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.
