Because so many put the blame on Comey, it's harder to say that Comey's actions are not worth firing him over.
His actions were worth firing him over, but the time for that firing was January, not May, and the justification for that firing runs counter to what Trump has repeatedly said previously. Anyone with an ounce of critical thinking skills knows that the justification for firing Comey is a lie. So the question is why is he really being fired, right now?
Trump is able to exploit the mixed messaging because the Dems can't admit that Clinton lost because she ran a horrible campaign and nobody wants establishment GOP-lite.
You conveniently forget that she actually won the popular vote, so considerably more people wanted her than wanted Trump. She may have run a horrible campaign, but I couldn't really tell you because I can't actually recall any coverage during the election of Hillary Clinton's actual campaign. Furthermore, even if she had run a horrible campaign, it doesn't change the fact the margin of victory for Trump was so small that both Comey's actions and interference from Russian operatives were, each and independently, enough to change the result of the election. There are a lot of different reasons why the election turned out the way it did, focusing on one reason to the exclusion of all others is myopic no matter who does it.
Given what came out of Trumps mouth during the campaign I would say it this flip-flopping is entirely consistent and you'd only be stupid for believing that Trump holds any value in anything he every previous may or may not admit to having said or done.
If you believe that, you'd have to be pretty stupid to believe what's coming out of his mouth right now is anything other than what he thinks will benefit him right now. So given that everything Trump says is completely untrustworthy, we'll have to look elsewhere to determine the real reason...
Trump is not going to leave without leaving metaphorical claw marks on the floor as he's dragged out, and there's no sign of anyone dragging him out any time soon. He started in disgrace and isn't going to resign to avoid it.
I don't think the point was that Trump is going to resign, but rather that's he's already digging his claws into the metaphorical floor by trying to make the Russian investigation disappear.
1. He overstepped his boundaries. His bureau's job is to investigate - and at the end of the investigation, he stepped on DOJ toes by announcing recommendations, which is not his job.
2. Despite universal consensus from within the FBI, DoJ, and former senior members of both departments that he made some SERIOUS blunders, he doubled down on his decisions, has defended them at every turn...... and a man who can't admit his mistakes when he makes them isn't fit to lead any organization, let alone the FBI.
While I agree with your reasons, and I said that Comey was a dead man walking when he intervened in the election, I expected Trump to dismiss Comey during the transition. If he had done so, two months ago, Comey would be gone and no one would have cared much. The problem is the timing and the justification provided now ring false. Comey is leading a major investigation of Trump, and a grand jury just subpoenaed a bunch of people related to the former national security advisor. The timing and justification seem panicked and desperate. I mean, does anyone, anyone at all, believe that Comey is really being fired now because he was biased against Hillary Clinton?
I'm not a constitutional lawyer (or a lawyer at all) but I seem to remember someone saying that a sitting president can't pardon himself, because the president is not eligible to receive a pardon until after he leaves office. So to be pardoned for a crime, Trump would have to step down as president and his successor, presumably Mike Pence, would have to pardon him. However, I think Mike Pence might have reasons to not pardon Trump.
It's now going to take decades of actual, OPEN, REPRODUCIBLE research for climate scientists to reestablish enough credibility to convince any significant number of people to substantially change their views.
That's not going to happen because we already have open, reproducible research. The problem is we also have ideologically motivated and industry financed denial campaigns. You're trying to be even handed, I get it, but frankly you've been duped. I know, I fell for that bullshit too. But that's it, it's just bullshit. There is no credible alternative to the theory to global warming. Every time someone says they have something, it turns out they have a half-formed idea that doesn't match reality. It's clouds! No actually, it's not and the evidence shows clouds don't work the way you think they do. It's a cycle! Sorry, it's not cyclical. It's actually getting colder! No, it's definitely getting warmer, even the scientists working for the Kochs agree it's getting warmer. But it just keeps going in a never ending series of objections because the goal isn't to discover the "real cause", it's just to delay regulation until they've extracted as much profit as possible.
I used to think like you, but as I discovered, it turns out that one side is actually paid to say anything and everything they can to stop you from believing the other side.
There's Russian data in the document metadata. Could be Russia using the White Nationalists to try to control France. Hmm. For some reason that makes me think of a card game.
The real question is: Why do you have a bug up your ass because the Prime Minister of Canada said a few nice words about a dead dictator? The dictator's dead, can't you let it go?
