The very fact that you can bring this tired retort to any argument regardless of context reveals it for what it is: an off ramp to any conversation you have no better argument against.
It also assumes that the orange man has an original thought and not something that he's been convinced of by all of the direct underlings or even 3rd party NGOs that advise/lobby those underlings.
People see actions and make assumptions on intentions behind those actions. They also make assumptions on who actually called for those actions, or the percent to which people contributed to those decisions.
If you don't have a tape recorder showing Trump saying "Fire Shira, I don't like what she did and she needs to get out" then you are making assumptions both for his reasons and his involvement. No one has that tape. Which means any claims that this is what happening is entirely speculation. We've seen a decade of people claiming these assumptions as fact, and it's really tiresome.
dylan604|9 months ago
93po|9 months ago
If you don't have a tape recorder showing Trump saying "Fire Shira, I don't like what she did and she needs to get out" then you are making assumptions both for his reasons and his involvement. No one has that tape. Which means any claims that this is what happening is entirely speculation. We've seen a decade of people claiming these assumptions as fact, and it's really tiresome.
flyingcircus3|9 months ago