https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1RmWKA5Vaw
Well, Biden randomly breaks into unintelligible gibberish in his public speeches (which are written an don a prompter), and no one on the left seems concerned. Harris, as the above video shows, is a complete moron prone to saying nothing as if it is profound. Trump somehow manages not to do either of these things, and he's the one to be scared of.
Remember when the left and the MSM eviscerated Quayle because he "misspelled" potato? Remember when they continued to eviscerate him after it came out that he just read the card the teacher gave him?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiDRFTVH0rY
https://www.tiktok.com/@dailymail/video/7328447421766241579?la
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvgOYmKCm2c
Of course the WH press office edits the gibberish out of the transcripts, but Trump is the problem.
30 comments:
? I had no problem understanding it. Trying too hard to pick on one from the other party to make you feel better about your candidate that you continue to defend, support and vote for when he's clearly an idiot with severe mental deficiencies?
And to be clear: I am extremely on the side of those with mental health problems and those with disabilities and other problems, but that doesn't mean we should put them in elected office or other places beyond their capacity to operate successfully.
Trump is objectively, demonstrably not very intelligent and he's quite irrational and his words demonstrate that.
Biden on the other hand, talks like an old man with a speech impediment - both factual, both besides the point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MyLwAokINc
"I had no problem understanding it. Trying too hard to pick on one from the other party to make you feel better about your candidate that you continue to defend, support and vote for when he's clearly an idiot with severe mental deficiencies?"
I'm sure you did. If it's anything like how you make shit up and pretend like I said it, it's probably more your imagination than anything else. FYI, the gibberish last week in WI, is just the most recent in a long line of examples.
The problems with your "defend, support, and vote for" comments are several.
1. I've never, even, "defended" Trump in any sort of blanket sense. I've defended some of his policies, and the things he did as president that were positive. I've also pointed out some of the problems with the recent spate of lawfare attacks on him, but that's more in the interest of not using the courts against election opponents than support of Trump. I've also pointed out as the lies about Trump have been debunked. But I've never "defended" his character at all.
2. Similarly, I've never supported Trump in any sort of broad general sense. I've supported some of his policies and actions, as I've not supported others.
3. Other than 2016, I've never voted "for" Trump. I've cast my vote based on him being the only alternative to Clinton and Biden who I greatly opposed. I only had two options and I chose not to vote for the one who's policies were more in alignment with my convictions.
4. It's strange how you feel perfectly comfortable to "pick on" those in the GOP, while you pick on me for pointing out the reality of Biden's situation.
"And to be clear: I am extremely on the side of those with mental health problems and those with disabilities and other problems, but that doesn't mean we should put them in elected office or other places beyond their capacity to operate successfully."
I agree that those with diminished mental capacity should not be placed in a position such as POTUS. Yet I suspect you'll vote to do just that come November.
"Trump is objectively, demonstrably not very intelligent and he's quite irrational and his words demonstrate that."
1. I've never said that he is. Good job shooting down an argument I've never made.
2. Given Biden's history of plagiarism, lies, and poor academic record (which he lied about repeatedly), I daresay that Biden isn't particularly intelligent either.
3. I think that Trump is clever, reasonably intelligent, and reasonably mentally quick for his age.
4. Trump was NOT my first choice any of the times he's run. He certainly wasn't my first choice this time.
5. This thing you do where you deflect from Biden's issues by pivoting to Trump is interesting. It's like you know that you really can't defend Biden, so you just divert attention away from Biden.
"Biden on the other hand, talks like an old man with a speech impediment - both factual, both besides the point."
Given that the job of POTUS requires that he be evaluated on his ability to communicate, and his tendency to mumble gibberish until he trails off to silence is a thing, it seems reasonable to compare his ability to communicate to his political opponents.
I get it, you want free reign to bash Trump for anything and everything while bitching when people point out Biden's faults.
What's your excuse for Harris' idiocy?
As with so many things, if you were the least bit evenhanded in your evaluations it would go a long way. But unfortunately your partisanship and biases prevent that.
Your last sentence highlights another projection of Dan's, which is his claim those who support Trump are blinded by partisanship. Given we provide facts, data and truths he's never been able to rebut...be it in support of Trump, clarifications of that which is used to demean him or in opposition to his preferences...if Dan's not blinded by his partisanship, he's more mentally impaired than Biden. Of course, the truth is that Dan lies like a rug. It's what "embrace grace" means to him.
