The Capricious Non partisan Government Arbitrary Action thread.

[Tornicade]

There are extremist nuts in both parties and outside those parties.
I don't think anyone would disagree with that.
Except that you posted this...

Which portrays me as asserting that only republican nuts have issues with the president.
THAT is out of left field. I never said anything remotely like that.
Stick to what I said, not what you imagine my "take" is.

I guess Exactly means something different in your world?

so when I say Trumps own party was calling him that stuff
and you say EXACTLY and then say a partisan extremist must believe that...

I then ask a Question is that your take?

I even used a question mark.

so instead of clarifying that was not you meant you decided to attack my interpretation ?

you David's new acolyte?

once again

I say Trumps OWN party says the same things about Trump


You Say "exactly,partisan Extremist Nuts"

And then I ask if that's your take...

how is that left field?
You see your mischaracterization that really have no purpose other than to start a flame war?

I don't portray anything except ask a specific question about your take which YOU portrayed yourself..



maybe you should read what you write.

 

[AZ_]

View: https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/881137079958241280


The private information of their citizens, would be my guess.

 

[Whittaker]

I say Trumps OWN party says the same things about Trump


You Say "exactly,partisan Extremist Nuts"

And then I ask if that's your take...

how is that left field?

Surely you see that the following "take" is absurd on it's face:

only the republican party nut extremist are having issues with the president

You assign me an absurd partisan "take" and then ask how is that left field!
The End.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I mean, come on...

View: https://twitter.com/AP/status/879827291248971777

Fake News!

Turns out this story was bogus, and the meeting never happened. AP issued a retraction. Oops.

https://apnews.com/2350d7be5e24469ab445089bf663cdcb

Now, some might argue that this is no big deal -- that the issuance of a retraction really just emphasizes how ethical AP is. But there are two problems with that:

1) AP actually was notified that the story was bogus early on, but refused to correct it until pressured to do so.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...ers-up-invention-of-imaginary-pruitt-meeting/

2) More importantly, the only reason this bogus story was retracted was because the facts claimed in the story could be disproven by outside parties because they directly involved named people. But what does that say about all the stories that are printed supposedly based on unnamed sources/leaks? By their very nature, most such stories cannot be disproven by outside parties because you cannot go back to the source. We just have to take AP's (or CNN's, etc.) word for it that they properly vetted and checked their sources to ensure accuracy before publication.

The question is, when such leaks by their nature are almost impossible to disprove, why should we trust that CNN, AP, and others did their due diligence in the first place, and why should we believe that they'd issue retractions without being pressured to do so by outside parties?

Personally, I truly don't believe they'd issue retractions for stories they later learned were inaccurate/unreliable unless they got busted. Otherwise, I think they'd just shut up and let the false narrative remain.

 

[David.]

You didn't even look at the link did you.

You should. It makes defending his increasingly poor behavior easier.

Theres a point no one cares about.

Even if someone is a sociopath, etc, it's not like they chose to be a sociopath. It doesn't mean you earned the status of not being a sociopath. You got fucking lucky, and they didn't.

 

[David.]

View: https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/881137079958241280


The private information of their citizens, would be my guess.

Did you watch the video he's referencing?

 

[AZ_]

Fake News!

Turns out this story was bogus, and the meeting never happened. AP issued a retraction. Oops.

https://apnews.com/2350d7be5e24469ab445089bf663cdcb

Now, some might argue that this is no big deal -- that the issuance of a retraction really just emphasizes how ethical AP is. But there are two problems with that:

1) AP actually was notified that the story was bogus early on, but refused to correct it until pressured to do so.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...ers-up-invention-of-imaginary-pruitt-meeting/

2) More importantly, the only reason this bogus story was retracted was because the facts claimed in the story could be disproven by outside parties because they directly involved named people. But what does that say about all the stories that are printed supposedly based on unnamed sources/leaks? By their very nature, most such stories cannot be disproven by outside parties because you cannot go back to the source. We just have to take AP's (or CNN's, etc.) word for it that they properly vetted and checked their sources to ensure accuracy before publication.

The question is, when such leaks by their nature are almost impossible to disprove, why should we trust that CNN, AP, and others did their due diligence in the first place, and why should we believe that they'd issue retractions without being pressured to do so by outside parties?

Personally, I truly don't believe they'd issue retractions for stories they later learned were inaccurate/unreliable unless they got busted. Otherwise, I think they'd just shut up and let the false narrative remain.

The retraction says an official meeting never happened but that they met in passing.

Eh.

 

[Sebastian]

Theres a point no one cares about.

Even if someone is a sociopath, etc, it's not like they chose to be a sociopath. It doesn't mean you earned the status of not being a sociopath. You got fucking lucky, and they didn't.

You should care if the President is mentally unfit or has a disorder that makes him dangerous.

Because he's the President. It is a concept that many seem to be unable to grasp. When you are President, you are held to a different standard, everything you do is important and being evaluated right down to the shits you take.

You or I can be as crazy, unstable and irrational as we want. We are not likely to start a war or sign an Executive Order that gets people killed. Trump is not a private citizen and cannot do as he pleases.

