Trump makes sense sometimes - particularly regarding the WHO - to which the US (population 385m) paid $500m a year.

Compared to China - who paid $39m (population 1.4B). All US aid/subsidies are being closely analysed; many countries will feel the pinch.

Al Gershwin wrote:
Trump makes sense sometimes - particularly regarding the WHO - to which the US (population 385m) paid $500m a year.

Compared to China - who paid $39m (population 1.4B). All US aid/subsidies are being closely analysed; many countries will feel the pinch.

It "makes sense" only if you believe that if X donates £50 a month to a charity but Y (who earns about the same or more) only donates £5 a month this means X should stop donating.

In other words, the "sense" is derived from believing that helping the vulnerable is not a matter of morality (I'm hopelessly old fashioned I know!) but accountancy.

This epitomises Trump.

And illustrates why his woeful character is of central importance regarding his suitability for high office.

Wyot wrote:
Al Gershwin wrote:
Trump makes sense sometimes - particularly regarding the WHO - to which the US (population 385m) paid $500m a year.

Compared to China - who paid $39m (population 1.4B). All US aid/subsidies are being closely analysed; many countries will feel the pinch.

It "makes sense" only if you believe that if X donates £50 a month to a charity but Y (who earns about the same or more) only donates £5 a month this means X should stop donating.

In other words, the "sense" is derived from believing that helping the vulnerable is not a matter of morality (I'm hopelessly old fashioned I know!) but accountancy.

This epitomises Trump.

And illustrates why his woeful character is of central importance regarding his suitability for high office.


Totally unable to follow that 'logic'...

cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/33800.jpeg