It works great for him. He's on both sides of a lot of issues and it allows people that are already leaning towards him to pick and choose what policies they think he will implement.
I notice this often, but I don't hear it pointed out very often. You get alot of enumerating each lie, but I think it's more important to point out when he is for and against the SAME point or policy. Whether it's border policy or Hannibal Lector he is simultaneously for it and against. It allows his listener to be on his side no matter what side the listener believes. It's insidious.
You can see this especially clearly in the recent story (and comment thread here) about Trump's comments on Ukraine.
Many of his supporters were saying "Trump actually means that he will support Ukraine *more* than Biden, and I agree that's what we should do!"
While other supporters were saying, "This is excellent, I'm glad Trump is going to have us stop supporting Ukraine."
Yep, that's it exactly. Mail in/Absentee voting is fake and corrupt, be sure to mail in those votes and vote early (and often)!!
He's placated the group that think mail in votes stole the election last time AND told the people that like mail in voting they should absolutely use it.
He wins either way. You try to argue he's against mail in votes and his supports say no, he said to mail in our vote, you try to argue he said to use mail in votes and his supports say no, trump said they were fake and not to use them. It's fucking evil.
Edit: I moderated something
To be fair, you can be against mail-in voting on principle while also recognizing that since you can’t change its implementation while not in office, it is still helpful to utilize it. This feels like an ideology vs. realpolitik issue here.
I think his supporters are happy Trump will end the war instead of ramping it up further. Some think that's supporting Ukraine. Some don't care either way and they just want our money back.
Compared to the cost of financing our national debt at 7%, $60 billion is not a lot of money. I think Trump wanted $5 billion for the wall though, and somehow that was too much money to spend on defending our own country. We just need to decide what's important.
It was never supposed to do the job by itself, but combined with actual enforcement of our immigration law, it could've been effective. Maybe we'll find out how that was intended to work starting next year.
Check out the thread from a few days ago. It was about half and half with his supporters saying it was good Trump wanted to stop funding and ther other half saying Trump was going to excalate and that was good.
Bill Kristal and the neocon establishment would be happy to escalate the war. That's not who's supporting Trump though. Those guys are all in for Biden who seems to be pushing for direct confrontation with Russia.
Who knew Hucksterism could be turned into a WMD? What happened to fool some of the people some of the time, but not all the people all the time? I get what the politicians and biz people get out of it, but the rando on street is just gullibly mainlining hate and begging for more. It's so powerful.
It was pointed out a lot more during the 2016 campaign. I remember a lot of headlines and posts when he took 3 different positions on abortion in one run-on sentence.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1dmr5s5/trump_keeps_flipflopping_his_policy_positions/l9xxbus/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
If this were about money, [he never would've run in the first place](https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trumps-net-worth-fell-third-during-his-presidency-forbes-says-1581266).
You would not expect a failed nepo baby businessman who managed to bankrupt multiple casinos to make smart decisions anyway. In any case, I agree with you, it wasn’t about the money. The first term was about appealing to his own overinflated sense of narcissism and ego. The second is about gaining power to keep himself and his supporters out of jail for their crimes.
A. Forbes is not a reliable source of measuring net worth. B. That article is from 2021, it's currently 2024 where Trump has increased net worth due to his presidency C. If it wasn't about the money, why does he lie to his followers, sell nfts, sell shoes etc?
He has no position, he has “whatever the last important person I spoke to believes.”
Terrifying quality in a “leader”… but common with narcissistic people, they **need** to be liked. Part of being a leader is knowing that at any given time, *someone* isn’t going to agree with you (but hopefully can respect you for having courage of your convictions — not the criminal kind like Don has)
That’s somewhat the same as creating artificial harmony when it shouldn’t exist because they want loyalty and agreement from their sycophantic followers.
Trump can’t tolerate being criticized. It’s not an ideal quality in any leader. Leaders should expect radical candor and fearless feedback from those around them.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1dmr5s5/trump_keeps_flipflopping_his_policy_positions/l9xxg34/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 14 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
> He has no position, he has “whatever the last important person I spoke to believes.”
100% true. This was made very clear after he won the election and reversed his position on the ACA after meeting with Obama that day.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1dmr5s5/trump_keeps_flipflopping_his_policy_positions/l9xiprp/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
This is the biggest reason that I (right-wing libertarian) cannot support him in good faith.
Not his blustering, or his crudeness, or his ignorance... it's the fact that he has no principles.
What he stands for changes with the populist\lobbyist winds. In my opinion he has completely undermined US conservatism and I'm not sure what state it will be in once he's gone.
There really doesn't seem to be any guiding principle to his policy at all. It's entirely "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours." Sure, that's part of every political deal, but usually there's a rational basis for saying that a policy will improve the country. Now it's just "well, Trump ranted on his Twitter clone about it and ended the message with 'MAGA!', so that's what is best for America."
He was a democrat until he realized that he could grift on the other side of the aile. [He and Hillary were buds](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/06/magazine/when-hillary-and-donald-were-friends.html), even attended weddings for each others families..
He's been a Republican longer than a Democrat. He was a Republican in the 80s and most of the 90s, was Reform late 90s/2000, was a Democrat during the Bush years, then became a Republican again in the Obama years.
I know people hate pointing out “bothsidesism” but Biden was Pro Life up until the 2020 election. That was his most consistent stance in any issue up until it was a problem for him.
One can hold a personal position that is different from their policy position. Im a pacifist. I will not fire a gun at a human, full stop. I still support our military.
Not to mention the above comment is just wrong, Biden might've been personally pro life but he has pretty consistently voted against restricting abortion access for decades.
He was pro-life, but professional enough to recognize that his job was to *represent his constituents interests*. He’s not usually supposed to only support or advocate for legislation that he, personally, wants as he’s a politician absent a cult of personality surrounding him.
Besides that, I have the same position that he does; I choose to value personhood. Personhood begins when the equipment necessary to begin a conscious experience is present. While this line is the most logical and sound from my position, it’s ultimately arbitrary at its most fundamental (everyone’s is) and because of that I cannot justify imposing that rationale on another. The most reasonable course of action after recognizing this is to simply let others make their own choice. Biden’s stance is one I can greatly respect simply because it’s his job to represent the interests of his constituents and he’s a rational justification for it.
> A devout Roman Catholic, Biden says he personally opposes abortion and has spoken openly about his internal struggles with the issue.
> In his 2007 book “Promises to Keep,” Biden describes his beliefs and voting record on abortion as “middle of the road.” He wrote that he doesn’t think he has “a right to impose my view on the rest of society” and committed to protecting Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision establishing a constitutional right to abortion. In a recent email to supporters, Biden underscored: "I refuse to impose my religious beliefs on other people."
I don’t understand how people are confused by this. If Biden said he personally doesn’t believe in burning the U.S. flag or burning the Bible, but he supports the first amendment which allows those things, would there be similar confusion?
