| > I challenge everyone to name a single person (or country, or continent) who’s done more than him. Kublai Khan. For your education: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_conquest_of_China . To respond to your hyperbole, he actually conquered China rather than issue some decrees which you're counting as "winning". Obviously (from my point of view; I could be wrong...) you're a deluded Trump supporter and there's no point in trying to convince you what a terrible president he is and to show you how he hadn't even considered how his policies (domestic as well as foreign) could (and did) backfire and disadvantage American businesses and consumers, but maybe I can convince you to consider this, written about Primary Candidate Trump in December 2015: https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/12/15/the-donald-and-... > Bear in mind that embarrassment, and the desire to avoid it, are enormously important sources of motivation. [...]. Nobody likes looking like a chump, and most people will go to great lengths to convince themselves that they weren’t. > Now think about someone who has been supporting Trump since the summer. For the Trump bubble to burst, many people like that would have to slap their foreheads and say, “Wow, he’s not a serious person! What was I thinking?” > And very few people ever do that sort of thing. Someone who has spent months supporting Trump despite establishment denunciations — which means something like a third of Republicans — will go to great lengths to avoid conceding that he has been foolish. At this point such people will insist that any negative reports about Trump are the product of hostile mainstream media; Trump’s very durability so far is likely to make him highly resilient looking forward. But who knows, maybe I (and the Not-Trump voting folk) are the chumps, eh? To quote Orwell (full essay: https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...): > [W]e are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield. |