Eight of Trump's cybersecurity advisors resign over 'insufficient attention' to threats

midian182

Posts: 5,763   +46
Staff member

A week after Donald Trump disbanded two advisory councils in the wake of several CEO departures, another White House panel has seen a number of its members leave. Eight of the National Infrastructure Advisory Council’s (NIAC) 28 members quit last week. Their group resignation letter cites the administration’s inadequate approach to cybersecurity threats and Trump’s response to the Charlottesville rally.

The NIAC - formed in 2001 under George W. Bush - advises on the security of the critical infrastructure sectors and their information systems. Its members, which can total a maximum of 30, are chosen by the President from the private sector, academia and state and local government.

In the resignation letter obtained by NextGov, the leaving members explain: "You have given insufficient attention to the growing threats to the cybersecurity of the critical systems upon which all Americans depend, including those impacting the systems supporting our democratic election process."

It also states that Trump’s failure “to denounce the intolerance and violence of hate groups” when asked about Charlottesville “threatened the security of the homeland.” The President is lambasted for his “false equivalences and attacking the motives of the CEOs who had resigned from their advisory roles in protest.”

After several CEO’s, including Intel’s Brian Krzanich, resigned from the Manufacturing Council and the Strategy and Policy Forum, Trump disbanded the councils. But despite the departures, it seems unlikely that the NIAC will also be dissolved.

Some of those leaving the NIAC include the first ever White House Chief Data Scientist, DJ Patil, along with former Office of Science and Technology Policy Chief Cristin Dorgelo and White House Council on Environmental Quality Managing Director Christy Goldfuss.

Another high-profile tech name to leave the White House councils was Elon Musk. The Tesla boss, who recently unveiled his SpaceX space suit, resigned in June as a protest against the US pulling out of the Paris Accord.

Permalink to story.

 

wiyosaya

Posts: 5,243   +3,336
And to think about 50 years ago the average Joe not living in the USA couldn't tell you what their presidents name was and now with this guy tweeting whatever is on his mind to a worldwide audience from an old Galaxy S3 doesn't help much.
Wow! You mean he actually has a mind?
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcborge

JudasSheep

Posts: 96   +76
Here is a link to the resignation letter directly: http://www.nextgov.com/media/gbc/docs/pdfs_edit/082417jm1.pdf

In reading the letter the first thing that stands out; this is an individual letter and not from a group who chose to leave. Second thing is all the left-wing bulls**t therein, being pissed at leaving the Paris accord, failure to denounce the violence at the Charlottesville rally, the failure to address cyber threats relating to our election process, and something about revoking flood-risk building standards.... WTF ever! Third, this is an unsigned letter. It is not on official government letterhead. As far as I am concerned this is bogus.

Now I will not discredit that people have left cyber positions, but because the president doesn't take cyber threats seriously, is a load of BS. I know the president is briefed by the joint chiefs and they all have inputs on cyber security. The NSA and CIA have inputs on cyber threats. If you think Mr Trump is dumb enough to ignore them, then you can say the same thing for the last 3 presidents, hence why NIAC was created in the first place. Obama didn't seem to have a problem ignoring threats. His buddies in the DNC were hacked when they are constantly warned through annual training. Dumb *** Podesta fell for a whaling attack for f**ks sake! Hilary had a private server! I am sure that IS on the list of things NOT to do.

People want this administration to fail which is pathetic and sad. I don't agree with everything he says but I am an American and he was elected. Therefore just like Obama, I have to accept his position and respect the position. It hasn't even been a year and the guy has been dealing with fires left and right. I didn't see this happen to Bush, Clinton or Obama, but then again, the political landscape has become so volatile it is a wonder it's not worse. So many banked on Hilary being elected and it didn't happen. The left has been throwing a tantrum since last Nov. Let the man do his job. Let him make his policies, let him take his crap to congress, it is up to them to block it or pass it. We have a system (albeit broken) of checks and balances. If you don't like who makes the decisions, take your lazy *** to the polling station and vote! Its not just Trump who is the *****s. Its congress and the senate too, BOTH sides.

