Trump & Taiwan

[TheDrake]

Been thinking a bit on the Trump-Taiwan call. First, I think the diplomatic fiction and related tensions are nothing new, although during Obama's administration it hasn't come up as much. I also think that this may be an insight into Trump's character - shake things up, don't tell me who I can take a phone call from, I can use this as leverage to "make a better deal".

For the record, I've never been thrilled with the whole One-China compromise, where we acknowledge China's claims, but simultaneously sell military hardware to the "rebellious province".

From a "what's best for America" standpoint, our economy is vitally linked to both Taiwan and China. So any disruption could lead to loss of jobs, rising prices, or other problems. At the same time, there could be upside.

I think Trump's business style is that of a classic capitalist. Take on risky ventures, some will work out and others won't. Everyone is your opponent, and you need to throw your opponent off balance. I'm not sure that I'm happy with that in a President.

[Pete at Home]

If one believes in that climate change is a national security issue, then China's Great Wall of sand in the South China Sea and destruction of the local coral reefs is a global Cause Beli.  Threatening the One China policy seems the appropriate response to China's rejection of the International Court's ruling.

[Kasandra]

The US diplomatic agencies are beside themselves over Trump's informal way of just calling up foreign leaders to say "Howdy".  His profound lack of knowledge, understanding and concern about the lack of either is destabilizing years if not decades of "mutual understandings" between countries.  As the man said

[TheDrake]

Actually, this call was initiated from Taiwan, not Trump. He didn't coordinate with the State Department or the current administration, like any of the insiders would have done. It was, however, an arranged formal call. Whether throwing out decades of precedence is good or bad remains to be seen. After all, Obama threw out decades of precedence regarding Cuba and caused quite a bit of turmoil in certain circles. Nixon threw out precedence regarding China. GWB certainly tromped all over precedence. Gorbachev threw out precedence dealing with the West.

I don't think he lacks the knowledge, I think he just doesn't care about how things have been done in the past, which is in part why he gained support. He deliberately ran on a platform of doing things differently than before. Whether this turns out positively remains to be seen.

Trump certainly doesn't believe that climate change is a national security issue, so that wouldn't be why he chooses to confront China. I doubt that he's concerned about China's environmental impact. While those might be important things to some people, my interest is in Trump's motivation. I suspect he sees China as a rival rather than a partner, and he is seeking to weaken them as a way to advance American interests.

[Pete at Home]

Trump may not currently care about climate change, but he might be induced to pretend to care about it, if it helped a blunder seem wise.

Trump certainly doesn't believe that climate change is a national security issue, so that wouldn't be why he chooses to confront China. I doubt that he's concerned about China's environmental impact. While those might be important things to some people, my interest is in Trump's motivation.

Trump's motivation is such that I believe he can be manipulated to do good or evil.

[Kasandra]

Trump's motivation is such that I believe he can be manipulated to do good or evil.

Perhaps because he has no moral compass in addition to his lack of knowledge.

[Pete at Home]

Trump's motivation is such that I believe he can be manipulated to do good or evil.

Perhaps because he has no moral compass in addition to his lack of knowledge.

If that's true, all the more reason to seek to manipulate him for good.

[Greg Davidson]

The Bush Administration was played by individuals like Ahmed Chalabi who presented himself as the Thomas Jefferson of Iraq but really had ties to Iran. Trump's lack of discipline may leave him vulnerable to multiple schemes that are more to the advantage of various factions somewhere in the world than they are to the interests of the United States.

[Kasandra]

If that's true, all the more reason to seek to manipulate him for good.

That seems naive.  He understands power and has no particular use for good that comes without a profit.  Did he do good in the Carrier deal?

[Pete at Home]

If that's true, all the more reason to seek to manipulate him for good.

That seems naive.  He understands power and has no particular use for good that comes without a profit.

Oh really?  You accusing Trump of not having an ego? Not enjoying praise? Not being sensitive to criticism?

[Kasandra]

It sounds like your plan is to trick him into doing good.  Good luck with that.

Here's an example of what to expect from his China diplomacy.

[Pete at Home]

It sounds like your plan is to trick him into doing good.  Good luck with that.
.

Not trick. Simply manipulate through praise.

