What EVER Happened to the ART of the DEAL?

What EVER Happened to the ART of the DEAL? There are ALL kinds of Art , there are the "arts" that we are so familiar . There are ALSO the Magick Arts too.  Donald Trump appeared in many guises—billionaire real-estate tycoon, golf-course mogul, beauty-pageant impresario, reality-television star—before his blindsiding rise to the presidency of the United States.  When I first saw Donald J Trump's book called the "Art of the Deal" . I had assumed that Trump was to be the great negotiator in Chief . Example his expertise could have been applied to other nations . Trump’s lack of success at international negotiations is largely matched on the domestic front. There have been no substantive talks on infrastructure, immigration, or health care, three of his key promises. WELL Health care reform  kicked the bucket ! (1)>>If Trump were just doing a deal that was for the benefit of the US, that would be one thing.  Before this, America alternated between isolationist and expansionist. The country viewed the world order suspiciously, and only came out to play when we could "win the game." This post , I am going to be a bit critical of Trump with all do seriousness.  In the book, Trump highlights bargaining strategies that have served his commercial real estate empire well. Well he said that he would bring this art with his foreign policy . While these tactics are misplaced in the world of international relations, they have still galvanized his approach to trade. Understanding Trump’s strategies in real estate puts his trade policy (both in what has happened and what to expect) in clear perspective. Trump has overseen major, possibly permanent, shifts in U.S. foreign policy that went on full display this weekend in France as the president met  with other world leaders at the Group of Seven summit. Mocked by peers behind his back at a NATO meeting in London, Mr. Trump abruptly canceled a news conference and bolted early, only to fly home to a capital in the throes of judging whether he is fit for office. After hobnobbing with the queen, the president now faces the daunting likelihood that by Christmas he will become the third president impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors. BESIDES that , here is the bottom line .  (2)>>Donald Trump has been cornered by the wall , he is in a particular state that he can't conduct any business with any foreign leaders like Putin for example . Getting along with Russia has been one of the highlights of hope that would have ended the new cold war . A complete list of the deals foreign and domestic that Trump has promised and then failed to make would be too long for this space, but here are just a few A trade deal with China [Pending]  A new nuclear deal with Iran[ mulled by politics]  A deal to get North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons[ still pending]  A deal to end U.S. involvement in Afghanistan[ not happening because of the military industrial complex ] A peace deal between the Israelis and the Palestinians [ not going to happen because Trump just recognized Jerusalem as Israels capital ]  A deal to make Mexico pay for a border wall [ Forget this , it was a dumb idea anyway]  A deal to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act with “something terrific”[ STILL HAS NOT HAPPENED ]  A deal on new gun-safety measures [ never WILL HAPPEN, since Trump has been in the pockets of the NRA anyway] Trump apparently tried to make a deal with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky — you find me dirt on Joe Biden, and I’ll release the military aid Congress appropriated — and the result is that not only did he not get what he wanted, he will likely be impeached because of it.   Trump did not get the US to back the illegal coup that overthrew the legal Ukrainian gov't in 2014 that spawned the vote by Crimea to abandon the Ukraine. Neo con diplomats, working against Obama's policy, perpetrated it. What we see is the manipulation of NATO for use in neo con schemes, started during the Clinton Administration.  EITHER CASE our Foreign policy is in teeters with almost every nation in the globe. I don't blame all that on Trump , the way I see this , the Obama administration started the deterioration of American Foreign policy with the Middle East uprising known as the Arab Spring , his subsequent policy  failure toward Syria has drawn in Russia now doing exactly what our nation should have been doing something called Humanitarian aide . The majority of US citizens, on both left and right, know little about the details of our interactions with the world and care less. The US has garnered by it's overall behavior in some parts of the world. However, what we mostly hear about is the world's criticism of our policies. There's a lot that should be criticized, but external criticism does more to reinforce bad behavior than prevent it. The Art of the Deal Diplomacy employed by Trump and embraced by his team may have been an effective negotiating tactic in deals with Hyatt over Manhattan’s Commodore Hotel, but it may not be as effective when determining American foreign policy world wide. This is especially true considering the almost Cold War-like rivalry in the region over the past ten years and the growing competition between Russia and China and the US. The goal of peace and stability world wide should have been at the center of US policy . And while the international community and the US government agree on the intended outcome, time again will decide whether Trump’s diplomatic strategy will ever make a comeback.

