We can all discuss who should have the credit, or whether any credit is actually due, and what are the reasons behind the relative composure the country is experiencing. However, judging by even just the surface values, the country is actually in a better shape than it was like 8-10 months ago. That's a fact no one can deny. We can argue about the ghosts and tsunamis that are supposedly in the future, but as of now, most things are going well.
Additionally, if the situation was the opposite of this, are we going to afford the opposite of same credits that is supposedly not rightfully belonging to the President? Obviously not, he'll be held responsible for everything. If that's so, obviously he deserves the same level of credit, comparable to the extent that naysayers would have directed blame at him if the situation was the opposite.
That's the paradigm through which this tweet should be looked at. We can go ad hominem and attack the person who tweeted this using her credibility etc, but at the merits of what's actually written, aren't we allowed to have this hypothetical pondered? If we genuinely did that, would the answer be a resounding no? Or are we just too blindsided to see beyond our own confirmation biases?
Therefore I ask again, based on what you had expected what the country to be at this point in time of 2023, and how it actually is, and going by the differences in those two cases, are you prepared to afford a cerebral, not an aortical consideration for this?
So I ask again, what if she's right?
Additionally, if the situation was the opposite of this, are we going to afford the opposite of same credits that is supposedly not rightfully belonging to the President? Obviously not, he'll be held responsible for everything. If that's so, obviously he deserves the same level of credit, comparable to the extent that naysayers would have directed blame at him if the situation was the opposite.
That's the paradigm through which this tweet should be looked at. We can go ad hominem and attack the person who tweeted this using her credibility etc, but at the merits of what's actually written, aren't we allowed to have this hypothetical pondered? If we genuinely did that, would the answer be a resounding no? Or are we just too blindsided to see beyond our own confirmation biases?
Therefore I ask again, based on what you had expected what the country to be at this point in time of 2023, and how it actually is, and going by the differences in those two cases, are you prepared to afford a cerebral, not an aortical consideration for this?
So I ask again, what if she's right?