It's just the double standard Dan embraces. He holds everyone to a higher standard than he holds himself and those he favors to.
In your first youtube link, he says (apparently making a joke about aging):
"My younger sister used to be three years younger than me. Now she's twenty-three years younger than me." [making a joke about his own aging, to which the crowd laughs]
"There's not a single solitary Biden man that is younger than a Biden woman..." [still joking about how the Biden men "age faster" than the Biden women].
And my wife - by the way, we're here at a community college - my wife is teaching in... my wife is a full-time college professor at a community college." [to which, the crowd cheered. They understood. I understood.
And in your second youtube link, he says:
"I'll lead an effective strategy to mobilize true international [word stumble] pressure."
Does a man with a speech impediment sometimes stumble over words? Well, yes, that's the definition of a speech impediment. Do ALL people sometimes stumble over words? Yes, of course, we're not perfect. (President Obama being an exception in that he seemed never to stumble over words and was a preeminent speaker, but I digress.)
Is Biden speaking incomprehensibly? Clearly not. I understood him, the crowd understood him.
Are you saying you couldn't understand these words, even being ripped from context?
This, on the other hand:
"Look, having nuclear - my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr John Trump at MIT. Good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart. The Wharton School of Finance [which he barely got through and only got there because, again, of his power, prestige and privilege and wealth], very good, very smart - you know, if you're a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the smartest people in the world - it's true! [It's not, the man is demonstrably idiotic, whatever party he attaches to like a parasite] - But when you're a conservative Republican, they try - oh, do they do a number - that's why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune [he inherited that fortune and used it to remain above the law and to cheat his employees and contractors] - you know, I have to give, like, my credentials all the time, because we're a little disadvantaged [poor, poor privileged pervert] - but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me - it would have been so easy, and it's not as important as these lives are (nuclear is powerful, my uncle explained that to me many many years ago, the power, and that was 35 years ago [as if his uncle explaining nuclear science to this idiot would enable him to understand], he would explain the power and what was going to happen and he was right - who would have thought?), but when you look at what's going on with the four prisoners, it used to be three but now it's four..."
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/donald-trumps-rambling-90-second-speech-stuns-english-speaking-world_uk_57ab37d7e4b08ab70dc0f646
cont'd
And on the rambling goes. Read it and weep.
The thing is, this is not a one-off. He's talked like this at least since he's been in politics and probably he's getting even worse, judging by listening to his current rambling speeches. This way of speaking indicates a disorganized brain and it indicates a serious lack of understanding of important basic topics and it is evidence of his malignant narcissism and baseless accusations of persecution of the poor conservative crowd, and that, itself, is a sign of working a con. If one reads up on the language of a conman, one easily recognizes that in Trump.
Which for Trump himself, diseased of mind and body, I could feel some sympathy. I would love for him to get some professional help. His upbringing, wealth, privilege and mental illness is no doubt causing him all kinds of personal pain. I can't imagine he has any real friends, even in his family.
But the problem is, the Craigs and Marshals of the world see all this evidence and think, "well, he's not as bad as Biden," and fail to understand the chasm of difference between the two men. One simply isn't fit for office for 100 reasons, the other, you just may disagree with politically and think he's too old, but there's no proof of being unfit for office.
Ignoring Biden's increasing instances of speaking gibberish, pretending that you can understand, and acting as if his regular wandering around seeming unaware of his surroundings is perfectly normal and something to be valued in a president is just blind partisanship and TDS.
"pretending that you can understand..."
I literally wrote down what he said. There is no pretending except you pretending that I can't understand his words in the face of the reality that I did, demonstrably, understand him.
Recognizing the chasm of difference between Biden and Trump, that is deranged.
One is not like the other.
Listen to Trump's own allies and former staff who are clearly telling you, your idiot pervert king that you're literally supporting with your votes and defense... they're telling you he's utterly unfit for office.
Take off the blinders.
Dan
"I literally wrote down what he said. There is no pretending except you pretending that I can't understand his words in the face of the reality that I did, demonstrably, understand him."
If you say so.
"Recognizing the chasm of difference between Biden and Trump, that is deranged."
Oh there are differences between them, that's why I can't vote for Biden. Unfortunately, there are similarities as well.
"One is not like the other."
That is True.
