"But you know — and I wasn’t going to run again. I was going to write a
book and set up an institute. I was a professor at the University of
Pennsylvania, and they — the Biden Institute and the Domestic Policy
Institute at the University of Delaware. And — and I — that’s what I
was going to do.
But then along came Charlottesville. Remember,
Charlottesville, Virginia — what happened? Well, I was about to
announce that I stay — that I was staying right where I was, when I was —
you know, and you remember what happened. Those folks came out of the
woods in the fields with torches — torches, singing the same anti- —
chanting the same antisemitic bile that was chanted in Germany in the
early ‘30s, accompanied by the Ku Klux Klan. Not a joke. And a young
woman bystander was killed.
And the previous President, who is
seeking the job again, was asked what he thought about it. You know
what he said? He said, “There are very fine people on both sides.”
“Very fine people on both sides.” "
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2023/11/01/remarks-by-president-biden-at-a-campaign-reception-minneapolis-mn/
I know that www.whitehouse.gov is probably not on one of Dan's lists of places to get reliable news, but the fact that Biden's own administration documents him telling lies at a campaign event in this current election cycle is quite impressive.
https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-walmart-remarks-raise-eyebrows-1896867
Shocking, Biden just spews bullshit about Wal Mart prices.
22 comments:
Where, precisely, is the "lie..."?
I. Charlottesville WAS the site of a vulgar white supremacist's "protest..." Hundreds of white supremacists and their allies protested the removal of their "hero," the traitor Lee;
II. Terroristic violence WAS inflicted upon innocent people from those white nationalists.
III. Those terrorists DID chant Nazi slogans (and actually antisemitic phrases like "the Jews will not replace us..." and actually racist phrases like "kill the N***" - you know, terrorism) while carrying tiki torches.
IV. Actual violence happened and a woman was murdered by one of those conservative white nationalists.
V. Trump actually said, referring to the event, "There were very fine people on both sides" (referring to the conservative white nationalists who wanted to keep their traitor "president's" statue to honor the traitor AND to normal citizen counter-protesters). Trump did this dog whistle as he often does, with some intentional vagueness, but still leaving the clear message that he was saying there were fine people on the side of Robert E Lee. He made it clear that he was a fan of Lee, that he was a great general.
Great generals don't fight to defend slavery. Great generals aren't traitors to their nation to fight to defend slavery.
His words:
"Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves --
and you had some very bad people in that group,
but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides.
You had people in that group. Excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name...
"So you know what, it’s fine. You’re changing history. You’re changing culture.
And you had people -- and
I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists --
because they should be condemned totally.
But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay?"
https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/apr/26/context-trumps-very-fine-people-both-sides-remarks/
So, yes, there was that vague clarification later, but he LED with "There were fine people on both sides..." and he kept defending the defenders of the racist slavery traitor, Lee.
HOW you say things matter.
Trump's white nationalist supporters have made it clear that THEY hear Trump defending them, that THEY find that Trump's words empower and embolden them.
So, again, where are the "lies," plural, that you vaguely accuse him of.
This vague language is strong on modern Trump-style conservatism, sadly.
By all means, make yourself clear.
"Where, precisely, is the "lie..."?"
The lie is in taking Trump's comment out of context, and implying that he was supporting something that he clearly wasn't.
"LED with "There were fine people on both sides...""
No, he LED with "Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves --and you had some very bad people in that group".
Actually, he LED with whatever it is that you chose to admit from your quote. But that's just nitpicking, innit?
Further, if as you note, Trump clarified later then continuing to push the narrative that Trump was supporting people he clearly was not supporting is a lie in itself. Possible a more insidious lie as it ignores the entire set of facts to focus on one out of context quote in order to convey something that is false.
"HOW you say things matter."
Which is, and has been one of my biggest criticisms of Trump. Yet, if "HOW you say things matter." in only applied to Trump, then that is a problem as well.
"Trump's white nationalist supporters have made it clear that THEY hear Trump defending them, that THEY find that Trump's words empower and embolden them."
This is interesting. Trump is now responsible for how people "hear" what he says, not just for what he says. In other words, you now expect Trump to be responsible for the thoughts of others, not only for his words and actions.
"So, again, where are the "lies," plural, that you vaguely accuse him of."
Well, there's literally the lie that starts the post. There's the lie about his house fire. About being raise in various faith traditions. About taking a train across the bridge in Baltimore. Holy shit, I've posted regularly about Biden's history of lies. Hell, he was forced to suspend his first run for president because of his documented track record of lies.
