America Is Under Attack and the President Doesn't Care

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

42 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

Because it’s not my opinion.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/27/jared-kushner-security-clearance-downgrade-427178

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/27/us/politics/jared-kushner-security-clearance-trump.html

Neither of your links said he was penalized, just that a Top Secret clearance wasn't approved. As I have said that is probably because he didn't have the need to know. As noted, either Trump or Kelly could grant it but they apparently don't feel he has the need. Nice try but no cigar.

[SaltyTiger 7,803]

9 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

Neither of your links said he was penalized, just that a Top Secret clearance wasn't approved. As I have said that is probably because he didn't have the need to know. As noted, either Trump or Kelly could grant it but they apparently don't feel he has the need. Nice try but no cigar.

I do not see what the deal is about this other than anyone in the Trump administration are in cross hairs never scoped in previously. His supporters are in those same cross hairs.

The president has the ability to grant Kushner a permanent clearance, but Trump said Friday — the same day the memo was sent — that he was leaving the decision to his chief of staff.

“I will let General Kelly make that decision,” Trump told reporters. “I have no doubt he’ll make the right decision.”

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

1 minute ago, SaltyTiger said:

I do not see what the deal is about this other than anyone in the Trump administration are in cross hairs never scoped in previously. His supporters are in those same cross hairs.

The president has the ability to grant Kushner a permanent clearance, but Trump said Friday — the same day the memo was sent — that he was leaving the decision to his chief of staff.

“I will let General Kelly make that decision,” Trump told reporters. “I have no doubt he’ll make the right decision.”

Thank you. It seems to be only an issue with Elle.

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

9 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

Elle, you just said that you as an educator rate intelligence on communication skills, vocabulary,......and bank accounts 

Brush up on your reading comprehension, Salty. I said Trump’s lack of intelligence is illustrated by the way he communicates.  I didn’t say that’s the only way intelligence is rated. Personally, I’d love to give him a test or just ask him basic questions to measure his knowledge. I mentioned his bank account because some of you people think his intelligence is measured by his bank account. It isn’t. FYI, linguistic intelligence is in Gardner’s multiple intelligences theory. 

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

24 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

Neither of your links said he was penalized, just that a Top Secret clearance wasn't approved. As I have said that is probably because he didn't have the need to know. As noted, either Trump or Kelly could grant it but they apparently don't feel he has the need. Nice try but no cigar.

The links said his security clearance was downgraded, which is the word I used. Not really sure where you got penalized ? So you think a senior WH advisor who is responsible for foreign relations with the Middle East and China has no “need to know”?  And yes Trump can go ahead and let his son-in-law see the classified paper. And he most likely will. Someone has to read them. 

And you can keep your cigar, Bill. My name isn’t Monica. 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

15 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

The links said his security clearance was downgraded, which is the word I used. Not really sure where you got penalized ? So you think a senior WH advisor who is responsible for foreign relations with the Middle East and China has no “need to know”?  And yes Trump can go ahead and let his son-in-law see the classified paper. And he most likely will. Someone has to read them. 

And you can keep your cigar, Bill. My name isn’t Monica. 

He had to have a Top Secret clearance already to be downgraded. Did he?

Sure glad you aren't Monica but I do enjoy a good cigar every evening. Just don't need Bill's flavor

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

8 hours ago, Proud Tiger said:

He had to have a Top Secret clearance already to be downgraded. Did he?

Sure glad you aren't Monica but I do enjoy a good cigar every evening. Just don't need Bill's flavor

He was allowed to see classified intel without the proper clearance. All the rules of ethics that every administration has followed prior to this circus have been thrown out the window with this administration. Kushner’s hasn’t divested and is still running his business from inside the WH. This is wrong.

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

10 hours ago, GiveEmElle said:

But if there were a law, would that not be due process of law and not “take the guns first and do due process second”?

Look, I’m an educator. I’ve never claimed to be the smartest person in the room but I can recognize ignorance. Trump isn’t at all intelligent and if anything it becomes painfully clear in the way he communicates. His vocabulary is elementary level, he engages in repitition of words or catch phrases such as “everyone knows” “a lot of people are saying,” “stupid”, “sad,” etc. the size of his bank account doesn’t really measure his intelligence. 

No. Essentially, like citizen suit provisions against the EPA, the law (or the “taking”), could be challenged in court after the fact.

Every attempt I have tried to explain it still leaves open area or another of legal concern. Environmental law might not be the best comparable field for numerous reasons. 

