> The concept of attacking the details of problem itself is beyond him. Donald Trump's full capabilities are unknown to you. At best, you can form a model of

> The concept of attacking the details of problem itself is beyond him. Donald Trump's full capabilities are unknown to you. At best, you can form a model of them based on observations, but this also has a dependency on the comprehensiveness and accuracy (unintentional bias due to interpretation) of your observations. > So the fundamental isn't merely that Trump has racist tendencies, but rather than it's the only lens through which he sees the world. With all due respect, this seems hyperbolic, to be generous. > In his mind, every problem is due to bad people disrupting things for good people. This is speculation. > But the world is much more complex than that. This seems ironic. > I do get if you're still hanging your hat on his China policies This is a figure of speech that typically implies certain things. > then it's possible to agree with his approach without being personally racist. One can also be not racist and disagree with his China policies. > Although those policies also reek of the simple minded thinking of racism - tariffs to keep out bad Chinese goods, don't care about Hong Kong because it's Chinese, blaming Chinese apps specifically rather than data collection in general This is your personal interpretation. > and they will all be long term strategic failures that miss the forest for the trees This is a prediction of the future. > He basically kneecapped the entire federal response, which we've been paying a large amount of taxes for, in favor of letting Covid spread unchecked. This is suggestive that you posses highly accurate knowledge of the incredibly complex causation behind America's sub-optimal performance, and that there weren't many mistakes all over the place, as well as lacking acknowledgement of vast uncertainty involved, in general. > He's the leader and his job is to lead everyone - the "both sides" argument doesn't hold water. I've made no such argument. > The standard politician thing would have simply been to defer to the experts and make sure he himself couldn't be blamed. Perhaps. One might argue that he had an irrational/inappropriate response to fault being near-completely laid at his feet, and responded to that rashly. True causation of human behavior is incredibly complex. > This culture is itself suboptimal, but would have produced much better results than what we got. Doing so would have also greatly benefited Trump, in that he would have gotten the wartime president boost rather than presiding over a needless disaster. Agreed. Sometimes life sucks. > If he were anything besides an empty suit, he would have wised up by now. Perhaps, but this again speculates about the comprehensive nature of Donald Trump, as well as what optimum behavior is under the current circumstances. I see where you're coming from - generally, your points are reasonable. Something for you to consider though, is the complexity involved in how people react to not just what is said, but how it is said. I very much do not like how you, or the media, or politicians describe reality. This would be an example of where I agree with one of your points: "This culture is itself suboptimal." I believe the style of politics and journalism we practice in the West is dishonest & misleading, irresponsible, and dangerous (but the danger in play is not properly realized, because Westerners seem to not like to think terribly deeply about things.....they like to "KISS"). I wonder if my general impression of the entire system, is similar to your impression of Donald Trump: ~a complete joke, no respect whatsoever. I can easily appreciate how people disrespect Trump, but I cannot appreciate when those same people respect the general state of politics in the US.