalent, all the business deals Art Linkletter had going–the game of “Life”, his Bowling Alley, etc?
If I recall correctly, Nirenberg was his advisor.
Repulsive oaf says what?
Or perhaps the fuckin’ moron may simply have gotten a call from Bannon…
GOP has no leverage here. This is Mulvaney and the hard line morons trying to torpedo this deal. This deal would pass the Senate and House, but like the Gang of 8 immigration bill, I’ll bet the GOP leadership conspires to not bring it to the floor in 1 or both houses of Congress.
Dems have no need to wait for a deal here. If the GOP walks away, the Dems will win control of Congress, House + Senate. After that 60 minutes report, Bredesen is going to get into that Senate race vs. Blackburn and he’l beat her. Also have a good shot in NV and AZ with a very good chance of holding all incumbent D seats. In the House, I think we can have a 2006 style run.
The campaign is simple: If you give the GOP power they will take your money, take away your health care, and eat you. Vote Dem.
Notice in the article this AM Nicole was sayng Bannon was “throwing his weight” behind Flake’s challenger?
Hevvv-veeee…
He thinks ACA is like one of his real estate deals…
Honestly I think this is just Hair Furor playing reality TV with people’s lives. His instincts are to create chaos - he drowns the world in a torrent of malfeasance.
Most people who try to do something like that would quickly become pariahs; but because the Republican political apparatus is feckless, unpatriotic (having been coopted to slake the unquenchable thirst of greed; much like the banks he got his loans from), he gets away with it.
Something was starting to settle, so he shook it up. “Sure my cabinet is bilking taxpayers of more money from taxpayers than the Iraq war and running roughshod over decency and any laws we can’t dismantle, but I’m totally winning and look congress suuuuuucks!”
My response to that is that this “instinct” came from the training, whether from his father, Roy Cohn or whoever, that father-to-the-man origin of the sleazy real estate speculator.
So you’re “nature”, I’m “nurture” here.
Trump is not a deal maker. He’s a deal breaker and always has been. That’s why banks won’t lend to him, he can’t build things any more, and has to overpay for golf courses that lose tons of money because nobody in business took him seriously.
The only way Trump could make money is by laundering it for others behind his opaque international “deals”, which is another way of talking about kickbacks and corruption. I’m not making this up. Check the indicators for organizations involved in money laundering and Trump’s “business” fits it to a T.
“Flip-flops?” Craziness and lies.
Of course, he was never going to support the compromise. That would mean preserving Obamacare. Not gonna happen, unless the compromise can be attached to some must-pass bill he can’t veto.
I agree those instincts came from somewhere. Although, I also think that a large part of his operating by instinct is the onset of senility/dementia and the natural degradation of mental faculties that comes with age (particularly for those who don’t exercise their minds and bodies).
Part of me thinks that in any situation wherein he’s asked a question, he doesn’t actually know what’s going on, he just says what he knows to be the “right” answer at the time, regardless of the truth. Partly because he’s developed the instinct of doing such via a career dedicated to duplicity and brand polishing; partly because he’s afraid to admit that his memory is failing (which certainly would not be good for his brand).
I’d be curious to know when he last genuinely said something to the effect of, “You know, I’d have to look into that.” Without qualifying or deflection – or employed in the service of such acts. Or perhaps a history of such occasions, all inclusive, to allow for trend analysis and comparisons.
Don’t expect leadership from the President. Trump is a reed blowing in the wind. He will support the position he last heard until he changes his mind. Just keep the stabilization deal moving forward and he will see a chance for a win.
In the end, trying to have individual markets in health insurance is an inherently difficult proposition, for the simple reason that unlike fire or car insurance, individuals differ too much in the risks they represent and for reasons that are largely beyond their control. Sure they can help manage some risks by not smoking, eating healthy, etc., but inborn genetic factors and simple luck will still bite many.
The only viable long term solution is to move all those in individual markets into a single pool (it can be done on a state basis, rather than nationally, if that is preferred) and charge everyone premiums on a sliding scale based on income. Leave everyone with employer-provided insurance out of that if you want, since the reluctance of the majority of people who are covered through that means to give up what they have is a real barrier to single payer, Some say that will cause employers to drop coverage, but I’m not so sure-most employers want to attract and retain good people and high quality health insurance is a valuable tool to do that.
But setting up individual marketplaces is always going to be imperfect. The ACA was a decent way to go, but far from perfect.
He was for it before he was against it.
Alexander announced the deal in the middle of Trump’s press conference. That was a pretty startling rebuke from an otherwise milquetoast senator, and it forced Trump to pretend he was behind the deal to save his ego in the moment. Now Trump is trying to dominate Alexander, but my sense is the latter man is fed up and wants this stinking pile of manure out of his committee.
We have a fat, seriously ugly, lazy, nasty and stupid man aiming to dictate to everyone all over the world. He should be canned, right now. Not a word out of his mouth that isn’t slimy and false. He says one thing one moment and contradicts himself the next. Who needs him?
Yeah, I’ve spent a lot of CLE time in this kind of stuff. And one thing you realize, both through professional education and experience, is that there are a lot of people who just stumble their way into a classic, or at least a documented, bad-faith negotiation style, get results from it and stick with it. I’ve always pegged Trump as one of those.
I saw this coming a mile away. Whenever he seems agreeable to doing something good or he’s able to pull off a decent speech or comport himself like a decent human being for a day or two, his worst instincts inevitably re-assert themselves. It’s like he can’t help himself (he probably can’t). 
I wonder whether this is deliberate strategy or the Occupant’s usual destructive impulses. In my practice I’ve had adversaries (usually an organization that came into the case as an intervenor) who got as much as they could in multi-party settlement negotiations, then walked away and opposed the settlement at the fairness hearing stage. The other parties were left with a compromise that was worse than the deal they would have made if the intervenors hadn’t participated in the negotiations. In most cases I am not sure this was a planned-out strategy or the product of anger and a sense of entitlement (both of which #45 shares, of course). Thanks for the link to the book.