Rolling eyes? Give me a break!!!
No one was infering that, and you know it. Just because you want to defend this idiotic statement doesn't mean Briefers will vote otherwise. Blasting a poltical opponent a day after he dies not only has never been a good political strategy, but it is tasteless and crass as well.
I was really hoping for more from Trump in interpersonal skills as we approach 2024. But looks like I am going to be disappointed.
Here's the rub. Trump's product sold itself, for the most part. Golf course, hotel, services, etc. Name recognition.
None of it really done at the retail level by him, personally. The contact people make those operations go.
Being direct, not pulling punches, is pretty much necessary to getting things built and built right. If you are the least bit wishy-washy or show weakness, you are going to end up with corners cut and a shabby result, and not just in the construction phase.
That is a far cry from the mutual ass-kissing world of politics, where unfulfilled promises are the order of the day.
Now that may not sit well with those who are not used to that environment where results count and toes just might get stepped on (if you don't want your toes stepped on, do your damned job, and get it right, and if there is a problem, let the boss know as soon as it is identified, preferably with a solution).
It's funny, but the oil patch is much the same way. Direct. Result oriented. Anything less, you're going to take heat, and be open to getting gigged, and that's if no one gets hurt or killed.
Not that much real blue on blue, there, most of the people who got gigged deserved it--No matter which 'side' they were on.
Failure among alleged allies has the effect of helping the enemy.
If you were supposedly on his team, you got it right or were out of there.
The unfortunate exception was in the COVID response, and he 'trusted the science', not realizing the political perfidy of Fauci, or that the "science" they were touting was (perhaps intentionally) flawed. In one area where we all have been conditioned over decades to trust medical personnel, they have proved to have been liars in some things, and appear to be cooking the books in others, possibly for profit, but definitely acting in serious detriment to the Constitution and our Liberty, which runs hand in glove with the Democrat agenda.
Any voice otherwise is routinely shouted down or CENSORED. If the 'science' is well done, and not the product of investigative bias, in other words, correct, complete, and true, it can withstand laying the cards on the table, warts and all. That has not been done since people started losing accounts at Twitter and Facebook over this. Journal articles (results of studies done) have been retracted from prominent Medical Journals (Lancet and NEJM) because the material was not up to any scientific standard, material which damned possible treatments, and set the stage for pushing for the vaccines which, increasingly, are ineffective.
IIRC, more than once Patton was held back for political reasons. Among other things, Patton wanted to cut off the salient in the Battle of the Bulge, which would have resulted in the surrender of most German forces. Instead, the bulge was pushed back into Germany, not encircled. Sicily was similar, but Patton did an end run.
That may make for an ugly battlespace, but war is hell.
As for "radioactivity", most of the ionizing radiation is coming out of the broadcast media of old, now delivered via internet, 4 or 5G and cable, but it is still intended to polarize the debate. Those who will believe the swill that comes dribbling out of the likes of ABCNNBCBS, et. al. or think they will ever get the full story from YouTube, Facebook, the cesspool of leftist dreck on Twitter, are the sort of folks who might think lolling in a cesspool is a healing organic mineral bath. Those who aren't happy there will seek other sources of information. Those who are happy there deserve the aroma they acquire.