"This vague language is strong on modern Trump-style conservatism, sadly."
When a direct quote of Biden magically becomes "vague language", that's the signal that the bullshit is going to get deep and that the double standard is coming.
"By all means, make yourself clear."
I did, by using a direct quote, and I have by using other direct quotes in the last.
What's interesting is why you won't make yourself clear and apply the same zero tolerance standard of 100% honesty to Biden you apply to Trump?
Biden lies as badly and routinely as Dan does. Or is it, Dan lies as badly and routinely as Biden does? Whatever. They're both inveterate liars.
Since Biden started his public lying career before Dan did, I'd say that Dan lies like Biden. One wonders if Dan's vaunted JUCO education employed plagiarizing others work, like Biden?
The problem here is that Dan simply chooses to ignore or minimize Biden's (or P-Bo's or Hillary's) lies and to only focus on Trump's lies. All he has to do is be consistent, and he chooses not to.
He still can't point to one intentionally told falsehood of any significance in terms of detrimental outcomes by Trump. He simply repeats what his "expert" journalists have told him. He actually buys the WaPo list of a billion and three lies Trump's told in his first week of his presidency (an exaggeration, but then, so is the list...to say the least).
I guess my problem is that, as a believer, I place a high value on the Truth. Therefore when anyone diminishes the Truth for any reason, I have a problem with it. I know that there might be rare instances where a politician might need to use disinformation or withhold the Truth for a specific purpose, but this casual approach to the Truth by almost all politicians is something I find a problem. I will agree that most of Trump's lies have been in the business/private realm while Biden's have been more a part of his official duties or campaigns, which seems worse to me. But that's just me.
Right. Of course you're not claiming one must be perfect, just never diminish the truth. Got it.
1. No, I'm not claiming that anyone can be, should be, or must be perfect,
2. I am saying that, especially as believers, who follow the One who claimed that He was The Truth and taught that worship was about Truth, that we should value Truth highly. That we should strive to not play with Truth. That to intentionally diminish or minimize Truth makes it harder to highly value it.
3. We're imperfect, fallible, sinful humans. To expect perfection is unreasonable. To expect people to strive for Truth or to not throw falsehoods around lightly is not to expect perfection.
I know you're obsessed with the narrative that I demand perfection from Trump in particular, regardless of whether or not that is True. I'm simply saying that for anyone to default to obfuscating the Truth to benefit themselves, or to default to "my Truth", is something that I will never find acceptable.
I kind of expect this sort of attitude towards the Truth from Dan. He's been clear that he thinks that there are thousands/millions of truths. He's usually got an excuse for why Biden's or Clinton's lies just aren't that big of a deal. Hell, he's got many/most/all lies classified as "minor" sins anyway. It's a little surprising to see you be critical of me for expecting those who claim faith to highly value Truth. I understand that it is almost always necessary to vote for someone who is less Truthful than I'd prefer. That doesn't mean that I would minimize or excuse a cavalier attitude towards the Truth.
But that's me, you do you.
"I know you're obsessed with the narrative that I demand perfection from Trump in particular..."
It's not an obsession. It's just that you commonly object to this notion and then go on to say things which belie the claim. That's not my fault that I notice when it happens. It's really a moot point. I only indulge it when "Trump lies" is used to opposed his candidacy, as if he's said anything that's of truly great concern. That's not to say it's not a concern at all, but the reality is his "lies" don't amount to much at all. I know this because no one seems able to provide a single lie that makes any difference. The lies Biden tells, the lies most Dems tell, the lies of the Dem platform...those are lies which matter because you see people buying into them and making their voting choices because of them. That's world class lying with intent to deceive to produce a profitable outcome. That's lying we need to point out loudly, not the bullshit WaPo "Trump lied 10 billion times last night" crap Dan presents as reality...which is a lie of the type we don't see Trump spewing.
To continually state the obvious regarding the character we'd prefer to see in each of our preferred candidates....that they are our candidates not simply because of their campaign promises, but because they've shown themselves to be people of high character...that's a given and boring to continually bring up, especially when we're discussing Trump, a man with well known character flaws.
All candidates, at a minimum, accentuate their positives and do everything they can to prevent focus on negatives. That's not truthful. That's lying by omission, isn't it. But we accept that. Trump takes that to a very unique level to say the least, but it's just an exaggerated version of what all candidates do.