For example, if the mainstream press gave him kudos for being the first president to address the issue of ocean deoxygenation through destruction of coral reefs, I suspect we'd see him do more there than that one tweet.

[Kasandra]

It sounds like your plan is to trick him into doing good.  Good luck with that.
.

Not trick. Simply manipulate through praise.

For example, if the mainstream press gave him kudos for being the first president to address the issue of ocean deoxygenation through destruction of coral reefs, I suspect we'd see him do more there than that one tweet.

Like I said, good luck with hoping to have a chance to praise him for saving coral reefs in places he doesn't own or vacation at.  Maybe if Ivanka outsources her manufacturing nearby he'd take a look at it.

[Pete at Home]

If you think the vacation industry is the threat to coral reefs, then I fear you hate Trump more than you love the planet. The problem is mostly fishing trawlers that scrape bottom.  It's a major CO2 sink lost.  Much more serious than emissions.

[Seriati]

The One China policy is a national embarrassment that should have been thrown away years ago.  It's a violation of the basic principals of the UN (including specifically self determination) that Taiwan has not been recognized as an independent country simply to appease a global bully.

I approve of Trump taking the call and I hope he goes further.  In a lot of ways he represents an unusual opportunity with the Chinese.  He can act, while the rest of the government makes face saving conciliatory gestures and we can materially change the policy while not paying the full consequences.  It's a very similar to the way the Chinese conduct their own foreign policy at times.

[Pete at Home]

Taiwan has not been recognized as an independent country simply to appease a global bully

Openly Recognizing Taiwan's independence would be the fastest way to destroy it.  Taiwan doesn't want our open recognition.

But even if you don't recognize the issue of oxygenation of the oceans, destruction of the South China Sea coral reefs is going to result in massive starvation in the Philippines and there abouts. Millions depend on the fish in the area.

[TheDrake]

The problem is that Taiwan even declaring its independence, even if nobody recognized it, could very likely trigger an invasion from the mainland. It isn't face-saving, its life-saving. The people of Taiwan will continue to have to decide if they want to risk it, so far the answer has been no. In a nutshell, those people have exercised their right to self-determination, and they have determined that they will continue to identify as a province of China.

[Seriati]

Or, the rest of the world could stand up to the bully and tell them that they have no territorial claims to Taiwan and help to enforce that.  If you continue on this path at some point China is going to take Taiwan by force.  Then what?

[TheDrake]

If the world starts standing up to bullies, then the US might be in trouble.

But delaying an invasion means that anything could happen. China could ease its grip, it could collapse from within. Standing up to people for the principle of being a badass and not taking crap from noone is a pretty stupid way to behave.

Provoking one is condemning an unpredictable number of people to death, and for what? They aren't being oppressed, they aren't being taxed, and they aren't being killed. Most importantly, once again, shouldn't THEY be the ones to decide if they want to risk being murdered over a technicality?

We stood up to the bully Saddam Hussein, that worked out well. And the bully Assad.

[D.W.]

Then nothing Seriati.  I fear the day more powers start calling our bluff.

[Pete at Home]

Leave Taiwan alone, but make a stand at the South China sea, or millions will starve, good prices will skyrocket, the ocean will die and rise a lot more. 

[TheDrake]

cmon pete, they're all gonna die of thirst long before a lack of fish does anything.

Plus, we've got no shortage of stuff we can chuck in the ocean to make artificial reefs.

[Kasandra]

Then nothing Seriati.  I fear the day more powers start calling our bluff.

I can't imagine that China, Russia, India or other countries that are among our allies today (France, Germany) are going to be bullied with bluffs by Trump. If Syria had a red line that Obama didn't follow through on, imagine how those other countries will react when Trump doesn't build that wall and doesn't "impose" 35% import tariffs on their goods.

[Pete at Home]

cmon pete, they're all gonna die of thirst long before a lack of fish does anything.

Plus, we've got no shortage of stuff we can chuck in the ocean to make artificial reefs.

Just as Edison with the lightbulb, we have discovered several hundred ways not to make artificial reefs, and one way to make them successfully.  Unfortunately the latter requires an electric power source , a metal skeleton, and decades or centuries to work, as the calcium-carbon-magnesium deposit only grows at about 15 cm diameter per year.

[DJQuag]

So, is Taiwan supposed to be less then China in our eyes?

