11-29-2018, 12:52 PM
(11-29-2018, 12:25 PM)GMDino Wrote: Or, and this is just spitballing, you could just not assume you are right and attack something that wasn't being talked about. That would help too.
Well, seeing as how the person who starts a thread should probably explain what the thread is about I'm going to say the onus is on you in this instance.
Quote:Where did you ever get that? It's about whether Acosta should work in an administration. Especially in the role he has. Yes, the current Admin is the Trump one, and he has a tendency to big awful people. But that's an aside to Acosta himself.
Ahh, so my assumption was 100% correct then. Good on me.
Quote:Still defending Acosta. If your premise that he was simply pawn n game of life is true he still shouldn't be in the position he's in.
As I said:
Your insistence on ignorance is both astounding and troubling. Being subject to the orders of your superiors does not make you a pawn. This is why trying to have a rational discussion with you is maddening. You willfully misinterpret points made (Fred is beaming with pride I'm sure). That or you lack the intellectual capacity to grasp them. I'll try and explain one last time.
Acosta is lead prosecutor on an insanely high profile case. He cuts a deal with defendant that you lambaste as a sweetheart deal and criticize him for it. I, rightfully, point out that any deal Acosta made would have to have gotten the green light from the highest levels of the US Attorney's office given the extremely high profile nature of the case. I also, rightfully, point out that such a deal was not formulated solely by Acosta, as his superiors would be very involved in any such process given the as high as possible profile nature of the case. Therefore, your issue is not with Acosta, it's with the US Attorney's office and their giving the homeboy hookup to the defendant. As to whether this case should disqualify Acosta as "a pawn", well that's naive. Anyone in his position would have been subject to the exact same level of involvement from superiors. Essentially, what you are saying is that no one who's worked as a prosecutor should every be involved in government.
Quote:I can't make it clearer. Perhaps because you think you have to defend Trump you aren't seeing it that way?
You said this thread wasn't about Trump, please make up your mind. I didn't even mention Trump's name until you made your rather unclear point about being overrun with power. In any event I haven't defended anyone in this thread. I've merely pointed out that your criticism of Acosta is based on blinkered ignorance, willful or otherwise, of the actual process that would take place when cutting a deal in such a high profile case. I'm sorry, I can't think of a concrete business parallel to make understanding the concept easier for you.
Oh, Dill, if you're browsing the forum, here's another example of the tactic you stated earlier you've never seen. Maybe they're hard to see from that ivory tower?