Do something constructive instead of jumping on the bandwagon. Put some effort into figuring out what to do and what to vote on next cycle. Crying about it now won't help you. You can use this time to educate yourself and be more informed when the time comes. I for one am sick of the attacks on the president. Respect the position, not the man. It feels like we are one step away from a Julius Caesar impeachment.
 

Underdog

Posts: 152   +77
Hey guys, look on the bright side. If he goes on firing people and closing down panels of advisors think of the money it will save the US government. The money saved can buy more armaments to "make the world a better place"..........................
 

captaincranky

Posts: 16,066   +4,866
"Another high-profile tech name to leave the White House councils was Elon Musk. The Tesla boss, who recently unveiled his SpaceX space suit, resigned in June as a protest against the US pulling out of the Paris Accord".

Musk leaving anyplace from which he could possibly gain access to the nations finances, is a major blessing to the nation. We should all breath a massive sigh of relief now that, "the parasite has left the building".

Besides, I'm sure he'll find something to keep himself busy. Perhaps parading around his bedroom wearing only the jacket to his 'spacesuit' crying out, 'I think I can, I think I can, I think I can, I think I can, (insert any of many Musk follies, or next get rich scheme HERE), and repeat until climax is achieved.
Karma is a b!tch! The GOP wanted a failed presidency in Obama and instead are getting it in Trump.
You've conveniently left out a more reasonable conclusion, and that is, both are failed presidencies.

Well, Obama's presidency was a huge success if you are black. The social entitlements rained down upon the hood like manna from heaven. If that weren't so, why would there be so much push back against Trump, from every black power organization in the country?

Then there's his, less blacks voted for Hillary Clinton than did for Obama. That smacks of racism. Although, everybody knows blacks are incapable of racism, especially you, right?

And then there's the Russia invades Syria fiasco. After Obama and Clinton forged a 'landmark accord' with Russia, Putin punked them, and threw the weight of his military into supporting the Assad regime. Obama then decided Putin was 'a war criminal'. No, Putin is an opportunist and a liar, and Obama is an imbecile, at least as it pertains to foreign policy

What Obama was brilliant at however, was proving this axiom indelibly true, 'we federally subsidize the breeding of an entire segment of the population we'd be better off without'.
 
Last edited:

sac39507

Posts: 308   +133
Here is a link to the resignation letter directly: http://www.nextgov.com/media/gbc/docs/pdfs_edit/082417jm1.pdf

In reading the letter the first thing that stands out; this is an individual letter and not from a group who chose to leave. Second thing is all the left-wing bulls**t therein, being pissed at leaving the Paris accord, failure to denounce the violence at the Charlottesville rally, the failure to address cyber threats relating to our election process, and something about revoking flood-risk building standards.... WTF ever! Third, this is an unsigned letter. It is not on official government letterhead. As far as I am concerned this is bogus.

Now I will not discredit that people have left cyber positions, but because the president doesn't take cyber threats seriously, is a load of BS. I know the president is briefed by the joint chiefs and they all have inputs on cyber security. The NSA and CIA have inputs on cyber threats. If you think Mr Trump is dumb enough to ignore them, then you can say the same thing for the last 3 presidents, hence why NIAC was created in the first place. Obama didn't seem to have a problem ignoring threats. His buddies in the DNC were hacked when they are constantly warned through annual training. Dumb *** Podesta fell for a whaling attack for f**ks sake! Hilary had a private server! I am sure that IS on the list of things NOT to do.