"Listen to Trump's own allies and former staff who are clearly telling you, your idiot pervert king that you're literally supporting with your votes and defense... they're telling you he's utterly unfit for office."
If you say so. Michael Cohen being a great example, he perjured himself and admitted to committing crimes in his vendetta against Trump.
"Take off the blinders."
My blinders are off. They've been off since 2015. We have a choice between two very sub optimal candidates, and I cannot vote for Biden, not voting is essentially a vote for Biden, so I'm left with a sub optimal option.
Dan promotes a lot of nonsense in his last comments. Trump's school record wasn't any more inflated than Biden inflated his. Trump was one of about 336 students. Biden's law school put him something like 75th out of 80. Yet, they both spoke positively about their school ranking. A wash.
And yes, if Trump ran as a Dem, most, if not all, lefties would regard him as a genius.
Trump doesn't deny having inherited money from his father. He took over Dad's business, but it wasn't liquidated, and Trump expanded it. By many accounts, when Fred died, his 200 million or so was divided amongst heirs, which it is said he left Donald with around 40 million. Is Trump worth only 40 million now? Is his "empire" worth only 200 million now? How long has it been since it was only that much. Trump took what he had and made exponentially more. To focus on his starting point...inheritance or other help from his father...doesn't tell the tale, but is used by his detractors to pretend he's not the successful business man he truly is.
No one needs be articulate in order to have one's shit together, to be intelligent and shrewd. Biden seems to be good at overseeing corrupt practices, like selling his position, but Trump actually builds things and employs people and gets things done which benefit others. Indeed, just as he took what his father left/gave him and made it into something far greater than his father ever had, he took an economy said by buffoonish lefties as having been flourishing (it wasn't) and clearly and unequivocally made it far greater.
Obama was good at reading a teleprompter and based on that his sheep regard him as a great orator. But his elocution was non-existent in extemporaneous situations. Trump just talks to people in the way people talk. Nothing about the way he talks suggests anything which honest people would take as a sign of unfitness. With Biden, it's not just his stutter, but his lack of intelligence which shines when he's trying to sound intelligent.
Trump proved his fitness by his superior record as president. Biden did exactly the opposite, proving he should never have been placed in that position. The Dems should have put up someone who bullshits better than to have stolen the presidency from Trump to give to this abject moron.
Dan fails at demonstrating why he thinks Trump isn't at least a good president, and more so in defending Biden as being one. He avoids the true measure, which is job performance in the office they both seek. Dan will simply continue to assert Trump is unfit despite his having proven that he most definitely is.
"Michael Cohen being a great example, he perjured himself and admitted to committing crimes in his vendetta against Trump."
Precisely part of the problem. Trump has filled his staff full of corrupt, dishonest, unintelligent people. Because he is unintelligent and corrupt himself. And the halfway normal, competent around him see how unfit he is, as well. Here's a list of 24. There are more.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/10/03/politics/donald-trump-former-allies-what-matters
He is an anarchical, indecent, corrupt, narcissistic idiot, devoid of any moral compass.
Even if you don't like Biden, even if you somehow consider him unfit, that doesn't change the reality that Trump is demonstrably unfit for office. If I truly thought Biden was unfit, then I wouldn't vote for either.
Yet, you're still willing to defend and vote for the pervert king.
That's a problem.
Dan
Just as a reality check, a qualified candidate would not have dozens of allies denouncing them as unfit. Not merely saying, I disagree with the candidate on multiple policies,... but actually unfit for office for multiple reasons. You don't see that with Biden, you didn't see that with ANY other serious presidential candidates in our lifetime.
Only Trump. And that denunciation among his allies and hardliners conservatives.
Open your mind.
Dan
"Precisely part of the problem. Trump has filled his staff full of corrupt, dishonest, unintelligent people. Because he is unintelligent and corrupt himself. And the halfway normal, competent around him see how unfit he is, as well. Here's a list of 24. There are more."
Your ability to twist the fact that the democrat prosecutor and democrat judge allowed Cohen to perjure himself with no penalty, and so far no consequence for admitting to crimes to make it Trump's fault is impressive.
"He is an anarchical, indecent, corrupt, narcissistic idiot, devoid of any moral compass."
I guess just calling people names is all you need to do to consider yourself right, impressive. It's strange that he was president for 4 whole years and there was no anarchy. Literally none of the doomsday scenarios that y'all spun about Trump happened.
