Good try. Her executive orders would have been debilitating.
Let me try it again then. I thought the short pithy way might point out why "Kamela would have been worse" is a facile argument and no defense to criticism of Trump in any rational sense might have worked. I clearly did not get my point across. Let me try again with a longer post, a couple of analogies this time.
Let's see if I convince you that "Kamela would have been worse" is not a rational defense to criticism of Trump's policies.
Let's say America is a worker. And the worker sustains an injury to his leg that hits the artery and is bleeding out. The worker is going to die without effective treatment.
Now let's say the Democratic administration under Biden is that potentially fatal wound. We know that, more or less, Kamela is going to continue Biden's policies so that if you elect Kamela America is going to bleed out.
So you elect Trump, Trump is the doctor. Trump comes in and stops the bleeding. But he uses instruments that are dirty due to his neglect and the patient gets an infection and loses the leg that did not need to happen. So you live, but now you live an as amputee.
Just because Kamela might have been fatal, in our analogy, doesn't mean Trump gets to be free of criticism of using dirty instruments and costing you your leg when that didn't need to happen.
Or maybe you prefer a business analogy. It's probably clearer.
Company A (America) is losing $100 million a year, but obviously has the potential to make $100 million a year. The old CEO was a cognitively impaired putz (Biden). He resigns and you need to elect a new CEO.
Candidate K (can you guess who that is?) offers a plan that would lose the company $200 million a year.
Candidate T offers a plan that ends up losing the company $80 million dollars a year. Better than losing $200 million or $100 million, but still not up the companies potential for making $100 million.
It is no answer to a criticism of Candidate T's losing the company $80 million for X reason to say Candidate K would have been worse. Candidate K is off selling books or whatever and not fucking things up in the administration. The shareholders may be relieved that they are not losing $200 million but they still have a right to be pissed that the company is not making $100 million.
There is no rational reason to assume a criticism of Trump is an argument that Kamela would have been better. I don't think I have seen anyone on this site actually make that argument. When people do that it usually just means they cannot defend Trump's policies on their merits because they are poor.
It is perfectly reasonable for people to say "Whew we dodged a bullet when Kamela lost that election but I also think the idea of (pardoning drug dealers, annexing Greenland, capping credit card interest, capping executive income in the defense industry, the government taking a stake in Intel or whatever) is dumb idea and should not be implemented.
If it makes you feel better I could type "Whew American dodged a bullet when it got rid of the cognitively impaired guy and took a pass on Kamela but I think..." to start any post I write that is critical of Trump's policies or character (because I still believe character matters) but I think most people who post here are smart enough to realize that a criticism of Trump or his policies is not an endorsement of Kamela Harris or the Biden administration.