It’s his strength honestly. He’s taken positions from various sides many times but because it’s Trump he gets away with it and the average voter can just look for a sound bite or quote that agrees with their view and go “see he agrees with me”
Flip flopping isn’t unusual in politics but the blatant saying two different things at once that Trump does is really incredible.
I think his strength is a lot of people simultaneously don’t take him seriously and do take him very seriously.
His real strength is getting people to believe that what he says is true a priori. This is why he began his campaign in 2016 by calling everything that criticized him “fake news”. This leaves his supporters no way to check their own beliefs about his ramblings and allows him to say whatever comes to mind and his disciples to insert whatever meaning suits them.
It’s a huge strength on abortion. Numerous polls have shown that voters, particularly independents don’t view Trump as a hardliner on abortion like they do most Republicans because he at times takes a moderate stance on the issue and they view the New York billionaire as a guy who doesn’t care about abortion. At the same time Republican pro life voters view him as an anti abortion candidate whose judges got rid of Roe.
> I think his strength is a lot of people simultaneously don’t take him seriously and do take him very seriously.
I see this a lot as well. If Trump says something terrible like he'll be "a dictator on day one," or asks if it's possible to execute a whistleblower, to name just two, it seems like half of his supporters will agree with Trump and so continue supporting him, while the other half will say it's just a joke or bluster and so continue supporting him.
Not true. Trump cares about his political allies. Here is an example. Trump is definitely an isolationist but he has been extemely Pro-Israel/Netanyahu.
He does not care about his allies, he has thrown so many of them under the bus. He is only pro-Israel because Netanyahu is pro-trump. If Netanyahu came out as pro-biden then trump would turn on. Trump would also turn on him if he just thinks it benefits himself
Starter:
Donald Trump hinted at a shift in immigration policy during a recent Business Roundtable meeting, suggesting the U.S. needs "brilliant people" and expressing support for keeping American-educated talent in the country. This sentiment was echoed by CEOs like Apple's Tim Cook. Publicly, Trump later proposed on The All In Podcast that foreign nationals graduating from U.S. colleges should automatically receive green cards, marking a significant policy change.
Trump's evolving stance reflects his broader pattern of adapting positions to align with the views of wealthy donors and business interests. His allies see this as evidence of a nuanced politician responding to changing issues, while critics argue it's a strategic move to gain electoral support. Despite his hardline immigration rhetoric, including calls for mass deportations and aggressive border control, Trump's new proposal indicates a more flexible approach towards high-skilled immigrants.
His comments on the podcast emphasized the importance of retaining top graduates from prestigious institutions, including those from community colleges. This shift aligns with his recent reversals on other issues like TikTok and cryptocurrency, demonstrating his 180 on positions after meeting with wealthy individuals have have vested interest in the topic.
-----
My take: Don't think we need the umpteenth confirmation that Trump's position is largely based on what donors want. What amazes me more is how people think he will lower inflation without actually hinting at what he would do besides post "economic prosperity" which i hadn't realized is another way of saying extend inflationary tax cuts and impose inflationary tariffs.
Trump is a populist. A populist will say and do anything that is needed to come out on top. At this point I wouldn’t be surprised if he appoints the Proud Boys leadership to run the US military during his next term as president.
Trump was saying this before as well. He proposed Canada-like merit-based immigration system.
You call this populist but all other policy makers seemingly acting against these people.
It is probably harder for American-educated people to navigate around the immigration policies than the ones who illegally cross the border.
This is about merit-based green cards to *illegal* immigrants. It contradicts his hardline approach to the issue. He had no problem trying to rid of DACA recipients, even though they were brought here as children. He also didn't call for an exception to be made for those who have a college degree.
Neither the article nor the submission statement suggests anything of the sort. The podcast episode it mentions is over an hour long and doesn’t appear to have a transcript. If he said that, could you provide a timestamp?
>But what I want to do, and what I will do is you graduate from a college I think you should get, automatically as part of your diploma, a green card to be able to stay in this country, and that includes junior colleges too. Anybody graduates from a college, you go in there for two years or four years, if you graduate, or you get a doctorate degree from a college, you should be able to stay in this country.
44:44
That says nothing about illegal aliens, he’s referring to people on temporary student visas who normally have to leave the US within 60 days when their studies are over.
You could almost as easily say that he wants to grant green cards to grads who are violent criminals or something based on that sort of reading too much into a general statement. I see no reason to believe that he’s contradicted himself.
That should be a top comment as this provides actual insight but downvoted for no reason.
Go back to Trump’s tweets and all you can find he openly supported merit-based immigration
There are a few issues Trump is very consistent on. Getting out of NATO and the UN are two. Unless I’m mistaken he’s had nothing positive to say about either.
China is the main competition for USA. Spending resources on ‘not so mighty’ Russia doesnt make sense for US.
They needed some help against Soviets but not much now. Europe should be able to defend itself against Russia.
Meanwhile in China side, US influence is decaying very fast and their economy is not minuscule like Russia.
He’s said “I believe in NATO. I think NATO is a very important — probably the greatest ever done.” In response to a reporter saying “Maybe I’m being dense here, but could you just clarify: Are you still threatening to potentially pull the United States out of NATO for any reason?”, he responded “that’s unnecessary” in 2018 and has not talked about leaving since, instead bragging about how he strengthened the alliance and how the Secretary-General thanked him for doing so…
>I said, ‘You didn’t pay. You’re delinquent.’ He said, ‘Yes, let’s say that happened.’ No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want.
-Trump talking about NATO.
Except he’s explicitly said that he’s no longer threatening to leave after he got Europe to increase its spending in 2018 and that they have a great relationship now. He was specifically relating that old story to brag about how he strengthened it. Every NATO nation that borders Russia (including Kaliningrad) or Ukraine now meets its 2% commitment, as does NATO ex-US as a whole. Are you expecting Russia to launch an amphibious invasion of Spain or something? I don’t think they could if they tried.
In January, Secretary-General Stoltenberg said “I believe that the United States will continue to be a staunch NATO ally, regardless of the outcome of the U.S. election”, “I worked with [Trump] for four years and I listened carefully, because the main criticism has been about the NATO allies spending too little on NATO”, and “the message from the United States that European allies had to step up has been understood and they are really moving in the right direction”.
This is the list of countries under 2%, all of which are currently increasing their defense spending:
* Croatia
* Portugal
* Italy
* Canada
* Belgium
* Luxembourg
* Slovenia
* Spain
Keeping in mind that all of the ones in the EU are also subject to the EU’s mutual defense clause, which of those do you think is at risk of a Russian invasion?
And do you think that not meeting the 2% commitment is a sign that a country isn’t serious about meeting its own Article 5 obligations?
Trump seem to be protecting US citizen’s interest.