Why wouldn't I be here? I already told you that I want to be here, it seems to me that you're having trouble walking away... You've said good bye two or three times now?
Maybe you can't walk away because you have a pathological need to get the last word in?
I expected you were trolling but thanks for confirming.
Remember, just because you didn't like what I wrote, that doesn't mean every word of it isn't true. You should try to be a better person, if you were a little less arrogant and ignorant and you might stop looking like a caricature of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
You're absolutely right. Babies should have to work for their formula!
I hear Trump's next executive order will make Babies great again, by allowing them to work in coal mines, again. After all, why waste valuable canaries when there are so many lazy babies, lying around just expecting people to take care of them? It's time those babies got off Big Mother's teat and started earning their keep!
. I am sorry if that makes you uncomfortable but you can't wish away reality by calling people names.
You mean like calling people "chicken little" because they disagree with you?
Real observations don't care for politics.
No, they don't, but do you even know what a "real observation" is? Because all I've seen from you is personal attacks and (ironically) references to the entertainment industry. The amount of hypocrisy you are capable of displaying is truly amazing.
Do you have anything new to bring to the debate or will you finally concede your defeat through continued attempts on my character / behaviour?
What debate? You conceded your position when you failed to reply to my original statement that your evidence wasn't useful to your argument. Maybe you can't see that because you hold other people to a different standard than you hold yourself? Everything since has been an attempt to educate you on how not to be an ass in public. Let's give it a few months and see if you've learned anything...
I always thought of it as 'engineer' being the more general term that means (for the most part) you have the engineering degree. For the licensed part the term to use is 'Professional engineer' which means you've gone the additional steps beyond the degree to become licensed in your field. So while declaring himself an engineer in a letter to the licensing board might not be the best move it still isn't the same as if he said he was a P.E.
In common practice, claiming to be an engineer is the same as claiming to be a professional engineer. If you want to weasel it, you have to claiming that you work in "engineering". I've had the distinction explained to me, in person, by someone who has worked in the enforcement division of a professional engineering board.
So because of falling bridges, you can't solder your own radio?
No? The question mark is because I don't understand why you would write something that nonsensical. Fixing a radio has nothing to do with Engineers.
Isn't it much more meaningful to require certifications and such for specific projects rather than for extremely vague words such as "engineer" in a broad sweep?
For good or ill, no. Engineer was chosen as the term to represent a licensed, trained expert in particular fields. You can debate the merits of what word was chosen, but the choice was made a long time ago, and it's unlikely to change now. The simple fact is that if you claim to be an engineer you are claiming to have the certifications and qualifications to perform specific types of work (depending on the type of engineer you claim to be), and you are claiming that as an engineer you are liable for the consequences of your work. You should be aware that you don't need to be an engineer to perform most work. The exceptions where you do need to be an engineer are things like designing industrial machinery and bridges. You don't need to be an engineer to build the machinery or the bridge, depending on state law you might not even need to be licensed engineer to work on the design, but you need an engineer to approve the design and sign their name to it. Of course, it should be noted that the approving engineer could face criminal penalties if the design fails and someone is injured or killed.
From the article, it's clear that the guy in question is in trouble solely for claiming to be an engineer to the board that regulates who can claim to be an engineer. It should also be noted that his punishment, a $500 fine, is a slap on the wrist.
Continue to run around as though the sky is falling. you're going to be a nuisance one way or another anyways.
At that point, I hadn't written anything other than your "evidence" is actually consistent with mainstream views on climate change. Rather than own up to the fact that the anecdote wasn't useful or explaining why you thought it didn't fit into the theory, you immediately resorted insults and ad hominem dismissal.
Sure didn't stop you from escalating.
Escalation? What escalation? All I see is you boorishly complaining about irrelevancies, then whining about how nobody wants to listen to your "wisdom".
We all have the right to say what we want without fear of physical violence.
It'd be nice if people who believe that also thought they had a duty to use that right responsibly. All too often I see verbal bullies hiding behind "free speech" as shield from the predictable consequences of the offensive things they say.
This fits the tried and true profiles of mental disorder, but I could be wrong.
From your track record, you probably are. In fact, I'd say in this case you've layered incorrect opinions so deep, you probably need professional help to come back to terms with reality.
You can attempt to attack my character all you want, call me names etc, it won't change the truth of my observations.
If you can't understand the difference between behaviour and character, how can we do anything but doubt the truth of your (biased) observations?
It's mostly the online community that's lost it's ability for critical thinking.
