So, plenty of potential.

A few problems.

1) Will trump really be listening to them? And will he back them, when the going gets tough?
2) Who does he rely on most? If it is bunion, then we are sunk. A good example is this “ban” that is not a ban debacle, which bunion apparently led.
3) Will trump (and his team) learn from their mistakes (requiring they recognize them, even if only internally)? And do so well before any major damage or crisis happen?

Usually we can defer to our president and his staff a superior level of understanding and capability. But, when I come away feeling I (yes, me – who is even further away from politics as trump was) can do a better job, than has occurred the first few days, there is a problem.

I was expecting FAR better from this billionaire who bragged about his competence.

Surprisingly, never got that sense with any past president, even with obama, as much as I was against his politics, and suspected his community organizer experience.

GHW Bush, McCain and Romney ran against two of the strongest Dem campaigners since FDR.

Trump barely edged out the worst Dem candidate in living memory in a change year with the third-term curse working against her.

Seems like a whole lotta hubris goin’ on.

The problem is trump and his devoted followers think the election itself is proof of much.

Just how obsessed can one be about the margin (not particularly big) of EC votes?

Must trump need validation from every world leader that he has won legitimately?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/no-gday-mate-on-call-with-australian-pm-trump-badgers-and-brags/2017/02/01/88a3bfb0-e8bf-11e6-80c2-30e57e57e05d_story.html

This election had the fewest proportion of eligible voters in recent times. trump’s margin in the swing states was razor thin.

Facts are facts, even if inconvenient to trump’s narrative of having a “mandate”.

He doesn’t.

He merely has a chance to prove himself, with a GOP majority in Congress who really don’t owe him much.

As Roy Lofquist mentioned above, Trump was a follower of Norman Vincent Peale, the “Positive Thinking” pastor. Trump and his parents regularly attended services at Peale’s church . Trump’s sisters were married there along with the funeral services for Trump’s parents.

So Trump does have a history with Christianity, although Peale was often attacked for running more of a cult than church.

As to Trump being an Objectivist, perhaps he wants to think of himself as a radical advocate of unfettered capitalism, but his entire business career has been an example of crony capitalism, from buying off government officials to using bankruptcy and eminent domain (theft) to achieve his “success” at any price. In short he is a man without ethical grounding or a consistent ideology. He is similar to Nixon in his thinking. In a speech Ayn Rand gave at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, she referenced Nixon as a perfect example of Pragmatism. Nixon was a man without principles, as is Trump. Whatever works is the motto. Action before thought. Revenge as a means.

Read the first part here:
http://neoneocon.com/2017/01/31/more-on-thought-and-action-and-trump-of-course/#comment-2170111

Another “p*ssy grab” news items would have sunk him, his margin for win was so very thin.

clinton was just that bad a choice to lead the dems, that despite would be GOP voters staying home, so did a rather large number of dem voters.

Had a good number of expected GOP voters not stayed home (e.g. had trump received more than McCain as a percentage of eligible voters), you might have a valid argument wrt a trump grand strategy.

All you can claim is that trump’s win was fair and square, and he is a legitimate POTUS as a result.