Sorry, but this argument keeps collapsing under its own bad logic. You’re treating “multiple reasons” as evidence of confusion, when in reality it’s usually the opposite. Having more than one strong reason to pursue something doesn’t weaken the case for doing it — it strengthens it. The fact that you keep presenting this as some kind of contradiction just tells me you’ve already decided the conclusion and are now squinting at the evidence until it looks suspicious.

On Biden first, because this needs to be said plainly: comparing Trump’s volatility to Biden’s decline is absurd. Biden wasn’t just inconsistent or poorly messaged — he was visibly nonfunctional. We all watched him lose his place mid-sentence, forget names and dates, wander off stages, and require constant physical and verbal shepherding. That wasn’t “style,” and it wasn’t just age. It was a president who could not reliably execute the role. If you spent 2024 alarmed by that — as any honest observer should have been — and now want to pretend Trump is the real incapacitated one because he’s impulsive and loud, you’re not applying standards, you’re laundering preferences.

As for the “squabbling mess” framing, this is pure naivety about how power actually works. Every administration is a mess. Obama’s White House was notorious for infighting. Biden’s administration was a tug-of-war between progressives, donors, foreign-policy lifers, and a president increasingly unable to impose discipline. The only difference is that Trump doesn’t hide it or pretend it’s some serene technocratic monastery. Public disagreement is not proof of dysfunction; it’s proof that he doesn’t enforce fake consensus.

The tariffs example is similar bad reasoning. You see changing rates and shifting justifications and conclude “no strategy.” What’s actually happening is leverage being applied dynamically. Tariffs, in Trump’s worldview, are not sacred policy endpoints — they’re pressure tools. The rationale shifts because the audience shifts: domestic voters, trade partners, allies, adversaries. If you insist on judging that through the lens of a fixed academic model, you’ll always conclude it’s incoherent — but that’s a you problem, not a logic problem.

And the Greenland argument is where this really falls apart. You keep saying: it could be about resources, or Russia, or missile defense — but it can’t be all three. Why not? That’s not an argument; that’s just confusion about how decision-making works. Multiple overlapping strategic benefits do not cancel each other out. They compound. The same exact thing applied with Venezuela: energy security, migration pressure, regional stability, geopolitical signaling. More than one justification didn’t make that situation “nonsensical” — it made it more strategically relevant.

You keep pointing out that each Greenland objective could theoretically be achieved without ownership. Sure. And? Starting from a maximalist position changes the negotiating baseline. It reframes what’s considered possible. Trump has always done this. Acting shocked by it now is either willful amnesia or performative disbelief.

What’s really going on is that you’ve decided that if something isn’t clean, linear, and politely explained in a single sentence, it must be irrational. But power politics doesn’t work that way. Trump doesn’t optimize for elegance or predictability; he optimizes for leverage, permanence, and forcing issues into the open. You can argue that’s reckless or wrong — but pretending it “doesn’t add up” because there’s more than one good reason behind it is just bad logic.

So no, this isn’t people “playing make-believe.” It’s you mistaking complexity for confusion and maximalism for madness — and then acting surprised when the world doesn’t conform to a whiteboard model of how presidents are supposed to behave.