Post New

This is the man you're supporting:

Trump, those who have worked for him say, is unable to understand the military norm that one does not leave fellow soldiers behind on the battlefield. As president, Trump told senior advisers that he didn’t understand why the U.S. government placed such value on finding soldiers missing in action. To him, they could be left behind, because they had performed poorly by getting captured.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/...

He should've been at the airport spitting on the vets when they came back from that war.

Then grown up to be a corporate sellout and 401K toting public school segregationist woke Liberal

The Atlantic endorses Kamala Harris..need I say more?

LurkerMom: The Atlantic endorses Kamala Harris..need I say more?

Yeah, ya' kinda' do, considering that...

Marine General John Kelly, who was Sleepy Don’s longest serving Chief of Staff, says Trump is a fascist at heart and a danger to the United States who is unfit to be president.

Mike Pence, who was Sleepy Don’s VP, says Trump is unfit to be president.

Mark Esper, who was Sleepy Don’s Sec of Defense, says Trump is unfit to be president.

Bill Barr, who was Sleepy Don’s AG, says Trump is unfit to be president.

John Bolton, who was his Sleepy Don's NSA, says Trump is unfit to be president.

Mark Milley, who was Sleepy Don’s chairman of the joint chiefs, says Trump is unfit to be president.

James Mattis, who was Sleepy Don’s first Sec of Defense, says Trump is unfit to be president.

The list goes on and on.

At least 24 former top ranking cabinet officers, allies and aides of Sleepy Don say he's unfit to be president.

But you're smarter than all of them.

Marine General John Kelly, who was Sleepy Don’s longest serving Chief of Staff, says Trump is a fascist at heart and a danger to the United States who is unfit to be president.

Mike Pence, who was Sleepy Don’s VP, says Trump is unfit to be president.

Mark Esper, who was Sleepy Don’s Sec of Defense, says Trump is unfit to be president.

Bill Barr, who was Sleepy Don’s AG, says Trump is unfit to be president.

John Bolton, who was his Sleepy Don's NSA, says Trump is unfit to be president.

Mark Milley, who was Sleepy Don’s chairman of the joint chiefs, says Trump is unfit to be president.

James Mattis, who was Sleepy Don’s first Sec of Defense, says Trump is unfit to be president.

The list goes on and on.

At least 24 former top ranking cabinet officers, allies and aides of Sleepy Don say he's unfit to be president.

Well, as we all know- they’re scum for siding with the left.

The left and all of those “woke” military big wigs deserve each other.

At least 24 former top ranking cabinet officers, allies and aides of Sleepy Don say he's unfit to be president.

But you're smarter than all of them. - CO,?I>

----------------

And you insist that the judgement of these 24 former top ranking cabinet officers, allies and aides collectively supersedes the judgment of half the population of our country. Weird.

yes, just like the germans and Hitler.

As I said.
They can't make the case for their day drunk candidate, so they're resorting to lies and logical fallacies.

They can do them. The rest of the country will be fine.

“But you're smarter than all of them.”

That’s right. I don’t take in account someone else’s sour grapes opinions.

And you insist that the judgement of these 24 former top ranking cabinet officers, allies and aides collectively supersedes the judgment of half the population of our country. Weird.

In the sense that they know Donald Trump better than the rest of us- yes. They worked with him and are collectively saying that he is a corrupt, vindictive, authoritarian. Several of them, most notably Kelley and Mattis, are even calling him fascist.


You may chose to ignore them, but knowing what you know about him, would you hire Trump to work in your company?

Or as Liz Cheney said two days ago, If you wouldn’t hire Trump to babysit your kids, don’t make him president

I have seen that the usual suspects (often on the right wing sewer formally known as Twitter) are telling folks “Don’t let Liz babysit your kids”, which is the usual nonsense from the right that confuses “political viewpoint” with “moral stature”.

I may never agree with much of what Liz Cheney stands for in a political sense, but I’d still let her babysit my kids.

Not so much Donald Trump.

I may never agree with much of what Liz Cheney stands for in a political sense, but I’d still let her babysit my kids.

Not so much Donald Trump. - Bill

-----------------

As far as I know, SCOTUS has ruled that babysitting in not an official duty of the President. OTOH, protecting the homeland is and for that essential responsibility, Trump is hands down preferable to Liz Cheney.

