"I just can't see Trump admitting he was played like a fiddle."
Nor can anyone else who has paid any attention to his record. As far as I can tell, he played the "industry standard" gladiatorial game of pitting Birx, Fauci and Collins against Atlas, and declaring whichever side "won" by fair means or foul, the winner.
"I just can't see Trump admitting he was played like a fiddle."
Nor can anyone else who has paid any attention to his record. As far as I can tell, he played the "industry standard" gladiatorial game of pitting Birx, Fauci and Collins against Atlas, and declaring whichever side "won" by fair means or foul, the winner.
He now has too much invested to back down, even if the situation weren't as you imply; that he does not admit error without deflection. The public record fully supports your inference.
That said, he is as typical a politician as he is a business executive. Re-electing him was the same choice as the first time; the lesser of two evils. It was, both times, the hooligan versus the harridan. To all outward appearances, a plurality appear to prefer the "punch in the face" of a hooligan, over the "knife in the back between the ribs" of a harridan.
Mind you, I have a great deal of sympathy for those succumbing to "hope and change" narratives, however born of understandable desperation such credulousness may be.
We shall see if, in the balance, what good he does (even by accident,) outweighs the bad his bluster, ignorance and error may cause. A relevant benchmark will be whether he fully supports antitrust as the essential companion to tariffs.
All eyes on the fate of Lina Khan; if she is defenestrated, the "MAGA" principle will be revealed as little more than bloviation. A corporate repatriation, in and of itself, does nothing to restore monetary velocity to the "main street" segment of the Pareto distribution curve.
"I just can't see Trump admitting he was played like a fiddle."
Nor can anyone else who has paid any attention to his record. As far as I can tell, he played the "industry standard" gladiatorial game of pitting Birx, Fauci and Collins against Atlas, and declaring whichever side "won" by fair means or foul, the winner.
He now has too much invested to back down, even if the situation weren't as you imply; that he does not admit error without deflection. The public record fully supports your inference.
That said, he is as typical a politician as he is a business executive. Re-electing him was the same choice as the first time; the lesser of two evils. It was, both times, the hooligan versus the harridan. To all outward appearances, a plurality appear to prefer the "punch in the face" of a hooligan, over the "knife in the back between the ribs" of a harridan.
Mind you, I have a great deal of sympathy for those succumbing to "hope and change" narratives, however born of understandable desperation such credulousness may be.
We shall see if, in the balance, what good he does (even by accident,) outweighs the bad his bluster, ignorance and error may cause. A relevant benchmark will be whether he fully supports antitrust as the essential companion to tariffs.
All eyes on the fate of Lina Khan; if she is defenestrated, the "MAGA" principle will be revealed as little more than bloviation. A corporate repatriation, in and of itself, does nothing to restore monetary velocity to the "main street" segment of the Pareto distribution curve.