By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In response to a report alleging President Trump was excluded from a critical military briefing due to his temperament, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez suggested it might be preferable for him to be on the golf course than in the Oval Office. She stated that if key decision-makers believe he cannot be trusted with consequential decisions, then he may not be fit for the presidency, raising questions about the 25th Amendment. This sentiment was echoed by other Democrats, though some caution against routinely invoking the amendment due to its low likelihood of success.
Read the original article here
The notion that it might be better for Americans if Donald Trump spends his time on the golf course, rather than actively engaged in governance, has surfaced in a way that blurs the lines between political commentary and a perhaps darkly humorous observation. This sentiment, expressed with a certain rhetorical flair, suggests a scenario where his impact, by virtue of his perceived ineffectualness or potential for misstep when in power, might be minimized by his absence from the levers of national decision-making. The idea posits that his engagement with golf, while potentially costly in terms of taxpayer funds, could paradoxically be less damaging than his direct involvement in presidential duties.
This perspective is rooted in the idea that when Trump is not actively making decisions or directing policy, the potential for what some see as negative consequences is significantly reduced. It’s not necessarily an endorsement of his golfing habit, but rather a commentary on the perceived outcomes of his presidency. The argument, though stated with a light touch, implies that his actual presence in the Oval Office or his direct influence on policy might lead to outcomes that are more detrimental to the nation and perhaps even the global stage, than his being occupied with a recreational activity.
Furthermore, the observation extends beyond just the domestic sphere, with some suggesting that the rest of the planet might also benefit if he were to remain on the greens. This broader implication highlights concerns about his foreign policy decisions and their potential global repercussions. The only exception, it’s humorously noted, might be figures like Putin, implying a perceived alignment or benefit to certain adversaries when Trump is in a position of power. This adds another layer to the sentiment, suggesting that his actions, or even inactions, can have far-reaching consequences.
The cost of his golfing excursions is acknowledged, with figures around daily spending on taxpayer dollars being cited. However, the core of the argument remains that this financial outlay might be a worthwhile trade-off for what is perceived as a reduction in more significant disruptions or damaging policies. It’s presented as a less harmful way for him to spend his time, a sort of “least damaging” option for the country. This pragmatic, albeit sardonic, view suggests a prioritization of damage control above all else.
The idea that his ex-wife’s resting place could be a desired proximity for him on the golf course adds a starkly humorous, yet grim, dimension to the commentary. This morbid jest underscores a sentiment that his presence in any context might be seen as problematic, and perhaps being in a more subdued or isolated setting would be preferable. It’s a darkly funny way of expressing the idea that his absence from the political arena is a net positive.
There’s a recurring theme that this isn’t truly a “joke” in the conventional sense, but rather a candid, if cynical, assessment of his past performance. The sentiment has apparently been held by individuals for quite some time, with some recalling believing during his initial election that he would indeed focus more on leisure and personal branding, leaving the actual work of governing to others. The hypothetical of that scenario playing out is seen as a positive one, suggesting a wish that reality had aligned with that less intrusive vision of his presidency.
The comparison is even extended to other figures, with a similar sentiment expressed about them being less disruptive when incapacitated or otherwise disengaged. This broadens the scope of the observation beyond just Trump, suggesting a general principle that some individuals, when removed from positions of significant influence, might inadvertently or intentionally cause less harm. It’s a bleak assessment of the political landscape, where the absence of certain leaders is seen as beneficial.
However, the commentary also acknowledges a more serious concern: the instances where Trump has been involved in significant, potentially dangerous decisions while engaged in golfing activities. Reports of him overseeing bombing campaigns or being briefed on critical military operations from golf courses serve as a stark reminder that his leisure time has not always been separate from his presidential duties. This introduces a note of apprehension, suggesting that while golfing might seem like a harmless distraction, it has not always correlated with a lack of involvement in consequential, and potentially perilous, actions. The idea of a “mission room” on the golf course, even with privacy curtains, raises significant security and operational concerns.
This duality – the perception of him being less damaging while golfing versus the reality of him making critical decisions from the course – creates a complex and unsettling picture. It highlights a deep-seated distrust in his judgment and a desire for a president who is either more competent or, failing that, more absent from the decision-making process. The sentiment that he is “just a figurehead,” a “cover for the pilot fish,” further reinforces the idea that his direct involvement is less the issue than the potentially nefarious influences he surrounds himself with.
The observation that “Trump’s ‘leadership’ is worse than random chance…or no leadership at all” encapsulates a strong feeling of disillusionment. It suggests that even a lack of active leadership, represented by his time on the golf course, would be preferable to the perceived negative impact of his actual leadership. This sentiment is not universally shared, as some argue that his presence in the White House, however flawed, at least acts as a public check on other powerful figures. However, the prevailing sentiment expressed in these comments leans towards the idea that his absence from the active political arena is a net positive for the nation.