I have seen that the usual suspects (often on the right wing sewer formally known as Twitter) are telling folks “Don’t let Liz babysit your kids”, which is the usual nonsense from the right that confuses “political viewpoint” with “moral stature”.

I may never agree with much of what Liz Cheney stands for in a political sense, but I’d still let her babysit my kids.

Not so much Donald Trump.

Since I'm a bit fascinated by Cheney's comment, and how perfectly it encapsulates (IMHO) why the Democrats are having so much trouble with young men, I'll ask this question: why wouldn't you want to let Donald Trump babysit your kids?

I mean, he's quite old, which might make him a little less able to chase after and lift a young kid if necessary. I get that. The same is true of Biden (whom I also wouldn't let babysit a young kid, either).

But apart from that - I mean, what do you think Trump would do if he babysat a six-year-old (for example)?

But apart from that - I mean, what do you think Trump would do if he babysat a six-year-old (for example)?

If Trump wins, this thread is a perfect encapsulation of why.

Trump is hands down preferable to Liz Cheney.

I disagree.

But since the choice is between Trump and Harris, it doesn’t really address the central question of this election, and that is, who will do a better job of defending the national security interests of the United States, and that person is not the former president who displayed an appalling ignorance of even what the national security interests of the United States consist of.

But apart from that - I mean, what do you think Trump would do if he babysat a six-year-old (for example)?

Albaby, your tendency to play devil's advocate is maddening at times. 😊

Let me turn your question around: would you want (or let) Adolph Hitler, Vladimir Putin, or Kim Jong Un babysit your 6 year old?

But apart from that - I mean, what do you think Trump would do if he babysat a six-year-old (for example)?

I’d be afraid of what might happen if there was an emergency, given his extreme self absorption

He’d be running out of the house in case of fire, without a thought for the life of my child, because, as his former staff has said- the man is completely without honor and lacks even the remotest understanding of sacrifice.

I'll ask this question: why wouldn't you want to let Donald Trump babysit your kids?

He talks about penis size.

He makes racist comments, which normalizes them.

He has a loose grip on reality.

He lies constantly.

He incessantly demeans people, which would probably include the parents when they’re not around.

He’s a sexual pervert, (this we know from the Miss Teen Pageant.)

He has been convicted of rape.

He is a bully.

He is driven by impulse, not a great trait for a babysitter.

He is the living embodiment of a moral sewer.

Children, especially at a young age, are searching for identity and role models. There is simply no redeeming value to this person; why would you entrust him with your children, even for an hour?

Let me turn your question around: would you want (or let) Adolph Hitler, Vladimir Putin, or Kim Jong Un babysit your 6 year old?

Not really, no. But Trump hasn't done the things that they've done.

I mean, I get it. He doesn't seem temperamentally suited for babysitting. But I wouldn't pick out other Presidents, like LBJ or JFK, as prime babysitting candidates either. I can't imagine that Trump would be sitting down and doing coloring or playing games with a child, but I also see no reason to think that he'd do something awful to the child either. Most likely outcome, IMHO? They'd probably just end up watching a lot of TV.

But it's a fascinating window onto the different perspectives people have on the office of the Presidency. Some people - presumably Cheney - believe that the needs of the office require that you have someone who's got the sort of traits that make you a decent babysitter. Others, though, believe that the demands of that office require someone that's not fundamentally suited for babysitting - someone who's hard, ruthless in pursuit of American interests, and willing to make some really tough choices. They keep in mind that a President has to be able to order people to be killed, even knowing that some other people will die that don't deserve it....and then be able to walk upstairs, have a meal and get a good night's sleep.

To put it more coarsely (and very NSFW):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32iCWzpDpKs

He is the living embodiment of a moral sewer.

Children, especially at a young age, are searching for identity and role models. There is simply no redeeming value to this person; why would you entrust him with your children, even for an hour?

Not to mention that I wouldn't want Trump to impart any of his "wisdom" to my child:

- Did you know that you can just grab a woman by her hoohas?
- Or that windmills cause cancer?
- Or that climate change is a hoax?
- Or that you can snuff out a hurricane with a hydrogen bomb?
- And did you know there's a big faucet in Canada that you can turn to provide California with water?
- And that if you're caught lying the best response is to double down and keep lying?
- And that Haitian immigrants in Ohio are eating pet cats and dogs?

And that's just for starters!

I mean, I get it. He doesn't seem temperamentally suited for babysitting. But I wouldn't pick out other Presidents, like LBJ or JFK, as prime babysitting candidates either.

