3 ms·

This should be downvoted as horribly misleading. This idiot is FACTUALLY and PROVABLY wrong. One instance which is easy to demonstrate is the line that the Pre

by MR4D 10y ago

This should be downvoted as horribly misleading. This idiot is FACTUALLY and PROVABLY wrong. One instance which is easy to demonstrate is the line that the President "removed a permanent military presence from the NSC". The military is on the Council according to LAW. No president can change that. SOURCE: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/3021 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/3021 Now stop repeating crap that isn't true. It takes away from real issues, and divides the country on YOUR Headfake. HN readers deserve better. Much better.

grzm 10y ago
"removed a permanent military presence from the NSC" This is a reference to Trump downgrading the Joint Chiefs of Staff (as well as the director of national intelligence) from the principals committee of the NSC. Rather than attending every meeting, they'll only be asked to attend if the topic of discussion pertains to their area. They're no longer permanently in attendance: just occasionally. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/us/stephen-bannon-donald-trump-national-security-council.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/us/stephen-bannon-donald-...
- MR4D 10y ago
  My key point is that they are not removed. The NSC is huge. It has groups and subgroups galore. Every president moves people around between committees. The law allows for that, but still stipulates they are members of the committee. Best breakdown I found is this page - see the tables for an easy visual): http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/31/sean-spicer/spicers-misleading-claim-trumps-national-security-/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/...
  - grzm 10y ago
    Then you're willfully misrepresenting the author's intent to show that they're wrong (and using all caps to emphasize how wrong it is). This makes it difficult to take on good faith the rest of what you say when you're not interpreting the author in the same vein. If, on the other hand, you'd make a reasoned argument like, "It's likely the author means this, but here's why I don't believe that's a valid representation of the facts", I'd be more willing to consider the rest of what you have to say. I think his use of the word permanent is valid: they're no longer permanent members. I can understand your point of view as well. I also don't see him making the argument that doing so is against the law, or even implies that it's illegal: just that it's a significant change from the past (or, in his words "a much bigger deal). Bringing this legal aspect up as to why he's being misleading is a bit of a straw man, in my opinion. Anyway, I find arguments made calmly and reasonably, and in good faith (of which there sometimes seems to be an ever-dwindling supply) unless there's an abundance of evidence to believe otherwise to be much more persuasive.
    - MR4D 10y ago
      While I am frustrated with the author, I don't believe that I'm willfully represnting my position. They are still permanent members, just on a different group within the committee. The author is putting forward what is essentially a conspiracy theory and using distorted facts for fear mongering.
    - MR4D 10y ago
      One other thought I meant to mention. His "recommends" list links to an article that Trump is trying to stage a coup. Seriously?? Now maybe he thought it was funny, but based on _his own writing_, I doubt it. I welcome your thoughts. (And appreciate your civil tone, which has been commendable)
      - grzm 10y ago
        Thanks. I appreciate it. Unfortunately, this exchange has exhausted what was left of my good will, at least for now. It's decidedly not effort-free yet for me. The past couple of days have been particularly taxing. The last three comments I've written I've immediately deleted because they weren't up-to-snuff. I'll keep at it, though, because I think it's a very important practice to keep. If that's something you value, and would like to further cultivate in yourself, I've got some references I rely on in my profile. I encourage you to check them out. Cheers.
        Erem 10y ago
        Thanks for dropping those links, grzm. Between them and the content of your comments I have been reminded what civil disagreement is supposed to look like.

by MR4D 10y ago

grzm 10y ago

"removed a permanent military presence from the NSC" This is a reference to Trump downgrading the Joint Chiefs of Staff (as well as the director of national intelligence) from the principals committee of the NSC. Rather than attending every meeting, they'll only be asked to attend if the topic of discussion pertains to their area. They're no longer permanently in attendance: just occasionally. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/us/stephen-bannon-donald-trump-national-security-council.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/us/stephen-bannon-donald-...

MR4D 10y ago
My key point is that they are not removed. The NSC is huge. It has groups and subgroups galore. Every president moves people around between committees. The law allows for that, but still stipulates they are members of the committee. Best breakdown I found is this page - see the tables for an easy visual): http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/31/sean-spicer/spicers-misleading-claim-trumps-national-security-/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/...
- grzm 10y ago
  Then you're willfully misrepresenting the author's intent to show that they're wrong (and using all caps to emphasize how wrong it is). This makes it difficult to take on good faith the rest of what you say when you're not interpreting the author in the same vein. If, on the other hand, you'd make a reasoned argument like, "It's likely the author means this, but here's why I don't believe that's a valid representation of the facts", I'd be more willing to consider the rest of what you have to say. I think his use of the word permanent is valid: they're no longer permanent members. I can understand your point of view as well. I also don't see him making the argument that doing so is against the law, or even implies that it's illegal: just that it's a significant change from the past (or, in his words "a much bigger deal). Bringing this legal aspect up as to why he's being misleading is a bit of a straw man, in my opinion. Anyway, I find arguments made calmly and reasonably, and in good faith (of which there sometimes seems to be an ever-dwindling supply) unless there's an abundance of evidence to believe otherwise to be much more persuasive.
  - MR4D 10y ago
    While I am frustrated with the author, I don't believe that I'm willfully represnting my position. They are still permanent members, just on a different group within the committee. The author is putting forward what is essentially a conspiracy theory and using distorted facts for fear mongering.
  - MR4D 10y ago
    One other thought I meant to mention. His "recommends" list links to an article that Trump is trying to stage a coup. Seriously?? Now maybe he thought it was funny, but based on _his own writing_, I doubt it. I welcome your thoughts. (And appreciate your civil tone, which has been commendable)
    - grzm 10y ago
      Thanks. I appreciate it. Unfortunately, this exchange has exhausted what was left of my good will, at least for now. It's decidedly not effort-free yet for me. The past couple of days have been particularly taxing. The last three comments I've written I've immediately deleted because they weren't up-to-snuff. I'll keep at it, though, because I think it's a very important practice to keep. If that's something you value, and would like to further cultivate in yourself, I've got some references I rely on in my profile. I encourage you to check them out. Cheers.
      - Erem 10y ago
        Thanks for dropping those links, grzm. Between them and the content of your comments I have been reminded what civil disagreement is supposed to look like.