Thoughts on the Impeachment hearings :
 (3)>>The impeachment inquiry into what actions Trump took to push Ukraine to investigate his political rival started in the House Intelligence Committee, but the House Judiciary Committee would be responsible for drafting the articles of impeachment. The House would vote on whether to impeach Trump, before the Republican-led Senate is likely to squash it anyway . The Democrats have have lined up witnesses as you know . What is missing is the actual whistle blower, but what has  (4)>>the media spinning is the "experts" that were called during the hearings , mainly so called Constitutional scholars who gave ridiculous statements as proof that Donald Trump abused his power .  During the House Judiciary Committee’s first impeachment hearing on Wednesday, one of the witnesses, Stanford University professor Pamela Karlan, made a reference to President Donald Trump’s 13-year-old son, Barron, in explaining the difference between the president and a king.“Contrary to what President Trump says, Article Two [of the Constitution] does not give him the power to do anything he wants,”  (5)>>Karlan said. “And I’ll just give you one example that shows you the difference between him and a king, which is the Constitution says there can be no titles of nobility, so while the president can name his son Barron, he cannot make him a baron.” IT looked like a tough day for Democrats , but Republicans took issue with the mention of Trump's 13-year-old son, and used the comment to cast Karlan as biased. Karlan apologized for the remark later in the hearing. The Trump campaign issued a statement calling on Democrats to repudiate “Karlan and call on her to personally apologize to the president and first lady for mocking their son on national TV.” The Constitutional scholars were biased in the first place.  The quip sparked some chuckles in the audience, but the situation quickly spun out of control. The White House and some Republicans cried foul at the use of Barron’s name, since he’s a child. It’s true that it is a norm to leave the president’s children out of partisan attacks, but this wasn’t really an attack. Karlan wasn’t making a dig at Barron Trump, she was just making a point about presidential powers. These scholars were invited to opine on the Constitution and the meaning of the impeachment clause—whether Trump’s actions as revealed by the inquiry into his Ukraine dealings constitute impeachable offenses in light of the law. But California Republican Tom McClintock had a more personal question for the academics, asking the panel of four to raise their hands if they supported Trump’s election in 2016. Stanford Law School professor Pamela Karlan, an expert on voting law, was clearly horrified, responding, “I have a right to cast a secret ballot.” And Harvard Law School scholar  (5)>>Noah Feldman pointed out that not raising hands didn’t indicate an answer but an objection to the question itself. McClintock’s point was to undermine the witnesses’ presentations by pointing out their personal politics. The implication is that they can’t possibly offer a reliable interpretation of the law because they dislike Trump, and therefore their testimony can be dismissed as partisan rhetoric. The Democrats want to rush to impeachment based on a political calendar that would have them skip the steps required to fully make their case. The sole Republican witness in Wednesday’s House Judiciary Committee hearing on impeachment, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, made a strong case that the impeachment strategy the Democrats are pursuing is deeply flawed. Now  If  you want these facts on what we presume Trump did,you've got to also take these facts the majority right now frankly is lost a great big blurb of removing Trump . The BIG OBSTACLE rushing Trump out a year before the election.Its  simply too far away, to break through the public consciousness and move enough voters undecided on the facts of the case toward the Democratic position.


