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?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".
How unfit are the American people that they would vote for Trump 2.0?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?
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.How unfit are the American people that they would vote for Trump 2.0?
Yet here we are. I'm telling y'all, we are in some sort of Twilight zone.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".
No.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.
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?Yet here we are. I'm telling y'all, we are in some sort of Twilight zone.
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.Because a solid portion of them would never vote across the aisle to start with.
Sane people didn't vote for Musk.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.
Sane people face up to the reality of a situation.Sane people didn't vote for Musk.
Just figuring this out??? Thanks anyways.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".
I’ve voted across the aisle countless times so your assertion is wrongThe 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.
??? that's what you are seeing........Sane people face up to the reality of a situation.
At the moment? No.??? that's what you are seeing........
That's nice.I’ve voted across the aisle countless times so your assertion is wrong
Didn't know Musk was running for office.Sane people didn't vote for Musk.
Not the ONLY reason, of course.....................................but mainThat's nice.
My larger point stands. You're making a mistake when you think the only reason Trump won is voter stupidity.
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.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?
We need to elect new Americans.How unfit are the American people that they would vote for Trump 2.0?
Trump did well enough to take the White House and Congress, an unqualified victory by any objective measure.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?
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.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?
This is 100% correct.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.
I concur.This is 100% correct.
That's what happened on November 5th.We need to elect new Americans.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?