Seriously, are you comparing JFK's babysitting skills to Trump's? I'd LOVE to have had JFK babysit my kids!

As for whether the President needs to have babysitting skills, s/he is after all, essentially babysitting the U.S. for a short time, and I would want s/he to treat it kindly, sanely and with respect.

Trump is hands down preferable to Liz Cheney. - bhm

I disagree.

But since the choice is between Trump and Harris, it doesn’t really address the central question of this election, and that is, who will do a better job of defending the national security interests of the United States, and that person is not the former president who displayed an appalling ignorance of even what the national security interests of the United States consist of. - Bill.

-----------------

You are right that the issue is who will do a better job of defending the national security interests of the United States, and we can disagree over that. So why is your side bringing up baby sitting prowess as a criteria?

Seriously, are you comparing JFK's babysitting skills to Trump's? I'd LOVE to have had JFK babysit my kids!

Really? How do you know he wouldn't invite some lady friend over and neglect your kid while he attends to other....business?

Now, I don't really think that would happen. He'd probably be perfectly fine. The point is that most politicians of any significance tend to be very egotistical, self-regarding bordering on narcissistic, ruthless and exceedingly self-interested people. Especially those who ascend to the highest level of government, like the Presidency. You almost have to be - it takes a certain personality to walk into room after room after room and believe (and convince everyone) that you're the best person in the country to be in charge. Very few of them would be an ideal choice for a babysitting gig - and certainly not if you think they'll bring the traits from their workplace into the the babysitting role.

I wouldn't want any U.S. President that I can think of, save perhaps Jimmy Carter, to babysit my kids. The sort of people that can get that job are certainly very charismatic, and their public image can often be quite good - but the personality you need in order to get and keep that job? Someone like George H.W. Bush has (now) a very avuncular and softer image - but if you've been the Director of the CIA (and in the 70s!), you've done some shirt that wouldn't make you a top choice for babysitting.

Many of the negative personality traits that Goofy listed are certainly true - I don't think Trump is qualified for being President. I also think, though, that a lot of people have left their kids with babysitters that are also impulsive, lack focus, use inappropriate language, have weird conspiracy-minded views of the world, etc. - they're called teenagers. Typically we expect that even though they're not up to running the country, even someone with those characteristics will hang together to just put on the TV and keep the kid from drinking dishwashing detergent.

I also think that a lot of voters believe that picking a President is very different than picking a babysitter. They want a bit of a warrior and tough guy, not a saint or schoolmarm. Especially the mostly young male voters that Trump is looking to put him over the edge. So the babysitting frame is a weird one.

You are right that the issue is who will do a better job of defending the national security interests of the United States, and we can disagree over that. So why is your side bringing up baby sitting prowess as a criteria?

Yep :)

You are right that the issue is who will do a better job of defending the national security interests of the United States, and we can disagree over that. So why is your side bringing up baby sitting prowess as a criteria?

It reveals a certain worldview about the parties, and what they think the job of the President - and the U.S. government - generally is.

This isn't a new dynamic. I don't remember when I fist started hearing it, but back in the day you would hear politicos refer to the Democrat/Republican choice as between the "Mommy Party" and the "Daddy Party." The Democrats were characterized as viewing government as providing nurturing and kindness, while the GOP thought the government's role was more protecting against threats and maintaining order and dispensing justice. What can government help you with, versus what can government protect you from. Traits that were, in the gendered language and roles of the day, mapped onto mothers and fathers roles in the household.

Trump's pitch as a candidate is that it's a coarse world filled with bastards, that a lot of those bastards are not just foreign enemies but domestic elites that want to take advantage of "us," and that it takes a hardened and coarse son-of-a-bitch to put all those bastards in their place. That's why, I think, the message that Harris was sending earlier was so effective - it framed Trump as dumb and weird and goofy, which is the opposite of what he wanted to spin.

Pointing out that Trump isn't fit for maternal-coded jobs is not the opposite of what he wants to sell. It's consistent with what he wants to sell. He wants to be perceived as the guy who's fearless and brave enough to say whatever he wants regardless of what other people think, who'll say impolite truths that aren't necessarily fit for the nursery room. He wants people to think he's Nick Fury, not Captain America.

BOLTON is not scum.

BOLTON loves Big Defense.

Bolton loves interventionist wars.

