• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Manifestly Unfit

NWRatCon

NWRatCon

Eco**Social Marketeer
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2019
Messages
32,570
Reaction score
32,648
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Let's start with definitions:
Manifestly: "show something clearly, through signs or actions", plain, obvious;
unfit: "not of the necessary quality or standard to meet a particular purpose," not qualified, incapable, incompetent.

I do this to set the parameters for my next statement: we are choosing leadership that is manifestly unfit. To wit: Donald Trump, JD Vance, Mike Johnson, much of the judiciary and virtually every cabinet nominee - Gaetz, Bondi, Hegseth, Kennedy, Patel, the list is long. This is not hyperbole. They are not even close calls, nuanced or debateable.

Trump is, among many things, a felon, a rapist, a failed businessman, an adjudicated frauster, and incompetent in a vast array of fields, from economics to science, and just basic logic. Even many of his supporters acknowledge this (but don't care). JD Vance is a failed attorney who was recruited and propped up as a "venture capitalist" by an ambitios billionaire for middling venture firm that has seen little success. Mike Johnson, everyone's last choice, is the most incompetent Speaker in decades, unable to even count votes. The cabinet choices Trump has made are a who's who of crackpots, schemers, and outright frauds with no relevant experience for their nominated positions.

In any other era, none of these individuals would have survived the multitudinous scandals they each bring to consideration, because, until recently, competence and good character were expected of authorities in our government. It wasn't that long ago that the Kennedy administration was described as "the best and the brightest", scientists were considered heroes, and academic success was lauded. Whatever happened to "standards"? Why are we, as a society, sanguine about this condition?

Trump's strategy, as always, is to "flood the zone" in the hope (apparently not forlorn) that not all of them will be rejected. But they should be. Because they are "manifestly unfit".
 
NWRatCon said:
Let's start with definitions:
Manifestly: "show something clearly, through signs or actions", plain, obvious;
unfit: "not of the necessary quality or standard to meet a particular purpose," not qualified, incapable, incompetent.

I do this to set the parameters for my next statement: we are choosing leadership that is manifestly unfit. To wit: Donald Trump, JD Vance, Mike Johnson, much of the judiciary and virtually every cabinet nominee - Gaetz, Bondi, Hegseth, Kennedy, Patel, the list is long. This is not hyperbole. They are not even close calls, nuanced or debateable.

Trump is, among many things, a felon, a rapist, a failed businessman, an adjudicated frauster, and incompetent in a vast array of fields, from economics to science, and just basic logic. Even many of his supporters acknowledge this (but don't care). JD Vance is a failed attorney who was recruited and propped up as a "venture capitalist" by an ambitios billionaire for middling venture firm that has seen little success. Mike Johnson, everyone's last choice, is the most incompetent Speaker in decades, unable to even count votes. The cabinet choices Trump has made are a who's who of crackpots, schemers, and outright frauds with no relevant experience for their nominated positions.

In any other era, none of these individuals would have survived the multitudinous scandals they each bring to consideration, because, until recently, competence and good character were expected of authorities in our government. It wasn't that long ago that the Kennedy administration was described as "the best and the brightest", scientists were considered heroes, and academic success was lauded. Whatever happened to "standards"? Why are we, as a society, sanguine about this condition?

Trump's strategy, as always, is to "flood the zone" in the hope (apparently not forlorn) that not all of them will be rejected. But they should be. Because they are "manifestly unfit".
Click to expand...
I agree Trump is unfit for office, but just how bad are the Democrats at this point that they would lose so comprehensively to someone like that?
 
NWRatCon said:
Let's start with definitions:
Manifestly: "show something clearly, through signs or actions", plain, obvious;
unfit: "not of the necessary quality or standard to meet a particular purpose," not qualified, incapable, incompetent.

I do this to set the parameters for my next statement: we are choosing leadership that is manifestly unfit. To wit: Donald Trump, JD Vance, Mike Johnson, much of the judiciary and virtually every cabinet nominee - Gaetz, Bondi, Hegseth, Kennedy, Patel, the list is long. This is not hyperbole. They are not even close calls, nuanced or debateable.