But, but Hillary. But, but Obama... Means dick. Trump is President and they are not.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

The retraction says an official meeting never happened but that they met in passing.

Eh.

AP's article described it as a private, half-hour meeting between the two, which AP then expressly linked to a major regulatory decision directly impacting Dow.

The truth was that half hour meeting was cancelled, never happened, and they were only introduced via handshake in public. The AP never bothered to see if the meeting even happened. They just looked at the schedule and assumed it did.

So no, it's not an "eh". The entire point of the story was to imply that something was said at a private meeting that caused that decision. In fact, the meeting never happened at all. There is no story without a private meeting, period.

 

[David.]

You should care if the President is mentally unfit or has a disorder that makes him dangerous.

Because he's the President. It is a concept that many seem to be unable to grasp. When you are President, you are held to a different standard, everything you do is important and being evaluated right down to the shits you take.

You or I can be as crazy, unstable and irrational as we want. We are not likely to start a war or sign an Executive Order that gets people killed. Trump is not a private citizen and cannot do as he pleases.

But, but Hillary. But, but Obama... Means dick. Trump is President and they are not.

But it's not like Trump happened in a vacuum man.

Its like complaining about Trump lying when the other option was Hillary Clinton. There were shit options.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

You should care if the President is mentally unfit or has a disorder that makes him dangerous.

Okay, let's say Trump has Narcissistic Personality Disorder. What do you propose be done about that?

 

[Sebastian]

Okay, let's say Trump has Narcissistic Personality Disorder. What do you propose be done about that?

Nothing. I don't believe it disqualifies him per se, nor should he be declared mentally unfit. Ideally, a guy like him doesn't get elected in the first place.

However, acknowledging he has the problem goes a long way to understanding why he acts the way he does. It also carries the warning that these types of folks generally destroy or fuck up everything they touch. They are very self-destructive people because they just don't see the world from a rational perspective. The Comey firing is a fine example of what most would consider a bad decision but to Trump seems perfectly reasonable because the guy wouldn't swear fealty. Loyalty to their person is the ultimate attribute that people with NPD seek.

Edit: These folks also believe rules and convention don't apply to them. So you see that as the core of his behavior when he tweets and lashes out. It can also be dangerous if he went down the rabbit-hole of getting things done no matter the means.

 

[CommD]

Fake News!

Turns out this story was bogus, and the meeting never happened. AP issued a retraction. Oops.

https://apnews.com/2350d7be5e24469ab445089bf663cdcb

Now, some might argue that this is no big deal -- that the issuance of a retraction really just emphasizes how ethical AP is. But there are two problems with that:

1) AP actually was notified that the story was bogus early on, but refused to correct it until pressured to do so.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...ers-up-invention-of-imaginary-pruitt-meeting/

2) More importantly, the only reason this bogus story was retracted was because the facts claimed in the story could be disproven by outside parties because they directly involved named people. But what does that say about all the stories that are printed supposedly based on unnamed sources/leaks? By their very nature, most such stories cannot be disproven by outside parties because you cannot go back to the source. We just have to take AP's (or CNN's, etc.) word for it that they properly vetted and checked their sources to ensure accuracy before publication.

The question is, when such leaks by their nature are almost impossible to disprove, why should we trust that CNN, AP, and others did their due diligence in the first place, and why should we believe that they'd issue retractions without being pressured to do so by outside parties?

Personally, I truly don't believe they'd issue retractions for stories they later learned were inaccurate/unreliable unless they got busted. Otherwise, I think they'd just shut up and let the false narrative remain.

You seem much more interested in a media retraction related to the length of a meeting that did take place, rather than the more important information the story provided:

"Twenty days later Pruitt announced his decision to deny a petition to ban Dow’s chlorpyrifos pesticide from being sprayed on food, despite a review by his agency’s scientists that concluded ingesting even minuscule amounts of the chemical can interfere with the brain development of fetuses and infants."

I must ask: Do you want your children exposed to this chemical via their food?

 

[Tornicade]

You seem much more interested in a media retraction related to the length of a meeting that did take place, rather than the more important information the story provided:

"Twenty days later Pruitt announced his decision to deny a petition to ban Dow’s chlorpyrifos pesticide from being sprayed on food, despite a review by his agency’s scientists that concluded ingesting even minuscule amounts of the chemical can interfere with the brain development of fetuses and infants."

I must ask: Do you want your children exposed to this chemical via their food?

Its obvious that Pruits Top scientist looked over the research and determined it was the sky is falling Shamarkey.

 

[Cavatt]

AP's article described it as a private, half-hour meeting between the two, which AP then expressly linked to a major regulatory decision directly impacting Dow.

The truth was that half hour meeting was cancelled, never happened, and they were only introduced via handshake in public. The AP never bothered to see if the meeting even happened. They just looked at the schedule and assumed it did.

So no, it's not an "eh". The entire point of the story was to imply that something was said at a private meeting that caused that decision. In fact, the meeting never happened at all. There is no story without a private meeting, period.

The attribution that the CEO changed Trump's mind was ow speculation in the first place. The thing I am disgusted about is you don't care if these dangerous chemicals are used in stuff our kids eat.

You would rather be technically right than have safe food. That is pathological.