[besson3c]

Funny we've gone from the GOP claiming that Obama was unqualified to be president on account of him having no relevant experience to this comment from Paul Ryan recently, excusing Trump.

Was Obama just a quicker learner?

[subego]

This nine-year-old shit's the best you got?

McCain was a senator for over 20 years when he ran against Obama. Of course that's going to get contrasted.

Trump should be cut slack for not being a career politician. I can forgive mistakes.

His mistakes aren't really the problem.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

McCain was a senator for over 20 years when he ran against Obama. Of course that's going to get contrasted.

Trump should be cut slack for not being a career politician. I can forgive mistakes.

I disagree: if you want to play in the big league, you have to be willing to be measured by the same standard as everyone else. In particular, “The president is new it this.” is not an excuse for behavior that at the very least borders on obstruction of justice, depending on how generously you interpret Trump's Jersey mob-style comment “wish that problem went away”. We are not talking about behavior that you could charitably call “a fresh new direction” (or ruffling feathers if you use a more critical tone). And we are not talking about things that some see as political mistakes, but are entirely within the legal right of the President.

Contrast this to Obama's two terms: he was a junior senator when he threw his hat into the ring, and even if you disagree with him politically, his behavior during the presidency was professional. He didn't have outbursts that his underlings had to rush to smooth over.

[subego]

I'm making a general statement.

Someone who's never been in government suddenly becoming the executive of a superpower is going to **** things up along the way. Even if they didn't suck.

With regards to Trump leaning on people about Flynn, I need to know what Flynn did and what Trump knew before I can accurately gauge whether his inexperience is a factor. Chances are it isn't, but chances aren't enough for me to start in with the absolute declarations.

[andi*pandi]

Inexperienced pols hire experienced and qualified staff to help guide them. Trump has not hired the people he should.

Also, one could be forgiven for a gaffe here or there, or not making a campaign promise once the generals explained to you the reasons why they like Gitmo "and hope it stays open, wink wink" but not for being willfully, bombastically, IGNORANT. "China will take care of Korea." <chinese leaders whisper> "There is a long history here and we must respect it."

He should have known that before having foreign leaders SCHOOL him. He should be paying attention to briefings, even those without pretty pictures and more than 4 bullet points. He should learn to ****ing read. Who is advising him? Yes men.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm making a general statement.

Someone who's never been in government suddenly becoming the executive of a superpower is going to **** things up along the way. Even if they didn't suck.

I don't think this is true, unless we have vastly different definitions of what constitutes an eff up. Trump shouldn't get any extra slack for his lack of experience. If you are smart and you know you lack experience, you compensate for that by appointing people with experience and relying on their advice. That's hardly exclusive to politics. Trump's closest advisors are his daughter (with 0 experience in politics), his son-in-law (with 0 experience in politics) and Steve Bannon (with not just 0 experience in politics, but has the declared goal of deconstructing government by force). Just look at the responsibilities of Kushner: even if he were a brilliant political mind, there is no way he can get a peace deal in the Middle East (and Israel!), restructure government, deal with the option crisis and do the few other insignificant things Trump charged him with.

Originally Posted by subego 

With regards to Trump leaning on people about Flynn, I need to know what Flynn did and what Trump knew before I can accurately gauge whether his inexperience is a factor. Chances are it isn't, but chances aren't enough for me to start in with the absolute declarations.

There is plenty of information out there to make that decision now. Trump's behavior is not a mystery, and there are no mysteries in the story even if we don't know all the details.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm making a general statement.

Someone who's never been in government suddenly becoming the executive of a superpower is going to **** things up along the way. Even if they didn't suck.

With regards to Trump leaning on people about Flynn, I need to know what Flynn did and what Trump knew before I can accurately gauge whether his inexperience is a factor. Chances are it isn't, but chances aren't enough for me to start in with the absolute declarations.

Here's why you don't: You don't clear a room of witnesses before making a legal request

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Here's why you don't: You don't clear a room of witnesses before making a legal request

Just as a side note: there are so many things that Trump does (this being one of the examples) which are just incredibly bad business practices. Deal maker my rear end.

[The Final Dakar]

I'm not sure I follow what that has to do with Comey, but the man has been in a position of power for decades and knows exactly how 'I hope' comes off when you're the Big Boss

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Here's why you don't: You don't clear a room of witnesses before making a legal request

Sorry, but that's an absurd assumption. People often just want simple privacy without having anything nefarious in mind, especially if others have catered to them in the past.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

This nine-year-old shit's the best you got?

McCain was a senator for over 20 years when he ran against Obama. Of course that's going to get contrasted.

Trump should be cut slack for not being a career politician. I can forgive mistakes.

His mistakes aren't really the problem.

The charges against Obama were not just relative to McCain though, they were absolute.