Bolton has costed you people - or helped cost you people trillions, and created people abroad who lost family members from your bombs, and some of them will grow up, and meet your women in Sweden or your buildings in New York.

So Bolton is NOT scum, he's a hero to me.

The rest of your list: NOT ONE OF THEM IS SCUM. And they are not "woke" for opposing Trump. They have guts, unlike the Gutless Wonder Sheeple.

"Woke" are the greedy corporations - defense and otherwise loving the blood and money, and then turning around and promoting Leftist agendas.

Sorry Pedro, you didn't get away with it :)

albaby1: Pointing out that Trump isn't fit for maternal-coded jobs is not the opposite of what he wants to sell. It's consistent with what he wants to sell.

Oh, fer' Chrissakes. What Cheney meant was obvious: Trump is a sick fcuk. If you wouldn't let a sick fcuk take care of your child, why would you let a sick fcuk lead the country?

And you insist that the judgement of these 24 former top ranking cabinet officers, allies and aides collectively supersedes the judgment of half the population of our country. Weird.

No one is saying “the judgment of these 24 former top ranking cabinet officers, allies and aides” should supersede the judgment of less than half the population of our country. Actually, the only individual who thinks their opinion should supersede the majority of the population of our country is Trump, who tried to overthrow a free and fair election while ignoring dozens of court rulings. And we have videos to prove it.

So the question is, babysitting notwithstanding, who is best able to fulfill their presidential oath:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Only one of the presidential candidates has already proven he is incapable of fulfilling the presidential oath, the insurrectionist Donald Trump. Period. Full stop.

So when a life long patriot with the credibility of John Kelly, who not only put his life on the line for our country and is a Gold Star parent, puts out an opinion about someone he reported to, it bears listening to. Seriously listening to.

You can write it off as sour grapes if you want. That is your right as an American. Enjoy that right while you can.

But the undeniable fact is that Trump has clearly demonstrated he is unable to fulfill his oath and dozens of people who worked under a Trump administration have confirmed what you saw with your own eyes on January 6th and what to expect if Trump gets in power again.

Ignore it at your own and our nation’s risk.

“But apart from that - I mean, what do you think Trump would do if he babysat a six-year-old (for example)?”

At a recent Trump rally a couple little tykes of Trump’s grandchildren were in attendance. Trump held one lil’ grandson in his arms and it was quite apparent the lil’ boy loved his grandpa.

“ who will do a better job of defending the national security interests of the United States, and that person is not the former president who displayed an appalling ignorance of even what the national security interests of the United States consist of.”

Under Harris we have no borders and war breaking out around the world costing American taxpayers billions and billions of dollars.

Under Trump we had peace and prosperity.

What Cheney meant was obvious: Trump is a sick fcuk. If you wouldn't let a sick fcuk take care of your child, why would you let a sick fcuk lead the country?

If that's the message, it's utterly clouded by the comparison.

It's easy enough to say that because Trump is a sick fcuk, he shouldn't lead the country. Making the comparison to taking care of your child makes a different argument. She's not just saying that he's unsuited to lead because he's a sick fcuk; she's saying that because you wouldn't let Trump take care of your child, he's unsuited to lead.

I think that framing is strategically poor. I hope the Democrats don't adopt it. I think it's critical that Trump be defeated in the election, even though I think that's the less likely outcome - so the Harris campaign has to really up their closing arguments.

OTOH, protecting the homeland is and for that essential responsibility, Trump is hands down preferable to Liz Cheney.

How do you figure? The convict left us a much more dangerous world than he received in 2016, in large part because of his disinterest in most international matters, and abandoning allies and friends. He prefers Russia and Putin to Ukraine or our European allies. I won't speculate why, just comment on the fact.

I guess it all works out.

Trump insults the injured and dead and captured.


Cheney, Wolfie, and his NeoCon masters and Israeli mules................ CREATE them.

*sigh*

I mean, he's quite old, which might make him a little less able to chase after and lift a young kid if necessary. I get that. The same is true of Biden (whom I also wouldn't let babysit a young kid, either).

But apart from that - I mean, what do you think Trump would do if he babysat a six-year-old (for example)?

Biden would take the job seriously. I probably wouldn't hire him, either, but at least he would pay attention and give an effort. I don't believe the convict would. He wouldn't care, wouldn't pay attention, and probably have no idea what the kid was up to.