Taiwan is the actual democracy. We already sell them weapons and guarantee their sovereignty.

What, we're really going to pillory Trump for taking a phone call from a democratically elected leader of a country that has had democracy for the last sixty years because China might get mad?

So are we just rolling over? Is China the top dog now? We HAVE to do what they say?

[Fenring]

So, is Taiwan supposed to be less then China in our eyes?

Taiwan is the actual democracy. We already sell them weapons and guarantee their sovereignty.

What, we're really going to pillory Trump for taking a phone call from a democratically elected leader of a country that has had democracy for the last sixty years because China might get mad?

So are we just rolling over? Is China the top dog now? We HAVE to do what they say?

I think most of the rhetoric surrounding this ominous phone call has much more to do with finding any way to paint Trump in a negative light than it does with concern about Taiwan's well-being. This subject is only one of many being passed around to "prove" that Trump is going to ruin the country.

The funny part of all this is that Trump may well make blunders, but instead of waiting for him to make them everyone is whipping up a hateful frenzy about non-issues. It undermines any credibility such voices have, so that if and when Trump does make a blunder it will just be mixed in with the rest of the media trash.

[TheDeamon]

Or another way to frame it. The Democrats cheered about Obama talking about having "a pen and a phone." While they seem to be completely terrified of Trump with a telephone. I await to see what they start doing in 6 weeks when he gets to use the Presidential Pen.

[DJQuag]

They'll frigging cry wolf for the first year or two when what he does is distasteful but not *oh *censored** worthy, and then when he actually starts rounding people up in camps they'll be ignored because the last ten times they said Hitler Jr. was starting up it turned out to be nothing.

[TheDrake]

First, I think at least for me, I was pretty clear I'm not trying to "pillory" anybody. I'm pointing out that this is unusual and wondering what people think. I do think it is a gamble, and wondering what the point of it is.

Personally, I wouldn't start a fight with China without a clear idea of the endgame. If I were going to go after China, it would be about cyber attacks on American business, not Taiwan's fig leaf.

I think many of us who didn't support Trump are waiting to see what his actions are about.

I think it is unconscionable for a president-elect to not have correspondence with the sitting administration about diplomatic affairs, but I also wonder if there was a hush-hush contact where the current administration could disavow coordination.

Also, Taiwan, is NOT A COUNTRY. You get that right, DJ? They don't claim to be a country.

And yes, in the right circumstances, for the best possible outcome YOU DO ROLL OVER. Kennedy quietly rolled over to defuse the Cuban Missile Crisis by removing missiles from Turkey. Sometimes for the better good, you drop down and show your belly. It should be a carefully considered, calculated choice. Not about being the tough guy who doesn't consider consequences because of pride.

As for democracy, it would be great if we universally supported democracy. But if we did, we'd have to accept all kinds of governments we don't like, back off when that country makes laws we don't like, and stop supporting insurgents and dissidents against those governments. Venezuela comes to mind.

[TheDeamon]

Also, Taiwan, is NOT A COUNTRY. You get that right, DJ? They don't claim to be a country.

If you really get down to it, Taiwan, and by extension China, remain in an unresolved state of civil war. Chinese Nationalists vs Chinese Communists. Neither side wants to fully break ties with the other because that means renouncing any claims they may claim to hold regarding the other. Both sides view the other as the Rebels.

[rightleft22]

has much more to do with finding any way to paint Trump in a negative light

never laugh so hard

[Seriati]

Also, Taiwan, is NOT A COUNTRY. You get that right, DJ? They don't claim to be a country.

Based on what?  In what way, other than recognition, is Taiwan not a country?  One of the basic premises (or lies, if you prefer) of the UN is the right of self determination.  Is it your contention, that free from threat of force, the people of Taiwan would not elect to be an independent country?

The unstatus of Taiwan is a global embarrassment, an appeasement of epic proportions, and what do we get for it?  A China that feels justified in using force within its self declared borders (whether or not the people living in them agree), that pursues one of the worst environmental policies on Earth and that has no problem, as Pete is pointing out, damaging the environment to support dubious expanded territorial claims to increase its ability to exploit the ocean.  Honestly, show me how appeasement of a country that believes that any appeasement is an entitlement to take more is supposed to be making us safer?