I guess you "seeing" things where they don't exist isn't an "obsession", it's just normal.
The problem is that I'm not using "Trump lies" to oppose his candidacy, I'm suggesting that the very notion of simply accepting politicians lies as just part of the process, and not expecting more is a problem that crosses party lines. For someone to bitch and moan that Trump lies, while ignoring or excusing Biden's lies, is simply being hypocritical and showing a low regard for Truth. To demand one standard for candidate X, and a completely different standard for candidate Y, is the problem.
If "lies matter" then they matter no matter who tells them.
"I guess you "seeing" things where they don't exist isn't an "obsession", it's just normal."
You can deny it all you want, but if you're going to continue saying two conflicting things, I'll respond accordingly.
I don't "accept" any lies by anybody. My problem is with the constant reference to "Trump lies" or that he has "a casual relationship with the truth" as if that's a clever description of the guy. I'm also not dealing in double standards, but not all "lies" are equal. That which Trump says is not anywhere near the lying commonly done by Biden, his party and the typical modern progressive. It's just the fact. I'm not going to waste time concerning myself with every goofy thing he says as if every goofy thing he says is of any legitimate concern.
But here's a question for you: Do you think Trump thinks he's lying when he says something not 100% factual? If a serious lie can't be provided in these discussions, considering that question might be a better exercise.
I was once cautioned against describing Dan as the liar he is. It had to do with the notion that he might actually believe all the false crap he pukes out so regularly on these blogs. My response was that he has been corrected repeatedly and with evidence and data yet still continues saying the same crap. He's a liar. Is Trump being "corrected" in the same way? Is he saying things which matter so much to anyone that anyone cares to correct him? What are those things? One could point to his seeming continued support for the Covid "vaccines", but I don't know all that many people who take the jab (unfortunately I know too many who still do).
We have to take the candidates as they are and unfortunately, even in the worst case scenario, we must pick the better of the two (or best of the bunch as the case may be). There's not a one of them we can speak of with certainty is just the guy we're hoping for, though some seem to come closer than others. That's just the way it is. I'm not going to prattle on about the obvious. Truth matters. Despite everything, there's still more truth with Trump. I think that's how I'm going to address this issue from now on, because it ain't a lie.
"but not all "lies" are equal."
If, as believers, we believe that Jesus was The Truth, and that Truth is one of the very attributes of YHWH, how then can anything less than the Truth be graded on a sliding scale?
"That which Trump says is not anywhere near the lying commonly done by Biden,"
"The other guy does it or worse" seems like a bad excuse to accept Trump's lies.
"But here's a question for you: Do you think Trump thinks he's lying when he says something not 100% factual?"
1. I don't think he cares. I think that he'll sat whatever he decides he needs to say to accomplish whatever he's trying to accomplish in a particular moment.
2. I think that Trump lies primarily to benefit himself.
3. Trump has a staff of people who's job it is to provide him with factual information, if he chooses to ignore them, that's on him.
4. I'm obviously excluding instances where there is a genuine mistake, or when he misspeaks accidentally.
5. The point isn't focused on Trump. It's focused on having the same standards and expectations of Truth for the candidates you do support as well as the candidates you don't support. Your whole argument boils down to "Biden's lies are worse." according to your subjective scale of worse.
"Is Trump being "corrected" in the same way?"
If he choosing to surround himself with people who won't correct him or chooses not to listen to those corrections, then it would seem that his commitment to the lie is greater than his commitment to the Truth. Do you seriously no t have more respect for someone who can acknowledge that they were wrong, than for some who continues to insist that they are right?
"Is he saying things which matter so much to anyone that anyone cares to correct him?"
Is he so unconcerned about the Truth and accuracy that he simply doesn't care if what he says is accurate or True? Doe she actively discourage people from correcting his factual inaccuracies?
"What are those things?"
As you point out, his continuing commitment to the narrative that the COOVID vaccine is a wonderful things that has been 100% positive is a big one. The fact that he can't acknowledge the reality that almost everyone else in the world acknowledges (that the US response to COVID was less than awesome), seems a bit divorced from reality.
I've said the very same thing multiple times, yet that doesn't prevent me from acknowledging the faults of both candidates, and trying to hold them to the same standard of Truth telling and honesty.