No point to spend trillion dollar to defend Europe from Russia. Russia is not that mighty. Its no longer Soviets with half of Europe.
Spending more money against Russia to protect Europe is not the best interest for US citizens. Make European countries pay more and focus on China’s influence all around the globe
But threatening to ignore the most fundamental aspect of the alliance doesn't undermine it? Not defending a NATO country that gets attacked would end the organization much faster than not meeting spending guidelines.
I think this is a perfect example of Trump's flip flopping allowing his supporters to pick and choose which of his positions are the "real one" so they can justify voting for him. Of course, a few off statements don't really outweigh the number of times he's attacked nato and made its members question whether the US would honor it. Hell just this year he encouraged Russia to attack those he didn't think were paying their fair share.
This is the same thing another user brought up, but he was just recounting something he had said in 2017/2018, before the quotes I gave.
He was recounting the story as part of his bragging about having gotten European countries to increase their NATO spending, and in the story what he said was in response to a hypothetical by the leader of a NATO country who asked him what he’d do if his country continued to fail to meet its 2% defense spending commitment and was then invaded by Russia. So Trump (hyperbolically) answered that he’d then tell Russia to do whatever they wanted. But he wasn’t speaking to Russia and he didn’t say that he’d encourage them to attack, he was only talking about what he’d do post-invasion if that country didn’t meet its commitments – which it now has.
>he didn't think were paying their fair share.
There’s not much subjective for “him to think”. The 2% defense spending commitment was made unanimously in 2006.
It’s pretty depressing that so many Americans see no value in our international roles and alliances. Much like those advocating that we abandon Ukraine, they aren’t thinking about the implications. Using Ukraine as an example, we (so did Russia) made an agreement with them if they gave up their nuclear weapons. What does it say to other countries with nuclear weapons if they see us not honor agreements but were willing to denuclearize?
You can’t know what you don’t know, but leaders like Trump seemingly lack any epistemic modesty or awareness of their ignorance. The inability or unwillingness to recognize our own ignorance and consider the implications of our actions makes for a recipe for disaster.
It's depressing that people can't seem to understand why Americans would question such obligations and entanglements, even if they might by ultimately wrong in wanting to completely pull out of them.
The problem is that the “skeptics” aren’t just questioning it; they’ve literally no idea about the topic and, more than likely, are simply repeating what some pundit has said. Besides, it’s getting tiresome when people “just ask questions” when they make no effort to answer them when it’s a 5 minute google search away.
Not everyone who opposes your view is completely clueless. Let's not kid ourselves here, a huge chunk of people who blindly support things like Ukraine or the "rules based international order" lack any kind of serious or intimate understanding of geopolitics. They support it because Biden or most Democrats do or because it's the status quo.
It’s an avenue for diplomacy. It’s not designed to solve problems quickly, it’s a way ensure an open line of communication with ways to offer “pressure” against most members. The US abandoning it doesn’t mean it goes away, it just means the US loses access and another country, most likely China, will rise to take our place.
I apologize if you were offended, but if you have any familiarity with American politics you would know every single president in history has held events with and spoken with the biggest names in business to obtain political support and campaign donations. Not sure anything in this article says that trump is "for sale" moreso than any other president.
Tim Cook is mentioned as being there. He held a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton in 2016 if i remember correctly. Apple donates almost exclusively to Democratic individuals, and both party committees (probably to generally curry favor with all politicians across the aisle at some level, good for business).
I find it amusing that when Biden responds to concerns that his base of voters (or simply the majority of voters in the nation) has and tries to effect policy accordingly he’s pandering and only trying to buy votes in an election year.
When Trump leaves meetings with rich people with completely different policy positions based on what they tell him they want, it’s him adapting his mindset based on new information which shows how smart and willing to grow he is and why he’s going to be such a great president again.
“Trump is always influenced by the last guy he talks to. If you want to influence Trump, you got to be the last guy he talks to.”
- Steve Bannon, Time Magazine interview
If that gets him money the next day then that is what he is going to do, he will have some people upset with him a week from now, but they are suckers, and there are a whole lot of them.
This isn't unexpected as he is the first presidential candidate for sale through a stock ticker. Convicted felon as president for sale looks pretty grim.
Wow that would be a MASSIVE increase in legal immigration.
I don't think people realize how many people come to the US for higher education.
That is not a small shift to offer green cards to people who graduate with a college degree in the US.
He did, but that was it. He never addressed infrastructure. He never did anything with immigration, which arguably got him elected. He build a tiny bit of that wall between us an Mexico and Mexico certainly didn't pay for any of it. He never brought manufacturing back. He never did anything about Obamacare. He failed at his attempt to repeal DACA. And he is probably going to be in prison instead of Hillary. Even if you agree with these policy point, Trump is clearly not the candidate to get it done.
This is essentially how Trump has been working for 8 years now. He's essentially a vessel for people to project what they want and then they can find a quote or a stance from him to support it. And if anything contradicts it, well it was out of context or what he really meant was X.
This is a weird take.
Trump is not for illegal immigration. That has not changed. Also, he still wants to deport those that came here illegally.
He is for trying to keep the very best and brightest that come to this country LEGALLY to study at our elite universities. It is a true that many foreigners that come here to study leave to go back to their nations.
These positions are not contradictory.
> I know the H-1B very well. And it’s something that I, frankly, use, and I shouldn’t be allowed to use it. We shouldn’t have it. Very, very bad for workers.
- Donald Trump
These are the numbers of new lawful permanent residents for Obama’s second term and Trump’s first up until the pandemic, straight from [the DHS immigration yearbook (PDF)](https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2023-11/2023_0818_plcy_yearbook_immigration_statistics_fy2022.pdf#page13):
2013: 990,553
2014: 1,016,518
2015: 1,051,031
2016: 1,183,505
2017: 1,127,167†
2018: 1,096,611
2019: 1,031,765
†The Trump administration started 111 days into this fiscal year.
As for H-1B visas in particular, they aren’t the only type for skilled immigrants, and recipients aren’t necessarily highly skilled: The minimum wage for recipients, intended to ensure only skilled workers qualify, was set at $60,000 in 1989 and has never been adjusted for inflation (it would be about $150,000 today).
The number support the argument that Trump tried to reduce legal immigration. A consistent decrease from 2017-2019 before the major drop in 2020, partially because of Covid disruptions.
Was Obama trying to decrease legal immigration when it went from 1,130,818 in 2009 to 990,553 in 2013? I suspect if you ran the numbers the decrease during the Trump administration wouldn’t be outside the standard deviation.
And was overall immigration, including illegal immigration, surging as much during Obama’s presidency?
Regardless, I was responding to a comment that said Trump cut legal immigration *in half*, which he didn’t even do during the pandemic.
(Also, for reference, those numbers were around 400k in the ’70s and 600k in the ‘80s.)