Trump is, among many things, a felon, a rapist, a failed businessman, an adjudicated frauster, and incompetent in a vast array of fields, from economics to science, and just basic logic. Even many of his supporters acknowledge this (but don't care). JD Vance is a failed attorney who was recruited and propped up as a "venture capitalist" by an ambitios billionaire for middling venture firm that has seen little success. Mike Johnson, everyone's last choice, is the most incompetent Speaker in decades, unable to even count votes. The cabinet choices Trump has made are a who's who of crackpots, schemers, and outright frauds with no relevant experience for their nominated positions.

In any other era, none of these individuals would have survived the multitudinous scandals they each bring to consideration, because, until recently, competence and good character were expected of authorities in our government. It wasn't that long ago that the Kennedy administration was described as "the best and the brightest", scientists were considered heroes, and academic success was lauded. Whatever happened to "standards"? Why are we, as a society, sanguine about this condition?

Trump's strategy, as always, is to "flood the zone" in the hope (apparently not forlorn) that not all of them will be rejected. But they should be. Because they are "manifestly unfit".
Click to expand...
Yet here we are. I'm telling y'all, we are in some sort of Twilight zone.
 
NatMorton said:
I think you're asking the wrong question. You should be asking why those voters prefer Trump 2.0 to your candidates and your policies.
Click to expand...
No.

Because a solid portion of them would never vote across the aisle to start with.

So 🤷‍♀️

The GOP and MAGAs were locked in on Trump well before any other candidates were even known.
 
Lovebug said:
Yet here we are. I'm telling y'all, we are in some sort of Twilight zone.
Click to expand...
We're not, and you're overly complicating things. Moderate voters looked at Trump and his policies, then they looked at Harris and her policies, and more of them decided they would be better off with Trump. The question for Democrats is simple; what are they doing wrong such that moderates would prefer arguably the most flawed Presidential candidate in living memory?

So, the problem isn't "some sort of Twilight zone." It's not the stupidity of voters. The problem is progressive left policies.
 
As they say " Don't knock it until you've tried it". This is a great bunch!
 
BirdinHand said:
Because a solid portion of them would never vote across the aisle to start with.
Click to expand...
The same can be said for many Democrats, and probably of you. Harris was never going to win the Trump faithful, and more importantly, she didn't need to. She needed to win moderates in the swing states. So again, your beef is with those moderates, i.e., many of same people who voted for Biden in 2020. I understand why it's easier to ask how these people turned stupid four years later, but that question will not lead you to anything even remotely useful.
 
NatMorton said:
We're not, and you're overly complicating things. Moderate voters looked at Trump and his policies, then they looked at Harris and her policies, and more of them decided they would be better off with Trump. The question for Democrats is simple; what are they doing wrong such that moderates would prefer arguably the most flawed Presidential candidate in living memory?

So, the problem isn't "some sort of Twilight zone." It's not the stupidity of voters. The problem is progressive left policies.
Click to expand...
Sane people didn't vote for Musk.
 
NWRatCon said:
Let's start with definitions:
Manifestly: "show something clearly, through signs or actions", plain, obvious;
unfit: "not of the necessary quality or standard to meet a particular purpose," not qualified, incapable, incompetent.

I do this to set the parameters for my next statement: we are choosing leadership that is manifestly unfit. To wit: Donald Trump, JD Vance, Mike Johnson, much of the judiciary and virtually every cabinet nominee - Gaetz, Bondi, Hegseth, Kennedy, Patel, the list is long. This is not hyperbole. They are not even close calls, nuanced or debateable.

Trump is, among many things, a felon, a rapist, a failed businessman, an adjudicated frauster, and incompetent in a vast array of fields, from economics to science, and just basic logic. Even many of his supporters acknowledge this (but don't care). JD Vance is a failed attorney who was recruited and propped up as a "venture capitalist" by an ambitios billionaire for middling venture firm that has seen little success. Mike Johnson, everyone's last choice, is the most incompetent Speaker in decades, unable to even count votes. The cabinet choices Trump has made are a who's who of crackpots, schemers, and outright frauds with no relevant experience for their nominated positions.