I personally think republicans should call out Trump for making the statement. If Obama had said such a thing, they’d be talking impeachment by now. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

9 hours ago, GiveEmElle said:

Brush up on your reading comprehension, Salty. I said Trump’s lack of intelligence is illustrated by the way he communicates.  I didn’t say that’s the only way intelligence is rated. Personally, I’d love to give him a test or just ask him basic questions to measure his knowledge. I mentioned his bank account because some of you people think his intelligence is measured by his bank account. It isn’t. FYI, linguistic intelligence is in Gardner’s multiple intelligences theory. 

My former boss has dinner with Trump often - matter of fact, having dinner with him tomorrow night. A very intelligent and successful guy. Says Trump is very intelligent... and funny too.

So, eventually this turns into “well he said, but I say.” Let’s just face it, no matter how convincing we all are, we aren’t going to change what the other thinks.

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

Trump does care about attacks by “Alex” though....

 

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

27 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

No. Essentially, like citizen suit provisions against the EPA, the law (or the “taking”), could be challenged in court after the fact.

Every attempt I have tried to explain it still leaves open area or another of legal concern. Environmental law might not be the best comparable field for numerous reasons. 

I personally think republicans should call out Trump for making the statement. If Obama had said such a thing, they’d be talking impeachment by now. 

And the intersting question is this- why isn’t the GOP calling out Trump for all of the unethical things he does? Why aren’t they calling him out for seemingly flipping on party issues? 

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

26 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

My former boss has dinner with Trump often - matter of fact, having dinner with him tomorrow night. A very intelligent and successful guy. Says Trump is very intelligent... and funny too.

So, eventually this turns into “well he said, but I say.” Let’s just face it, no matter how convincing we all are, we aren’t going to change what the other thinks.

It is not my intention to change your mind. You can believe Trump is intelligent because people say so. I believe that  he is not intelligent just from listening to him and reading him.  I will say that his cult following is shocking to me. Most cult leaders are either charming, intelligent, attractive , well spoken or all four. Trump doesn’t fall into any of those characteristics in my opinion. All I can come up with is that he is an excellent con man.

[SaltyTiger 7,803]

5 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

It is not my intention to change your mind. You can believe Trump is intelligent because people say so. I believe that  he is not intelligent just from listening to him and reading him.  I will say that his cult following is shocking to me. Most cult leaders are either charming, intelligent, attractive , well spoken or all four. Trump doesn’t fall into any of those characteristics in my opinion. All I can come up with is that he is an excellent con man.

WDT Elle

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

46 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

And the intersting question is this- why isn’t the GOP calling out Trump for all of the unethical things he does? Why aren’t they calling him out for seemingly flipping on party issues? 

I think they are. Not as a whole though. 

[homersapien 11,373]

17 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

See @GiveEmElle, even our very own brother Homer doesn't think Trump lacks intelligence. Hehehehehe

In the same way that Kim Jong Un doesn't lack intelligence.  

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

1 hour ago, SaltyTiger said:

WDT Elle

 

You should have bamboo shoots driven under your toenails for blaspheming our beloved War Damn. Besides, Trump’s orange is the wrong shade.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

15 minutes ago, homersapien said:

In the same way that Kim Jong Un doesn't lack intelligence.  

Nope. Don't try to fix it now. Especially an attempt to qualify intelligence in a sense that would no way fit into the thread. Just admit and move on brother Homer. 

[homersapien 11,373]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Nope. Don't try to fix it now. Especially an attempt to qualify intelligence in a sense that would no way fit into the thread. Just admit and move on brother Homer. 

It might help if you had a more complete understanding of what 'intelligence' consists of.  It's not one catch-all measure.  For example, one might have adequate cognitive intelligence but be totally lacking in emotional intelligence. 

Just admit your lack of expertise regarding the issue and move on brother Nola.  

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

It might help if you had a more complete understanding of what 'intelligence' consists of.  It's not one catch-all measure.  For example, one might have adequate cognitive intelligence but be totally lacking in emotional intelligence. 

Just admit your lack of expertise regarding the issue and move on brother Nola.  

It might help if you'd been following along in the thread. We've implicitly already qualified the term through previous comments, with no need of any further explanation. Either he lacks intelligence, or he doesn't. The end, not what Homer thinks intelligence in this conversation should mean.

Just admit you jumped the gun and disregarded context. You don't get to start qualifying our terms. 

[homersapien 11,373]

14 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

It might help if you'd been following along in the thread. We've implicitly already qualified the term through previous comments, with no need of any further explanation. Either he lacks intelligence, or he doesn't. The end, not what Homer thinks intelligence in this conversation should mean.

Just admit you jumped the gun and disregarded context. You don't get to start qualifying our terms. 

