3 ms·

“Worst possible person” isn’t accurate but “worst person ever in the role” probably is.

• rsynnott 1y ago
  It's... hard to imagine someone worse, in this particular case. Possibly someone who was actively malicious (vs just delusionally insane, which seems to be the case here)?
• tombert 1y ago
  Within some degree of reason I think it still holds. Yes, if you actively appointed a doomsday cult leader who wants to exterminate the human race, then that would be worse, but that kind of feels like a contrived example. Within the scope of "people who would realistically actually be appointed", he is the absolute worst case scenario.
  • ineedasername 1y ago
    >"people who would realistically actually be appointed" But really it wasn't all that realistic. Sure it happened, but just 'cause it happened doesn't make it realistic.
    • tombert 1y ago
      It was realistic in the sense that Trump was always going to appoint an unqualified politician for the role. He chose the worst possible one he could from that set.