I think they are part of a similar pattern - he known nothing else, so he uses the only tool he knows without understanding it.
But yes, it was presented differently.
Yeah, I never really believed Bolton's claim that Trump doesn't understand how tariffs work(ie. he supposedly thinks the other country pays them), but I do think he doesn't really grasp the complicated aftermath of implementing them, or any other economic policy for that matter.
The anecdote that always sticks with me about Trump is during the 2016 when he was still a social liberal, and apparently believed the religious-right would just switch their opinion on various epiphanic issues if he told them to, as if they had no other commitment to those issues beyond obedience to him. He quickly learned that didn't apply in the realm of intra-coalition "moral" issues, but he doesn't quite seem to have figured out elsewhere.
If I'm not mistaken, the recent hat-trick of anti-Trump SCOTUS rulings continues the pattern of Trump-appointed judges being the most likely among the conservative bloc to join in decisions smacking down Trump himself.
Because, of course, Trump had the sagacious wisdom to realize he should appoint independent-minded jurists with the willingness to follow their consciences and rule against anyone they thought was in the wrong, including, if needs be, himself.
Alternative theory: Trump just wanted judges who would overturn Roe v. Wade, and didn't bother examining any other implications of their respective legal theories because he wasn't thinking any further than his quid pro quo with the religious right.
Latest example, Kavanaugh just blocked the efforts of Missouri Republicans to take their trumpified electoral map to the high-court for approval.
Gotta say, Trump did come off looking comparatively like a top-drawer legal scholar in his response to a renowned defense-lawyer's suggestion of a pardon for his client in an epiphanic trial much in the news lately...
LAWYER: Trump should pardon my client!
TRUMP: Umm, it's a state case.
(And, yes, I realize the lawyer was probably just trying to bait Trump into saying something that could somehow be spun as sympathetic toward the accused, in the hope of swaying public opinion.)
Just looked into it some more. Apparently, Trump had originally made comments on the case that were more in the vicinity of "It's a horrible tragedy all-around" than "The accused is a heinous villain", and left open the possibility that the particular argument used by the defense was correct. So presumably the lawyer figured that further verbal outpourings of a beneficial nature could be induced.
Comments
Yeah, I never really believed Bolton's claim that Trump doesn't understand how tariffs work(ie. he supposedly thinks the other country pays them), but I do think he doesn't really grasp the complicated aftermath of implementing them, or any other economic policy for that matter.
The anecdote that always sticks with me about Trump is during the 2016 when he was still a social liberal, and apparently believed the religious-right would just switch their opinion on various epiphanic issues if he told them to, as if they had no other commitment to those issues beyond obedience to him. He quickly learned that didn't apply in the realm of intra-coalition "moral" issues, but he doesn't quite seem to have figured out elsewhere.
Latest example, Kavanaugh just blocked the efforts of Missouri Republicans to take their trumpified electoral map to the high-court for approval.
(And, yes, I realize the lawyer was probably just trying to bait Trump into saying something that could somehow be spun as sympathetic toward the accused, in the hope of swaying public opinion.)