People want this administration to fail which is pathetic and sad. I don't agree with everything he says but I am an American and he was elected. Therefore just like Obama, I have to accept his position and respect the position. It hasn't even been a year and the guy has been dealing with fires left and right. I didn't see this happen to Bush, Clinton or Obama, but then again, the political landscape has become so volatile it is a wonder it's not worse. So many banked on Hilary being elected and it didn't happen. The left has been throwing a tantrum since last Nov. Let the man do his job. Let him make his policies, let him take his crap to congress, it is up to them to block it or pass it. We have a system (albeit broken) of checks and balances. If you don't like who makes the decisions, take your lazy *** to the polling station and vote! Its not just Trump who is the *****s. Its congress and the senate too, BOTH sides.

Do something constructive instead of jumping on the bandwagon. Put some effort into figuring out what to do and what to vote on next cycle. Crying about it now won't help you. You can use this time to educate yourself and be more informed when the time comes. I for one am sick of the attacks on the president. Respect the position, not the man. It feels like we are one step away from a Julius Caesar impeachment.
I'm sure they tried all they could and tolerated all they could. I'm sure they respect the position but the man doesn't understand the limits of his position and have abolished it and created his own position.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wiyosaya

captaincranky

Posts: 16,066   +4,866
I'm sure they tried all they could and tolerated all they could. I'm sure they respect the position but the man doesn't understand the limits of his position and have abolished it and created his own position.
I'm sure they found convenient excuses on which to blame their departure, and headed back to the much more lucrative private sector, while trying to make themselves look like heroic SJW's in the process.
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 5,243   +3,336
"Another high-profile tech name to leave the White House councils was Elon Musk. The Tesla boss, who recently unveiled his SpaceX space suit, resigned in June as a protest against the US pulling out of the Paris Accord".

Musk leaving anyplace from which he could possibly gain access to the nations finances, is a major blessing to the nation. We should all breath a massive sigh of relief now that, "the parasite has left the building".

Besides, I'm sure he'll find something to keep himself busy. Perhaps parading around his bedroom wearing only the jacket to his 'spacesuit' crying out, 'I think I can, I think I can, I think I can, I think I can, (insert any of many Musk follies, or next get rich scheme HERE), and repeat until climax is achieved.
You've conveniently left out a more reasonable conclusion, and that is, both are failed presidencies.

Well, Obama's presidency was a huge success if you are black. The social entitlements rained down upon the hood like manna from heaven. If that weren't so, why would there be so much push back against Trump, from every black power organization in the country?

Then there's his, less blacks voted for Hillary Clinton than did for Obama. That smacks of racism. Although, everybody knows blacks are incapable of racism, especially you, right?

And then there's the Russia invades Syria fiasco. After Obama and Clinton forged a 'landmark accord' with Russia, Putin punked them, and threw the weight of his military into supporting the Assad regime. Obama then decided Putin was 'a war criminal'. No, Putin is an opportunist and a liar, and Obama is an imbecile, at least as it pertains to foreign policy

What Obama was brilliant at however, was proving this axiom indelibly true, 'we federally subsidize the breeding of an entire segment of the population we'd be better off without'.
Thanks for this outburst of racist anger, Crank!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mcborge

wiyosaya

Posts: 5,243   +3,336
Respect the position, not the man.
I have respect for the office; however, the office subsumes the values of the person holding that office. And, trust me, I will be voting consistent with my values and views.

Perhaps the letter is BS, and you are certainly welcome to consider positions such as conservation of natural resources BS, too. However, as a species, I do not see that it is not beyond reason to consider, at least, that natural resources are not unlimited, and, in fact, are bound by limits. There is not one place in this world where the footprint of humanity is absent.

Even within the govt, Trump's views are not resoundingly supported. And personally, I don't believe as Mitch McConnell once publicly stated, "I don't believe in climate change because God said he would not smite the earth again." Did God ever say that he would not let humanity smite the earth?

As I see it, Trump is tearing down his own presidency, perhaps because he has no respect for the position himself. I do not want the presidency to fail. Unfortunately, it appears that it is heading in that direction and we, as Americans, have to go along for the ride whether we like it or not.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Godel

captaincranky

Posts: 16,066   +4,866
Thanks for this outburst of racist anger, Crank!
You're quite welcome.