In any other era, none of these individuals would have survived the multitudinous scandals they each bring to consideration, because, until recently, competence and good character were expected of authorities in our government. It wasn't that long ago that the Kennedy administration was described as "the best and the brightest", scientists were considered heroes, and academic success was lauded. Whatever happened to "standards"? Why are we, as a society, sanguine about this condition?

Trump's strategy, as always, is to "flood the zone" in the hope (apparently not forlorn) that not all of them will be rejected. But they should be. Because they are "manifestly unfit".
Click to expand...
Just figuring this out??? Thanks anyways.

Trump has been OBVIOUSLY unfit since 2015...........does not seem to matter to half of the voters
 
NatMorton said:
The same can be said for many Democrats, and probably of you.
Click to expand...
I’ve voted across the aisle countless times so your assertion is wrong
NatMorton said:
Harris was never going to win the Trump faithful, and more importantly, she didn't need to. She needed to win moderates in the swing states. So again, your beef is with those moderates, i.e., many of same people who voted for Biden in 2020. I understand why it's easier to ask how these people turned stupid four years later, but that question will not lead you to anything even remotely useful.
Click to expand...
 
Lovebug said:
Sane people didn't vote for Musk.
Click to expand...
Didn't know Musk was running for office.

Smearing voters who support your political opponent as mentally ill is a classic KGB tactic. But more importantly voters reject it.
 
NatMorton said:
I agree Trump is unfit for office, but just how bad are the Democrats at this point that they would lose so comprehensively to someone like that?
Click to expand...
A few things here. Trump had 4 years of campaigning along with 4 years of allied media pushing his BS. Harris had just 100 days, was a black woman and for the most part unknown. She had no time to get a decent message going. Trump barely won with 1.5% of the popular vote. The only people he ever beat were two women, which have inherently been handicapped in American presidential politics.

So how well did Trump actually do?
 
The AntiDonald said:
A few things here. Trump had 4 years of campaigning along with 4 years of allied media pushing his BS. Harris had just 100 days, was a black woman and for the most part unknown. She had no time to get a decent message going. Trump barely won with 1.5% of the popular vote. The only people he ever beat were two women, which have inherently been handicapped in American presidential politics.

So how well did Trump actually do?
Click to expand...
Trump did well enough to take the White House and Congress, an unqualified victory by any objective measure.

As for "allied media," please. He had Fox News. Harris had CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, The NYT, WaPro, The LA Times, and on it goes.
 
The AntiDonald said:
A few things here. Trump had 4 years of campaigning along with 4 years of allied media pushing his BS. Harris had just 100 days, was a black woman and for the most part unknown. She had no time to get a decent message going. Trump barely won with 1.5% of the popular vote. The only people he ever beat were two women, which have inherently been handicapped in American presidential politics.

So how well did Trump actually do?
Click to expand...
You act as if her dilemma was caused from some unseen force outside the democratic party. You want to complain about her having only 100 days? Pin the tail on Biden who had illusions of grandeur. Why did it come down to 100 days? Because the Biden administration believed they could hide his condition from the voters. Pin the tail on the democratic party. Harris was an unknown? She was VP for four years. She was well known for her positions she took in 2020...the same positions she reversed herself on only 3 1/2 years later. She was also well known for accomplishing next to nothing as VP. She's a terrible candidate always has been. Blame the DNC for her coronation rather than a quick primary. There's lots of blame to go around in the party itself. You can also blame democrats for allowing the far left to hi-jack your party and make it the party of open borders and allowing biological men to compete in women's sports. I saw in a hearing once again people on the left are insisting this is how it should be.

Considering Trump was branded a dictator, was going to suspend the constitution, suspend habeas corpus and rule for life he did outstanding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom