Republicans and democrats don't understand each other

[RSL]

It's not the President rattling his head in that article. The guy practically was foaming at the mouth. The UK may need a straightjacket to get him home.

[Chris Kern]

But then maybe you'll enjoy this article from the UK:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7220335/Britains-man-says-Trump-inept-Cables-ambassador-say-dysfunctional.html

Fascinating.  I don't know how the Daily Mail obtained these diplomatic cables—disgruntled civil servants? Russian hackers?—but they sure look authentic to me.  (In fact, they read remarkably like the reports American diplomats send back to Washington about the politics of their host countries.)

Of course there's nothing new here.  The reports and assessments contained in the British embassy cables closely correspond to the information journalists have been getting from White House insiders since the beginning of the Trump Administration.

I suspect Sir Kim may soon be returning to the U.K. and transitioning into retirement.

[jeremyrh]

I'm disappointed how some people want to shutdown the other side when they disagree with their points of view.  It's a sad day for free speech and free thought. What's the point of having a forum?  You might as well shut it down.

What's the point of having a forum where people just repeat lies over and over and refuse to participate in reasoned discussion? None whatsoever - might as well shut it down indeed. Or just leave it to stew as people migrate elsewhere.

[Jeremy Roussak]

It's that refusal - or is it inability? - to take on board new information that contradicts an established, ingrained credo, that is the thing raising blood pressure and making tempers fly. The frustration of writing something that clearly explains why some things are as they are, which is subsequently ignored, and then the same old point raised over and over again, removes all sense of corresponding with a sane human being.

Exactly, Rob. Well put.

I'm disappointed how some people want to shutdown the other side when they disagree with their points of view.  It's a sad day for free speech and free thought. What's the point of having a forum?  You might as well shut it down.

Alan, I have given you information and I have tried to facilitate your access to more information, on which you could then base reasoned argument. I have failed; instead, you prefer to wallow in the pit of your own ignorance and persistently to co-opt as support for your entrenched views a dead baby and his no doubt caring but grievously misguided parents. The first is a matter of your choice; the second, quite despicable.

I have not shut down you, the discussion or the forum, nor do I wish or intend at present to do so. I have merely written that your actions in relation to this topic have led me no longer to respect your views on it or any other topic; but I am not so naive as to believe that that is of the slightest interest or concern to you.

I will not engage with you further. There is no point.

Jeremy

[Alan Goldhammer]

According to Steve Pinker and others, we're far better off now than we used to be. In the past we'd kill each other by the millions and millions of others would die from preventable causes. But we're largely denied that spectacle of slaughter these days so men have to get their fix of misery by being twerps on the internet. Women don't seem to need to do this as much.

Pinker is correct but only about some parts of the world.  One wonders about the prospects of women in many areas of the developing world.  We certainly have fewer large wars and the ones we do have tend to be small regional conflicts.  The spectre of something like the 30 years war that ravaged 17th century Central Europe don't seem to be a possibility these days.

[RSL]

Fascinating.  I don't know how the Daily Mail obtained these diplomatic cables—disgruntled civil servants? Russian hackers? Making stuff up?

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Fascinating.  I don't know how the Daily Mail obtained these diplomatic cables—disgruntled civil servants? Russian hackers?

Possibly both, to help Nigel Farage in weakening the UK and Europe.

Of course there's nothing new here.  The reports and assessments contained in the British embassy cables closely correspond to the information journalists have been getting from White House insiders since the beginning of the Trump Administration.

Indeed, but the consistency between the different sources is worrisome.

I suspect Sir Kim may soon be returning to the U.K. and transitioning into retirement.

Yes, but mostly as a token of goodwill to Trump, not because something was lacking in his observations.

The real question remains, who leaked the documents??? But that's something for the Brexit thread.

Cheers,
Bart

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

For what it is worth, I am deeply disappointed by the unfair treatment of Alan, by otherwise reasonable people, for exercising his right to a different opinion.

[Alan Klein]

Exactly, Rob. Well put.

Alan, I have given you information and I have tried to facilitate your access to more information, on which you could then base reasoned argument. I have failed; instead, you prefer to wallow in the pit of your own ignorance and persistently to co-opt as support for your entrenched views a dead baby and his no doubt caring but grievously misguided parents. The first is a matter of your choice; the second, quite despicable.

I have not shut down you, the discussion or the forum, nor do I wish or intend at present to do so. I have merely written that your actions in relation to this topic have led me no longer to respect your views on it or any other topic; but I am not so naive as to believe that that is of the slightest interest or concern to you.

I will not engage with you further. There is no point.

Jeremy

It is of concern to me.  Not because we have different points of view.  But that you'd let it rupture a relationship between us.  I'm sorry about that.  We all say a lot of things that often seems totally different than what seems reasonable to us.  Certainly I felt that about many posts here.  But I always came back to the table and listened to everyone subsequently. 

