Replies

I’ll respond to this in segments.

________________________________

It’s unwise to think that Trump always plays the game with that “tough but fair” pattern. “Tough but fair” is not always the best strategy, and risk taking (deviating from the usual pattern) can have great benefit.

***

*Shrug* In this case, I’m going way back to the basics. TBF tends to be a dominant strategy, and Trump’s actions have fallen largely into that mold. I could be wrong, but I can only report on what I’ve seen and how it looks.

***

And what makes you so sure his stated goals are his actual goals? Voters are part of this game too.

It’s too early to tell whre Trump is headed with all this, but obviously, his utterances are flippant, and he is not afraid of trash talking his allies.

***

I don’t know if Trump is telling the truth; no one is a mind reader. But his purely executive actions have been, in my opinion, sheer awesome. In executive actions in which Trump has been able to act completely on his own initiative, he has been the most conservative President in the last 30 or so years.

Also, the HFC is not Trump’s ally. They are a faction on their own. They may have convergent goals with Trump and may want to work with him, but they are their own group working towards their own goals, some of which may not be Trump’s goals. And even if they do share the same goals, they still come into conflict on the best way to achieve those goals.

Throw voters into the mix and it suddenly becomes a lot more complicated than I could try to analyze in a 1500-word vanity.

My argument is that Trump and his administration is a separate faction from the HFC, and Trump’s tactics when dealing with them are consistent with the TBF strategy in game theory, at least on a very basic level. We may not LIKE it, but I would argue that it IS consistent.

I'll read your post more carefully in a moment, but Trump is taking a new (and better) tack in recent tweets. He is personalizing it rather than lumping every person in a small faction in the same boat.

Great op-ed from @RepKenBuck. Looks like some in the Freedom Caucus are helping me end #Obamacare.
@realDonaldTrump - 5:17 PM - 30 Mar 2017
If @RepMarkMeadows, @Jim_Jordan and @Raul_Labrador would get on board we would have both great healthcare and massive tax cuts & reform.
@realDonaldTrump - 5:20 PM - 30 Mar 2017
Where are @RepMarkMeadows, @Jim_Jordan and @Raul_Labrador? #RepealANDReplace #Obamacare
@realDonaldTrump - 5:21 PM - 30 Mar 2017

I say "better" because by naming allies, Trump is more clearly aligning himself, staking a position, etc. Like it or not, at least he is clear in position.

There is another angle, and that is that Trump learned early on in his venture to politics, he will lose and gain support. Some people will "drop him." His standing only matters on election day. He can afford to lose old supporters. Most voters are fickle, and most can be bought.

-- My argument is that Trump and his administration is a separate faction from the HFC, and Trump's tactics when dealing with them are consistent with the TBF strategy in game theory, at least on a very basic level. We may not LIKE it, but I would argue that it IS consistent. --

I don't disagree with any of that in principle. My point was that your assumptions (e.g, that HFC was dealing in bad faith) aren't necessarily true, and that Trump can and probably does deviate from the pattern that consistently wins most games (e.g., treat an ally in bad faith once in awhile, or as an opening gambit).

I'm way past thinking any politician, Trump included, deserves a presumption of good faith. He is as much of a snake as any of them. Less of a snake than Hillary for sure, but he's still presumed to be a snake. Good guys do not get to that level, ever.