Friday, December 4, 2015
Trump IS BEING Unfair . . . Childish Fantasy And Denial Not Presidential
[underwater radio modem connected as Hairy and Shelob in discussion]
You claim that Trump's demand to be treated fairly is laughable?
Of course it is! Anyone not restricted by fact can't really be fair. It's not possible.
You are speaking of his chronic inaccuracies, perhaps lies or delusions.
Yeah, he's been pretty out of it. Some of his claims are further off the mark than the most moronic-sounding pundits we've screened.
Perhaps a non-factual example of bias would be a better comparison.
Um, okay. Take those comments about language criticism.
When he decided how Obama should have spoken.
Yeah, those. If it's so necessary to refer to certain terrorists as 'radical ISLAMIC terrorists,' then the guy who shot up Planned Parenthood recently must necessarily be referred to as a 'radical Christian terrorist' or a 'radical Republican conservative terrorist.' Jim Jones and most of the people who have bombed abortion clinics would have to have a similar label!
--This IS the guy criticizing people for being politically correct. Where does he get off demanding everyone ELSE be politically incorrect THE EXACT WAY HE CHOOSES?! That's the same kind of demand political correctness is! 'You SHOULD only speak about it THIS way.'
An example of leadership.
[stops moving, pupils dilate in shock] What did you say?
Clearly he can lead people.
No, that doesn't--
And, since campaign promises are usually reversed, he could let the country go on as business as usual. Which would fit with your prediction that he would be steamrolled because of his lesser understanding of Constitutional law.
This would mean Congress would prefer him as president. He could make Congress more popular.
No. That's not-- Well, Congress probably WOULD become more popular steamrolling over Trump. I'd pay to watch it.
Or the other possibility would be that Trump begins leading Congress the same way he is leading others.
Out of the bounds of good sense.
From the war history you provided, the leader who can get his subordinates to follow the most blindly and do the most stupid things will be the winner in any contest. Do you not wish America to win?
What? America really can't LOSE, exactly. It could diminish in greatness through stupidity, and it could become more formidable through a more universal work ethic and an agreement of minimum virtue. I'm not speaking of just some odd battle tactic winning the day from someone who didn't expect it. I'm talking about what's good for the country and its citizens.
So you have an opinion on who should win.
You're right. I finally do.
Please derive explicitly. You did not prefer one for a long time.
All right. But you have to figure it out just like our audience does. Herr D grumbled something the other day that caught my attention. He was chatting away and went something like, "no one's good enough . . . " Can you quote that for me?
He typed that "no one of the people running is good enough to run MY country. It's a shame that we have to take just one. Hillary's experience, Trump's charisma, Biden's ethics and ability to work with everyone, Rice's intelligence--"
That's good, Shelob. I got to thinking about that. It isn't the most mature thing to do to wail about the choices you have to make. Everyone complains, but after a while, everyone needs to think about their choices in a more objective way. The questions I'm asking Shelob and all my audience is this:
IF NO ONE IS GOOD ENOUGH, BECAUSE THE OFFICE IS SUPPOSED TO BE GREATER THAN JUST ONE PERSON, DOES IT MAKE SENSE TO PICK THE PERSON DECLARING THEIR GREATNESS THE LOUDEST?
OR PERHAPS THE PERSON RAISED TO UNDERSTAND THAT THEIR BEST WILL NEVER BE ENOUGH WHO SAYS 'WE COULD ALL DO MUCH BETTER IF YOU JOIN ME AND FIGHT BY MY SIDE.' --? WHO IS THAT?
Calculations and searches underway. Will attempt to solve before commenters do. [disconnect]