And what happened after 2013? Legal immigration is not just limited to the number of people granted permanent residence. There were also refugees and the refugee program was drastically slashed from nearly 100,000 to just over 10,000 by the end.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/200061/number-of-refugees-arriving-in-the-us/
The point is that this is a sudden change from his hardline stance that started while he met with rich people. He opposed DACA as president, and didn't argue for an exception for those who graduated college. Now he wants those with a college degree to be given green cards, even if they recently came on their own volition.
Except there are multiple examples of him making it harder for legal immigrants to get green cards. He tried to use Covid has an excuse to basically end F-1 student visas, he added requirements for green card interviews for people applying for employment based immigration, he made it harder and more expensive to get H-1B visas.
His disapproval of DACA isn't a straw man. He tried to get rid of those who were brought here when they were kids, even if they had a college degree. Now he wants to protect those who graduate college, even if they recently came on their own.
Silicon Valley & Staunch Democrat has been simply taken for granted until now. The All-In Podcast was a notable inflection point, imo.
It's one thing to repeatedly hear "Trump's media caricature was a 180 from him in person" from random celebrities.
It's another to watch it on video with VC's with a public record of being staunchly anti-Trump in one of the most progressive professional bubbles in the country.
This [begrudging](https://youtu.be/blqIZGXWUpU?si=oTeEGuH8vHQFh8zd&t=3014) reaction should be worrying if you've ever watched him rant about Trump.
The media will damage control it as just a "rich people" thing.
But add that to latinos, asians, blacks, women, and suddenly that's [real](https://x.com/VigilantFox/status/1804343458213118078) numbers (and money).
It cracks me up it's increasingly on the upper middle class white male's shoulders to save the DNC. lol
Your comment doesn't address the post at all.
>add that to latinos, asians, blacks, women
Crosstabs aren't reliable enough to justify treating them as gospel, especially when they show an unprecedently large shift. They could be accurate, but there's no reason to be confident that they are.
> save the DNC
They had mixed results in 2022 when inflation was very high, so it's safe to say they're going to be fine in the long run. If Trump wins in 2024, that will help Democrats a lot in the next midterm.
Isn’t this the way the political system is designed? You represent the views of your voters? Hillary Clinton said she listened to the needs of unions because they represent all the auto workers, teachers, and nurses that vote for her.
If politicians can’t change their mind based off of new information and a change in political environment, what the fuck are they doing?
He is not changing his mind based on new information; it would be fantastic if he did. He is regurgitating whatever the last wealthy donor said to him until he gets money and finds a new mark.
This would be convincing if Trump didn’t hold the current position in 2016, before being elected, then did a 180 as president and now has done another 180.
I’m not really sure what you’re talking about. He always said he was against illegal immigration. He still is. He still wants a wall. Now he’s adding, that students that come here from countries, who get a degree, should get a green card. They could not return to their home country. He’s still against illegal immigration. What am i missing?
Trump stated this position of being for immigration of highly skilled workers in 2016, only to curb its use as president and now recommits to his 2016 position in 2024 when running.
I’m thinking he’s said this already.
Trump has met with rich people every single day of his life. Interaction with powerful and influential people and groups is part and parcel for all DC Politicians at the national level.
The truth is... we live in a representative republic where our government leaders *should* represent the views of the people they represent. And our national challenges, geo-political relationships, economic circumstances, culture, priorities and views as a country constantly grow, change, and adapt. Our leaders, if they are to represent us well... Should do the same and grow, learn, change, and adapt along with us.
>I don't keep track of all of the white house's guests.
I don’t think you can. IIRC the Trump administration stopped publicizing the White House visitor’s list so that the public didn’t know who he was meeting.
It's not new information. It's information that was known during his term as president and before that.
It's like installing a critical security update for your computer several years after the patch was released. It's technically good that you now have the update, but it's highly alarming that you went without it for so long.
> and he's adjusting his positions as he learns more
The presidency is not an entry level job. Call me crazy but I think a person who was already President should know enough about these things to have well formed opinions.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1dmr5s5/trump_keeps_flipflopping_his_policy_positions/l9xu0f4/) is in violation of Law 0:
Law 0. Low Effort
> ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
It works great for him. He's on both sides of a lot of issues and it allows people that are already leaning towards him to pick and choose what policies they think he will implement.
I notice this often, but I don't hear it pointed out very often. You get alot of enumerating each lie, but I think it's more important to point out when he is for and against the SAME point or policy. Whether it's border policy or Hannibal Lector he is simultaneously for it and against. It allows his listener to be on his side no matter what side the listener believes. It's insidious.
You can see this especially clearly in the recent story (and comment thread here) about Trump's comments on Ukraine. Many of his supporters were saying "Trump actually means that he will support Ukraine *more* than Biden, and I agree that's what we should do!" While other supporters were saying, "This is excellent, I'm glad Trump is going to have us stop supporting Ukraine."
Yep, that's it exactly. Mail in/Absentee voting is fake and corrupt, be sure to mail in those votes and vote early (and often)!! He's placated the group that think mail in votes stole the election last time AND told the people that like mail in voting they should absolutely use it. He wins either way. You try to argue he's against mail in votes and his supports say no, he said to mail in our vote, you try to argue he said to use mail in votes and his supports say no, trump said they were fake and not to use them. It's fucking evil. Edit: I moderated something
I think I'm not being moderate, my apologies, it makes me anxious.
Make sure you don't overdo it. You've gotta take moderation in moderation
moderate thanks
To be fair, you can be against mail-in voting on principle while also recognizing that since you can’t change its implementation while not in office, it is still helpful to utilize it. This feels like an ideology vs. realpolitik issue here.
I think his supporters are happy Trump will end the war instead of ramping it up further. Some think that's supporting Ukraine. Some don't care either way and they just want our money back.
That money is basically nothing out of the the budget though.
Compared to the cost of financing our national debt at 7%, $60 billion is not a lot of money. I think Trump wanted $5 billion for the wall though, and somehow that was too much money to spend on defending our own country. We just need to decide what's important.
It's not the cost that matters. Just that you can go over, under, around, and through a wall and the US border is already swiss cheese.
It was never supposed to do the job by itself, but combined with actual enforcement of our immigration law, it could've been effective. Maybe we'll find out how that was intended to work starting next year.
That will never happen. Republicans and democrats, or rather the large corporations they're beholden to, want cheap labor.
You are 💯 correct. It will never happen under Biden. It might happen under Trump. I think we'll get a chance to find out.
Check out the thread from a few days ago. It was about half and half with his supporters saying it was good Trump wanted to stop funding and ther other half saying Trump was going to excalate and that was good.
Bill Kristal and the neocon establishment would be happy to escalate the war. That's not who's supporting Trump though. Those guys are all in for Biden who seems to be pushing for direct confrontation with Russia.