[andi*pandi]

In the current Georgia race, they are hammering on Ossoff since he doesn't have political experience, but owns his own company which does business overseas.

[Doc HM]

When it's over and he's gone someone needs to do a pie chart showing Time Trump spent on being President of the United States and time Trump spent covering his ass, tweeting in defence of things he did and all the other stuff that seems to distract him from what should be a full time job.

(insert chongo post about Obama pie chart here)

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I don't think this is true, unless we have vastly different definitions of what constitutes an eff up. Trump shouldn't get any extra slack for his lack of experience. If you are smart and you know you lack experience, you compensate for that by appointing people with experience and relying on their advice. That's hardly exclusive to politics. Trump's closest advisors are his daughter (with 0 experience in politics), his son-in-law (with 0 experience in politics) and Steve Bannon (with not just 0 experience in politics, but has the declared goal of deconstructing government by force). Just look at the responsibilities of Kushner: even if he were a brilliant political mind, there is no way he can get a peace deal in the Middle East (and Israel!), restructure government, deal with the option crisis and do the few other insignificant things Trump charged him with.

There is plenty of information out there to make that decision now. Trump's behavior is not a mystery, and there are no mysteries in the story even if we don't know all the details.

Bannon's proposed the use of force on our government? I need a cite on that.

As for whether there's enough information available to determine what Flynn did and what Trump knew, I simply don't have the confidence yet to make an unequivocal determination, and feel no pressure to do so considering the fact I shall receive more data is a foregone conclusion.


In terms of how much slack he should receive, I posit the amount of slack any given person allows Trump for mistakes will directly correlate to how much the person hates his guts. This pretty much goes for anyone, really.

With Trump, I hate him slightly less than most here, so I'm willing to cut him slack.

Note, this isn't saying I'm cutting him slack for this. As I said, the jury's still out. However, I interpreted the question in the OP to general.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The charges against Obama were not just relative to McCain though, they were absolute.

Which befits the context of being a political maneuver, and not holy scripture.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

Which befits the context of being a political maneuver, and not holy scripture.

Exactly my point. I would love it if this was acknowledged now as just being about politics, because at the time many people (including a number of people here) were steadfast about Obama not being fit to be president based on his inexperience.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Exactly my point. I would love it if this was acknowledged now as just being about politics, because at the time many people (including a number of people here) were steadfast about Obama not being fit to be president based on his inexperience.

Well, I can't speak for others. I personally got on neither candidate's case for lack of experience.

So far, I haven't seen his lack of experience causing any problems other than him stepping on his own dick, which since I don't like him or his policies, doesn't bother me. Tillerson may be wrecking State, but that has yet to cause visible problems.

[besson3c]

Here is another thing that is bothering me, since I have a stupid thread and audience where I can say stuff...

Trump's focus this week has been on his so-called "vindication", and his fight with Comey. How about the fact that America was attacked by Russia? Why aren't we talking about that and putting the focus on this? This should be the number one priority: both getting to the bottom of this and learning from this, and not simply ass covering.

Russia has little skin in the game as far as scoring points for team D or team R, they are interested in scoring points for team Russia -
whatever American team is required to exploit to accomplish this. Shouldn't the primary job of the commander and chief be to safeguard our country, and not just from ISIS?

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Except that us being "attacked by Russia" isn't a fact at all. But, even if it was Russia, essentially all they did was reveal Hillary's dirty dealings with the DNC to deny Sanders the nomination. IMO, the real question is, why aren't we prosecuting the Clintons for election fraud?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Except that us being "attacked by Russia" isn't a fact at all.

And this is based on what? Do you think our contributions to global warming is a fact?

[Cap'n Tightpants]

What does global warming have to do with alleged Russian hacking? I've seen people derail their own threads before, but this has to be some kind of record, right?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

What does global warming have to do with alleged Russian hacking? I've seen people derail their own threads before, but this has to be some kind of record, right?

Because I'm trying to figure out if you are trying to be contrary just to draw attention to yourself, or whether you are one of those people that disbelieve established consensus from various experts in their respective fields.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

"Russian hacking" isn't a consensus opinion, in fact most hacking experts haven't even weighed in on it. It's mostly just journos and politicians who have skin in the argument, one way or the other, grousing at each other.

[besson3c]

So you're challenging Comey's completly emphatic statement made during his testimony?

I think I'll go with his statement over some guy's on the internet.

[subego]

The Winner leak might shift the consensus around.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So you're challenging Comey's completly emphatic statement made during his testimony?

I think I'll go with his statement over some guy's on the internet.

Agreed. Loretta Lynch has some "splainin"" to do.

[subego]

I think Lynch, Sessions, Flynn, and Trump all have explaining to do.

Also Kushner, and Manafort.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

"Russian hacking" isn't a consensus opinion, in fact most hacking experts haven't even weighed in on it. It's mostly just journos and politicians who have skin in the argument, one way or the other, grousing at each other.