"If, as believers, we believe that Jesus was The Truth, and that Truth is one of the very attributes of YHWH, how then can anything less than the Truth be graded on a sliding scale?"
Because we live in this fallen world and when tasked in a self-governing nation with selecting the next president, it must be done if we're responsible citizens. Assuming Trump is a liar as his detractors insist he is, then we're dealing with two of them. Are they the same? Clearly, the only accurate answer is "NO". Are the lies told by each of equal degrees of deception? Again, not even close. If the lies are believed by all, which results in the worse result? Is this even a mystery?
I would also add that your quote above implies once again a desire for perfection in candidates. So this is an irrelevance to the issue on the table. As believers, we all seek the most holy, the most "Christian" to lead our nation. Even between these two, one is closer to our Christian ideals than the other. THAT'S the guy I support for the job. I don't know how much farther from or closer to that ideal he is than myself, but he's absolutely closer than the other guy. THAT'S the guy I support for the job.
""The other guy does it or worse" seems like a bad excuse to accept Trump's lies."
Good thing I STILL haven't come anywhere near close to suggesting such a thing. I most certainly do NOT "accept" any lies from anyone. It's a matter of whether or not his alleged lies are of any consequence compared to those from Biden and his party. Which one's are?
"1. I don't think he cares. I think that he'll sat whatever he decides he needs to say to accomplish whatever he's trying to accomplish in a particular moment."
You know, when I say "I think/believe/suppose/guess...etc." you give me crap and here you are doing it again. If you don't know he doesn't care, as a believer, how can you assert that he doesn't? And who doesn't say whatever is decided needs to be said in order to accomplish whatever is needed to be accomplished in a particular moment? And if you're suggesting he's telling lies to that end, an example would be excellent at this point in time.
"2. I think that Trump lies primarily to benefit himself."
A not uncommonly held opinion, despite no one ever providing an example which validates it. Surely there must be one. Keep in mind, that would require also demonstrating an intent to deceive, rather than merely saying something not true.
"3. Trump has a staff of people who's job it is to provide him with factual information, if he chooses to ignore them, that's on him."
Which factual info has he rejected after having been informed by this staff? Any examples?
"4. I'm obviously excluding instances where there is a genuine mistake, or when he misspeaks accidentally."
How do you determine when it either of these as opposed to an intention to deceive?
"5. The point isn't focused on Trump. It's focused on having the same standards and expectations of Truth for the candidates you do support as well as the candidates you don't support. Your whole argument boils down to "Biden's lies are worse." according to your subjective scale of worse."
You keep saying this as if you've proven it to be true. My argument is that it matters in terms of the consequences of believing a given lie. As a cheap example, Biden tells someone it's perfectly safe to approach his dog, Commander. The dog has a history of over a dozen cases of biting people. Trump says the same thing about his own dog who once nipped one person the dog regarded as threatening. It's clear that Biden's dog is not safe to be around. The consequences of that lie are clearly more severe as the potential for a person who approached the dog to be bitten. The potential for harm around Trump's dog is nowhere near as high, but still exists because of the one instance. Biden's lies, if believed, carry a far greater potential for harm to the believer than any "lie" from Trump anyone's ever offered in focusing on his shortcomings.
" If he choosing to surround himself with people who won't correct him or chooses not to listen to those corrections, then it would seem that his commitment to the lie is greater than his commitment to the Truth."
These are both claims which come with no evidence to suggest either is true. To consider the counsel of those in place to offer it, and make a decision that conflicts with it doesn't indicate any commitment to any lie...unless you have evidence to support the charge. Those among him might not agree on any given issue, but merely gives their own opinions for him to consider. Indeed, a commitment to truth would require such diversity in order to get all arguments from every angle before choosing a path. I have no knowledge of how his staff of advisors operate or how he processes what they bring for his consideration. Given all I hear is this accusation, I'm quite certain no one else does, either.
"Do you seriously no t have more respect for someone who can acknowledge that they were wrong, than for some who continues to insist that they are right?"
That assumes I know with absolute certainty that what he actually believes. Do you acquiesce to every charge that you are wrong while being convicted in your belief that you are right? One must be convinced. This aligns with my blog motto: To persuade or be persuaded. I'm not wrong until I can be persuaded to see that I am. Being wrong, while maintaining one is right because one believes one is right is not a lie. So this line of argument isn't relevant to the question of lying.