Actually, it's mostly you who appears to have lost the ability to think critically (if you ever had it). Simply put, If you were able to think critically you wouldn't have resorted to personal attacks when I told you that your anecdotal story doesn't back up the position that you claimed it did.
Regardless of the laws of where I live, the Internet is not a place where free speech is appreciated or respected.
Maybe, or maybe people just don't like it when you act like an arrogant, condescending jackass. Especially when you're acting like that and unequivocally wrong at the same time. Free speech means the government doesn't interfere with your right to say what you like, it doesn't mean people have to like you or the odious things that you post. People can like free speech and still think you're an overbearing, know-nothing ass who they'd rather not associate with.
No, the simple answer was the reason and not some weird illuminati conspiracy theory about environmentalists with vast amounts of political power controlling everything from the shadows.
My point was that at the time, some people did consider plastic bags more environmentally friendly.
It was known, (especially in areas where they relied on tourists visiting beaches) but ignored for financial reasons. It's not "history" to me.
If you say so, though I'm not sure how people would have known that plastic bags would be a trash nightmare before they were in common use.
I think there is some truth to both of those versions of events, in that plastic bags were considered both more environmentally friendly and they cheaper when they were introduced. The problems of plastic bags not decomposing wasn't yet a known issue when they were first being introduced in the 70s, and at the time, it took about 1/4 of the energy to produce a plastic bag as a paper one, so it seemed like an environmental win at the time. But while the adoption of plastic bags may have been supported by environmentalists at the time, it's pretty clear the reason stores started offering the choice of plastic or paper was because they could buy 4 plastic bags for every paper bag. That's a clear cost saving and the fact that some customers found the plastic bags more convenient that paper (because they had handles) made it also a goodwill win. Blaming environmentalists for the change, however, is so one-sided as to be beyond the point of self-delusion.
Slashdot Mirror
Because so many put the blame on Comey, it's harder to say that Comey's actions are not worth firing him over.
His actions were worth firing him over, but the time for that firing was January, not May, and the justification for that firing runs counter to what Trump has repeatedly said previously. Anyone with an ounce of critical thinking skills knows that the justification for firing Comey is a lie. So the question is why is he really being fired, right now?
Trump is able to exploit the mixed messaging because the Dems can't admit that Clinton lost because she ran a horrible campaign and nobody wants establishment GOP-lite.
You conveniently forget that she actually won the popular vote, so considerably more people wanted her than wanted Trump. She may have run a horrible campaign, but I couldn't really tell you because I can't actually recall any coverage during the election of Hillary Clinton's actual campaign. Furthermore, even if she had run a horrible campaign, it doesn't change the fact the margin of victory for Trump was so small that both Comey's actions and interference from Russian operatives were, each and independently, enough to change the result of the election. There are a lot of different reasons why the election turned out the way it did, focusing on one reason to the exclusion of all others is myopic no matter who does it.
Given what came out of Trumps mouth during the campaign I would say it this flip-flopping is entirely consistent and you'd only be stupid for believing that Trump holds any value in anything he every previous may or may not admit to having said or done.
If you believe that, you'd have to be pretty stupid to believe what's coming out of his mouth right now is anything other than what he thinks will benefit him right now. So given that everything Trump says is completely untrustworthy, we'll have to look elsewhere to determine the real reason...
Trump is not going to leave without leaving metaphorical claw marks on the floor as he's dragged out, and there's no sign of anyone dragging him out any time soon. He started in disgrace and isn't going to resign to avoid it.
I don't think the point was that Trump is going to resign, but rather that's he's already digging his claws into the metaphorical floor by trying to make the Russian investigation disappear.
Two reasons:
1. He overstepped his boundaries. His bureau's job is to investigate - and at the end of the investigation, he stepped on DOJ toes by announcing recommendations, which is not his job.
2. Despite universal consensus from within the FBI, DoJ, and former senior members of both departments that he made some SERIOUS blunders, he doubled down on his decisions, has defended them at every turn... ... and a man who can't admit his mistakes when he makes them isn't fit to lead any organization, let alone the FBI.
While I agree with your reasons, and I said that Comey was a dead man walking when he intervened in the election, I expected Trump to dismiss Comey during the transition. If he had done so, two months ago, Comey would be gone and no one would have cared much. The problem is the timing and the justification provided now ring false. Comey is leading a major investigation of Trump, and a grand jury just subpoenaed a bunch of people related to the former national security advisor. The timing and justification seem panicked and desperate. I mean, does anyone, anyone at all, believe that Comey is really being fired now because he was biased against Hillary Clinton?
