Trump's new Sec. of Labor has some baggage...

[GMDino]

(11-29-2018, 12:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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.

Can't admit you were wrong.

(11-29-2018, 12:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Ahh, so my assumption was 100% correct then.  Good on me.

Can't admit you were wrong.

(11-29-2018, 12:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Your insistence on ignorance is both astounding and troubling.  Being subject to the orders of your superiors does not make you a pawn.

You yourself said you have asked to be removed from something when you didn't like how it was being handled. If Acosta had shown that kind of internal fortitude and morals this entire conversation would be moot.

 

(11-29-2018, 12:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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.

I believe you are dealing in hyperbole. I hope the guy who hates that reads your post.

All seriousness aside: It wasn't just a "sweetheart deal"...it made the entire thing go away for everyone who even MIGHT have been involved. That Acosta didn't have the dignity or moral fortitude to step away from it speaks volumes.

Your continued defense of him that he was just doing what he was told takes away all personal responsibility.

It doesn't matter if he came up with it or just rubber stamped it. It shows how he will be in his life and every job he has with superiors.

(11-29-2018, 12:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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?  

You have defended him by attacking a position I didn't take or make. (Stunner there.)

Even if you were initially confused I have stated it clearly multiple times in direct response to you and you STILL are arguing the wrong point.

I know that you will never admit you were wrong. That there will be more word salads and "word of the day" filled paragraphs defending yourself....but you are wrong about the initial post and willfully ignorant of all the follow up posts I have made.

I get it's personal....you don't like "me". But at least be honest about the thread itself. I have clarified if you were confused. After that it's just you being wrong and not wanting to admit it. Just like bringing in Fred and Dill to take a shot at them is just you wanting a fight rather than talking about the subject. The true subject, not the one you THINK is the subject.

Acosta could have walked away...he didn't. He was the point man between the lawyers and whoever agreed to the deal. I don't see him being any different in this administration. That's not a "Trump take" it's an "Acosta take".

Trump is his boss and the head of the current administration which is why I said that is an aside to the story. Along with his tendency to pick people with baggage and who seem unfit for their jobs. Acost is the thrust of the story and all the side stories you want to get into doesn't change that.

But at least you're not "defending" Acosta.