As an aside, despite all the reading I've done about Covid and the "vaccines", I can't seem to find definitive info either way as regard either efficacy (which I still believe is questionable at best), or harm (which I believe is more likely than some would assert). I'd appreciate if you have such definitive info you could share to help me get to those answers. Thanks in advance.
"Is he so unconcerned about the Truth and accuracy that he simply doesn't care if what he says is accurate or True? Doe she actively discourage people from correcting his factual inaccuracies?"
This really doesn't do jack to answer the question. It's not uncommon for most people to say things which demand correction, but because they don't really matter, correction never comes. For example, lots of people say "irregardless" when the correct word is simply "regardless". I don't go correcting every expression of the wrong word because in general, it just doesn't matter. I know what is meant. And rarely do such errors matter to the big picture. I'd be far more concerned with his defense of the "vaccines" (after all he did to get them to the public as quickly as he did) if he was trying to force people to take them like Biden and Dems did. So he can outright brag about it for all I care, just as long as he continues to refrain from forcing anyone to take the jab.
"As you point out, his continuing commitment to the narrative that the COOVID vaccine is a wonderful things that has been 100% positive is a big one."
He's wrong, but is he trying to deceive people with the personal knowledge that the crap ain't more than crap? At the same time, he claims to have taken the jab (and booster, too, I believe), so unless you can prove he's lying about that, then his defense of the "vaccines" is legit. As I said above, I can't find any definitive reports on the efficacy of the drugs at all...just the usual works/doesn't work stories which seem too anecdotal. And keep in mind, RFK Jr isn't the only guy who questions the safety of actual vaccines in general, so it's an ongoing debate altogether.
"The fact that he can't acknowledge the reality that almost everyone else in the world acknowledges (that the US response to COVID was less than awesome), seems a bit divorced from reality."
While we don't get the props Sweden did...mostly for not doing the masking and shutdown things...I can't see than anyone "in the world" thinks our response was among the worst or not among the best. And how much of that attitude refers to what happened during Biden's time, or with the mostly Dem governors getting all despotic? Which country had an "awesome" response to Covid?
"I've said the very same thing multiple times, yet that doesn't prevent me from acknowledging the faults of both candidates, and trying to hold them to the same standard of Truth telling and honesty."
We all want truth and honesty from out elected officials (and non-elected officials, too. Indeed from everyone.) But it's not that you acknowledge Trump's faults. It's that you belabor them unnecessarily. What's more, I think some faults are over-hyped and still others imagined. I've totally accepted he's imperfect. I take it as a given at this point, but a given which does no good to belabor. None whatsoever because they won't matter come Nov 5. All that matters is that he wins and the lefties don't.
"Because we live in this fallen world and when tasked in a self-governing nation with selecting the next president, it must be done if we're responsible citizens."
You keep repeating this in various forms as if the reality that we live in a fallen world somehow means that we don't place a high value on things like Truth or that we excuse lies in our politicians because that's just how it is.
"I would also add that your quote above implies once again a desire for perfection in candidates."
Not perfection, just better, less cavalier or accepting of lies just because. But you keep reading shit into things that isn't there.
"Good thing I STILL haven't come anywhere near close to suggesting such a thing. I most certainly do NOT "accept" any lies from anyone. It's a matter of whether or not his alleged lies are of any consequence compared to those from Biden and his party. Which one's are?"
I always appreciate it when people make these sorts of statements that sound definitive, then promptly do what they just said they don't ever do.
"You know, when I say "I think/believe/suppose/guess...etc." you give me crap and here you are doing it again."
The only times I do so are when you present your hunches as if they are fact. In this case, I am presenting my opinion, I am NOT claiming that I am making a claim of fact, I'm literally telling you what I think based on what Trump has said and how Trump acts.
"Which factual info has he rejected after having been informed by this staff? Any examples?"
As I'm not privy to his conversations with his staff, I wouldn't be able to answer. However, his continued insistence that the COVID "vaccine" was a wonderful gift to humanity is an example of his clinging to something that is not True and that his staff should be telling him to stop repeating.
" Do you think..."
I have to note that you literally asked me "Do you think...", then immediately started bitching when I literally answered exactly the question you asked using the same term you used. You asked for my opinion, I gave you my opinion, you bitched because I did what you asked.
"How do you determine when it either of these as opposed to an intention to deceive?"
Context, repetition, correction, to name a few. It's usually pretty obvious when someone misspeaks, not always, but usually. My point being that I am not interested in nitpicking anyone for making a mistake, as much as I am in seeking the Truth.
