...I see this can be read completely opposite to what I intend.

Obviously the answer to my rhetorical "how many?" was clearly "none." Trump is singularly uncouth.

Point: even if some random said something just as ludicrously bad about Kirk, it wouldn't justify a president talking in the same way.

Maybe I didn't phrase that clearly. The truth can be unkind. I just used "unkind" to avoid debating what's appropriate to say about the dead, harsh truth or otherwise.

My point was, even if the average person isn't diplomatic, a president should be. Trump is the only one that failed in that way.

The thing I don't understand about that take: how many people saying unkind things about Charlie Kirk were past/current presidents?

I know it seems absurd to say these days, but I thought leaders were expected to be held to a higher standard.

Hell, even pop artists are expected to be role models.

Well we know your solution to the trolley problem: if it kills either way, then screw it... I don't care how many die.

Here's a thought though: why not spend more time denouncing the person presently in power doing actual harm than the one who you believe would've if they'd been in charge instead?

Even if he remembered, he still wouldn't mention it because then he'd have to say something nice.

You can seriously see ZERO value in having instead had a non-white non-male president that likely wouldn't have formed a gestapo to aggressively round up and disappear the non-white people?

You get where you want to go in steps. Letting Trump win was the biggest step in the wrong direction.

You think the genocide you speak of is lesser under Trump? You'd prefer a bad person in power because the less bad person wasn't less bad enough?

Too Much Information for me

My understanding is this would apply to ESTA travellers from countries that are part of the Visa Waiver Programme. Canada is exempt (for now). Not that I approve of the move even if it doesn't affect us, but you'll note Canada is never in the list of affected countries.

And stop commenting on posts, too.

Damned straight. Fool me once (2016) shame on you, fool me twice (2024) shame on me. 2020 proves that any "course correction" can be fleeting.

So what you're saying is, until you hear that phrase, you could care less. 😉

The pic has 12 slices, allowing you to arrange them as 4 top-middle-bottom assemblies. I therefore argue they are in fact latent sandwiches.

...a presumed credibility that can take some effort to dispute.

To be fair, hallucinated reviews are way worse than hallucinated submissions. Reviewers are presumed to be vetted and have a baseline credibility.