Trump - 4 more years of this at least...

[TheDemonLord]

Anyhoo, all of the living US presidents attended a commemoration somewhere in the US. Well, all except one. Your guess which one.

Does spending time with the New York Fire and Police departments, in recognition for their heroism on that day, somehow not count as commemorating the event?

[sugilite:Me]

[pritch]

Does spending time with the New York Fire and Police departments, in recognition for their heroism on that day, somehow not count as commemorating the event?

Only to the hard of thinking. Having not attended any of the organised events, and realised he was taking criticism for same, he visted some first responders and made a rambling, incoherent, self pitying, speech. And yes, I have seen it.

That is not the same thing as attending the official functions. Not close.

[TheDemonLord]

Only to the hard of thinking. Having not attended any of the organised events, and realised he was taking criticism for same, he visted some first responders and made a rambling, incoherent, self pitying, speech. And yes, I have seen it.

That is not the same thing as attending the official functions. Not close.

You're right, it's not - it's spending time with the Commoners - the actual heroes, as opposed to naval gazing in an Ivory tower.

Have you seen the bits where the Police and Firefighters are bantering with him? They (the First responders) had quite a few interesting things to say about Biden...

[husaberg]

“Do you approve or disapprove of the way Donald Trump is handling his job as president?”
Among college graduates, a mere 30% approved of Trump’s job performance, and 67% disapproved.
Even among non-graduates, only 42% approved of Trump, and 52% disapproved.

"Leading the nation in times of crisis."
College graduates preferred Biden as a leader during a national crisis by a margin of 66% to 32%. Non-college graduates also preferred Biden over Trump, but by a much closer (49% to 46%) margin.

[pritch]

Y
Have you seen the bits where the Police and Firefighters are bantering with him? They (the First responders) had quite a few interesting things to say about Biden...

Yes I already said so. Sadly though, those bits are probably only of interest to the cognitively challenged.

[sugilite:Me]

[pritch]

Just imagine...

[Viking01]

Just imagine...

I'm not defending Trump, but it rather begs the question as to which US politician you would suggest as being admirable (or capable of doing a good job) - in the interests of the majority (and not the minority).

[pritch]

I'm not defending Trump, but it rather begs the question as to which US politician you would suggest as being admirable (or capable of doing a good job) - in the interests of the majority (and not the minority).

South Park summed it up when they pointed out that in US presidential elections there is only ever a choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwich. This is not how it was designed to be, but the two main parties have worked to make it that way. Independents and third parties have zero chance at present.

None of the Republican crop come close to "admirable". They have bowed at the feet of their false idol and are consequently corrupted. The answer therefore needs to be a Democrat. History in the USA would suggest the choice needs to be male and white, although there may well be outstanding candidates who don't fit either category or both thereof.

Historically candidates have been chosen from the ranks of governors, senators, or mayors of major cities, people perceived to have a history of leadership. It might be interesting to look through those ranks to find a likely candidate. None of those sufficiently prominent to spring to mind right now seem viable, but I'm not up with the minor players who could break through. The US may have already had its last " free and fair" election anyway. Even allowing that US elections have never been particularly free or fair.

[F5 Dave]

I'm not defending Trump, but it rather begs the question as to which US politician you would suggest as being admirable (or capable of doing a good job) - in the interests of the majority (and not the minority).

It doesn't beg that question at all. Why would you even bring that up? Seems like deflection.

[Viking01]

South Park summed it up when they pointed out that in US presidential elections there is only ever a choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwich. This is not how it was designed to be, but the two main parties have worked to make it that way. Independents and third parties have zero chance at present.

None of the Republican crop come close to "admirable". They have bowed at the feet of their false idol and are consequently corrupted. The answer therefore needs to be a Democrat. History in the USA would suggest the choice needs to be male and white, although there may well be outstanding candidates who don't fit either category or both thereof.

Historically candidates have been chosen from the ranks of governors, senators, or mayors of major cities, people perceived to have a history of leadership. It might be interesting to look through those ranks to find a likely candidate. None of those sufficiently prominent to spring to mind right now seem viable, but I'm not up with the minor players who could break through. The US may have already had its last " free and fair" election anyway. Even allowing that US elections have never been particularly free or fair.

Pritch,
Thanks for your reply. Well covered.
I'm not so sure I personally agree that the answer needs to be a Democrat, but I understand the logic of your reply.
Cheers, Viking

[pritch]

I'm not so sure I personally agree that the answer needs to be a Democrat, but I understand the logic of your reply.

Unless the Democrats wake the Hell up it likely won't be a Democrat. Tom Cotton or Josh Hawley would likely be as authoritarian as Trump but, unlike Trump, they are actually considered competent. Even if Hawley, with his expensive ivy league education, uses words like "irregardless". Front runner other than Trump is DeSantis, which is astounding considering he made Florida the world epicentre of the pandemic.

[sugilite:Me]

So much to admire.....

[pritch]

So much to admire.....

An excellent clip.

Last night I listened to Rachel Maddow talking about Woodward and Costa's new book "Peril". We knew that after Trump's presidency we would learn of even more insane things that happened under his watch. It seems the time is right.

Following the events of Jan 6th the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Milley, called his opposite number in China to reassure him. The Chinese were worried that Trump might launch a strike against China to boost his chances of staying in power.

Trumps behaviours had become so erratic that Milley called a meeting of the Joint Chiefs and sought their assurance that should an order be issued for a strike no action would be taken immediately.

If this all seems unreal you need to consider though that Nixon, drunk, ordered a nuclear strike against Russia then went to bed. The staff, after discussion, decided to wait until morning before checking to see if Nixon still wanted the strike to proceed. He didn't. The world had a lucky escape.

Yet Trump, although clearly having lost touch with reality, could again be elected president.