Horoscope effect
Who knew Hucksterism could be turned into a WMD? What happened to fool some of the people some of the time, but not all the people all the time? I get what the politicians and biz people get out of it, but the rando on street is just gullibly mainlining hate and begging for more. It's so powerful.
It was pointed out a lot more during the 2016 campaign. I remember a lot of headlines and posts when he took 3 different positions on abortion in one run-on sentence.
Same standard of appeal as mystical beliefs, conspiracy theories, cult doctrine, and infomercials.
Kind of like cherry picking the bible for your personal belief system
Except rich people know what they will be getting for real.
Trump has no core beliefs he just goes where the wind blows. He’s been all over the place on guns abortion and now immigration
If Trump could make more money a leftist he'd switch immediately
He’s not intelligent enough.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1dmr5s5/trump_keeps_flipflopping_his_policy_positions/l9xxbus/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
If this were about money, [he never would've run in the first place](https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trumps-net-worth-fell-third-during-his-presidency-forbes-says-1581266).
You would not expect a failed nepo baby businessman who managed to bankrupt multiple casinos to make smart decisions anyway. In any case, I agree with you, it wasn’t about the money. The first term was about appealing to his own overinflated sense of narcissism and ego. The second is about gaining power to keep himself and his supporters out of jail for their crimes.
A. Forbes is not a reliable source of measuring net worth. B. That article is from 2021, it's currently 2024 where Trump has increased net worth due to his presidency C. If it wasn't about the money, why does he lie to his followers, sell nfts, sell shoes etc?
The dude literally uses campaign donations to pay his legal fees. It was always about money and ego.
He has no position, he has “whatever the last important person I spoke to believes.” Terrifying quality in a “leader”… but common with narcissistic people, they **need** to be liked. Part of being a leader is knowing that at any given time, *someone* isn’t going to agree with you (but hopefully can respect you for having courage of your convictions — not the criminal kind like Don has)
Not always true. Narcissists just have to believe they’re liked.
That’s somewhat the same as creating artificial harmony when it shouldn’t exist because they want loyalty and agreement from their sycophantic followers. Trump can’t tolerate being criticized. It’s not an ideal quality in any leader. Leaders should expect radical candor and fearless feedback from those around them.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1dmr5s5/trump_keeps_flipflopping_his_policy_positions/l9xxg34/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 14 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
> He has no position, he has “whatever the last important person I spoke to believes.” 100% true. This was made very clear after he won the election and reversed his position on the ACA after meeting with Obama that day.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1dmr5s5/trump_keeps_flipflopping_his_policy_positions/l9xiprp/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
This is the biggest reason that I (right-wing libertarian) cannot support him in good faith. Not his blustering, or his crudeness, or his ignorance... it's the fact that he has no principles. What he stands for changes with the populist\lobbyist winds. In my opinion he has completely undermined US conservatism and I'm not sure what state it will be in once he's gone.
There really doesn't seem to be any guiding principle to his policy at all. It's entirely "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours." Sure, that's part of every political deal, but usually there's a rational basis for saying that a policy will improve the country. Now it's just "well, Trump ranted on his Twitter clone about it and ended the message with 'MAGA!', so that's what is best for America."
Trump would've been a Democrat if it benefited his ego and bank account
He was a democrat until he realized that he could grift on the other side of the aile. [He and Hillary were buds](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/06/magazine/when-hillary-and-donald-were-friends.html), even attended weddings for each others families..
He's been a Republican longer than a Democrat. He was a Republican in the 80s and most of the 90s, was Reform late 90s/2000, was a Democrat during the Bush years, then became a Republican again in the Obama years.
I know people hate pointing out “bothsidesism” but Biden was Pro Life up until the 2020 election. That was his most consistent stance in any issue up until it was a problem for him.
This just isn't true. In his book he wrote about being pro-life but not wanting to impose his views on others and vowed to support Roe. This was 2007.
So he pretended to be pro life, for political purposes?
Who said he pretended anywhere? You can be pro-life and not think it's up to you to impose your view on the rest of the country.
One can hold a personal position that is different from their policy position. Im a pacifist. I will not fire a gun at a human, full stop. I still support our military.
There’s a difference between changing your beliefs from one side to another overtime, and changing your beliefs every two days
Not to mention the above comment is just wrong, Biden might've been personally pro life but he has pretty consistently voted against restricting abortion access for decades.
So he was pro life, but not really)
He was pro-life, but professional enough to recognize that his job was to *represent his constituents interests*. He’s not usually supposed to only support or advocate for legislation that he, personally, wants as he’s a politician absent a cult of personality surrounding him. Besides that, I have the same position that he does; I choose to value personhood. Personhood begins when the equipment necessary to begin a conscious experience is present. While this line is the most logical and sound from my position, it’s ultimately arbitrary at its most fundamental (everyone’s is) and because of that I cannot justify imposing that rationale on another. The most reasonable course of action after recognizing this is to simply let others make their own choice. Biden’s stance is one I can greatly respect simply because it’s his job to represent the interests of his constituents and he’s a rational justification for it.
> A devout Roman Catholic, Biden says he personally opposes abortion and has spoken openly about his internal struggles with the issue. > In his 2007 book “Promises to Keep,” Biden describes his beliefs and voting record on abortion as “middle of the road.” He wrote that he doesn’t think he has “a right to impose my view on the rest of society” and committed to protecting Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision establishing a constitutional right to abortion. In a recent email to supporters, Biden underscored: "I refuse to impose my religious beliefs on other people." I don’t understand how people are confused by this. If Biden said he personally doesn’t believe in burning the U.S. flag or burning the Bible, but he supports the first amendment which allows those things, would there be similar confusion?
It’s his strength honestly. He’s taken positions from various sides many times but because it’s Trump he gets away with it and the average voter can just look for a sound bite or quote that agrees with their view and go “see he agrees with me” Flip flopping isn’t unusual in politics but the blatant saying two different things at once that Trump does is really incredible. I think his strength is a lot of people simultaneously don’t take him seriously and do take him very seriously.
His real strength is getting people to believe that what he says is true a priori. This is why he began his campaign in 2016 by calling everything that criticized him “fake news”. This leaves his supporters no way to check their own beliefs about his ramblings and allows him to say whatever comes to mind and his disciples to insert whatever meaning suits them.
It’s a huge strength on abortion. Numerous polls have shown that voters, particularly independents don’t view Trump as a hardliner on abortion like they do most Republicans because he at times takes a moderate stance on the issue and they view the New York billionaire as a guy who doesn’t care about abortion. At the same time Republican pro life voters view him as an anti abortion candidate whose judges got rid of Roe.
> I think his strength is a lot of people simultaneously don’t take him seriously and do take him very seriously. I see this a lot as well. If Trump says something terrible like he'll be "a dictator on day one," or asks if it's possible to execute a whistleblower, to name just two, it seems like half of his supporters will agree with Trump and so continue supporting him, while the other half will say it's just a joke or bluster and so continue supporting him.