[TheDeamon]

Based on what?  In what way, other than recognition, is Taiwan not a country?  One of the basic premises (or lies, if you prefer) of the UN is the right of self determination.  Is it your contention, that free from threat of force, the people of Taiwan would not elect to be an independent country?

The unstatus of Taiwan is a global embarrassment, an appeasement of epic proportions, and what do we get for it?  A China that feels justified in using force within its self declared borders (whether or not the people living in them agree), that pursues one of the worst environmental policies on Earth and that has no problem, as Pete is pointing out, damaging the environment to support dubious expanded territorial claims to increase its ability to exploit the ocean.  Honestly, show me how appeasement of a country that believes that any appeasement is an entitlement to take more is supposed to be making us safer?

I don't think Taiwan has fully changed its position (yet) in regards to their relationship to China. Last I checked, they viewed themselves as "The rightful government of China" ... in exile. So their limbo status isn't an exclusively "Communist China thing."

Edit: Although dropping that claim, and just declaring independence only to be likely to be on the receiving end of a large scale invasion by the Chinese Army, probably within hours of doing so, also probably has a part to play in all of this.

[D.W.]

I've got to ask.  Under what circumstance do you (any of you) see the U.S. firing a shot/dropping a bomb on a Russian or Chinese military unit?  Assuming they do not fire on us first.  In defense of another country/territory. 

We would threaten, we'd probably even amass troops.  But I have a hard time envisioning trading attacks with a power where we did not have overwhelming military superiority such that the enemy could not effectively retaliate.

Am I naive to think that the super powers have "evolved" to the point of economic warfare, cyber attacks and proxies when in conflict with each other?  I don't think there IS a red line anymore when it comes to Russia or China. 

Would we go to war to prevent an invasion of Japan?  Is the boarder of the EU safe?  What triggers, without hesitation a military response by the US, no matter who the aggressor happens to be?

Now, that isn't to say that I believe China or Russia would have free reign to co on a conquest shopping spree.  Global economics makes that close to impossible.  It may not be bullets and bombs but the proper actions can devastate a country without firing a shot.  And that doesn't even get into cyber attacks.  (Which, to be frank I'm not confident we have an edge in.)

[TheDrake]

Based on what?  In what way, other than recognition, is Taiwan not a country?  One of the basic premises (or lies, if you prefer) of the UN is the right of self determination.  Is it your contention, that free from threat of force, the people of Taiwan would not elect to be an independent country?

In what way, other than the threat of force, is Texas not a country? It is a group of people, many of whom would like to be independent of the US, and many who don't for a variety of reasons.

The unstatus of Taiwan is a global embarrassment, an appeasement of epic proportions, and what do we get for it?  A China that feels justified in using force within its self declared borders (whether or not the people living in them agree), that pursues one of the worst environmental policies on Earth and that has no problem, as Pete is pointing out, damaging the environment to support dubious expanded territorial claims to increase its ability to exploit the ocean.  Honestly, show me how appeasement of a country that believes that any appeasement is an entitlement to take more is supposed to be making us safer?

If you're going to beat that drum, then Tibet is a much better example of an embarrassment for the global community. So is Palestine. I'm sure I could find other examples.

Of course your argument seems less about self-determination than "China. So bad."

Nixon and other presidents understood that we could help ourselves and the Chinese people better without putting up our dukes and isolating those damn communists. As a result, China has a growing middle class more likely to hold their government accountable. Meanwhile, nations we've given the "build a wall" treatment to like North Korea and Cuba remain horrible actors stagnant. (ed.)

It's easy to point the finger at a rising nation and demanding that they respect the environment when your developed country has already finished their big dams, flooded valleys, and dredged your coasts.

It's easy to point the finger and demand that a rising nation stop claiming part of the nearby ocean when your developed country has already claimed domination over the entire Western Hemisphere, in large part Europe, and a good chunk of the Far East.

None of which, naturally, has anything to do with Taiwan or its status.

[NobleHunter]

Is the border of the EU safe?

It ****ing well better be (at least if it means NATO). An attack on one is an attack on all. We've honoured that obligation and our people may be in harm's way over there. You don't get to chicken out.

Off-topic, but that people are talking about budgetary expenditures as "not pulling their weight" is particularly contemptible from the only country to invoke the mutual defence clause.

[D.W.]