[Alan Klein]

For what it is worth, I am deeply disappointed by the unfair treatment of Alan, by otherwise reasonable people, for exercising his right to a different opinion.

Thanks, Slobo.  You've gotten your share of hits as well that were totally unfair.  However, we're both still standing giving it as well as taking it.  . 

[faberryman]

Now they are victims. Typical.

[Alan Klein]

Now they are victims. Typical.

You made me smile. 

[Alan Klein]

Not really, I just don't live in your bubble...

But then maybe you'll enjoy this article from the UK:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7220335/Britains-man-says-Trump-inept-Cables-ambassador-say-dysfunctional.html

The point is not so much what an Ambassador has to say about the Trump administration, but who leaked the confidential messages?

The houses of cards are crumbling.

Cheers,
Bart

I don't think the Brits ought to use this ambassador to negotiate trade deals with Trump after Brexit.   They might not wind up with a single peppercorn from him. 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I don't think the Brits ought to use this ambassador to negotiate trade deals with Trump after Brexit.   They might not wind up with a single peppercorn from him.

That's not the role of an ambassador.

But, knowing the British humor which I like a lot, it might become his next job.

Cheers,
Bart

[jeremyrh]

For what it is worth, I am deeply disappointed by the unfair treatment of Alan, by otherwise reasonable people, for exercising his right to a different opinion.

As your hero put it - "Everybody has a right to be stupid, but some people abuse the privilege"

Alan is not being persecuted for having an opinion, he is being criticised for his wanton disregard for the facts.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

As your hero put it - "Everybody has a right to be stupid, but some people abuse the privilege"

Alan is not being persecuted for having an opinion, he is being criticised for his wanton disregard for the facts.

There was no disregard of the facts.

Facts, in general, are necessary, but not sufficient factor. Both Alan and I are aware of the same facts, yet come to a different conclusion, based on the same set of facts, than you lot (pardon the British expression).

Is that so surprising? In every case that comes to SCOTUS, the nine judges are presented with the same set of facts. And yet, in most many cases, the decision is made 5:4 or similar, rarely, if ever, as 9:0 (though our resident constitutional expert could prove me wrong). How is that possible? If all the judges are presented with the same facts, they surely should come, as reasonable and highly educated people, to a unanimous decision, no? Do we call the dissenting judges "ignorant" or not worthy of further discussion with?

P.S. I thought he is your hero?

[faberryman]

In every case that comes to SCOTUS, the nine judges are presented with the same set of facts. And yet, in most cases, the decision is made 5:4 or similar, rarely, if ever, as 9:0 (though our resident constitutional expert could prove me wrong).

Most cases are not decided by a 5 to 4 margin. Those are just the ones reported on in the press, usually involving social issues. Most of the cases decided by SCOTUS are so arcane they are not interesting to anyone other than the constitutional scholar, and so you never hear about them. SCOTUS cases are characterized by being well reasoned on both sides, which is often not the case with much of public discourse.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Most cases are not decided by a 5 to 4 margin. Those are just the ones reported on in the press, usually involving social issues. Most of the cases decided by SCOTUS are so arcane they are not interesting except to the constitutional scholar.

Ok... let's allow for your pedantry and stick to those 5:4 cases; or 6:3; or 7:2; or even 8:1... my question still holds: do we call the dissenting judges "ignorant" or not worthy of further discussion with?

[jeremyrh]

Ok... let's allow for your pedantry and stick to those 5:4 cases; or 6:3; or 7:2; or even 8:1... my question still holds: do we call the dissenting judges "ignorant" or not worthy of further discussion with?

Lord help us if Alan Klein ever became a SC judge !!

[Alan Klein]

Unfortunately, the politics of the day seems to allow everyone to call those they disagree with "morons" Nazis" Hitler, fascists, etc.  If you can call the President of the US those names, certainly we can call forum members as well.  Just read some of the reader's responses on articles about Trump in some of the "news" websites.We don't know how to discuss things any longer.  Everything is a prize fight, winner take all.  If you have a different opinion than me, well your opinion is not valid. Worse still, we want to shut you up and not hear from you at all.  Look what's happening on college campuses?  One side prevents others from speaking. Their speech is deemed harmful, not worthy of listening too.  This is in colleges where learning and open debate were always treasured. Well, it's become like 1984 there as well.  The government will define which speech is valid and who will be punished for violating government standards.  Fortunately in America, free speech still is protected by our constitution and laws.  But civil discourse has become mean.  Maybe it's the fault of the web.  We never before had a place where we can say what we want anonymously and not suffer the consequences of being socially rejected.  It's carried over to the public square.