Despite my reservations about Swan, it should go without saying that Trump's interview with him was a terrible performance highlighting all of his gargantuan inadequacies not just as a President, but as a person.
The worst look for his character was surely the response to the invitation to say something good about John Lewis, in which he made it clear that he views personal relationships in a purely transactional way.
We already knew this, really: all a mad dictator has to do is praise Trump to his face, and Trump will transactionally sing the praises of said dictator forever more. But don't turn up to his inauguration, and no way will Trump say anything good about you.
How can his cult members find such a deeply cynical, "what's in it for me" attitude appealing?
3 comments:
yep showed up a lot of his defects. Norman's son did himself proud
Crap. Now I have to watch a boring interview to see if you have a point and Trumps age is showing. Or whether you are just engaged in leftist conjuring and bloodymindedness.
Okay he got into a lame position on testing and death rates. So he filibustered his way out until Swan got bored with it. So you have him on that. Really its the states job to look after stuff like this. Performance of the locals is hard if not impossible to judge under biowarfare conditions. If he's failed its in terms of not getting rid of Fauci and failing to require that doctors give out HCQ and IV vitamin C on demand. Thats about all he could do other than try and get supplies for the locals.
Swan brought up that utter nonsense to do with Russian bounties. You dumb leftists are incredible. You even had me going on that story and Swan is too dimwitted to understand fake news like that. The Lewis story is irrelevant. If he doesn't know the guy he doesn't know him. I didn't know him either. Ridiculous to get up his act on that score.
So you got him on the stupid filibuster. I'll give you that.
Post a Comment