CNN Ratings Collapse

[Teallaura]

Yes, let's please get back on topic.

But the derail is more fun!


This is about me, isn't it?

[KingsGambit]

Yes, let's please get back on topic.

Um, ignore my last post. That's at least 6-7 pages worth of derail there...

[Cow Poke]

Um, ignore my last post. That's at least 6-7 pages worth of derail there...

It's Tweb.

[Teallaura]

The irony of somebody who by and large supports Trump criticizing someone else for poor diplomacy is not lost on me.

It's only irony if you're dumb enough to think Trump is a diplomat - like an ambassador is supposed to be.





He started it, CP!!!!

[KingsGambit]

It's only irony if you're dumb enough to think Trump is a diplomat - like an ambassador is supposed to be.





He started it, CP!!!!

I thought the general talking point was that Trump could be spearheading an precedented state of peace within the Korean peninsula through his diplomacy?

[Cow Poke]

I thought the general talking point was that Trump could be spearheading an precedented state of peace within the Korean peninsula through his diplomacy?

I don't see it as diplomacy, so much as his "art of the deal".

[Teallaura]

I thought the general talking point was that Trump could be spearheading an precedented state of peace within the Korean peninsula through his diplomacy?

Er, no. Trump does seem to be opening negotiations, which I support. But no one thinks Trump is a trained diplomat. He's a businessman and approaches negotiations with a hammer or honey - whatever seems to work.


You're trying to get us both in trouble, aren't you?

[Mountain Man]

I don't see it as diplomacy, so much as his "art of the deal".

Businessmen and politicians are both diplomats. The difference is that politicians have the primary concern of wanting the other guy to like them even if nothing is accomplished. Businessmen say, I don't care if you like me, we're here to do business.

[oxmixmudd]

"We have some serious concerns as Bob does not seem fully up to speed with regards to policy."

"There may be some issue with regards to Bob's understanding of policy."

"We are concerned at Bob's lack of preparedness regarding the policy meeting."

And so on - not rocket science to just not sound like a jerk.


Being tactful is at the core of being a diplomat. Being unable, as opposed to unwilling, brings the Ambassador's qualifications into question. Being unwilling brings his fitness to serve into question.

This kind of rookie mistake is not even slightly okay in any competent diplomatic corps.

No - I think those are too toned down if the actual assessment is inept. What you say above means - we should tread lightly, inept means - oh dear, we need to be VERY careful here.

If he's actually inept, it's going to be insulting. But if that's reality, what is one to do? You could say, he is completely unqualified to be president. Is that better? Honestly its not as accurate. You'd need to add things like "He is likely to accidentally divulge critical information" etc etc - is that better? Perhaps a long list of each thing he can be expected to bungle might get you there, but inept is much more concise and removes all doubt as to what he can be trusted with - which would be nothing - assuming it's true.

So it would seem to me the broader concern - on both sides - should be if it is true. If it is not - then perhaps the UK needs a new ambassador. If it is, then perhaps we need a new president.

Jim

[Mountain Man]

Anyway...

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...nd-transcript/

That was a very diplomatic response.

[Teallaura]

No - I think those are too toned down if the actual assessment is inept. What you say above means - we should tread lightly, inept means - oh dear, we need to be VERY careful here.

If he's actually inept, it's going to be insulting. You could say, he is completely unqualifie qualified to be president. Is that better? Honestly its not as accurate. You'd need to add thnigs like "He is likely to accidentally divulge critical information" etc etc - is that better? Perhaps a long list of each thing he can be expected to bungle might get you there, but inept is much more concise and removes all doubt as to what he can be trusted with - which would be nothing - assuming it's true.

Jim

And it ends up causing a diplomatic incident - which is bad. No, it's perfectly possible to do tactfully- especially using specifics. Save sounding like a jerk for when no microphones are near - and certainly not in writing.

[oxmixmudd]

And it ends up causing a diplomatic incident - which is bad. No, it's perfectly possible to do tactfully- especially using specifics. Save sounding like a jerk for when no microphones are near - and certainly not in writing.

Well - I suppose if you know that there is no such thing as secure communication, then you do need to speak in code. And it does seem that is the case.

Jim

[Teallaura]

Anyway...

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...nd-transcript/

That was a very diplomatic response.

No, it isn't. It's better than the ambassador did, however.


Inept: getting recalled because you didn't use a thesaurus!

[Teallaura]

Well - I suppose if you know that there is no such thing as secure a communication, then you do need to speak in code. It does seem that is the case.

Jim

I fully agree.

[Cow Poke]

Meanwhile...





So, from the Clinton News Network to the Hate Trump Network.