But why don't you tell me where I've misspoken, instead of one of your bullsh!t proclamations. In other words, instead of you're usual holier than thou crap, idealistic nonsense, along with symptoms of chronic Hillary withdrawal?

Dude, wake up! The nation couldn't have afforded to give every denizen of the ghetto the free college education she was promising. Not to mention, a doctorate in English is wasted on the available jobs in the Walmart and Amazon warehouses... :D

So, the way to solve the human race's massive disappearing resources problem, is to reduce the size of the herd, period. So instead of you running your yap about god did this or that, how about if we sterilize 2 out of every 3 human females, and let them go do their erotic play without consequences to the balance of nature..

That is of course, unless you have a better idea, which I'm certain you don't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: psycros

Bubbajim

Posts: 720   +694
In reading the letter the first thing that stands out; this is an individual letter and not from a group who chose to leave. Second thing is all the left-wing bulls**t therein, being pissed at leaving the Paris accord, failure to denounce the violence at the Charlottesville rally, the failure to address cyber threats relating to our election process, and something about revoking flood-risk building standards.... WTF ever! Third, this is an unsigned letter. It is not on official government letterhead. As far as I am concerned this is bogus.
Could you give a little more detail on what you mean by "left-wing bulls**t"? I'm a bit confused as to why those fairly non-partisan things you mentioned are left-wing.

Now I will not discredit that people have left cyber positions, but because the president doesn't take cyber threats seriously, is a load of BS. I know the president is briefed by the joint chiefs and they all have inputs on cyber security. The NSA and CIA have inputs on cyber threats. If you think Mr Trump is dumb enough to ignore them, then you can say the same thing for the last 3 presidents, hence why NIAC was created in the first place. Obama didn't seem to have a problem ignoring threats. His buddies in the DNC were hacked when they are constantly warned through annual training. Dumb *** Podesta fell for a whaling attack for f**ks sake! Hilary had a private server! I am sure that IS on the list of things NOT to do.
None of this seems to particularly make sense either. Being briefed on something doesn't mean he cares about it, and it was shown months ago that his "briefs" have been reduced to single page documents with a handful of bullet points. I doubt he's taking very much seriously. Then on your next point about DNC folks being hacked, that too doesn't fit with "not caring". Having your house broken into doesn't mean you "don't care" about burglary. Did they do enough to counter it? Clearly not. And it likely played a big role in them losing the election. This guy won the election, and the group working closest with him on this issue have said he's not taking it seriously *now*.

People want this administration to fail which is pathetic and sad. I don't agree with everything he says but I am an American and he was elected. Therefore just like Obama, I have to accept his position and respect the position.
No. In no democracy do you have to just shut up and put up with a leader once they're elected. That's kind of the point. If you're in a country where you can't criticise the people in power, you're not in a democracy. You don't have to accept or respect someone's position.

It hasn't even been a year and the guy has been dealing with fires left and right. I didn't see this happen to Bush, Clinton or Obama, but then again, the political landscape has become so volatile it is a wonder it's not worse.
From an outside perspective, it really seems like Trump is setting more fires than any President before him, though I can't really back this up with anything other than my own experience. It would be really interesting to see some kind of research into this; history will tell, I guess.

The left has been throwing a tantrum since last Nov. Let the man do his job. Let him make his policies, let him take his crap to congress, it is up to them to block it or pass it.
Trump is deliberately avoiding Congress as often as possible. He's basically signing Executive Order after Executive Order (despite criticising Obama for doing them), because seemingly everything he puts before Congress fails. For the first time in years the Republican party has all the power, but their leader is so reviled even in (ostensibly) his own party that he can't do anything. That's gotta be a bad sign, surely?