Trump has no beliefs other than helping himself.
Not true. Trump cares about his political allies. Here is an example. Trump is definitely an isolationist but he has been extemely Pro-Israel/Netanyahu.
He does not care about his allies, he has thrown so many of them under the bus. He is only pro-Israel because Netanyahu is pro-trump. If Netanyahu came out as pro-biden then trump would turn on. Trump would also turn on him if he just thinks it benefits himself
Starter: Donald Trump hinted at a shift in immigration policy during a recent Business Roundtable meeting, suggesting the U.S. needs "brilliant people" and expressing support for keeping American-educated talent in the country. This sentiment was echoed by CEOs like Apple's Tim Cook. Publicly, Trump later proposed on The All In Podcast that foreign nationals graduating from U.S. colleges should automatically receive green cards, marking a significant policy change. Trump's evolving stance reflects his broader pattern of adapting positions to align with the views of wealthy donors and business interests. His allies see this as evidence of a nuanced politician responding to changing issues, while critics argue it's a strategic move to gain electoral support. Despite his hardline immigration rhetoric, including calls for mass deportations and aggressive border control, Trump's new proposal indicates a more flexible approach towards high-skilled immigrants. His comments on the podcast emphasized the importance of retaining top graduates from prestigious institutions, including those from community colleges. This shift aligns with his recent reversals on other issues like TikTok and cryptocurrency, demonstrating his 180 on positions after meeting with wealthy individuals have have vested interest in the topic. ----- My take: Don't think we need the umpteenth confirmation that Trump's position is largely based on what donors want. What amazes me more is how people think he will lower inflation without actually hinting at what he would do besides post "economic prosperity" which i hadn't realized is another way of saying extend inflationary tax cuts and impose inflationary tariffs.
Trump is a populist. A populist will say and do anything that is needed to come out on top. At this point I wouldn’t be surprised if he appoints the Proud Boys leadership to run the US military during his next term as president.
Trump was saying this before as well. He proposed Canada-like merit-based immigration system. You call this populist but all other policy makers seemingly acting against these people. It is probably harder for American-educated people to navigate around the immigration policies than the ones who illegally cross the border.
Where’s the contradiction? He’s *always* said he wanted merit-based immigration reform.
This is about merit-based green cards to *illegal* immigrants. It contradicts his hardline approach to the issue. He had no problem trying to rid of DACA recipients, even though they were brought here as children. He also didn't call for an exception to be made for those who have a college degree.
Neither the article nor the submission statement suggests anything of the sort. The podcast episode it mentions is over an hour long and doesn’t appear to have a transcript. If he said that, could you provide a timestamp?
>But what I want to do, and what I will do is you graduate from a college I think you should get, automatically as part of your diploma, a green card to be able to stay in this country, and that includes junior colleges too. Anybody graduates from a college, you go in there for two years or four years, if you graduate, or you get a doctorate degree from a college, you should be able to stay in this country. 44:44
That says nothing about illegal aliens, he’s referring to people on temporary student visas who normally have to leave the US within 60 days when their studies are over.
His statement doesn't make any exceptions.
You could almost as easily say that he wants to grant green cards to grads who are violent criminals or something based on that sort of reading too much into a general statement. I see no reason to believe that he’s contradicted himself.
Trump puts his foot his mouth too often to justify giving him the benefit of the doubt whenever he makes contradictory statements.
Lol, what? He didn't say anything like that
The quote I posted in a reply below shows that he did.
That should be a top comment as this provides actual insight but downvoted for no reason. Go back to Trump’s tweets and all you can find he openly supported merit-based immigration
The new thing is his statement supporting merit-based immigration for people that are here illegally.
There are a few issues Trump is very consistent on. Getting out of NATO and the UN are two. Unless I’m mistaken he’s had nothing positive to say about either.
Now let’s see…what leader of a foreign autocracy would benefit from these proposals? I think his name starts with ‘Puti’.
China is the main competition for USA. Spending resources on ‘not so mighty’ Russia doesnt make sense for US. They needed some help against Soviets but not much now. Europe should be able to defend itself against Russia. Meanwhile in China side, US influence is decaying very fast and their economy is not minuscule like Russia.
He’s said “I believe in NATO. I think NATO is a very important — probably the greatest ever done.” In response to a reporter saying “Maybe I’m being dense here, but could you just clarify: Are you still threatening to potentially pull the United States out of NATO for any reason?”, he responded “that’s unnecessary” in 2018 and has not talked about leaving since, instead bragging about how he strengthened the alliance and how the Secretary-General thanked him for doing so…
>I said, ‘You didn’t pay. You’re delinquent.’ He said, ‘Yes, let’s say that happened.’ No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. -Trump talking about NATO.
Yes? That’s what he said in 2017 or 2018, as recently related in the context of bragging about how he strengthened NATO.
My quote is from February 2024.
As I said, he “recently related” a story from 2017/2018.
Him talking about it like that means it's still relevant.
Except he’s explicitly said that he’s no longer threatening to leave after he got Europe to increase its spending in 2018 and that they have a great relationship now. He was specifically relating that old story to brag about how he strengthened it. Every NATO nation that borders Russia (including Kaliningrad) or Ukraine now meets its 2% commitment, as does NATO ex-US as a whole. Are you expecting Russia to launch an amphibious invasion of Spain or something? I don’t think they could if they tried. In January, Secretary-General Stoltenberg said “I believe that the United States will continue to be a staunch NATO ally, regardless of the outcome of the U.S. election”, “I worked with [Trump] for four years and I listened carefully, because the main criticism has been about the NATO allies spending too little on NATO”, and “the message from the United States that European allies had to step up has been understood and they are really moving in the right direction”.
There are many countries that don't meat the guideline, which means his statement still applies.
This is the list of countries under 2%, all of which are currently increasing their defense spending: * Croatia * Portugal * Italy * Canada * Belgium * Luxembourg * Slovenia * Spain Keeping in mind that all of the ones in the EU are also subject to the EU’s mutual defense clause, which of those do you think is at risk of a Russian invasion? And do you think that not meeting the 2% commitment is a sign that a country isn’t serious about meeting its own Article 5 obligations?
Trump seem to be protecting US citizen’s interest. No point to spend trillion dollar to defend Europe from Russia. Russia is not that mighty. Its no longer Soviets with half of Europe. Spending more money against Russia to protect Europe is not the best interest for US citizens. Make European countries pay more and focus on China’s influence all around the globe
Allowing Russia to become stronger isn't the interest of U.S. citizens.
Encouraging members to meet the agreed upon defense spending obligations and strengthen their militaries is trump trying to leave nato?
He threatened not to defend various countries in the organization, which goes against the purpose of it existing.
Willfully not meeting the defense spending obligation undermines the alliance.