"Even if you don't like Biden, even if you somehow consider him unfit, that doesn't change the reality that Trump is demonstrably unfit for office. If I truly thought Biden was unfit, then I wouldn't vote for either."
It has nothing to do with liking Biden. His administration has been a joke, his web of LLCs, bank accounts, money laundering, lies, plagiarism, is just for starters. I believe that doing anything that increases the chances of Biden being elected, is a reasonable action. Not voting, is a vote for Biden. Fortunately, if history is any guide, a Trump administration will (at a minimum) arrest that economic mess Biden has put us in. The very fact that they have to rig the calculation of inflation to hide how bad things are tells us pretty much all we need to know. The fact that the Fed is highly unlikely to lower rates before Nov, tells us that they don't buy Biden's bullshit either. $320,000,000 on a pier to save Gaza, and it's an abject failure. Yes, he's incompetent.
"Yet, you're still willing to defend and vote for the pervert king."
No, I'm willing to acknowledge that his policies are more in line with mine, and the the country performed better economically during his term. I have not, and will not "defend" his lack of character no matter how much you pretend otherwise. We have two choices, both with significant flaws, I'll vote for the one that is closer to my ideals. Not the one who'd spit on my ideals.
"That's a problem."
No, that's the reality of our current political system.
"Just as a reality check, a qualified candidate would not have dozens of allies denouncing them as unfit. Not merely saying, I disagree with the candidate on multiple policies,... but actually unfit for office for multiple reasons. You don't see that with Biden, you didn't see that with ANY other serious presidential candidates in our lifetime."
Yet somehow there are all sorts of reports that former Biden supporters are abandoning him to support Trump, the polls tell us that Trump is ahead of Biden, Trump's events out draw Biden's regularly, Trump drew an impressive crowd in one of the bluest parts of one of the bluest cities in the country. But you keep inventing metrics that allow you to push your narrative.
"Only Trump. And that denunciation among his allies and hardliners conservatives."
Given the fact that I've "denounced" Trump, yet will likely vote for him to try to prevent Biden from winning, this means nothing. As I pointed out elsewhere, the increasing number of black voices supporting Trump appear impressive, but until they vote it means nothing.
"Open your mind."
It's further open than yours, unfortunately I wasn't given the chance to vote for a better candidate, so I'm stuck with Trump or a doddering old fool.
Art,
The amount of lies Biden tells about his "record" (he got accepted into West Point, he was a civil rights marcher at 15, he was a professor, etc) are insane. The fact that Dan ignores them is even more insane. The fact that at one point the DFL had the standards to NOT run Biden for president just tells us how far the DFL has fallen.
First Dan says: "Trump has filled his staff full of corrupt, dishonest, unintelligent people."
Then of those same people he says: "Just as a reality check, a qualified candidate would not have dozens of allies denouncing them as unfit. Not merely saying, I disagree with the candidate on multiple policies,... but actually unfit for office for multiple reasons."
It must be kept in mind that Trump wasn't a politician and likely didn't have as sound a group of counselors as he thought before he staffed his admin with people he'd later dismiss. That they then proceeded to engage in sour grapes behaviors doesn't lend credence to their opinions. As I scanned the CNN list, there's obvious problems with most, if not all of them. And of course, one would need to research each and every one in detail to get a full idea of why they said what the CNN piece says they did, in order to form an honest assessment of their credibility. People who get fired, especially those who think highly of themselves, often speak harshly of their former employer. And if those people weren't good at their jobs despite their self-image, they are more likely than most to respond in such a way to being let go.
So one of Trump's failures as president was his personnel decisions. But he still has people in his companies who've been with him for years and are happy to remain. They're getting the job done. Some think it's a huge negative that his personnel decisions were so bad, but his correction upon realizing it is also criticized...especially by those fired.
For those aides which testified against him to the Jan 6 Kangaroo Court, there was no cross-examining, so their words are no better than opinion to the honest observer. Just one side of a story. When they choose to believe he had any part in an "insurrection" or that they didn't like his response to the rioting which broke out, that's hardly evidence of incompetence on Trump's part, or unfitness for the office.
But Dan's so keen to exploit any negative he can dredge up to make out Trump to be a horror, while an actual horror sits in the Big Chair now (with plastic on the seat to protect it).