I'm not a constitutional lawyer (or a lawyer at all) but I seem to remember someone saying that a sitting president can't pardon himself, because the president is not eligible to receive a pardon until after he leaves office. So to be pardoned for a crime, Trump would have to step down as president and his successor, presumably Mike Pence, would have to pardon him. However, I think Mike Pence might have reasons to not pardon Trump.
It's now going to take decades of actual, OPEN, REPRODUCIBLE research for climate scientists to reestablish enough credibility to convince any significant number of people to substantially change their views.
That's not going to happen because we already have open, reproducible research. The problem is we also have ideologically motivated and industry financed denial campaigns. You're trying to be even handed, I get it, but frankly you've been duped. I know, I fell for that bullshit too. But that's it, it's just bullshit. There is no credible alternative to the theory to global warming. Every time someone says they have something, it turns out they have a half-formed idea that doesn't match reality. It's clouds! No actually, it's not and the evidence shows clouds don't work the way you think they do. It's a cycle! Sorry, it's not cyclical. It's actually getting colder! No, it's definitely getting warmer, even the scientists working for the Kochs agree it's getting warmer. But it just keeps going in a never ending series of objections because the goal isn't to discover the "real cause", it's just to delay regulation until they've extracted as much profit as possible.
I used to think like you, but as I discovered, it turns out that one side is actually paid to say anything and everything they can to stop you from believing the other side.
If not for Science, industry would be a guy with a whip.
There's Russian data in the document metadata. Could be Russia using the White Nationalists to try to control France. Hmm. For some reason that makes me think of a card game.
The real question is: Why do you have a bug up your ass because the Prime Minister of Canada said a few nice words about a dead dictator? The dictator's dead, can't you let it go?
Why wouldn't I be here? I already told you that I want to be here, it seems to me that you're having trouble walking away... You've said good bye two or three times now?
Maybe you can't walk away because you have a pathological need to get the last word in?
You lost, and we both have better things to do with our time.
Do you see what I mean? Why are you so obsessed over wining and losing? This isn't a zero-sum game.
I expected you were trolling but thanks for confirming.
Remember, just because you didn't like what I wrote, that doesn't mean every word of it isn't true. You should try to be a better person, if you were a little less arrogant and ignorant and you might stop looking like a caricature of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
I though the short version was: "There is no problem so obvious that there are no idiots willing to deny it exists."
She's been corrupt as shit for a long time dude.
Not really. She seemed to be somewhat less corrupt than the average politician, and an order of magnitude less corrupt than Trump.
Republicans do like to talk about how they're the best thing possible for small businesses, while they quietly stab them in the back.
You're absolutely right. Babies should have to work for their formula!
I hear Trump's next executive order will make Babies great again, by allowing them to work in coal mines, again. After all, why waste valuable canaries when there are so many lazy babies, lying around just expecting people to take care of them? It's time those babies got off Big Mother's teat and started earning their keep!
Not taking the bait. You're not going to spin this around.
Yeah, I understand that. If you were to acknowledge that you are exactly what you hate, it would be a pretty humbling blow to your ego.
We're done here.
We were done a long time ago, but you are just so unintentionally funny, that I just can't stop...
. I am sorry if that makes you uncomfortable but you can't wish away reality by calling people names.
You mean like calling people "chicken little" because they disagree with you?
Real observations don't care for politics.
No, they don't, but do you even know what a "real observation" is? Because all I've seen from you is personal attacks and (ironically) references to the entertainment industry. The amount of hypocrisy you are capable of displaying is truly amazing.
Do you have anything new to bring to the debate or will you finally concede your defeat through continued attempts on my character / behaviour?
What debate? You conceded your position when you failed to reply to my original statement that your evidence wasn't useful to your argument. Maybe you can't see that because you hold other people to a different standard than you hold yourself? Everything since has been an attempt to educate you on how not to be an ass in public. Let's give it a few months and see if you've learned anything...
I always thought of it as 'engineer' being the more general term that means (for the most part) you have the engineering degree. For the licensed part the term to use is 'Professional engineer' which means you've gone the additional steps beyond the degree to become licensed in your field. So while declaring himself an engineer in a letter to the licensing board might not be the best move it still isn't the same as if he said he was a P.E.