I think that is the line NH.  an actual treaty saying we WILL step in if X.
Anything short of that and I think we are just standing there saying "shame on you!"

But that's not the impression we give.  I'm just curious how others see most of this posturing and tension and aggression towards areas NOT protected by such treaties.

Now obviously people die in these situations.  So you can't downplay the seriousness.  But the line to step in and stop something that "is wrong" does not align when you compare our (and anyone else's) propaganda and our policy.

When we have people seriously talking about one or both candidates triggering a war with another super power, I just think we need to take a deep breath and (I think) acknowledge that is pure BS.

[NobleHunter]

I thought the US had such arrangements with South Korea, NATO and Taiwan, which covers the current potential flashpoints. They explicitly and deliberately didn't with Ukraine, so no direct intervention.

[Fenring]

When we have people seriously talking about one or both candidates triggering a war with another super power, I just think we need to take a deep breath and (I think) acknowledge that is pure BS.

That was somewhat my point about the "no fly zone" in Syria, where we had a choice between believing that some people were calling for WWIII (in the case of enforcing it) or that they were bluffing, which is not only BS but makes threats of action seem like empty rhetoric. I think it was your position that Hillary, for instance, was probably bluffing and never would have actually enforced such a thing, and if you were right about that then what was in fact happening was sabre rattling with Russia, worsening relations, just for the sake of local PR with the voters. That is dangerous in its own right.

The Russia situation has in common with the China situation that the U.S. would not actually conduct combat with them in any realistic scenario other than armageddon, and so any sense of materially opposing them is more like a game of chicken than a threat: who will admit first they have no intention of initiating real hostilities. There is therefore no more danger in speaking with Taiwan on the phone than there is in any other political activity. Could it create tensions, or ease them? Maybe, but there are so many tensions already it would be only one small thing in the mix. And even that is only true if the call was about some material change in the situation. It could just as soon have been a "Hello! Happy to meet you."

[D.W.]

I think it was your position that Hillary, for instance, was probably bluffing and never would have actually enforced such a thing, and if you were right about that then what was in fact happening was sabre rattling with Russia, worsening relations, just for the sake of local PR with the voters. That is dangerous in its own right.

Yes it was.  Though I don't agree with the "dangerous" part.  I mean, look at the rattling Russia does.  Some of it is for internal consumption.  Some of it is the game we play with each other (as nations).  Heck, some of it is probably invited, so that one side has an excuse to back off when they over play their hand.

This of course assumes a nation is acting rationally.  Overly ambitious?  Aggressive?  This can be dealt with.  They can be trusted to see the potential (non military) repercussions to actions that displease their competitors on the global stage.

I honestly believe that open conflict between the major powers is past.  The only real threat to triggering such an event is getting multiple hot heads in the wrong job who actually believe the inward facing propaganda instead of wielding it as a tool.

And thanks for the clarification NH.  I was unaware of our actual status regarding Taiwan.

[NobleHunter]

When no one wants to go to war, uncertainty and confusion is dangerous. Both sides need to know at point the other side is willing to start shooting. In such an environment, there needs to be a clear understanding of "you may go this far and no farther." That's one reason why Russia has moved in on Ukraine but not the Baltics. The line appears to be membership in NATO. If they stay away from NATO signatories, then retaliation will be limited to non-military means. Invade Latvia and the tanks start rolling.

Trump seems to have no problems being confusing and unclear. He'll say and do whatever he likes, confident in the security of his own position. Which might work when your opponents are trying to recover millions of dollars they lent you or when they can't afford to sue you for the money you owe them. Try it on a country and they might step across a line they didn't know was there and then you have a shooting war. Oops.

DW, I didn't doublecheck but it's my understanding that if China tries to invade the US will start shooting automatically.

[D.W.]

I also wonder if Trump can take his aggressive business practices and refocus them to a global political style.  He seems to me to be the type to game the system.  But dealing with foreign governments is a lot more art than that. 

Bluntly saying, "I know you won't do X, so get on board and do Y already." without... dancing the dance first, could be something a lot of world leaders and their subordinates aren't ready for. 

Let alone twitter tirades when they were expecting an ass kissing or at least face saving statements they were permitted to spin domestically.

Maybe the two are more similar than I think and he'll slide right into place.