Overall, despite some missteps (as made by most every president who isn't the horror Biden's been...his entire presidency being tragic for America), Trump's presidency was well above average at the very least, while Biden's not been good enough to carry Trump's jock. Not even close. Biden has no place in any discussion about great or just good presidents. Dan can't defend him, so he focuses on trying to make Trump the monster he so desperately needs him to be.
In the meantime, the term "pervert king" is far more applicable to Dan himself, than to Trump. Trump just digs babes. Dan digs disordered and immoral, actual perverts.
Art,
While I think that Dan's point is ridiculous, I can't help but agree that Trump failed to pick the highest quality advisors when he was president. His promise was that he'd pick the very best people, and he just didn't. However, that has little to do with Dan's bullshit claim that the presence of disgruntled ex employees automatically means Trump was horrible.
Exactly my point. Though I'm not impressed with his legal team even without scumbags like Cohen among them, I want to believe Trump has gained wisdom in personnel choices. Given all he's endured since Jan 20, 2017, how could he not?
Given the fact that he's still not denouncing Fauci that I've heard and that his legal team seems sub par at best, I'm not sure that there's any evidence to back up your hope. Maybe if he was really using Vivek and picking up some on Vivek's knowledge, you could argue that he was heading in the right direction.
I can't help but wonder if the really good people are going to stay away because he's too chaotic or headstrong to listen to them.
Yet, he listened to people in selecting some of the bad picks he made. What's more, I don't see that he's required to address every little point while he's dealing with all the crap on his plate at the present time. I think this meme that he doesn't take advice or listen to his advisors is without true basis. If he disagrees, that doesn't mean he didn't listen to or consider the opinions of those who now say he doesn't listen. He didn't listen to John Bolton who was keen on military action to resolve foreign issues. That's one example of not listening that I like, and I still think Bolton has some value to any GOP president. But of course, we'll just have to wait and see if he indeed learned a lesson from his first foray.
As to why really good people might stay away, it's likely more because of how the Democrat abuse of power manifested in the lives of others who sided with Trump, than with issues of Trump himself. I don't think, for example, Mike Pompeo would object to joining the next Trump admin.
I was under the impression that, as Truman popularized, "The Buck Stops Here". Here being the Resolute desk. Trump and Trump alone is responsible for the choices he made when it came to advisors. If Trump is not responsible for those he chooses and places in positions of power, then who is?
The question is whether or not Trump's choice of listening to his advisors is mostly about Trump's ego or about Trump's knowledge of the situation. I don't think we know. It seems clear that he allowed Fauci and Collins pretty much free reign with COVID and that they lied about all sorts of shit. But, ultimately, that's on Trump because he's in charge.
As a leader or manager, if you allow subordinates free reign over whatever they are in charge of, you are still responsible for the outcome good or bad.
Obviously, I would hope that if Trump gets another shot that he would do a better job of picking his team.
I suspect that the reason why the best and brightest stay away from Trump is twofold.
1. They have political ambition for themselves and don't want the baggage that association with Trump might bring.
2. They don't want to work for someone who doesn't appear to value his team very much.
Really, Mike Pompeo is your best example of someone who's one of the best possible options for a position in Trump administration?
I'm not arguing about where the buck stops. I'm arguing against the "he doesn't listen to anyone" meme. Of course that's not true. And if he decides on a path his advisors did promote or suggest, that's totally on him. I've never so much as hinted otherwise.
"The question is whether or not Trump's choice of listening to his advisors is mostly about Trump's ego or about Trump's knowledge of the situation."
Absolutely true of every president or governor. It can be a mix of both or given the issue, one or the other. So what? How can we guarantee perfection in our choices of president or governor? We take our best shot and hope it was more good than not.
"As a leader or manager, if you allow subordinates free reign over whatever they are in charge of, you are still responsible for the outcome good or bad."
Of course. A point not in contention. However, such a move clearly suggests he listened to somebody and is taking their advice on how to proceed. Therefore, he can't justly be accused of not listening to people. He still can, however, rightly be held responsible for picking poorly. With far too many people (I would say 1 is far too many), he picked poorly.
"2. They don't want to work for someone who doesn't appear to value his team very much."
This is the point in contention. He does have people, one woman comes to mind, but I can't recall her name, who feel they were very much appreciated. I would insist that if one has concerns about this issue, the source must be considered. Is it Cohen, for example? It's a false point of concern because it's subjective opinion of those not named Donald Trump. Has he expressed no appreciation? If not, it's a false point of concern.