Do something constructive instead of jumping on the bandwagon. Put some effort into figuring out what to do and what to vote on next cycle. Crying about it now won't help you. You can use this time to educate yourself and be more informed when the time comes. I for one am sick of the attacks on the president. Respect the position, not the man. It feels like we are one step away from a Julius Caesar impeachment.
This part I finally agreed with, until the last couple of sentences. Again, you shouldn't just fall in line and blindly respect a position. Your right to scrutinise and criticise doesn't end when an election result is announced.
 

JudasSheep

Posts: 96   +76
"Could you give a little more detail on what you mean by "left-wing bulls**t"? I'm a bit confused as to why those fairly non-partisan things you mentioned are left-wing."

Paris Accords is about climate change and most who support that theory are left leaning to far left.

Denouncing the Violence in Charlottesville - Trump did that, albeit not right away as some would of liked. He more emphasized the violence on both sides, which is true. Latter he did call out the KKK and neo-nazi sympathizers. However, the left didn't accept his calling out like it didn't happen.

Not addressing critical cyber threats - Trump has talked about addressing these. That nothing has been done isn't totally on Trump's shoulders. An officer can give orders, but its up to the troops to follow them. Having such a "resistance" to all things Trump makes that kind of hard, don't you think?

The flood-risk thing... I don't know anything about it and couldn't care less. I live in a desert, if we get rain, I get happy. I would have to research this to talk about it specifically. When I said leftist, I meant the first three but included what was in the letter.

"None of this seems to particularly make sense either. Being briefed on something doesn't mean he cares about it, and it was shown months ago that his "briefs" have been reduced to single page documents with a handful of bullet points. I doubt he's taking very much seriously."

What part doesn't make sense to you? Are you saying that because the president has 1 page briefs (on paper) that he doesn't have enough information or are you saying the president doesn't write down enough? Are you basing your information off the massive media sh*t storm or are you basing it off of fact? If you don't think he is taking anything seriously, I should just stop right here because you have blinders on and are so full of leftist propaganda, you will argue ANYTHING I say. I will however, indulge myself and continue, mind you though, I think you're a waste of my time.

"Then on your next point about DNC folks being hacked, that too doesn't fit with "not caring". Having your house broken into doesn't mean you "don't care" about burglary. Did they do enough to counter it? Clearly not. And it likely played a big role in them losing the election. This guy won the election, and the group working closest with him on this issue have said he's not taking it seriously *now*."

Prove that, please. Show me where the "Group closest to him" say that. Who is the "Group closest to him?" If you speak of these Leaders in Tech, how many of them donated to the DNC? How many of them have spoken against the president.

"No. In no democracy do you have to just shut up and put up with a leader once they're elected. That's kind of the point. If you're in a country where you can't criticise the people in power, you're not in a democracy. You don't have to accept or respect someone's position."

So you deny people what this administration to fail? You deny people are asking for violence against the president? I thought the CO of my first command was an assh**e and hated his guts, but I still did my job and still followed his orders to the letter. Behind closed doors I let my feelings be known, but I didn't outright defy him or go behind his back on anything. There is a difference between voicing your concerns and outright defiance or subversion. I think you need to revisit what promoting violence against some and protesting really mean.

"Trump is deliberately avoiding Congress as often as possible. He's basically signing Executive Order after Executive Order (despite criticising Obama for doing them), because seemingly everything he puts before Congress fails. For the first time in years the Republican party has all the power, but their leader is so reviled even in (ostensibly) his own party that he can't do anything. That's gotta be a bad sign, surely?"

How do you know he is avoiding congress as much as possible? Please tell me your sources. What you said sounds to me like "Trump is so hated even his own party wont help him. The only way to pass anything is to have the congressional majority the same party as the president." I am going to ask this... Are you in the White House or a member of Congress? If no, then you don't know anything. You, like me only know what information we are fed. You can do research or you can take what we are told at face value. The way the world is or has been for the last 10+ years, I don't believe anything, I question it! If it matches my observations and what is said confirms what I have seen, then I choose to believe it. The rest can be the sheep (name reference at this point).