For all I know he will personally inform all leaders to ignore what he says on Twitter.  Inform them that is just propaganda for the U.S. population and it doesn't mean anything.  (and hope they believe that)

[TheDrake]

DW, I didn't doublecheck but it's my understanding that if China tries to invade the US will start shooting automatically.

Not exactly. The link breaks it down in detail.

If China launched a military assault, the President is only legally obligated to “determine, in accordance with constitutional processes, appropriate action.” This requirement is for executive-legislative consultations and hardly seems like an obligation, as Bernstein alleges, “to intervene if China launched an armed strike on Taiwan.”

Much weaker than NATO and weaker than Japan or South Korea, especially when you consider the ongoing US military presence in those countries.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/taiwans-us-defense-guarantee-not-strong-it-isnt-weak-either

[rightleft22]

So far Trump hasn’t demonstrated any nuance in his methodology. He has found what works for him and he’s not going to change it. He is the hammer and everyone else is a nail, everyone.

We have enough history on Trump to make the claim that that is not likely to change. The only certainty we have for the next four years is that Trump will be Trump.  What we are uncertain of is what impact that will have particularly in foreign policy.   

My read on the situation is that Trump didn’t overthink taking a call from Taiwan and that when China complained Trump being Trump fired back – twitter diplomacy.   I doubt very much it was an intentional shoot across the bow however that is what it was. Not just to China’s but America as well.  Trump is not going to play the diplomacy game. He will say it as he sees it. And no one should be surprised.

[Fenring]

In such an environment, there needs to be a clear understanding of "you may go this far and no farther."

This seems to be a reasonable position to hope for. However:

Trump seems to have no problems being confusing and unclear. He'll say and do whatever he likes, confident in the security of his own position.

Here's where I think the anti-Trump rhetoric goes off the rails. If you want talk about a lack of clarity, just above D.W. opined that Hillary had made a claim about how far Russia could go in Syria that was, in fact, an untruth about what she would really do to stop Russian air support. Assuming he's correct (which is the more charitable assumption to make on Hillary's behalf) that means her entire foreign policy concept for what to do about Russian in Syria, was in its essence an exercise in being confusing and unclear in an attempt to sound tough.

Contrast with Trump, where despite being vague and bizarre when replying to questions on various topics he has actually been quite clear and consistent in his position on how to deal with Russia. The meme that he hasn't got any real ideas may apply to certain areas of the U.S. but certainly cannot apply to areas where he described specific policy and now seems to be taking steps to implement it (e.g. his phone talk with Putin). His plan for Russia was to improve relations, open more dialogues, and work with Russian whenever possible. I don't know that I've heard specific mention of his intentions for China (if someone else has feel free to let me know what he's said) but overall what we've had so far is that he doesn't like how the trade deals are faring. That in itself is fairly vague, but gives no hint of an intention to play mind games with China and inflame tensions to amuse himself as the other GOP candidates (and Hillary) claimed they would do with Russia.

The word on the 'net is that by talking with Taiwan Trump has already blundered and is ruining America's foreign relations. This kind of rubbish editorializing mostly strikes me as making all such voices sound like mere zealouts and I'm less inclined to believe any negative reporting about Trump as a result. People should, I think, take care to make sure their accusations have a basis in reality lest they undermine any credibility they may require at such a time as Trump actually does blunder.

[D.W.]

I don't think Trump blundered in taking the call.  Or, if it WAS a situation where he honestly didn't know it would provoke some sort of response from China... I don't think it does any harm.

It MAY demonstrate that Trump is unwilling to "be diplomatic", or it may indicate that he knows he's going to butt heads with China on trade and wants leverage or just to shake things up.

As to Hillary being unclear where Trump is not.  I am not sure if saber rattling / bluffing is the same as being unclear.  I mean, there is certainly some appeal to a zero BS, say it like it is, White House.  If the rest of the world doesn't lose their *censored* over the change in the way "the game is played", since... like forever.

The open question is how much can we trust Trump's "strait talk"?  I'm in the, "I'll believe it when I see it." category on damn near everything that comes out of his mouth.  Does that mean I'm blind to the obfuscations (or lies as others may brand them) on "my side?"  No.  Or at least, I THINK I catch a lot of them. 

