3 ms·
No, it's perfectly reasonable. I don't disagree with you, or more accurately, I'm not even presenting an opinion on whether the US should have stayed or left. B
by beaner 5y ago
No, it's perfectly reasonable. I don't disagree with you, or more accurately, I'm not even presenting an opinion on whether the US should have stayed or left. But given that leaving was the choice, and perhaps the rational choice, the act of leaving is itself something that requires management and competence. It is possible to be done in a way that minimizes or maximizes destruction, loss of human life, any remaining moral philosophy or disposition for democracy in the area, hope generally, etc. The US president has a direct influence on how the exit happens.
The point I'm actually making though is that even if you are right, if the "other guy" were in power right now, the newsmedia would be presenting it very differently, and it's important to be aware of it and be able to see it when it happens.
- oblio 5y agoThe problem is, one of the most important roles of a politician is to be liked and to be influential, in short, to have friends. Ideally, to not be very divisive. Some wounds are self inflicted and I have little pity for them.
- AwaAwa 5y agoI'm not clear on what you mean by this as a response. Are you saying the President needs to be friends with journalists for them to be objective?
- oblio 5y agoI'm saying that if you make someone hate your guts, it will be very hard for them to be objective. And Trump didn't even need to be friends with them, just somewhat neutral. He just couldn't help himself. After an entire life with a flawed personality, as we say in Romania: "only the casket straightens the hunchback". Not even scientists are 100% objective, it's just a fact of life. At the end of day, we're all human (and also emotional).