This part I finally agreed with, until the last couple of sentences. Again, you shouldn't just fall in line and blindly respect a position. Your right to scrutinise and criticise doesn't end when an election result is announced.

The last couple sentences were "I for one am sick of the attacks on the president. Respect the position, not the man. It feels like we are one step away from a Julius Caesar impeachment." You are saying you do not respect the position? That right there says a lot. You are saying you agree with all the attacks towards the president? That too says a lot. I never said our right to scrutinize or criticize should be infringed on or end with the election. However, neither of those words are what is truly happening to the president. Some are going far beyond scrutinize or criticize. Some should be in jail for what they have said. Put our last president back in place with all that is happening to Trump and tell me you would be fine with it. If you wouldn't do this to Obama, then you shouldn't do it to Trump. Would you want to be treated the way he has been? Then why treat him that way? OH, because it doesn't align with what you want or what you believe.... That is extremism. Your inability to see past the forest for the trees has you blinded. I pity you, but thanks for your comments.
 
  • Like
Reactions: psycros

Bubbajim

Posts: 720   +694
Paris Accords is about climate change and most who support that theory are left leaning to far left.

Denouncing the Violence in Charlottesville - Trump did that, albeit not right away as some would of liked. He more emphasized the violence on both sides, which is true. Latter he did call out the KKK and neo-nazi sympathizers. However, the left didn't accept his calling out like it didn't happen.

Not addressing critical cyber threats - Trump has talked about addressing these. That nothing has been done isn't totally on Trump's shoulders. An officer can give orders, but its up to the troops to follow them. Having such a "resistance" to all things Trump makes that kind of hard, don't you think?

The flood-risk thing... I don't know anything about it and couldn't care less. I live in a desert, if we get rain, I get happy. I would have to research this to talk about it specifically. When I said leftist, I meant the first three but included what was in the letter.
None of this is "left-ist". You might see it as un-Republican, but none of it is what would be considered "left-wing". Neither party in the US is left-wing, one's just more right-wing than the other, moderately-right-wing party.

What part doesn't make sense to you? Are you saying that because the president has 1 page briefs (on paper) that he doesn't have enough information or are you saying the president doesn't write down enough? Are you basing your information off the massive media sh*t storm or are you basing it off of fact? If you don't think he is taking anything seriously, I should just stop right here because you have blinders on and are so full of leftist propaganda, you will argue ANYTHING I say. I will however, indulge myself and continue, mind you though, I think you're a waste of my time.
I have no idea where you got the "doesn't write enough down" from, but that's just the first blatant mis-characterisation of things I've said, so let's skip that for now. I've explained why I think the DNC stuff doesn't follow from your premise, so let's turn to whether Trump is taking things seriously.

I'm saying it doesn't seem that he takes much seriously because he says mutually contradicting statements all the time. If in this reply I tried to tell you that actually I *do* think he takes things seriously, contrary to my previous post, you'd probably conclude that I was confused, joking or dishonest. And I'd agree that one of those options would likely be true. Trump doesn't get to excuse doing exactly that, just because he was elected to a powerful office.

Prove that, please. Show me where the "Group closest to him" say that. Who is the "Group closest to him?" If you speak of these Leaders in Tech, how many of them donated to the DNC? How many of them have spoken against the president.
Now, what I actually said was, "the group working closest with him on this issue", which is very, very different to the "Group closest to him". I'm not talking about his inner-circle, I'm talking about the specific group for the specific issues. And if, to quote the article, the group who "advises on the security of the critical infrastructure sectors and their information systems", isn't the group who actually advises on the security of the critical infrastructure sectors and their information systems, then I've been fooled. Donations to the DNC wouldn't really matter a jot, too. Plus, again, you seem to think it's a bad thing to speak out against a political leader. It's their job to advise, not to be "yes men".