"You keep saying this as if you've proven it to be true. My argument is that it matters in terms of the consequences of believing a given lie."
Well, since I've been consistent in pointing out lies our presidents have told going back quite some time, it seems obvious that my goal is pointing out lies in general and expecting our presidents to tell the Truth. You don't have a problem when I point out Biden's lies, you only bitch when I comment on Trump's. I understand that your subjective argument is that you believe that lies are measured on some sort of subjective sliding scale. For those who've died or become ill because of Trump's lies about the "vaccine", I'd suggest that that's a pretty significant consequence. I understand that you're point is that "minor" lies aren't that big of a deal and are to be expected. I disagree.
"These are both claims which come with no evidence to suggest either is true."
Usually, a statement that starts with the word "If" is not intended to be a factual claim. In this case, given Trump's public disdain for being told what to do by others, it's not unreasonable to conclude that his repeating the "vaccine" lie happens despite his advisors telling him not to. Again, as I am not privy to his conversations with his advisors, it would be foolish for me to act as if I had specific knowledge. That's why I didn't do that.
"That assumes I know with absolute certainty that what he actually believes."
What a cop out. The notion that he might not really believe what he says about something being an excuse to absolve him of lying is quite the twist of logic. Isn't saying something publicly that you don't "actually believe" just another way of saying that you're lying?
"Do you acquiesce to every charge that you are wrong while being convicted in your belief that you are right?"
No, but I don't put my beliefs over facts.
"I'm not wrong until I can be persuaded to see that I am. Being wrong, while maintaining one is right because one believes one is right is not a lie. So this line of argument isn't relevant to the question of lying."
Again, if you choose not to be persuaded of something that is demonstrably false, isn't that you just clinging to a lie?
"As an aside, despite all the reading I've done about Covid and the "vaccines", I can't seem to find definitive info either way as regard either efficacy (which I still believe is questionable at best), or harm (which I believe is more likely than some would assert). I'd appreciate if you have such definitive info you could share to help me get to those answers. Thanks in advance."
I'd start with the recent reports that Astro Zeneca just pulled their version of the "vaccine" from sale as a start. There have been multiple stories that the research was cooked to get approval that should be easy to find.
"He's wrong, but is he trying to deceive people with the personal knowledge that the crap ain't more than crap?"
I guess you could claim that him being ignorant of the reality of what has been caused by "his vaccine" gets him off the hook for lying, but I'm not sure that ignorance helps you case at all. It's interesting that you are adamant that Trump is "wrong" in his claims about the "vaccine", yet can't bring yourself to do anything but offer excuses for his continued claims about how awesome the "vaccine" was. I'm not going to go back and look, but I strongly suspect that trump and Biden both peddled the lie that the "vaccine" would prevent transmission of COVID. If I'm going to bash Biden for that lie, and not bash Trump for the same lie, that's just being inconsistent.
"And how much of that attitude refers to what happened during Biden's time, or with the mostly Dem governors getting all despotic?"
Well, by definition, Trump's actions on COVID couldn't have happened during "Biden's time" so it would be absurd of me to attribute Biden's actions to Trump, it would almost be like lying. Again. the actions of governors are not the actions of Trump.
"Which country had an "awesome" response to Covid?"
The Scandinavian countries had a much better response for example. I'm not the one who is touting the Trump administration response to COVID, Trump is. Shouldn't it be incumbent on him to demonstrate how great his administration performed?
Of course, that's exactly my point. If Trump was being honest and accurately assessing his performance during COVID, he wouldn't be bragging abut it. It's not about being perfect, it's about being able to honestly assess your success and failures, while planning to fix areas where you've failed.
It's how business people operate. If I don't accurately track my numbers, don't accurately asses what those numbers tell me, and don't adjust my actions based on what I've learned, I'll be out of business in a year or two. You are clear that Trump's response to COVID was "wrong", yet you won't hold him accountable when he refuses to admit that his response was "wrong". Even if it's really Fauci's fault, Trump is still responsible because he chose to give Fauci the degree of power he did. Truman was right. "The buck" stops at the Resolute desk. The president is responsible for the actions of their administration, not just the successes.
It's amazing how much effort you've put into disputing my point. That point being, "I want and expect anyone who runs for or holds the office of president to highly value the Truth.". It's crazy how much applying that standard to all presidents seems to bother you.
Post a Comment