NOTES AND COMMENTS :

 (1)>>If Trump were just doing a deal that was for the benefit of the US, that would be one thing. On the contrary, his various high-profile efforts at restarting negotiations with China, Iran, North Korea and other nations have—at least since the signing of his much-mocked makeover of NAFTA in 2018—all run aground.  But this article fails to emphasize that this isn’t *that* kind of deal. Here we have Trump throwing our collective national interest under the bus to get a deal that benefits no one but *himself.*. So far Trump's deal with other nations are not complete in regards to a sound foreign policy . Leaving North Korea I think is foolhardy , cynical . Or How Trump pulled out of a Treaty with Iran as examples . OR , He called off his visit to a close U.S. ally, Denmark—a country with a prime minister who’s also a natural political ally, because she’s as anti-immigrant as he is—ostensibly because the Danes refused to consider selling him Greenland (which, technically, may not be Denmark’s to sell anyway, since it is a semi-autonomous territory with its own prime minister).To many longtime Trump watchers, the president’s poor performance at the diplomatic negotiating table is all of a piece with his over hyped career in business.(2)>>Donald Trump has been cornered by the wall . The vary minute that Trump was called Putin's puppet , and an illegitimate President he was throwen a curb ball , he's  at a wall created by his Democratic Congress persons . Really He  Can't even pick up the RED phone to stop some kind of attack on the US , BECAUSE NANCY is  watching . The Russia gate has made Americans suspicious of Trump fueling fears of our election system  , perhaps stalling any kind of sound negotiations with Russia on Nuclear Arms control.(3)>>The impeachment inquiry . Only a slim majority of Americans endorse the proceedings — which means that for tens of millions of Americans, Donald Trump did exactly what he is accused of doing, and they’re O.K. with it. Democrats believe it was an abuse of power; everyone else, it seems, believes President Trump was just trying to do a deal. Americans at large finally get to see the House impeachment hearings,  but that doesn’t make this “inquiry” any less of a farce.Democrats from Speaker Nancy Pelosi on down are open about their intentions here: The point now isn’t to examine the evidence so they can decide whether to impeach President Trump, but simply to sway public opinion against him. And never mind that this course all but guarantees that the Senate won’t vote to convict him, and so remove him from office: Pelosi evidently only cares about 1) appeasing the Democratic base, which started demanding impeachment the day Trump won, and 2) dirtying up the president to boost the chances of beating him at the ballot box next November.   If rumors about the identity of the Ukraine whistleblower are true, it’s easy to see why Republicans have been pushing witnesses to name him — because it goes a long way to making Democrats’ impeachment case look like a rerun of the “collusion” delusion. (4)>>the media spinning is the "experts".These “experts” do not care what’s actually contained in Schiff’s biased, ridiculous report any more than Schiff cared about lying about working with the “whistleblower” to contrive this entire shameful episode. They care even less about what happened on a phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Like the Democrat politicians running this circus, all three of them want Trump impeached, embarrassed, and, if possible, thrown out of office because they do not like his politics.These professors are liberal activists who are still livid that Trump defeated their preferred candidate, Hillary Clinton, and they’ve spent the last three years looking for something, anything, that might give them a chance to kick Trump out of office.(5)>>Karlan said. Three of the witnesses, including Karlan, had been called by Democrats to testify that the evidence gathered regarding Trump’s dealings with Ukraine meets the historical definition of impeachment. The other witness had been called by Republicans. Few Democratic or Republican politicians put a question to a witness from the other side.   Stanford law professor Pamela Karlan ruptured eardrums when she bellowed out her conclusion that in Trump’s dealing with Ukraine, the president had attempted to “strong-arm a foreign leader” and that his conduct was “a cardinal reason why the Constitution contains an impeachment power.”Karlan cracked a joke that delighted liberals and infuriated conservatives. Or rather, it delighted conservatives because it gave them a talking point to whip up outrage. (5)>>Noah Feldman pointed out. The second witness, Harvard professor and Bloomberg News columnist Noah Feldman, also has a long paper trail to contradict the notion that Adam Schiff’s report was what finally convinced him of the need to impeach Trump.Almost immediately after Trump won the 2016 election, Feldman was indulging #Resistance fantasies about the Trump Hotel in Washington, D.C., allegedly violating the Constitution's emoluments clause.In March 2017, he said that Trump deserved to be impeached for pointing out, correctly, that the Obama administration had surveilled his associates. Two months later, Feldman claimed Trump should be impeached for allegedly asking former FBI Director James Comey to stop trying to intimidate and entrap former Trump administration official Michael Flynn. By June 2017, he was calling for Congress to “act before the courts” and impeach Trump over what former special counsel Robert Mueller might find. In 2018, he called Trump’s 2016 joke about Russia finding Hillary’s emails impeachable. At the start of this year, it was Buzzfeed’s discredited report about the president supposedly telling Michael Cohen to lie that Feldman deemed “clearly impeachable.”During the current Ukraine fracas, Feldman has stayed true to form, writing article after article siding with Democrats and deriding Trump — just as he has done throughout the Trump administration.