So here's a question I've been asking just because the answers are funny to me. It goes like this. After three and a half plus years of Trump — three and a half years, I guess is right — after three and a half years of Trump, we don't have to wonder what he'll do wrong because you've got three and a half years to look at it. So I like asking people, can you tell me what is the worst thing he's done wrong in your opinion? And here's why it's so funny.

Number one, the answers are all over the place. What if I told you that you should assume is true if there's one question and people are all on the same side saying, oh, Trump is bad, Trump is bad. So in that sense they're very unified. Unified: Trump is bad. Now give me your top reason or top three or four, and you'll see their top three or four reasons are first of all different, which is weird because they're all on the same side. Wouldn't they all have the same top reason? Or maybe the top three would be sort of similar but in a different order. But wouldn't people have the same reasons?

And here's what's funny. The top reason at the moment is of course going to be his coronavirus response. But let me ask you this. Didn't people have exactly the same idea about getting rid of Trump before the coronavirus even happened? Their opinions of why Trump should leave are identical now to what they were. All they've done is changed the reasons. Whenever you see this situation where somebody keeps their point of view but the reason for it keeps changing, it's not a real reason.

All right. If they added new reasons, then you'd have something. It's like, all my old reasons are true and I've added a few more. But my top number one reason, that hasn't changed. It's always the same. But I have added a few more things that would sound reasonable. But if you're complaining that your number one thing is his coronavirus response, even if it wasn't good, you have to ask yourself, wait a minute, have they just added a new reason to something that they'd already decided, and now they're just adding reasons? You know, oh, my new top reason is this. It happens to be in the news this week.

But I started collecting some of the answers because they're funny in a certain way. They're funny in a certain way in that first of all it got more attention than I thought it would. And this morning people who weighed in on this question included Brian Stelter, you know from CNN. So Brian Stelter weighed in with the critics. Also Dave Isikoff weighed in and Matt Negrin, who apparently has taken over on the MSNBC show Hardball. So all three of these people are sort of weighing in on the side of the people saying, hey yes, here are all the things that Trump has done wrong.

All right. So here's the list of things that Trump has done wrong. Now remember this is a big decision. It's a big decision to get rid of a president or to vote for a new president. So here are the reasons.

He downplayed the risk of the coronavirus to increase his odds of a China trade deal. He downplayed the risk of the coronavirus to increase his odds of a China trade deal. So the first thing wrong with this analysis is that he puts it in some kind of a personal sense, because I'm pretty sure that the president negotiating with China was sort of intended for the benefit of the whole country. It's really not just something he did for himself. And it's just funny to hear anybody talking about it that way. No, the China trade deal wasn't about the country. That was just about himself. Okay.

All right, let's take that a little further. And he uses — and this critic uses the word "downplaying the risk." Did the president downplay the risk or did he balance the risk? Was he balancing competing interests by saying, well, the economy is important, a trade deal is important, and coronavirus is important too, but it's not a case of one of them is the only thing that matters. It's balanced.

So isn't the president's job to balance the risks? But for this critic, if you balance the risk you can call it downplaying the risk. And all he did was substitute a word for my word and turned a reasonable thing into an unreasonable sounding thing even though it's the same thing.

Let me state these two things with just different words. My wording is the president balanced the risks of the economy, the trade deals which are part of the economy, and the health. He balanced them. When I use the word "balance" that sounds true, right? Because he wasn't saying one of them is the only important thing. He never said the economy is the only thing. He never said the coronavirus is the only thing. He balanced them.

Now, did he balance them correctly? Well that's not really the complaint. The complaint is he downplayed it. All this critic did was replace my word "balance" with "downplayed." But nothing was different. It was still the same thing. You can't turn a good thing into a bad thing by changing one of the words. That's not a thing.

But if you can imagine that this person is a professional writer for The Atlantic, maybe you understand what's going on.

Here's the number two thing on the list of things that Trump got wrong on the coronavirus. He mocked the virus in February. That's right. He was mean to the virus. He mocked it. He mocked the virus. What exactly did that cause? Do you remember when you were feeling good and then, ow, I've got a headache. What's causing my headache? And then you find out it's because the president mocked the virus. That probably didn't happen, right? Or you went out to start your car. Oh God, my car isn't starting. Did the president mock the virus again? There's no connecting tissue between the biggest complaints about what the president did and anything in the real world, which is what makes it funny. Complete disconnect from the real world.

So that's the number two issue.

Here's number three. Screwing up the European travel ban in March. And then there was a detail given that there was a news article saying that by giving a two-day notice about the travel ban in Europe, it caused all the flights to load up and people quickly traveled to get ahead of the ban. And then of course some of them had the virus and brought it into the country.

