10 ms·

That seems... preferable? Say what you will about Trump, but his ineptitude and lack of party connections meant he was limited in what he could accomplish. Cont

That seems... preferable? Say what you will about Trump, but his ineptitude and lack of party connections meant he was limited in what he could accomplish. Contrast that to the Bush presidency and its two foreign wars.

khuey 5y ago
Bush was able to "accomplish" those wars because the country was "united" after 9/11. It didn't have much to do with his personal competence or connections.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- raydev 5y ago
  That certainly helped, but it was well known even then that Cheney had a lot of power, and he had many connections. GWB wasn't a complete puppet, but he wasn't fully running the show either.
- Crashbat 5y ago
  The US government (like all liberal, democratic governments) is a massive, many-headed bureaucracy, with competing and sometimes contradictory objectives. Those objectives are long-term, shaped by committee and subject to organisational inertia, so the departments will function regardless of the political weather. It doesn't matter what public sentiment is, nor how widespread that sentiment may be. Being able to utilise any part of it requires connections and a high level of managerial competence - in George W Bush's case that was through his own personal, familial connections, and through his cabinet, many of whom were career civil servants who'd served in previous administrations going back decades. The feeling of "unity" people may have experienced doesn't come into it.
redis_mlc 5y ago
> Say what you will about Trump, but his ineptitude and lack of party connections meant he was limited in what he could accomplish. Actually the opposite is true, as his was one of the most productive administrations in the past 75 years, despite ankle-biting by Pelosi that exceeded even his term. Trump was the only man on Earth who could address the CCP, and started the rebalancing of NATO member funding. We now understand how essential his wall is. He also attracted remarkable advisors such as Bannon and Pompeo. I suggest you listen to their interviews, available on Youtube.

khuey 5y ago

Bush was able to "accomplish" those wars because the country was "united" after 9/11. It didn't have much to do with his personal competence or connections.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
raydev 5y ago
That certainly helped, but it was well known even then that Cheney had a lot of power, and he had many connections. GWB wasn't a complete puppet, but he wasn't fully running the show either.
Crashbat 5y ago
The US government (like all liberal, democratic governments) is a massive, many-headed bureaucracy, with competing and sometimes contradictory objectives. Those objectives are long-term, shaped by committee and subject to organisational inertia, so the departments will function regardless of the political weather. It doesn't matter what public sentiment is, nor how widespread that sentiment may be. Being able to utilise any part of it requires connections and a high level of managerial competence - in George W Bush's case that was through his own personal, familial connections, and through his cabinet, many of whom were career civil servants who'd served in previous administrations going back decades. The feeling of "unity" people may have experienced doesn't come into it.

redis_mlc 5y ago

> Say what you will about Trump, but his ineptitude and lack of party connections meant he was limited in what he could accomplish. Actually the opposite is true, as his was one of the most productive administrations in the past 75 years, despite ankle-biting by Pelosi that exceeded even his term. Trump was the only man on Earth who could address the CCP, and started the rebalancing of NATO member funding. We now understand how essential his wall is. He also attracted remarkable advisors such as Bannon and Pompeo. I suggest you listen to their interviews, available on Youtube.