But I'm more interested in why this "perfectly encapsulates" connecting with young men. Just because a lot of young men don't have kids? A lot of them do, also, starting families and trying to get a career launched.

I think that framing is strategically poor. I hope the Democrats don't adopt it. I think it's critical that Trump be defeated in the election, even though I think that's the less likely outcome - so the Harris campaign has to really up their closing arguments.

Besides yourself, I'd bet that only die hard MAGAs would disagree that because Trump would be unfit to babysit their child, he is ipso facto unfit to lead the country.

Ultimately, a babysitter's job is to always put the child's interests above their own. Just like the president's job is to always put the country's interests above their own. Trump would do neither. But I think Liz was mainly talking about decency and character, and Trump lacks both.

Finally, JFK and Clinton could compartmentalize, keeping their moral failings (romantic dalliances) from affecting their day jobs, whether that be babysitter or president. Trump has no such ability. There's only one compartment in Trump's mind and it's the one fully occupied by his narcissism.

Under Trump we had peace and prosperity.

Welcome back from your trip to Mars.

Apparently you missed 1.2 million deaths from a botched pandemic response, millions of Americans on food lines for the first time since the Great Depression, 2.7 million jobs lost, daily chaos and lies from Trump’s White House, an violent insurrection, a 36.3% increase in the U.S. trade deficit of goods and supplies, the number of people without health care increasing by 3 million, federal debt held by the public went up from $14.4 trillion to $21.6 trillion, and much more.

But other than that, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?

Really? How do you know he wouldn't invite some lady friend over and neglect your kid while he attends to other....business?

Now, I don't really think that would happen. He'd probably be perfectly fine.

Yes, he would. Again, it's about responsibility. If JFK accepted the job, he'd take it seriously. He would do his best. This is a man who towed a wounded crewman by putting the lifejacket strap in his teeth and swimming. Anything comes up in the babysitting gig, I'm pretty sure he would step up to do his best.

I can't say the same for the convicted felon. He has shown no sign of any ability to take any responsibility at all.

And I'm not really a fan of JFK, as POTUS, though I respect many of his actions before prior to that.

Even if pandemic wasn't handled my Trump - it would've gone bad.

Geez.

This makes me impatient for what all is to come.

Trump's pitch as a candidate is that it's a coarse world filled with bastards, that a lot of those bastards are not just foreign enemies but domestic elites that want to take advantage of "us," and that it takes a hardened and coarse son-of-a-bitch to put all those bastards in their place. That's why, I think, the message that Harris was sending earlier was so effective - it framed Trump as dumb and weird and goofy, which is the opposite of what he wanted to spin.

Agree on the "domestic elites", but not sure I agree on the foreign enemies (except for those attempting to cross the border to claim asylum).

He showed little interest in the "coarse bastards" when he was in-office, and I haven't seem him talk about that much as a candidate. Which is consistent with my observation that he is, at heart, an isolationist. He just doesn't care about anything beyond our borders, and questions why we should expend any resources beyond our borders. He doesn't understand why Ukraine is a "thing", doesn't seem to care about the South China Sea, has stated he doesn't think NATO is a big deal, etc. Which is a legitimate position to hold (i.e. isolationism), even if it is naive and stupid, and historically didn't end well the last time we pursued it.

But apart from that - I mean, what do you think Trump would do if he babysat a six-year-old (for example)?

If that child were a girl, I’d be worried about rape. While his penchant seems to be for young women, that did extend down to mature looking teens. It may not extend to young children, but as a parent, I wouldn’t be willing to take that risk.

In a more general sense, I’d be worried that he would put his own needs ahead of the child’s needs in a neglectful way. I see him getting engrossed in a news program or with reading and posting to social media, and stop paying attention to the child. Just basic narcissist/sociopath behavior.

—Peter

But I'm more interested in why this "perfectly encapsulates" connecting with young men. Just because a lot of young men don't have kids?

No - because young men are more likely to conceive of the role of President as needing the tough guy, Commander in Chief, tell the enemies of the U.S. to go "eff off" kind of person. The folks who agree with the conservative framing that we're not conducting job interviews for a pastor, but for a defender of the country.

And because they're more likely, I think, to either be perceived or perceive themselves as not a first choice when other people are looking to hire for a female-coded job like babysitter. Some of the stuff that Trump gets heavily criticized for and which Cheney I think is alluding to in disqualifying him from babysitting - the discussion of other people's bodies, the insults and demeaning behavior, the lack of social awareness or conformity to rules of polite behavior, even the impulsiveness and aggressiveness - are very male-coded traits.