The US's intelligence agencies agree that it was Russia, and Putin himself went halfway to admit it was “patriotically minded Russians” who suddenly woke up one morning with an urge to hack the DNC.

[subego]

So far, even including the NSA leak, what the Russians have done is pretty penny-ante bullshit.

As much as I despise Putin, at the moment, I'm fine with pretending to be his friend. Of course, we should be Germany's friend for reals, and we do things to our for reals friends like wiretap them, but that's a different topic.

What actually matters is whether our version of what the Russians did to us has continued without impediment. If Trump has put the brakes on that in any way other than lip service, I have no problem accusing him of selling out the country.

[subego]

In that regard, I think Mattis and Rogers would have severe problems with curtailing Russia operations. Pompeo... not so much.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So you're challenging Comey's completly emphatic statement made during his testimony?

I think I'll go with his statement over some guy's on the internet.

That still has nothing to do with consensus (though it is a comically fallacious plea to authority).

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

The US's intelligence agencies agree that it was Russia, and Putin himself went halfway to admit it was “patriotically minded Russians” who suddenly woke up one morning with an urge to hack the DNC.

and neither does this.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

That still has nothing to do with consensus (though it is a comically fallacious plea to authority).



and neither does this.

Dude, stop being an attention whore. Google:

https://www.google.ca/search?q=us+in...hrome&ie=UTF-8

One headline says that 17 intelligence agencies agree. I have no clue what your definition of consensus is, and I don't really care, but it is clear that the majority of US intelligence thinks that Russia was trying to impact the election. Comey said as much during his testimony. This was not debated.

Save your contrarian bullets.

[besson3c]

Is this another sort of Axanar thing? Do you have elite friends that tell you that Russia wasn't trying to interfere with the US election, CTP?

[The Final Shortcut]

I really enjoy the tactic to label "appeal to authority" as fallacious, though.

This coming from the person who loves to quote amateurs or nutjobs or total contrarians when it comes to other topics such as climate science. Turning the tables here is a beautiful stroke....just beautiful.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

"Now I'm going to try to shut down the conversation by using something I believe will shame you."

You're pathetic.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Dude, stop being an attention whore. Google:

Open name-calling when you were countered and have nothing left? Very classy, Tom.

https://www.google.ca/search?q=us+in...hrome&ie=UTF-8

One headline says that 17 intelligence agencies agree. I have no clue what your definition of consensus is, and I don't really care, but it is clear that the majority of US intelligence thinks that Russia was trying to impact the election. Comey said as much during his testimony. This was not debated.

Some cybersecurity experts aren't on board with the findings, mainly because that info is so easily spoofed and the tools the hackers used have been public for over a year before the attacks. The only people claiming it was "definitely the Russians" are people with something to gain or lose.

Save your contrarian bullets.

Save the personal attacks, you aren't going to piss me off and, well, it's just tacky.

[besson3c]

I have nothing left? The onus is on you, Mr. Expert, to persuade us that the consensus is really bogus if you really want to go down that road and put your credibility to another test.

I really wish you wouldn't though. This country would likely be far less divisive if skepticism was largely in trust of politicians and religious dogma rather than established facts.

Plus, you make my brain hurt with how comfortable you are with embarrassing yourself.

[Doc HM]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I have nothing left? The onus is on you, Mr. Expert, to persuade us that the consensus is really bogus if you really want to go down that road and put your credibility to another test.

It's a rerun of the UK politics thread. Barge in with contentious statement. Ignore all the evidence, fail to provide any contrary evidence and then make enough noise to cover your tracks until the thread moves on.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I have nothing left? The onus is on you, Mr. Expert, to persuade us that the consensus is really bogus if you really want to go down that road and put your credibility to another test.

I really wish you wouldn't though. This country would likely be far less divisive if skepticism was largely in trust of politicians and religious dogma rather than established facts.

There is no consensus within the cybersecurity community, several experts have come forward claiming the hack could have been carried out by someone other than Russia, due to the nature of the attacks and the tools used. As for persuading you, I don't think anyone could, but you don't enter these discussions with honest intentions in the first place. It's your MO to act like a curious bystander, when all the while your mind is completely set. You've done that for years now.

Personally, I don't think you have the temperament to discuss politics online, at least not anywhere with a conduct policy, your temper is too volatile when you're met with anything but perfect agreement.

Plus, you make my brain hurt with how comfortable you are with embarrassing yourself.

This gaslighting shit is a prime example. I'm not embarrassed about having a discussion on any topic, even when I could be wrong. Why you insist on painting this picture, in a transparent attempt to shame me out of the discussion, is a complete waste of time and effort.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Doc HM 

It's a rerun of the UK politics thread. Barge in with contentious statement. Ignore all the evidence, fail to provide any contrary evidence and then make enough noise to cover your tracks until the thread moves on.