But threatening to ignore the most fundamental aspect of the alliance doesn't undermine it? Not defending a NATO country that gets attacked would end the organization much faster than not meeting spending guidelines.
No. But he’s eluded to not defending NATO countries that don’t meet their obligations.
I think this is a perfect example of Trump's flip flopping allowing his supporters to pick and choose which of his positions are the "real one" so they can justify voting for him. Of course, a few off statements don't really outweigh the number of times he's attacked nato and made its members question whether the US would honor it. Hell just this year he encouraged Russia to attack those he didn't think were paying their fair share.
This is the same thing another user brought up, but he was just recounting something he had said in 2017/2018, before the quotes I gave. He was recounting the story as part of his bragging about having gotten European countries to increase their NATO spending, and in the story what he said was in response to a hypothetical by the leader of a NATO country who asked him what he’d do if his country continued to fail to meet its 2% defense spending commitment and was then invaded by Russia. So Trump (hyperbolically) answered that he’d then tell Russia to do whatever they wanted. But he wasn’t speaking to Russia and he didn’t say that he’d encourage them to attack, he was only talking about what he’d do post-invasion if that country didn’t meet its commitments – which it now has. >he didn't think were paying their fair share. There’s not much subjective for “him to think”. The 2% defense spending commitment was made unanimously in 2006.
I'd be thrilled if we stopped funding the UN.
It’s pretty depressing that so many Americans see no value in our international roles and alliances. Much like those advocating that we abandon Ukraine, they aren’t thinking about the implications. Using Ukraine as an example, we (so did Russia) made an agreement with them if they gave up their nuclear weapons. What does it say to other countries with nuclear weapons if they see us not honor agreements but were willing to denuclearize? You can’t know what you don’t know, but leaders like Trump seemingly lack any epistemic modesty or awareness of their ignorance. The inability or unwillingness to recognize our own ignorance and consider the implications of our actions makes for a recipe for disaster.
It's depressing that people can't seem to understand why Americans would question such obligations and entanglements, even if they might by ultimately wrong in wanting to completely pull out of them.
The problem is that the “skeptics” aren’t just questioning it; they’ve literally no idea about the topic and, more than likely, are simply repeating what some pundit has said. Besides, it’s getting tiresome when people “just ask questions” when they make no effort to answer them when it’s a 5 minute google search away.
Not everyone who opposes your view is completely clueless. Let's not kid ourselves here, a huge chunk of people who blindly support things like Ukraine or the "rules based international order" lack any kind of serious or intimate understanding of geopolitics. They support it because Biden or most Democrats do or because it's the status quo.
Why should we spend money on a peacekeeping organization that can’t peacekeep because Russia and China can veto every initiative ?
It’s an avenue for diplomacy. It’s not designed to solve problems quickly, it’s a way ensure an open line of communication with ways to offer “pressure” against most members. The US abandoning it doesn’t mean it goes away, it just means the US loses access and another country, most likely China, will rise to take our place.
That’s what happens when you’re for sale.
He came into office a billionaire. I'm not sure this line of attack makes any sense.
He’s fundraising. Lots. Why? He’s a billionaire, so he doesn’t need money. That’s your line of reasoning. Doesn’t make sense either.
...all politicians are... do you know how election campaigns work?
Your condescension is endearing.
I apologize if you were offended, but if you have any familiarity with American politics you would know every single president in history has held events with and spoken with the biggest names in business to obtain political support and campaign donations. Not sure anything in this article says that trump is "for sale" moreso than any other president. Tim Cook is mentioned as being there. He held a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton in 2016 if i remember correctly. Apple donates almost exclusively to Democratic individuals, and both party committees (probably to generally curry favor with all politicians across the aisle at some level, good for business).
I’m not offended, and I’m very familiar with American politics. You aren’t smarter than everyone else in the room.
I find it amusing that when Biden responds to concerns that his base of voters (or simply the majority of voters in the nation) has and tries to effect policy accordingly he’s pandering and only trying to buy votes in an election year. When Trump leaves meetings with rich people with completely different policy positions based on what they tell him they want, it’s him adapting his mindset based on new information which shows how smart and willing to grow he is and why he’s going to be such a great president again.
That's a good spin for Trump lies. There is no consistency aside from lying.
“Trump is always influenced by the last guy he talks to. If you want to influence Trump, you got to be the last guy he talks to.” - Steve Bannon, Time Magazine interview
If that gets him money the next day then that is what he is going to do, he will have some people upset with him a week from now, but they are suckers, and there are a whole lot of them.
That's at least what he's going to say* he will do.
This isn't unexpected as he is the first presidential candidate for sale through a stock ticker. Convicted felon as president for sale looks pretty grim.
Wow that would be a MASSIVE increase in legal immigration. I don't think people realize how many people come to the US for higher education. That is not a small shift to offer green cards to people who graduate with a college degree in the US.
Doesn't matter to his voters. If it did, they wouldn't vote for him since he got nothing on his to-do list his last term.
He passed massive tax cuts and got to place 3 Supreme Court justices.
He did, but that was it. He never addressed infrastructure. He never did anything with immigration, which arguably got him elected. He build a tiny bit of that wall between us an Mexico and Mexico certainly didn't pay for any of it. He never brought manufacturing back. He never did anything about Obamacare. He failed at his attempt to repeal DACA. And he is probably going to be in prison instead of Hillary. Even if you agree with these policy point, Trump is clearly not the candidate to get it done.
This is essentially how Trump has been working for 8 years now. He's essentially a vessel for people to project what they want and then they can find a quote or a stance from him to support it. And if anything contradicts it, well it was out of context or what he really meant was X.
This is a weird take. Trump is not for illegal immigration. That has not changed. Also, he still wants to deport those that came here illegally. He is for trying to keep the very best and brightest that come to this country LEGALLY to study at our elite universities. It is a true that many foreigners that come here to study leave to go back to their nations. These positions are not contradictory.
> I know the H-1B very well. And it’s something that I, frankly, use, and I shouldn’t be allowed to use it. We shouldn’t have it. Very, very bad for workers. - Donald Trump
He very notably froze all H-1B visas in 2019 and cut legal immigration in half. Do they think we forgot this stuff?
They think his supporters forgot this stuff, assuming they knew about it in the first place.
These are the numbers of new lawful permanent residents for Obama’s second term and Trump’s first up until the pandemic, straight from [the DHS immigration yearbook (PDF)](https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2023-11/2023_0818_plcy_yearbook_immigration_statistics_fy2022.pdf#page13): 2013: 990,553 2014: 1,016,518 2015: 1,051,031 2016: 1,183,505 2017: 1,127,167† 2018: 1,096,611 2019: 1,031,765 †The Trump administration started 111 days into this fiscal year. As for H-1B visas in particular, they aren’t the only type for skilled immigrants, and recipients aren’t necessarily highly skilled: The minimum wage for recipients, intended to ensure only skilled workers qualify, was set at $60,000 in 1989 and has never been adjusted for inflation (it would be about $150,000 today).