In common practice, claiming to be an engineer is the same as claiming to be a professional engineer. If you want to weasel it, you have to claiming that you work in "engineering". I've had the distinction explained to me, in person, by someone who has worked in the enforcement division of a professional engineering board.
So because of falling bridges, you can't solder your own radio?
No? The question mark is because I don't understand why you would write something that nonsensical. Fixing a radio has nothing to do with Engineers.
Isn't it much more meaningful to require certifications and such for specific projects rather than for extremely vague words such as "engineer" in a broad sweep?
For good or ill, no. Engineer was chosen as the term to represent a licensed, trained expert in particular fields. You can debate the merits of what word was chosen, but the choice was made a long time ago, and it's unlikely to change now. The simple fact is that if you claim to be an engineer you are claiming to have the certifications and qualifications to perform specific types of work (depending on the type of engineer you claim to be), and you are claiming that as an engineer you are liable for the consequences of your work. You should be aware that you don't need to be an engineer to perform most work. The exceptions where you do need to be an engineer are things like designing industrial machinery and bridges. You don't need to be an engineer to build the machinery or the bridge, depending on state law you might not even need to be licensed engineer to work on the design, but you need an engineer to approve the design and sign their name to it. Of course, it should be noted that the approving engineer could face criminal penalties if the design fails and someone is injured or killed.
From the article, it's clear that the guy in question is in trouble solely for claiming to be an engineer to the board that regulates who can claim to be an engineer. It should also be noted that his punishment, a $500 fine, is a slap on the wrist.
Show me where I did this?
At that point, I hadn't written anything other than your "evidence" is actually consistent with mainstream views on climate change. Rather than own up to the fact that the anecdote wasn't useful or explaining why you thought it didn't fit into the theory, you immediately resorted insults and ad hominem dismissal.
Sure didn't stop you from escalating.
Escalation? What escalation? All I see is you boorishly complaining about irrelevancies, then whining about how nobody wants to listen to your "wisdom".
We all have the right to say what we want without fear of physical violence.
It'd be nice if people who believe that also thought they had a duty to use that right responsibly. All too often I see verbal bullies hiding behind "free speech" as shield from the predictable consequences of the offensive things they say.
This fits the tried and true profiles of mental disorder, but I could be wrong.
From your track record, you probably are. In fact, I'd say in this case you've layered incorrect opinions so deep, you probably need professional help to come back to terms with reality.
You can attempt to attack my character all you want, call me names etc, it won't change the truth of my observations.
If you can't understand the difference between behaviour and character, how can we do anything but doubt the truth of your (biased) observations?
It's mostly the online community that's lost it's ability for critical thinking.
Actually, it's mostly you who appears to have lost the ability to think critically (if you ever had it). Simply put, If you were able to think critically you wouldn't have resorted to personal attacks when I told you that your anecdotal story doesn't back up the position that you claimed it did.
Regardless of the laws of where I live, the Internet is not a place where free speech is appreciated or respected.
Maybe, or maybe people just don't like it when you act like an arrogant, condescending jackass. Especially when you're acting like that and unequivocally wrong at the same time. Free speech means the government doesn't interfere with your right to say what you like, it doesn't mean people have to like you or the odious things that you post. People can like free speech and still think you're an overbearing, know-nothing ass who they'd rather not associate with.
No, the simple answer was the reason and not some weird illuminati conspiracy theory about environmentalists with vast amounts of political power controlling everything from the shadows.
My point was that at the time, some people did consider plastic bags more environmentally friendly.
It was known, (especially in areas where they relied on tourists visiting beaches) but ignored for financial reasons. It's not "history" to me.
If you say so, though I'm not sure how people would have known that plastic bags would be a trash nightmare before they were in common use.
I think there is some truth to both of those versions of events, in that plastic bags were considered both more environmentally friendly and they cheaper when they were introduced. The problems of plastic bags not decomposing wasn't yet a known issue when they were first being introduced in the 70s, and at the time, it took about 1/4 of the energy to produce a plastic bag as a paper one, so it seemed like an environmental win at the time. But while the adoption of plastic bags may have been supported by environmentalists at the time, it's pretty clear the reason stores started offering the choice of plastic or paper was because they could buy 4 plastic bags for every paper bag. That's a clear cost saving and the fact that some customers found the plastic bags more convenient that paper (because they had handles) made it also a goodwill win. Blaming environmentalists for the change, however, is so one-sided as to be beyond the point of self-delusion.