Now I ask you this. What was the way he was supposed to do a travel ban? Do you think the people who quickly got on planes in that two-day window, do you think that they were leaving the country that they lived in not knowing if they could get home? Or was it a case that people were simply going home because they knew they were going to be there for a while? How exactly were you supposed to prevent people from going home? How exactly was that going to work?

And moreover, in what world are flights not already pretty much all booked? Before the coronavirus, how often were you on a flight that wasn't pretty much fully booked? It was kind of rare, right? So how much difference did two days make when the only difference was going from pretty much full to actually full? And those people probably would have had to be repatriated to their countries anyway. So I don't know that you could make a case that that could have been done better or differently. I don't know what the better would look like. If you don't say what would the alternative look like, you haven't really criticized it. The very minimum for a criticism is to say you did X. If you had done Y, you know, and somebody else did Y, you could see that that was a better result. But we don't have anything like that. We just have people taking their best shot at stuff and maybe some of it was imperfect.

Here's another one. He sidelined the CDC in April. What does that mean? What does it mean to sideline the CDC? Was the CDC the ones who told us that — well I won't go through the list — but the CDC was not exactly bathed in glory during this. And what does it mean to sideline them? I don't know what that means.

Refusing to advocate for masks in May or June. What difference would that have made? What difference would it make? Because Trump has never said masks don't work and he has allowed his experts to tell you that they do work. So Trump allows his experts to tell you they work and then he sort of leaves it to the states because that's the system of government we have. If he had done more than what he did, would he not be called a dictator right now because he's forcing the states to do things and the states didn't want to do it? I don't know if he had that option.

I would agree that he could say more about masks but he's not stopping his experts from telling you you should wear them. Have you ever seen that? There's nothing like that. He's letting the science talk and then he's telling you what he's doing. Could he do a better job of modeling behavior? I would say yes. But I don't know that you could necessarily say you'd notice the difference in what people did.

And then something about blocking testing funding in July. I don't know what that was but it sounds like fake news. It sounds like when you hear somebody blocked funding and then you dig down it's usually something more along the lines of it was supposed to be in another bill or this bill had some things in it that didn't belong or we were going to do it a different way or something like that. This is probably fake news. I never even heard of that one. But I don't think that we have a testing — I don't think we have a funding limit on testing, do we? I've never heard that before anyway.

Here's some other things that are complaints. He turned America from a shining hill of hope to a laughingstock. Do you feel that when you wake up? Do you wake up in the morning, you're like, oh I just realized again I'm not on a shining hill of hope. I did not wake up in a shining hill of hope. My country is a laughingstock. What, because Justin Trudeau was giggling at that one meeting that time? Does Justin Trudeau not take our phone calls anymore? If we call Bulgaria and say, Bulgaria, we want to do a trade deal, do they say no, you are not a shining hill of hope, you are a laughingstock now, I will not do a trade deal with you? Does that happen? Because I don't think any of this translates into anything real.

And here's another one. Oh, so somebody else — I guess this was Matt Negrin — who said, right, no one remembers why he was impeached. Somebody said that to me. I don't know who it was. So one of the things you'll notice is that when you ask what Trump is doing wrong or what has he done wrong, you'll get sarcasm instead of reasons. So here's a perfect example. Right, no one remembers why he was impeached.

Do you know what my first response to that was? Why did he get impeached? Something about Ukraine or something, the phone call. And then I say to myself, oh, the thing that was so unimportant it barely held onto my memory and was completely political and was ridiculous and didn't matter anyway. Even if everything that had been claimed about the president were true, what impact? None. There's really none that I can think of.

So anyway, it's hilarious to ask people to name specifics.

Oh, then one of the examples was 11 percent unemployment rate, to which I thought, really? Somebody is criticizing President Trump over the current unemployment rate? That's like somebody who has never followed the news or something. I don't even understand that.

So everybody who says Sweden, I might start blocking people who mention Sweden because Sweden is just different and we don't know why exactly. So Sweden is just different. We don't know exactly why. So if you're making a point with Sweden, you're not making a point that is really a point. All you're saying is there's a country. What about Estonia? I don't know. What about Estonia? We don't know why it worked, why it didn't, what they exactly did. We don't know. Sweden is no longer an interesting question. There are just too many things different.

Let me ask you this. How many countries that regularly supplement with fish oil, which has vitamin D, are having a bad outcome? Sweden has herd immunity. Somebody says no it doesn't. I doubt that's true. I doubt it's true that they have herd immunity and I doubt they're even close. Could be. I won't say that there's zero chance but it could be.