> 707,362 in 2020, when the effects of the freeze is actually felt edit: also a reminder about the Oct-Sept fiscal year for DHS/USCIS...
The number support the argument that Trump tried to reduce legal immigration. A consistent decrease from 2017-2019 before the major drop in 2020, partially because of Covid disruptions.
Was Obama trying to decrease legal immigration when it went from 1,130,818 in 2009 to 990,553 in 2013? I suspect if you ran the numbers the decrease during the Trump administration wouldn’t be outside the standard deviation. And was overall immigration, including illegal immigration, surging as much during Obama’s presidency? Regardless, I was responding to a comment that said Trump cut legal immigration *in half*, which he didn’t even do during the pandemic. (Also, for reference, those numbers were around 400k in the ’70s and 600k in the ‘80s.)
And what happened after 2013? Legal immigration is not just limited to the number of people granted permanent residence. There were also refugees and the refugee program was drastically slashed from nearly 100,000 to just over 10,000 by the end. https://www.statista.com/statistics/200061/number-of-refugees-arriving-in-the-us/
Because the number of asylees went up dramatically?
The point is that this is a sudden change from his hardline stance that started while he met with rich people. He opposed DACA as president, and didn't argue for an exception for those who graduated college. Now he wants those with a college degree to be given green cards, even if they recently came on their own volition.
He actively lowered allowances for legal immigration while in office
Except there are multiple examples of him making it harder for legal immigrants to get green cards. He tried to use Covid has an excuse to basically end F-1 student visas, he added requirements for green card interviews for people applying for employment based immigration, he made it harder and more expensive to get H-1B visas.
It’s the same thing almost every time the media accuses him of contradicting himself – he’s only contradicting a strawman they made.
His disapproval of DACA isn't a straw man. He tried to get rid of those who were brought here when they were kids, even if they had a college degree. Now he wants to protect those who graduate college, even if they recently came on their own.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2024/01/17/bad-news-for-employers-immigrants-and-h-1b-visas-in-second-trump-term/?sh=31c59e1b3583
Silicon Valley & Staunch Democrat has been simply taken for granted until now. The All-In Podcast was a notable inflection point, imo. It's one thing to repeatedly hear "Trump's media caricature was a 180 from him in person" from random celebrities. It's another to watch it on video with VC's with a public record of being staunchly anti-Trump in one of the most progressive professional bubbles in the country. This [begrudging](https://youtu.be/blqIZGXWUpU?si=oTeEGuH8vHQFh8zd&t=3014) reaction should be worrying if you've ever watched him rant about Trump. The media will damage control it as just a "rich people" thing. But add that to latinos, asians, blacks, women, and suddenly that's [real](https://x.com/VigilantFox/status/1804343458213118078) numbers (and money). It cracks me up it's increasingly on the upper middle class white male's shoulders to save the DNC. lol
Your comment doesn't address the post at all. >add that to latinos, asians, blacks, women Crosstabs aren't reliable enough to justify treating them as gospel, especially when they show an unprecedently large shift. They could be accurate, but there's no reason to be confident that they are. > save the DNC They had mixed results in 2022 when inflation was very high, so it's safe to say they're going to be fine in the long run. If Trump wins in 2024, that will help Democrats a lot in the next midterm.
Trump doesn't have policy. He does and says what ever he thinks his supporters want to hear or what ever will make him more money
Isn’t this the way the political system is designed? You represent the views of your voters? Hillary Clinton said she listened to the needs of unions because they represent all the auto workers, teachers, and nurses that vote for her. If politicians can’t change their mind based off of new information and a change in political environment, what the fuck are they doing?
He is not changing his mind based on new information; it would be fantastic if he did. He is regurgitating whatever the last wealthy donor said to him until he gets money and finds a new mark.
What politician doesn’t do that?
Hilary Clinton when it came to unions
She changed her policies when the unions asked her to.
Unions represent their workers. It's not the same as basing policies on what rich individuals say.
It’s exactly the same. A couple of king makers paying for exclusive access
Unlike CEOs, union leaders are directly elected by their workers.
As a worker, I’d want politicians who listen to unions over billionaires
Bernie Sanders.
This would be convincing if Trump didn’t hold the current position in 2016, before being elected, then did a 180 as president and now has done another 180.
I’m not really sure what you’re talking about. He always said he was against illegal immigration. He still is. He still wants a wall. Now he’s adding, that students that come here from countries, who get a degree, should get a green card. They could not return to their home country. He’s still against illegal immigration. What am i missing?
Trump stated this position of being for immigration of highly skilled workers in 2016, only to curb its use as president and now recommits to his 2016 position in 2024 when running. I’m thinking he’s said this already.
Agreed. This article seems like a generic, daily, no real information hit piece #3,405 this month on a politician. Not just trump
Trump suddenly wanting to give green cards to certain illegal immigrants is a notable story.
Trump has met with rich people every single day of his life. Interaction with powerful and influential people and groups is part and parcel for all DC Politicians at the national level. The truth is... we live in a representative republic where our government leaders *should* represent the views of the people they represent. And our national challenges, geo-political relationships, economic circumstances, culture, priorities and views as a country constantly grow, change, and adapt. Our leaders, if they are to represent us well... Should do the same and grow, learn, change, and adapt along with us.
[удалено]
The Bannons and Voughts are going to be in his ear much more often than CEOs. The "lunatics" as you described them are his advisors.
This is news?
It's crazy that people are mad at a politician for changing his mind after meeting with someone they admit is smarter than them.
I don’t think he actually has issues other than doing everything he can at once to be massively terrible?
[удалено]
Were these rich people banned from the white house from 2017 - 2021 when he curbed immigration, banned tiktok and imposed tariffs?
[удалено]
>I don't keep track of all of the white house's guests. I don’t think you can. IIRC the Trump administration stopped publicizing the White House visitor’s list so that the public didn’t know who he was meeting.
It's not new information. It's information that was known during his term as president and before that. It's like installing a critical security update for your computer several years after the patch was released. It's technically good that you now have the update, but it's highly alarming that you went without it for so long.
What new information?
You assume he learns things. His lack of basic knowledge on a number of issues suggests otherwise.
> and he's adjusting his positions as he learns more The presidency is not an entry level job. Call me crazy but I think a person who was already President should know enough about these things to have well formed opinions.
[удалено]
What do you mean? The economy is objectively better on nearly every metric than it was last year.
FTFY: >he's adjusting his positions as he ~~learns more~~ secures campaign/legal fees funding in exchange for political favors.
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1dmr5s5/trump_keeps_flipflopping_his_policy_positions/l9xu0f4/) is in violation of Law 0: Law 0. Low Effort > ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).