I still don’t get these kinds of comments. Is it supposed to be funny because it’s so hyperbolic? I’d hope debates here would at least acknowledge that he’s pursuing some broader aims even if most of it is probably just to benefit his friends. Does anyone really think his actions lack any ulterior motives especially with how the cabinet is selected? You can‘t deny that he has more agency then a Government-by-committee-by-proxy like Bidens final years were like, where it really felt like it was dementia taking over. I feel it’s absurd to claim that a president is incompetent for not serving his people if that is not his goal in the first place.
Without Greene, the campaign goals of MAGA wither. The “I don’t start wars; I end wars” president doesn’t even have the fortitude to start by asking Congress. It’s not as much hyperbole as it sounds.
Were they really campaign goals or were they just marketing material to win an election? It makes so much more sense to not view everything MAGA as stupid „because they are lying“. Well they’ve won the election. Is that not the goal of a campaign? I‘m not saying lying is good, but it’s not like a only minority of politicians do that and it’s not like only a minority of politicians then do the exact opposite of what they promised and incur damage to their country. Some do it by benefiting themselves like Trump, some do it by being to indecisive and weary like Merkel or Biden
Ok, so you hope debates here should charitably acknowledge wider aims. I think we can agree that campaign promises rarely align with those. But pardoning Juan Orlando Hernández means that precisely none of this is about Maduro at all.
No that’s not what I mean. I‘m saying we should acknowledge them, not necessarily by doing so charitably. My point is that you cannot have productive debates about politicians if you think they all act to benefit their people and if they do something that contradicts that suddenly everyone says they are incompetent or stupid. Only then we can start asking what is he trying to accomplish with that. Which could be an interesting debate. What is he trying to accomplish for US citizens with that is a stupid question
I‘m not making a moral judgement here. I‘m saying even if the attack happens for different reasons than those you have been told (honestly a US classic), the search for a coherent reason behind it (no matter if justifiable) cannot end by saying „It doesn’t serve us. He is a stupid president, he promised us something and did something else he’s so incompetent“ because incompetent has to mean in regards to something. And if his goal really is narcissistic validation and money, well then he surely either is very lucky currently or not incompetent.
Ok it sounds like the best drawn-out support for your argument goes like this:
Since the Nov 21 call with Trump, Maduro and his wife knew to keep their bags packed. Maduro never had a strong hold on the generals, so gave them profitable organizational roles with the Sinaloa cartel. Trump was told that the cash offer had the best chance at good news in January. At least, he understands a cash offer even if he doesn’t know why he got an MRI or what for.
So the military buildup and strikes fulfill something else. What was it?
I don‘t disagree with that, in fact that’s exactly what I‘m saying. If someone becomes president to achieve those goals, do you really call him incompetent for building his cabinet around achieving that very goal?
I think that most people would define the quality of a president based on their performance for their country.
If a leader pillages the country and flees with the money, I doubt that they would be praised for their excellence ‘because they archived what they set out to do’.
That‘s entirely true, but my entire point is you cannot judge somebody as incompetent based on something they are not trying to achieve. You can say he‘s a bad president, makes sense because a good president serves his country. But you can’t say he is an incompetent one just because he has ulterior motives.