"Really, Mike Pompeo is your best example of someone who's one of the best possible options for a position in Trump administration?"
I was unaware you were expecting a list. I can think of a good number of people I think would be great in his administration. I went with the first person who came to mind who also had the experience already. I have the guy's book and though I've not finished it (kind of a dry read), I've not read that he felt unappreciated or that his advice was not as well.
"I'm not arguing about where the buck stops. I'm arguing against the "he doesn't listen to anyone" meme. Of course that's not true. And if he decides on a path his advisors did promote or suggest, that's totally on him. I've never so much as hinted otherwise."
Great, then we agree that the COVID farce is totally Trump's responsibility (at the federal level), that it was his choice to allow Fauci free reign to make shit up and impose it on us, it's his responsibility that the "vaccine" doesn't vaccinate and causes harm. Got it.
"Absolutely true of every president or governor. It can be a mix of both or given the issue, one or the other. So what? How can we guarantee perfection in our choices of president or governor? We take our best shot and hope it was more good than not."
Again, it's not a matter of demanding perfection, it's a matter of Trump failing to do what he promised. It's a matter of Trump not holding his choices accountable, it's a matter of Trump still acting as if his COVID response was perfect and can't be criticized.
"Of course. A point not in contention. However, such a move clearly suggests he listened to somebody and is taking their advice on how to proceed. Therefore, he can't justly be accused of not listening to people. He still can, however, rightly be held responsible for picking poorly. With far too many people (I would say 1 is far too many), he picked poorly."
So, if he picked "poorly" and listened to those who were poor picks, doesn't that raise questions about his own competence? About his ability to choose or his ability to hold those he picked accountable? Fauci has admitted that the 6' bullshit and the mask bullshit was simply made up with no evidence. Are you suggesting that Trump was duped by Fauci? That Trump didn't ask for evidence that Fauci's mandates were based in reality? However you slice it, Trump allowed Fauci free reign to spread bullshit and Trump still stands by his COVID response.
"This is the point in contention. He does have people, one woman comes to mind, but I can't recall her name, who feel they were very much appreciated. I would insist that if one has concerns about this issue, the source must be considered. Is it Cohen, for example? It's a false point of concern because it's subjective opinion of those not named Donald Trump. Has he expressed no appreciation? If not, it's a false point of concern."
As is said, "perception is reality". If the very best people (who Trump promised he'd hire) perceive Trump as either unwilling to listen to advice or refuse to tie themselves to someone with the significant character flaws Trump clearly has, that seems to be a problem that stems from Trump. The point of "concern" is that Trump promised that he'd hire the very best people, and he clearly chose not to do so. As you pointed out, that trend seems to extend to the lawyers he's hired to fight these charges.
"I was unaware you were expecting a list."
I wasn't, I was just pointing out that acting as if Mike Pompeo is some sort of amazingly awesome suggestion as an advisor to Trump seems pretty random.
"I can think of a good number of people I think would be great in his administration. I went with the first person who came to mind who also had the experience already. I have the guy's book and though I've not finished it (kind of a dry read), I've not read that he felt unappreciated or that his advice was not as well."
Well, that settles it.
The fact that you think someone would be great in a Trump administration really doesn't mean much. Obviously Trump would have to think that they'd be great, and they'd have to think that being a part of a Trump administration is a good career move. See NIkki Haley.
"Great, then we agree that the COVID farce is totally Trump's responsibility (at the federal level), that it was his choice to allow Fauci free reign to make shit up and impose it on us, it's his responsibility that the "vaccine" doesn't vaccinate and causes harm. Got it."
Sure. And if we totally ignore the chronology of events, we can pretend all the harm is on him and no one else at all. This virus came to light in late 2019 (hence it's common name--COVID 19) and throughout most of 2020, time was spent figuring out what it was, how bad it seemed to be and what to do about it. Then his term ended at noon on Jan 20, 2021. All which happened between those two points in time cannot be so blithely attributed to Trump in a manner which suggests anybody else would have done better. We can't know that with any true certainty.
The problem is that "the buck stops here" is the attitude a given person takes upon himself, not that it be imposed upon the person by others. But that buck no longer stopped at his space after Jan 20 '21 and the worst happened after. He failed to cover every angle of an unprecedented event and we can acknowledge that without pretending he should've had God-like foresight in every detail. Therefore, I don't absolve him at all, but I do keep it in perspective.