So you deny people what this administration to fail? You deny people are asking for violence against the president? I thought the CO of my first command was an assh**e and hated his guts, but I still did my job and still followed his orders to the letter. Behind closed doors I let my feelings be known, but I didn't outright defy him or go behind his back on anything. There is a difference between voicing your concerns and outright defiance or subversion. I think you need to revisit what promoting violence against some and protesting really mean.
I certainly don't deny that some people want the administration to fail, that's why I left it out of the part I quoted. But it could be equally said that many people want the whole government to fail, or want radical overhaul, or a government that only serves a minority of the people. People want lots of different things. But we were talking about the NIAC, who most likely want the country to succeed. Not least because most of them would be sure to profit from a successful country.

And, again, again, resigning from a post on an advisory council because you disagree with the actions of its leader, is not wrong. It's certainly not comparable to disobeying a Commanding Officer (if that's what you meant by CO - pardon my ignorance on the acronym). Civilian and military structures work differently, for obvious reasons.

How do you know he is avoiding congress as much as possible? Please tell me your sources. What you said sounds to me like "Trump is so hated even his own party wont help him. The only way to pass anything is to have the congressional majority the same party as the president." I am going to ask this... Are you in the White House or a member of Congress? If no, then you don't know anything. You, like me only know what information we are fed. You can do research or you can take what we are told at face value. The way the world is or has been for the last 10+ years, I don't believe anything, I question it! If it matches my observations and what is said confirms what I have seen, then I choose to believe it. The rest can be the sheep (name reference at this point).
You have a constant reinterpreting going on which is putting words in my mouth. And bizarre words at that. Saying "...The only way to pass anything is to have the congressional majority the same as the president" as though it weren't currently the case, and major things still weren't passing, doesn't really cut it.

Forgive the hyperbole in the aforementioned quote of mine, but when the President's own administration says he's signed more executive orders in his first 100 days than any president for the last half a century, that, to me, seems like a lot of signing, and not much congressional involvement.

The last couple sentences were "I for one am sick of the attacks on the president. Respect the position, not the man. It feels like we are one step away from a Julius Caesar impeachment." You are saying you do not respect the position? That right there says a lot. You are saying you agree with all the attacks towards the president? That too says a lot. I never said our right to scrutinize or criticize should be infringed on or end with the election. However, neither of those words are what is truly happening to the president. Some are going far beyond scrutinize or criticize. Some should be in jail for what they have said. Put our last president back in place with all that is happening to Trump and tell me you would be fine with it. If you wouldn't do this to Obama, then you shouldn't do it to Trump. Would you want to be treated the way he has been? Then why treat him that way? OH, because it doesn't align with what you want or what you believe.... That is extremism. Your inability to see past the forest for the trees has you blinded. I pity you, but thanks for your comments.
"Couple" means two. So no, that doesn't include the part about attacks on the President, though obviously I'm fully in favour of scrutiny and fair criticism. And no, again, again, again, you don't have to "respect the position". Could you please tell me what you actually mean by that, because I think I must be missing something. One the one hand you say it's fine to criticise, on the other you say people should "respect the position". Those seem mutually contradictory.

And this is all almost exactly what happened to Obama; just with slightly less vitriol, and from the other side. I didn't much care for Obama either. I thought him an over-promising idealist who couldn't really get anything done.

It's depressingly ironic that you keep saying things like I'm "blinkered", when just a few questions from me prompted a raging, assumptive and condescending post from you. Who is the more blinkered, the one who asks questions to clarify points and thoughts, or the one who relies on insults and assumptions to impose upon others their own interpretation?

Honestly, I really don't understand the intense anger or disdain. Forums are for discussion; so let's please discuss things.
 

JudasSheep

Posts: 96   +76
I am done with you and will not respond to any of your posts in the future. You can have this thread, I don't care. Call it a win if you want, there was no discussion.