Even if pandemic wasn't handled my Trump - it would've gone bad.

Sure. It was a bad situation. But the question is how bad. If HRC was POTUS at the time, it probably would have been less horrible. She wouldn't have been spreading misinformation about the severity of the situation ("it'll be over by April"), bogus remedies, contradicting the advice of the CDC, etc.

Arguably, the convict made it worse than it would have been otherwise.

Some people - presumably Cheney - believe that the needs of the office require that you have someone who's got the sort of traits that make you a decent babysitter.

I see one common trait in particular - the ability to put the needs of others ahead of your own needs. To babysit (or more broadly, be a half-way decent parent), you have to be able to put the needs of the child ahead of your own needs. To be a good President, you have to put the needs of the country ahead of your own needs.

--Peter

The convict left us a much more dangerous world than he received in 2016,

No he did not.

albaby1: No - because young men are more likely to conceive of the role of President as needing the tough guy...

Umm, right. The guy who wears more makeup than most women. The guy who colors his hair. The guy who spends more time styling his color-treated hair than most teenage girls. The guy who Anthony Scaramucci confirmed wears a girdle and lifts. The guy who spoke lovingly about Arnold Palmer's penis.

Yeah, a real tough guy.

If you're an idiot in a cult.

I wouldn't want any U.S. President that I can think of, save perhaps Jimmy Carter, to babysit my kids.

Joe Biden would be pretty good. Maybe not today (much like Carter would not be suitable today), but when they were physically in better shape.

It's a balancing act. Yes, most who seek the Presidency know how to be ruthless and tough. But the good ones also know how to be kind and caring. And they know when to use each of those approaches.

Trump lacks the ability to be kind and caring. He only knows (or at least only shows) the selfish side.

--Peter

I think that framing is strategically poor.

But is it?

I agree that this framing is not going to appeal to young male voters - the actual or wannabe alpha-types. That demo is pretty well lost to Trump. Instead, Cheney is appealing to women and their traditional role of nurturing family. Liz Cheney is nothing if not a "traditional" family type. She's not speaking to the entire democrat base, she's talking to Republican women who aren't thrilled about the idea of their boys growing up to be like Trump and the overly aggressive men that support him.

This election will hinge on turnout. And if Cheney can get Republican women to turn out and vote for Harris instead of staying home and not voting for Trump, that's what Harris needs.

--Peter

How do you figure? The convict left us a much more dangerous world than he received in 2016, in large part because of his disinterest in most international matters, and abandoning allies and friends. He prefers Russia and Putin to Ukraine or our European allies. I won't speculate why, just comment on the fact. - 1pg

-----------------

Trump had the Iranians on the financial ropes, their assets were frozen, they were out of cash, their oil sales were non-existent, they had little capacity to hire or equip proxies, the Abraham Accords were progressing further isolating Iran. Then Biden unraveled it all so he be the one that revived the failing Obama treaty with Iran.

Even today, Biden Admin continuously lectures Israel to stand down holding out hope the Iranians will like us and live in peace with their neighbors. Foolish. Biden does not know how deterrence works. The Israelis are showing us and you can be sure that most of the Middle East will rejoice when Iran's nuclear aspirations are vaporized and the nut job Mullahs are gone.

The absurdity of this babysitting thread is hilarious...

“Welcome back from your trip to Mars.”

Thank you Alpha. It was nice visiting you there.

You certainly have a skewed vision of what was in the real world of the Trump years as president.

But I blame it on the liberal TDS and cannot face what a dumb woman Kamala is.

Kamala is campaigning on how she will get America out of the mess it is in now when she is the one who got us into this mess!
(eye roll)

The absurdity of this babysitting thread is hilarious...

Like I said. It's a microcosm of this entire election.

They and their team have done nothing but harp on about how terrible, evil, HitlerianRussianPutin Trump is. The entire time. Harris gave another stupid speech about it today.

Trump, meanwhile, has been out selling his message and picking off parts of their coalition.

So while this board and democrat party full of Neros has been fiddling, Georgia has burned itself almost off the swing state list. Others to follow.

But you're smarter than all of them. (commone responding to LM)

Dunning-Kruger effect.