"Again, it's not a matter of demanding perfection, it's a matter of Trump failing to do what he promised."
Yet, his record of having kept his promises was much better than most presidents, and you're focusing on those he didn't or couldn't. That demanding perfection.
"It's a matter of Trump not holding his choices accountable,"
Yet he dismissed a number of people. Is that not holding them accountable?
"...it's a matter of Trump still acting as if his COVID response was perfect and can't be criticized."
I'm not sure he regards his response as truly perfect, but I'm damned sure he denies no one the right to criticize it.
"So, if he picked "poorly" and listened to those who were poor picks, doesn't that raise questions about his own competence?"
If you chose a subordinate to serve who couldn't do the job, does that mean you're a total incompetent, or that you can't pick subordinates? Should your boss dismiss your entire body of work because who chose less than competent people to serve? Certainly if your only job is choosing subordinates, that would make sense. But if that's just one of scores of duties, not so much.
"However you slice it, Trump allowed Fauci free reign to spread bullshit and Trump still stands by his COVID response."
How I slice it is not the 20/20 hindsight, Monday morning quarterbacking you're doing. It's not ignoring everything to focus on where he wasn't good as if only those areas one which he wasn't good is the whole story, or that even the results which indicate he wasn't good tells the whole story.
Don't forget. This is a guy who wasn't from the political world trying to navigate within it. When it involves unique issues arising for which no one could account, you seem keen on judging him most on that.
"As is said, "perception is reality"."
For the intellectually lazy, sure. That's like "don't you know how that sounds?"
" If the very best people (who Trump promised he'd hire) perceive Trump as either unwilling to listen to advice or refuse to tie themselves to someone with the significant character flaws Trump clearly has, that seems to be a problem that stems from Trump."
So, you're describing some a "the very best" after saying Trump failed in his promise to hire only the best? Can they be the best if they wrongly "perceive" Trump as unwilling to listen while others are saying he does listen? And if the very best won't tie themselves to Trump over "perceived" or assumed character flaws which have no real significance with regard to running the country (as they turned out not to have), that seems to be a problem with their ability to perceive or just plain cowardice. I believe most people exploit his character flaws to their advantage, while ignoring the one trait which counts, which is his passion for serving the nation.
"I wasn't, I was just pointing out that acting as if Mike Pompeo is some sort of amazingly awesome suggestion as an advisor to Trump seems pretty random."
It's certainly "awesome" enough, given his own track record of public service. What difference would the randomness of him being the first coming to mind matter?
"Well, that settles it."
Ironic. You accept any and all accounts of Trump not taking advice. I provide an example which proves that isn't true and you're condescending? Bad form, dude.
"The fact that you think someone would be great in a Trump administration really doesn't mean much. Obviously Trump would have to think that they'd be great, and they'd have to think that being a part of a Trump administration is a good career move."
A moot point, of course, but I'll remember it when next I see you offer an opinion.
"Sure. And if we totally ignore the chronology of events, we can pretend all the harm is on him and no one else at all."
Obviously what happened after he left office wasn't all on him, but he certainly is 100% responsible foe the federal response between 2019 and January of 2021.
" This virus came to light in late 2019 (hence it's common name--COVID 19) and throughout most of 2020, time was spent figuring out what it was, how bad it seemed to be and what to do about it. Then his term ended at noon on Jan 20, 2021. All which happened between those two points in time cannot be so blithely attributed to Trump in a manner which suggests anybody else would have done better. We can't know that with any true certainty."
Please argue with what I actually said, not with something you added. I was quite clear that trump is responsible for the actions the federal government took while he was in office. Which we now know involved Fauci making shit up out of thin air, and laying the groundwork to enrich himself and others to the tune of %710,000,000. We also know that virtually everything Trump's vaunted "vaccine" promised wasn't delivered. Whether or not someone could have done better is irrelevant. trump was president, Trump is responsible for the federal government response during his term.
"The problem is that "the buck stops here" is the attitude a given person takes upon himself, not that it be imposed upon the person by others. But that buck no longer stopped at his space after Jan 20 '21 and the worst happened after. He failed to cover every angle of an unprecedented event and we can acknowledge that without pretending he should've had God-like foresight in every detail. Therefore, I don't absolve him at all, but I do keep it in perspective."
