There's a difference between changing one's opinion based on evidence and thought... And having, say, mutually exclusive policy positions on the minimum wage during the campaign. (Eliminate it federally, raise it at the federal level, don't raise it at the federal level, let the states decide, let the states decide but it must go up.)

Or mutually exclusive positions on a ton of policy issues: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/full-list-dona...

There isn't, to me, evidence of evolution or evaluation. Or a rapidity of such that calls to mind comic-book mutation. We can't get the full view into his mind, obviously, but it seems like we don't have access to a base set of principles from which Donny makes his decisions.

Watch what he does and who he appoints. Having a meeting with someone isn't always that substantial. The crazy stuff he says is just for shock and awe value. This is how he controls the narrative and keeps it away from weightier investigative criticisms of his actions Which are far more damaging and substantial. A remark can always be played off as a joke, bluster or banter. His supporters see that, and get a kick out of seeing him troll the media.

This way he makes some off the cuff remark that has people in news and social media tripping over themselves to denounce and loudly proclaim righteous indignation. His supporters laugh, the crazy fringe love him, and the media and the left chase their tail around in circles until he needs to distract them from something else.

Please, name for me one thing that he has successfully distracted the 24 news cycle away from

The silly Hamilton bullshit distracted people from him settling the Trump University lawsuit.

http://mashable.com/2016/12/13/donald-trump-distractions/#.4...

Edit: This also works by keeping the focus on shallow things that can't be legally damaging. The media is in a cycle of reacting to gaffe after gaffe rather than digging into boring details that might lead somewhere.

My favorite one is when USIC released their statement saying they were confident Russia had compromised U.S political organizations to try and influence the election[1] and the "grab em by the pussy" tape was released that same day[2]

1. https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07/joint-statement-departme...

2. http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/10/07/donald_tru...

I'm not so sure he leaked that one. It seemed actually damaging. The DNC/Clinton hacks stuff is win for trump no matter how it ends up because what the leaks exposed is far more damaging than who leaked them.

Those leaks showed that the DNC and Clinton were colluding with the media to give Clinton an unfair advantage in the election. Broaching this subject can't escape that.

I think what happened next was accidental, Trump didn't expect to win. Right before the election He goes out of his way to make claims about how the election was rigged beforehand. This sparked rebuttals from the left including president Obama. Now that he's won, the people recounting and investigating the election look like hypocrites.

If Trump lost all of MI,WI,PA by a fewer than 80K votes, I doubt any Democrat would consider a recount particularly outlandish - especially if he won the popular vote by close to 3M votes.

As for the leak, we may never know who released it. But I wouldn't put it past them. Some people spend their entire lives studying psyops and it may have been a gamble that paid off.

The problem is political interface. How do I vote if politicians can just change their position just a month after the elections? Or if I can't even pin down their position, because they're not sure themselves? What am I actually voting for?

So if you are an issue-based voter, you don't vote for the right person (in which case you'd be principally evaluating their personal qualifications), instead you vote for specific policy positions (here you principally evaluate policy qualifications).

The politician who changes their views according to new information is simply less comprehensible to outside parties. It may be better to be a more easily understood politician who sticks to position in a way that is <too> sticky.

It's an odd time when someone is criticized for changing their mind based on new or changing information.

Changing your mind based on new information is excellent. We should all strive to do this.

Constantly changing your mind based on nothing in particular beyond whoever you talked to last is not the same thing, though.

Trump appears to have no real opinions. He says whatever he last heard, or whatever he thinks the people he's talking to want to hear. For example, he used to be pro-choice. When he started running for President he suddenly became anti-abortion. And not just anti-abortion, but hardcore anti-abortion, talking about jailing women who obtain them. When everybody on his side recoiled from this, he instantaneously backpedaled.

Or take climate change, for example. During the campaign he maintained that it was nonsense, a Chinese hoax, etc. After the election, when interviewed by the New York Times, he said "I think there is some connectivity" between human activity and climate change. And after that, he continued to build an administration utterly hostile to doing anything about it. All while explicitly citing climate change as a danger when e.g. applying for permits to build sea walls for his property.

Pick just about any position Trump has expressed, and you'll see this pattern. He changes constantly, and not based on a careful evaluation of new information, but just whatever the environment happens to be at that moment.

This probably means he's lying and he doesn't give two fucks about the country. Just get power no matter the means.

Have we had Presidents who couldn't have been described thus? Not in my lifetime.

Most of them only lie try to blatantly lie about important things (Or at least, when they feel like there's something resembling a fig leaf they can cover up with.)

He lies just about every time he speaks. We really should not be listening to anything this man says.

There is no point to performing Kremlinology on Trump. There is no consistent narrative, there are no secret subtexts to his utterances, that can be gleaned through careful inspection and comparison. He says whatever comes to mind, which is usually the most expedient thing to say at that particular moment.

That's what worries me about Trump. If he merely lusted for power and was willing to lie to obtain it, like a normal politician, it wouldn't bug me as much. Not that this is good, but it's something we can deal with.

I'm not sure it's even fair to say that Trump lies. He's outright incoherent. The words are just meaningless. Is it even a lie if there's no underlying intent? Consider, for example:

"I don’t want to have guns in classrooms although in some cases teachers should have guns in classrooms, frankly, because teachers are, you know, things that are going on in our schools are unbelievable, you look at some of our schools, unbelievable what’s going on – but I’m not advocating guns in classrooms, but remember, in some cases, and a lot of people have made this case, teachers should be able to have guns, trained teachers should be able to have guns in classrooms."

A normal politician might come out in favor of banning guns from school, then later on say that teachers should be allowed to have guns. That might be a rational change of of heart based on new information, or a response to big sacks of money dropped off by the NRA, or an attempt to pander to a new voter base. But when the change comes in the same freakin' sentence you just can't make anything of it.

I'm not worried that Trump will cause problems because of a lust for power and willingness to lie, I'm worried that he'll cause problems because he seems to be entirely detached from reality.

This is why I'm glad to see these people advising him. Maybe they can influence him in good directions. But I'm not terribly optimistic, because I'm sure Steve Bannon and friends will cancel it out and more.

Not at trump's level, but I agree. Why aren't we doing something about it?

You don't seem to be distinguishing between the things he might be saying as part of his true views and the things he might be saying to achieve some type of goal, so I don't think your interpretation of his behaviour is accurate.

I wouldn't know how to begin figuring out which ones are his true views.

Yet you assume they are negative...

Where did I do that?

No it's not. People have always been criticized for it.

What new information are you talking about?

Are we really seeing an open minded person learning from new information? Or is this simply the standard playbook of populist politcs?

Say anything that wins you the election, regardless of how vile, untrue or unworkable it may be. If you win, come up with some plan that doesn't make the idiocy of your campaign proposals glaringly obvious right away.