What does a Trump Doctrine most closely resemble?

A) Whatever is best for the Trump brand.
B) The opposite of Obama policy.
C) What Vladimir Putin wants.
D) Other _________ (explain).

Based on all the visits, phone calls, comments, proposed legislation, intelligence, etc. there are compelling arguments to support options A, B, C or a combination of the three. Any suggestions for something else? I'm having trouble coming up with anything.

Note: The #1 reason we all hope for, "What's good for America" doesn't make sense to anybody, including many Trump supporters.

Some of a), b) and c), but only because of overlap, so basically a).

I think the President would say it is "What's good for America" so if you think that is not the case it is on you to prove it.

I go with "What's good for America" as the President perceives it.

(A).

If (A) is neutral, then (B).

I would add that the President has done a better job of perceiving "What's good for America" than several previous presidents.

You're either with us, or against us*


* And we reserve the right to be against some of you who are with us. Especially Euroweinies.

Fool us won't get fooled again*



* Actually we're very easily fooled these days.

I would point out that the president and people who believe this are incapable of 2nd level thinking. Don't understand the consequences of their actions beyond the immediate

It's mostly whatever the bureaucracy and his cabinet feels like doing because he has no clue what's going on and minimal ability to influence policy, with a heavy salting of directionless reaction to whatever's on Fox News and a light salting of whatever Jared and Ivanka tell him to do for buckraking. Qatar is a good example. Trump's policy is to favor Saudi Arabia because they said it was because terrorism, but the actual State Department policy is to favor Qatar. It's nuts.

This, and I'll add: whoever panders to him best.

The foreign trip was hosted in Saudi Arabia. There was a huge reg carpet. There was a glowing orb. If this had been Doha, it might have been a different story, but that is the EXACT set up if you want to get him on your side - and against his own ****ing state department.

It's all about numero uno.

B accomplishes A. C is becoming less likely given the stricter sanctions being implemented on Russia as of late.

Yeah, A seems correct. Has there been a single move against A so far? How about B?

For Putin, we have Syria to contradict unless that scuffle was somehow staged or sensationalized. Remember, no serious damage was done and President "I don't project my strategy because I need to be completely unpredictable" OF COURSE gave Russia a heads up before the missiles went flying. Though Trump owns stock in Tomahawk missiles since 2015, so there's a component of A in Syria too.

So whatever the President says is true?

I wonder what kind of explosion would take place in your head if he were to declare Islam the only correct religion, or black people superior to whites.

Do any political leaders actually ever really make decisions that strongly go against their own personal brand in terms of foreign policy (potentially related, this book on the subject of how presidents make decisions about war that are generally linked to their self interest: https://www.amazon.com/Spoils-War-Co.../dp/1610396626) ? It's just that most political leaders see their their brand as being about winning the next election and securing a legacy, with some business considerations (like for Washington in the book linked) thrown in than Trump does.

Therefore A is not a differentiating aspect of the Trump presidency. The differentiating aspect of the Trump presidency is that he is not able to understand much but even him refusing to look in any way weak ever in a mob boss type of way reminds me very much of Lyndon Johnson's attitude concerning the decision making around the Vietnam
War as described at length in The Best and the Brightest by Halberstam.

Whatever supports Tillerson's current Angry Birds level.