Good point, Trump has never been one to take that responsibility on himself, and he hasn't regarding COVID. He's taken credit for the "good" stuff, while avoiding responsibility for the bad stuff. Again, he's ONLY responsible for when he was in office, but good goal post move there.
It's not about having "god like perspective" as much as it is not giving someone like Fauci complete control with no oversight and ignoring what the was working in the rest of the world. It's pretty simple, what happened during Trump's administration is his responsibility.
"Yet, his record of having kept his promises was much better than most presidents, and you're focusing on those he didn't or couldn't. That demanding perfection."
I'm merely pointing out that he failed to keep, or attempt to keep many of his campaign promises. Subjective comparisons to other presidents are irrelevant. If he can't take responsibility for his failures to do what he promised, that's on him.
"Yet he dismissed a number of people. Is that not holding them accountable?"
Great, he picked so many bad people that he had to dismiss "a number" of them and still couldn't dismiss all of them. That's a ringing endorsement.
"I'm not sure he regards his response as truly perfect, but I'm damned sure he denies no one the right to criticize it."
I've heard the speeches where he brags about his "wonderful" "vaccine", while ignoring that it was ineffective at actually vaccinating people and has actually caused problems worse than COVID.
"If you chose a subordinate to serve who couldn't do the job, does that mean you're a total incompetent, or that you can't pick subordinates?"
Since I've never said "totally incompetent", I see no reason to waste time with that bullshit. In either case, if you promise to pick "the best" subordinates then fail to pick even average subordinates in a large number of cases, does it really matter what the excuse is?
'Should your boss dismiss your entire body of work because who chose less than competent people to serve?"
No, and I'm not dismissing Trump's "entire body of work", just pointing out the despite his promises, he sucked at picking "the best" people.
"Certainly if your only job is choosing subordinates, that would make sense. But if that's just one of scores of duties, not so much."
The problem with this excuse is that it is the job of the subordinates to actually run the day to day affairs of their departments. The job of the president in NOT to micromanage every single detail of the DOD, it's to pick a good persona s SECDEF and let them do their job. I'll give you credit, the excuses are creative.
"How I slice it is not the 20/20 hindsight, Monday morning quarterbacking you're doing."
I remember recently posting a clip of Fauci lying to a black family, don't pretend like the criticism of Fauci or of COVID response is all hindsight. There was plenty of this criticism at the time, it's just that those who raised the criticism have been proven right and Trump/Fauci have been proven wrong. Which wouldn't be as big of an issue if Trump was honest about the results of what he did and allowed, but he's not.
"It's not ignoring everything to focus on where he wasn't good as if only those areas one which he wasn't good is the whole story, or that even the results which indicate he wasn't good tells the whole story."
I'm not ignoring anything. You keep insisting that Trump's first term was as good as it could possibly have been, I'm pointing out the things you gloss over.
"Don't forget. This is a guy who wasn't from the political world trying to navigate within it. When it involves unique issues arising for which no one could account, you seem keen on judging him most on that."
Yes, I do judge him for not taking accountability for his actions that were not successful. The problem is that as someone who was not of the political establishment (adjacent and connected, but slightly outside), that just increases the need for him to pick the absolute best people to make up for his shortcomings in the political world. That he didn't, is his responsibility.
You seem shocked that I'd expect Trump to be considered responsible for his actions as president. As if the most powerful man in the world is somehow not responsible for how he wields that power. As if he somehow gets a mulligan because he isn't really a politician when his policies went badly.
I give him credit for his successes, and hold him responsible for his failures, just like anyone else.
One problem with your 20/20 hindsight comment is that we can't silo off everything that's happened as a result of Trump's action as he is running on his record for a second term. His actions and policies had consequences, and we can't ignore the consequences that played out after he left office. If he wasn't running on how successful his COVID response was, then you'd have a point. But he is, and his choices, actions, and policies didn't magically stop having effects when Biden took office.
Much like his adding 8 trillion to the national debt. That's bad enough, but that 8 trillion has accumulated interest and that total (*trillion, plus interest) is what we should be evaluating Him on.
Honestly, immigration is probably the only policy where Biden radically changed Trump's policies and made things exponentially worse, with no Trump carryover. Immigration is also the one policy area where trump could have an immediate positive impact if he's elected.
Much like Dan's failed argument that the economy is magically better when DFL presidents are in office, this argument that Trump's policies had no effect after Biden took office fails as well.
Post a Comment