I think what many people want is a politician to be predictable.  Note, that's not the same as a politician being honest, or blunt.

[rightleft22]

Here's where I think the anti-Trump rhetoric goes off the rails....

I think your right. Trump has always been clear about what he thinks… though a case could be made that he over uses the tactic of obfuscation in order to keep the opponent off balance. When you accept that obfuscation is his go to and look through it, what he does and says is very clear.

The uncertainty is coming from not taking Trump seriously and assuming/debating that he means something else when he says or does something.  Trump promised that ‘what you see is what you will get’ and this second guessing intent, and who is the real Trump, is absurd.

[NobleHunter]

Trump's campaign slogan could have been: "I didn't say that" or maybe "I didn't mean that." For all that he claims to be a straight talker he seems to have a whole coterie of translators that leap to explain what he really meant.

[D.W.]

When you accept that obfuscation is his go to and look through it, what he does and says is very clear.

The uncertainty is coming from not taking Trump seriously

Can you explain that again?  Or give an example of obfuscation?  Or are you referring to a tactic of distracting people with nonsense in order to obfuscate his no nonsense statements?

Are we talking deflecting criticism of appointments with... say, a rant about the latest SNL skit?

[rightleft22]

Yes - keeping opponents off balance is one of his go to rhetoric tactics and he does it using what he call truthful hyperbole  (art of the deal) and what I call obfuscation (my opinion) If you look past it, or through it, he is very clear


Random sample of a Trump response that is not a tweet

Lester Holt: Let me follow up with Mr. Trump, if I can. You’ve talked about creating 25 million jobs, and you’ve promised to bring back millions of jobs for Americans. How are you going to bring back the industries that have left this country for cheaper labour overseas? How specifically are you going to tell American manufacturers that you have to come back?

Donald Trump: Well, for one thing, and before we start on that, my father gave me a very small loan in 1975, and I built it into a company that’s worth many, many billions of dollars with some of the greatest assets in the world, and I say that only because that’s the kind of thinking that our country needs. Our country’s in deep trouble. We don’t know what we’re doing when it comes to devaluations and all of these countries all over the world, especially China, they’re the best, the best ever at it. What they’re doing to us is a very, very sad thing, so we have to do that. We have to renegotiate our trade deals.
And Lester, they’re taking our jobs. They’re giving incentives. They’re doing things that, frankly, we don’t do.
Let me give you an example of Mexico. They have a VAT tax. We’re in a different system. When we sell into Mexico, there’s a tax. When they sell – an automatic 16 percent approximately. When they sell into us, there’s no tax. It’s a defective agreement. It’s been defective for a long time, many years, but the politicians haven’t done anything about it.
Now in all fairness to Secretary Clinton, yes, is that okay? Good. I want you to be very happy. It’s very important to me. But in all fairness to Secretary Clinton, when she started talking about this, it was really very recently. She’s been doing this for 30 years. And why hasn’t she made the agreements better? The NAFTA agreement is defective just because of the tax and many other reasons, but just because of the tax.

Lester Holt: Let me interrupt just a moment.
Donald Trump: Secretary Clinton and others, politicians, should have been doing this for years, not right now because of the fact that we’ve created a movement. They should have been doing this for years. What’s happened to our jobs and our country and our economy generally is, look, we owe $20 trillion. We cannot do it any longer, Lester.

Lester Holt: Back to the question, though, how do you bring back, specifically bring back jobs? American manufacturers, how do you make them bring the jobs back?

Donald Trump: Well, the first thing you do is don’t let the jobs leave. The companies are leaving. I could name – I mean there are thousands of them. They’re leaving, and they’re leaving in bigger numbers than ever. And what you do is you say,
“Fine, you want to go to Mexico or some other country, good luck. We wish you a lot of luck, but if you think you’re going to make your air conditioners or your cars or your cookies or whatever you make and bring them into our country without a tax, you’re wrong.” And once you say you’re going to have to tax them coming in—and our politicians never do this because they have special interests and the special interests want those companies to leave because in many cases they own the companies. So what I’m saying is we can stop them from leaving. We have to stop them from leaving, and that’s a big, big factor.

Did Trump answer the question – its understandable IMO that Lester did not think so, but if you remove the clutter he did. and it works because most people are going to talk about the clutter and confusion and in the end see what they want to see.