He does lack intelligence, especially emotional intelligence. His lack of understanding on many issues he talks about clearly shows a lack of intelligence. One of my favorites is how he likes to claim our participation in the Paris Accord on AGW involved poor negotiation by the US government.  (Of course, I suppose one could argue that's simply a measure of what a lying con man he is.) 

No one has argued that Trump lacks the basic intelligence to function in society, or to take a 150 million dollar stake and leverage it into a business empire by taking advantage of the poor judgement of banks and using bankruptcies and lawsuits as weapons.  Most successful criminals are quite intelligent.

But then, as other's have pointed out you are very pendantic in these discusssions. 

So you just hang your argument on the use of the word 'intelligence' within the context of this discussion and forget about whatever Trump actually exhibits in his behavior.  It's your nature.   

 

[homersapien 11,373]

And you don't get to dictate "the terms" of the discussion either, especially in hindsight. 

Intelligence may mean one simple thing to the laymen and one very complicated thing to those more knowledgable about it.  We aren't beholden to accept "the terms" of someone who knows very little about the subject.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

He does lack intelligence, especially emotional intelligence. His lack of understanding on many issues he talks about clearly shows a lack of intelligence. One of my favorites is how he likes to claim our participation in the Paris Accord on AGW involved poor negotiation by the US government.  (Of course, I suppose one could argue that's simply a measure of what a lying con man he is.) 

Fail. If you're allowed to base your claim on instances of issues that made it appear that he lacked intelligence, then damnit I can just point to instances (especially transactions) that show he is intelligent. So whose example prevails? 

6 minutes ago, homersapien said:

No one has argued that Trump lacks the basic intelligence to function in society, or to take a 150 million dollar stake and leverage it into a business empire by taking advantage of the poor judgement of banks and using bankruptcies and lawsuits as weapons.  Most successful criminals are quite intelligent

Trump is a criminal now, based on dealings with banks and lawfully filing for bankruptcy. Did the SEC come down hard on him. Did federal prosecutors ever put him behind bars? Gosh you're delusional. 

7 minutes ago, homersapien said:

But then, as other's have pointed out you are very pendantic in debates.  So you just hang your argument on the use of the word 'intelligence' within the context of this discussion.

Ok, Titan. I know you look up to him, it's ok. Yes. Within the context of this discussion. If you want to talk about a side issue, then "go start a new thread." Does that sound familiar too, you little puppet? You've literally provided nothing with your words, except acknowledging that Trump is intelligent, and now your obsessed with correcting yourself. 

 

10 minutes ago, homersapien said:

You don't get to qualify "the terms" in hindsight.

You don't get to qualify a term in a way that fits what you'd like to purport, and then retroactively throw it into a conversation that didn't involve you.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

7 minutes ago, homersapien said:

And you don't get to dictate "the terms" of the discussion either, especially in hindsight. 

Intelligence may mean one simple thing to the laymen and one very complicated thing to those more knowledgable about it.  We aren't beholden to accept "the terms" of someone who knows very little about the subject.

Sure, the participants in the conversation can. But not someone (you) who comes out of left field.

The "subject" of intelligence? My gosh you're trying hard. 

[homersapien 11,373]

7 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Sure, the participants in the conversation can. But not someone (you) who comes out of left field.

The "subject" of intelligence? My gosh you're trying hard. 

If someone opined to me that Trump lacks intelligence, I would heartedly agree. 

That's because my standard of intelligence naturally assumes something beyond what my dogs possess, who are quite intelligence themselves.

But I love the irony of someone who relies on pendantic arguments telling me I am the one trying hard.   

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

If someone opined to me that Trump lacks intelligence, I would heartedly agree. 

If someone opined you that Trump murdered Vince Foster, you'd heartedly agree also. Not because it's reasonable, but rather it's "anti-Trump." So what?

 

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

That's because my standard of intelligence naturally assumes something beyond what my dogs possess, who are quite intelligence themselves.

So now you've equated Trump's intelligence with that of an animal. Sounds reasonable (not). 

4 minutes ago, homersapien said:

But I love the irony of someone who relies on pendantic arguments telling me I am the one trying hard.   

I'm the one concerned with the minor details? Excuse me but are you not the one who dissects single sentences/phrases from lengthy exchanges and proceed to combat the sentence/phrase? You did it just the other day on another thread. Don't even try to deny it. Even in this case, you've grabbed the single word of "intelligence" and picked an argument based on your perceived definition of it. You're literally trying to take the thread to a place of defining "intelligence" such that Trump indeed lacks it, even though you said "it's not that Trump doesn't lack intelligence." Good grief. Give us all a break. Your role model Titan doesn't do this. I disagree with him often, but the man is intelligent. Don't be an insult to him.