You're hallucinating again.

[Doc HM]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

You're hallucinating again.

I'm hallucinating an awful lot of links that are conformation that the official consensus (ie majority opinion) is that the Russians were involved.
I also seem to be hallucinating a complete lack of links on your part to the contrary just a lot of obviously hallucinatory opinion started as fact.

Given how many "hacker groups" there are I'm fairly sure that it should be possible to find at least one, that disagrees with the consensus. Perhaps you can hallucinate up a link to one?
See it's not that you are right or wrong (although I can't recall you EVER admitting to being wrong) it's that you confuse opinion with evidence. A lot.

[Chongo]

Remember the "Vault 7" release? It details how the CIA (or anyone else) can infiltrate a system and leave "fingerprints" implicating just about anyone, including the Russians.
https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/

[besson3c]

CTP, do you think man-made global warming is a fact?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

CTP, do you think man-made global warming is a fact?

Do you believe in bovine made global warming?

 

http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=2569
http://www.ibtimes.com/cow-farts-hav...-fight-2420014
Save the planet, eat a steak!

[andi*pandi]

Perhaps persons who accuse others of hallucinating and being delusional should not be throwing stones at glass gaslights.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Doc HM 

I'm hallucinating an awful lot of links that are conformation that the official consensus (ie majority opinion) is that the Russians were involved.
I also seem to be hallucinating a complete lack of links on your part to the contrary just a lot of obviously hallucinatory opinion started as fact.

Oh STFU already. I've supplied links explaining my position there and here, you're either off your meds or deliberately lying. This is another case of you not being enough of an adult to understand that people can have views that differ from your narrative, maybe if you grow up this place can become interesting again, because as it stands none of you will be happy until this place is bereft of any counterpoints.

Given how many "hacker groups" there are I'm fairly sure that it should be possible to find at least one, that disagrees with the consensus. Perhaps you can hallucinate up a link to one?
See it's not that you are right or wrong (although I can't recall you EVER admitting to being wrong) it's that you confuse opinion with evidence. A lot.

I did supply a differing view and a link, WTF are you talking about? You're unhinged.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

CTP, do you think man-made global warming is a fact?

I'll humor you, but only this one time; yes I do. Now, would you like to stop derailing your own thread, Tom?

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Perhaps persons who accuse others of hallucinating and being delusional should not be throwing stones at glass gaslights.

I'm a little sad to see what's happened to you and the years with this ideology haven't been kind. You're not alone, I've been seeing this from an ever-growing number of progressively-minded people over the last few years; the older you get, the more to the Left you drift, and the more bitter and political you become. Stop, evaluate, and perhaps make some corrections, before you rob yourself of any happiness you may still be able to feel later. Does it happen to folks on the Right, too? Yes, but the majority of them don't seem to take their politics as seriously, because they already have an outlet for their ideological needs, religion.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

I'll humor you, but only this one time; yes I do. Now, would you like to stop derailing your own thread now, Tom?

Thank you for humoring me. I just have one other question... At what point where you satisfied with putting your faith into this consensus? Was there a particular memorable point in time where you went "okay, this is a thing"?

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Thank you for humoring me. I just have one other question... At what point where you satisfied with putting your faith into this consensus? Was there a particular memorable point in time where you went "okay, this is a thing"?

There was never a point where I thought "okay, this is a thing", at least not as an adult. It's common sense that pollution is bad, and the amount we pollute is staggering.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

There was never a point where I thought "okay, this is a thing", at least not as an adult. It's common sense that pollution is bad, and the amount we pollute is staggering.

I'm just trying to figure out whether the sluggishness of your political peers coming around to global warming (and possibly Russian interference in the election if in the fullness of time this evolves the same way) is just a matter of pride in not wanting to acknowledge that some people they mocked in the past were right, or whether this is some sort of war against science and/or intellectual authority as some claim.

It's really amazing. As Obama put it, if 99 out of 100 doctors say that we should stop eating donuts and bacon in mass quantities do we think this is some sort of global conspiracy, or something to other disbelieve and blow off? Of course not, so why do some people do this with scientific consensus whether this is global warming, vaccines are a good thing, the world is more than 6000 years old, etc.? Religion? Pride? Stupidity? Persuasion of corporate interests?
Something else? Some combination of things?

I just don't get it. Based on Chongo's comments about cows and past comments from Badkosh it seems like they *still* don't buy into global warming. What is going on here? What will it take? He is far from the only one (see: entire Trump administration), I'm just using them as an example.

Whatever this is, it's as frustrating as ****. We can disagree on abortion and economics, but why on Earth is global warming a political issue STILL? Somebody in here (Dakar, I think) theorized profit motives, but how has this fooled people for this long? I wouldn't be surprised if we weren't debating global warming 15 years ago or more, and that is one hell of a long time.