Also explains why, even though presidential historians rank Trump either at the bottom or very near the bottom in POTUS rankings, the MAGAs all know better than the experts.

So why is your side bringing up baby sitting prowess as a criteria?

The argument is:

You wouldn’t want anyone to be president, who at a bare minimum, wouldn’t qualify as a babysitter.

If they can’t clear that minor hurdle, they have no real clue how to clear the more major hurdles that we expect a president to clear.

-responsibility for others

-showing empathy for others
- stoping fights instead of watching television,

Not lying about what the kids did while the adults were away.

Following the rules established by the parents

Case in point: when I was 13, I babysat for a kid whose parents were on my paper route. According to the rules of the parents, the boy could watch tv til 9 pm, and then had to go to bed. He could even have a bowl of popcorn while watching television.

So there we sat in the livingroom watching television. Early in the evening, I fixed a bowl of popcorn, and the kid sat on the couch, eating popcorn.

Several minutes before his bedtime, this seven year old boy suddenly looked up from his popcorn, said his tummy hurt and promptly puked all over the expensive leather couch upon which he sat.

I felt his head- no fever. But that was about the extent of my medical expertise at the time. There were no cell phones, so calling the parents was out of the question, but it didn’t seem to be a problem other than too much popcorn, so I got the kid to bed. He felt fine by then. Then I threw his clothes in the wash and spent the next two hours cleaning up a large volume of vomit from that expensive couch and the carpet.

I told the parents what had happened. They smiled and paid me a buck more than the 5 dollars we’d agreed on…..


And there is nothing special about that story. Nothing. Somewhere, everyday, a babysitter is dealing with some sort of emergency, and I really do wonder how Donald Trump would have dealt with the same situation.


It’s not a big deal. In fact it’s an ordinary situation, the sort that is negotiated successfully by millions of people every week. You see an unfortunate mess and you clean it up, even if you’re not the guy who made the mess

How would Donald Trump have handled that siuation.

At a bare minimum, we expect people we hire as babysitters to show some bare level of maturity, common sense, and trustworthiness.


Donald J. Trump seems uniquely qualified to fail on all three counts.

If he can’t be trusted on the little things, why hand him the presidency?

And you insist that the judgement of these 24 former top ranking cabinet officers, allies and aides collectively supersedes the judgment of half the population of our country. Weird.


You trust 'the wisdom of the cult'? LOL. No, the MAGAs are out to lunch.

What you have are the likes of Elon Musk and other oligarchs who know that Trump will allow them to gain more wealth and power. And another large group of sycophants who see a chance to catch the grift train that Trump will engineer.

And then there are the MAGA fools, who somehow believe that Trump gives a sh!t about them, though he has shown throughout his life that he is a narcissist who cares only for himself.

And it is all supported and fed by a greedy right wing media who could care less about our democracy. They only care about making a buck off of manipulating their consumers using the propaganda of hate and fear.

why wouldn't you want to let Donald Trump babysit your kids?

you would invite a rapist in to babysit your kids?

You wouldn’t want anyone to be president, who at a bare minimum, wouldn’t qualify as a babysitter.

No way in the world would would I would let this bastard near my daughter, left alone as a baby sitter.

https://www.quora.com/Are-there-really-videos-of-J...

https://stream.org/joe-bidens-disturbing-groping-o...

https://joebiden.info/category/images/

Than goodness the dems are throwing the creep Biden to the gutter where he belongs.

Sorry for the typos

Just the thought of Biden being left alone babysitting a little girl got me upset.

This creep who showers with his daughter is a disgusting thought in its own right.

https://pjmedia.com/victoria-taft/2023/08/01/ashle...

The absurdity of this babysitting thread is hilarious...

It's absurd, all right. Can we please get back to the business at hand?

We have a candidate for President of the United States who has been called dangerous, unfit, someone who cares nothing about the Constitution, a fascist by dozens of officials who worked with him daily, under all kinds of circumstances: Generals, Cabinet officials, his own Chief of Staff, indeed his own Vice President! This is unprecedented in American history. The fact that this election is as close as it appears to be speaks volumes about who we are as a people, sadly.

why not let Trump babysit your kid ?

obvious, given his treasonous and perverted character.... he'd probably pimp your kid out,..... just like he is doing with USA to the worst dictators on the planet.
he has no morals, character , intelligence or abilities'
He is greedy, a liar , a fraud , a criminal and a traitor....

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.