I have seen a weird number of posts/responses trying to say "this isn't because he had an affair" and like, I guess it's not, it's that he had multiple affairs that have confounding effects on the business (with subordinates, with people who got chips to China).
So no, it's not literally about his sex life, but pretending like that doesn't factor into the whole things seems like a very strange point for people to keep making. It may not be that 90% of the cause is "he had sex out of his marriage" but it's also not 0% (it surely doesn't make him a "good leader(tm)" if he's having sex with subordinates)
Another weird thing, and a TIL - people love the line about two ants.
If you see two comments about ants in the comments section, the total number of comments about ants in your comments section is probably not 2.
Two ants are better than one. Unless they’re in my kitchen.
I’m starting to think a lot of people around here aren’t entomologists.
Sex with spy of country actively tariffed and greatest active threat to US. Billions in tariff bypass. That puts you in jail for decades territory. People magazine cares about who he is banging. Legal and possible company nationalization care about bypassing tariffs.
Sex with a spy isn’t relevant any more than it was to Congress because you can’t prove it was knowingly.
Did you mean rationalization?