Has he ever said anything that crossed the line? If so, what was it?

Look at your argument, you focus on a man's words and ignore his actions. I would be more concerned with what an elected official does, not just what he says. This sums up the entire liberal opposition to Trump in a nut shell..."I don't like him because he says mean things" or "I don't like him because he says stupid things". Nearly every week there is some thing the man says that sends liberals into a hyperventilated over reaction. This last week was a prime example. He said something off the cuff about light and disinfectant, and "how it would be interesting to check that", and liberals went into hyperventilating irrational screams about "trump is telling people to inject Lysol in their lungs." Nancy Pelosi said that exact thing.

It's not just Trump liberals have done this to, Mitt Romney was also persecuted for a comment he made around hiring women. When asked about pay equity for women at the debate, Romney said, "I had the chance to pull together a cabinet, and all the applicants seemed to be men. [...] I went to a number of women's groups and said, 'Can you help us find folks?' And they brought us whole binders full of women." This comment sent liberals into a faux-feminist outrage.

Is it possible Trump could say something that I could condemn him for? Sure. I just haven't seen anything to warrant condemnation. On the other hand, has Trump ever said anything you haven't condemned him for?

In my book, Trump can make as much of a fool of himself in public as he wants, as long as he gets the job done. Problem is, most of the time, he doesn't.

Reading behind-the-scenes accounts and reporting pertaining to this Administration, I don't see Trump as a genius hard at work behind the scenes, who only dons a dunce-cap when he speaks to his supporters in public. I see the same guy.

One time, I watched some direct footage of a Trump Administration cabinet meeting. The level of ass-kissing Trump's secretaries, and even VP Mike Pence, had to engage in order to hold the floor and the President's attention was embarrassing and downright dystopian.

It was how I imagine Chinese Communist Party conferences must be, in their universal fawning praise of President Xi Xinping.

There are bright spots in his Administration: Dr. Fauci and the other medical experts in charge of the Covid-19 response are mostly doing a good job. But Trump spends as much time publicly feuding with them and questioning their opinions, and spit-balling his own scientifically dubious "solutions," as actually listening to and following his experts' advice. I think his most competent officials have to waste as much time massaging their message to be palatable to the President as actually delivering good, reality-based advice.

As for an objective measure of Trump's performance, the proof is in the pudding of America's infection rates. We're now the global epicenter of the pandemic. It didn't have to be this way: other countries got their responses in order quickly, but we just didn't.

It's a complex problem, and there's blame to go around. But when it comes to a national/international issue, the buck stops with the President -- as Harry Truman once put it. The President can set the tone and marshal resources in a way that governors and other officials just can't. And there's already been plenty of reporting about the warning signs Trump missed in the early weeks.

Trump's extemporaneous remarks (and tweets) offer us a pretty direct peek behind the curtain into his thought-process and leadership style. And in the aggregate, over 3+ years, they paint a picture of a man not temperamentally fit to be President.

So we disagree, as expected, but you did answer my question ("I just haven't seen anything to warrant condemnation"), so you get points and an upvote for that.

And in answer to your questions: I'll post some comments of Trump's that I agree with in a bit. Rare, but it happens.

"Reading behind-the-scenes accounts and reporting pertaining to this Administration, I don't see Trump as a genius hard at work behind the scenes, who only dons a dunce-cap when he speaks to his supporters in public. I see the same guy."

Translation = The media has "anonymous source" stories that say Trump is stupid, and I listen to them.

How many of these "anonymous" stories have been debunked? I lost count.

"As for an objective measure of Trump's performance, the proof is in the pudding of America's infection rates. We're now the global epicenter of the pandemic. "

False. The epicenter is where something STARTS. Word's have meanings KylieF*g, and you don't get to change the meaning to fit your argument. Futhermore, we have less infections per million of citizens than Spain, Italy, Ireland, Switzerland, Belgium.

"Trump's extemporaneous remarks (and tweets) offer us a pretty direct peek behind the curtain into his thought-process and leadership style. And in the aggregate, over 3+ years, they paint a picture of a man not temperamentally fit to be President."

More subjective analysis that has noting to do with who is actually qualified for being President. Your personal assessment is irrelevant, beyond your personal vote, which I am sure you had cast in favor of his opponent. Simply put, the electoral process disagrees with your assessment on who was fit to be President.

The funny thing about “anonymous sources” is that they start to look a lot more credible the more retaliation their bosses engage in.

“But retaliation isn’t illegal! They all serve at the pleasure of the President!!!!”

Yeah. And this President’s pleasure is that they all must pleasure the President. Trump values loyalty above all. He staffs loyalists and even his own damn family members wherever he can.

Besides, you didn’t listen to the Sondlands and Vindmans who spoke up and identified themselves, either.

All of this conduct and the GOP Senate’s rubber-stamping of Trump’s holistic obstruction of the Impeachment process has made the Trump Administration the most opaque in living memory.

So, your whining on this point is disingenuous in the extreme.

No, they don't look more credible. They are constantly shown to be false.

"All of this conduct and the GOP Senate’s rubber-stamping of Trump’s holistic obstruction of the Impeachment process has made the Trump Administration the most opaque in living memory."

More nonsense. You just keep repeating this every week. Doesn't make it any more accurate. For the umpteenth time, the executive branch is fully entitled by the separation of Powers to legally challenge Congressional subpoenas.

"Epicenter" was originally a seismology term, but meanings of words change over time. I've seen many headlines like this. https://www.livescience.com/us-coronavirus-cases-surpass-china.html

This Politico article discusses the pros and cons of the usage of this term: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/03/28/coronavirus-united-states-epicenter-new-york-152716

I find this part significant:

--"But to insist that 'epicenter' should only refer to earthquakes is falling prey to the etymological fallacy, like insisting that 'decimate' can only mean 'to reduce by one tenth.' The meanings of words transform over time whether we like it or not, even ones originally defined with scientific precision."

Bottom-line, America now has the most Covid-19 cases in the world, by a long shot, whatever word you want to use to characterize that.

Moving on.

Donald Trump, with zero prior governmental experience, won a geographically well-placed minority of voters in 2016. I didn't vote for him or HRC, as it turns out. I voted Gary Johnson, but I will confess I did cheer internally when Trump won on Election Night, because he did say some things I liked, and I didn't care for HRC at all.

Well, I was wrong.

Now we have 3+ years of observing Trump as President. Re-election campaigns traditionally favor incumbents, but because of all his errors along the way during his first term, I think he's going to face an uphill battle in November.

Epicenter has always been meant to reference the starting point. Not where the most occurrences are.

"Donald Trump, with zero prior governmental experience, won a geographically well-placed minority of voters in 2016"

Well, there is no requirement for "governmental experience" to be President, so I see very little value in mentioning this.

Lastly, I don't care to debate your feelings on the matter. You don't like Trump, thats great. I don't care. I am happy to debate policy or anything outside your beliefs. Nothing about debating a person's beliefs is worthwhile.

Word salad...nothing but word salad.
Just answer the mans' question

Here's a quote from Trump that I think is perfectly fine and which I've re-posted on ImgFlip a few times. Optimistic and eloquent. These don't really feel like his own words, honestly -- I don't know the context, and perhaps he was reading from a teleprompter -- but I'll give it to him.

There. Facts, not BS. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBwgxHnlhqo

Good question. Sadly their answer will be "no".