Is it really better to have a groveler-in-chief dealing with our adversaries?
============
Over the weekend, Bill Maher made news by asking a simple question:
Maher’s question reminded me of the above headlined post from the HomaFiles archives, circa 2016 …
=============
During the 2016 Presidential campaign, cartoonist Scott Adams hit the nail on the head on his Dilbert blog …
Adams observed that, during the campaign, Hillary’s constant refrain was that we can’t have a loose cannon bully in the White House.
Of course, Dems and their media friends kept that notion front-burnered during the campaign.
======
Adams cut to the chase on on “Dangerous Trump”:
In his post, Adams observes:
Trump’s opponents have started making the case that he is “a loose cannon” … a “dangerous bully”
You know who likes dangerous bullies?
Answer: Everyone.
Seal Team Six is dangerous. George Washington was dangerous. Abraham Lincoln was dangerous.
Women like dangerous men.
Wimpy men want to be dangerous men.
“Dangerous” borders on being a compliment.
When you need to thwart some enemies – such as a useless Congress, or ISIS – you want to send in your most dangerous fighter.
The bottom line::
“Every other country with nukes has a wacko with his finger on the button.
Why shouldn’t the U.S. — just to keep things even”.
=============
Yep, Trump was a bully and his tweets were annoying.
But, isn’t that preferable to having a creepy, cognitively-eroding, sheltered-in-place, teleprompter-reading appeaser who seems determined to Make America Weak Again?
Quoting Maher: “It’s worth thinking about” … as Putin escalates the war … attacking nuclear power plants, bombing maternity hospitals, landing missiles close to the Polish border and assassinating journalists
=============
Leave a Reply