Trump discovers something else is "not so easy"

This? Alrighty then.

I'm sort of fascinated by someone who has so much hatred for a former president that they view the entire political world through that lens of anger.

Anderson's face pretty much says it all, doesn't it?

?

Perfect capture of the zeitgeist!

I say again-  DT surrounds himself with sycophants, always has. He hires 3rd rate people or "better" people who can hide this from him and discipline themselves to NEVER confront or challenge him. Combine this with his unwillingness to read, to attend briefings and so forth and you have a POTUS who thinks he can astound us all with his new knowledge like he is doing us all a favour.  Doomed we are. 

All I know is over the last 2 weeks my retirement find is going south so whatever he's doing he needs to bring that Make America great again to my retirement fund because it was doing fine up until then.

The clueless, inexperienced, sneering Obama, who never ever listened to his generals and chronically eschewed briefings in favor of glancing at headlines on his way to golf or fundraising, is certainly a trope in certain quarters (easily googled).

On the other hand, this same guy was then inexplicably ridiculed for long, involved answers (policy, trends, legislation, foreign affairs, history) during press conferences or interviews...and seemingly stood his own among world leaders, including G8 summits with allies. (If one believes our world relationships don't revolve around the opinion of Israeli hardliners.)

Fast forward: We have a president who just admitted that the Chinese leader schooled him enough in ten minutes that he (DT) forsook his previous position - a position seemingly researched from snippets on Fox News and Morning Joe and then articulated with reactionary tweets over the years.

Simply for the sake of argument, if we're to believe that President Obama was repeatedly and cavalierly irresponsible about keeping up with news of the world, it would be difficult to deny that he demonstrated enough knowledge about domestic issues and geopolitics that he could accurately place all these learned-on-the-fly events within the context needed to evaluate their ramifications. The new guy spends several hours a day watching cable news and seems to internalize everything without the benefit of context - or only within the context of how he can oh-so-easily fix a problem using his intelligence and business acumen.

One guy schooling us with long-winded explanations versus the other guy generously letting us in on the secret he's unlocked for us: "It's not so easy."

"A mile wide and an inch deep" isn't even an accurate insult for the new guy.

In comparison with the perpetual stream of Trump bashing?
Absolutely.

How telling that you take the one benign example to dismiss all the times Obama said he didn't know about something he should have known about.

Wonder why you didn't include any of these:

Obama said he didn't know his administration was spying on foreign leaders like German Chancellor Angela Merkel. He told the press on Oct. 28, 2013 that, “I can assure you that I certainly did not know anything about the IG report before the IG report had been leaked through the press.”

The IRS's targeting of conservative groups: President Obama told the media in May 2013 that he first learned about the IRS's improper targeting “from the same news reports that I think most people learned about this. I think it was on Friday.”

The Justice Department's wiretapping of AP and Fox News reporters: When asked about the secret seizure of reporters' phone records, Obama spokesperson Jay Carney told the media that the president “found out about the news reports, uh, yesterday on the road.”

The White House appeared to be in the dark about the VA waiting list scandal and cover-up related to medical care for the country's military vets. Then-Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters that, “We learned about them through the reports. I will double check if that is not the case. But that is when we learned about them.”

In an interview with CBS News, President Barack Obama claimed not to know that his former Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton, was using a personal email address to conduct government business while in office.
On Friday, Obama told CBS News' Bill Plante that he learned about Clinton's email address:

“...The same time that everybody else learned it, through news reports,” the president told CBS News' Bill Plante Friday about when he learned about Clinton's email address.

When asked about the gun-running scandal that resulted in the death of border agent Brian Terry in 2010, President Obama told reporters on Oct. 11, 2011, “I heard on the news about this story, that, uh, Fast and Furious.”

Petraeus, then the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, was forced to resign in Nov. 2012 after news surfaced that he was having an affair with his biographer. The White House repeatedly refused to answer questions about when the President was finally briefed about Petraeus' situation.


Tell me again why you chose not to use those examples that show Obama repeatedly saying he was clueless?
Oh, right. Must dismiss any negative facts or opinions about Obama and Hillary and discredit/diminish/demonize anyone bringing them up. 

What makes you think he "should have known about" all of these things? Do you honestly think the president is going to know about every.single.operation in the federal government at any given time?  These were all "scandal" uncovered by the press, were they not?  Unless a reporter went to Obama or his staff for a quote before going to press, then no, I would not expect him to know about them.  Were any of these events already under federal investigation?  And if so, would there have been a reason not to share that fact widely within the administration in order to protect the investigation?

None of that remotely compares to Trump's lack of information about world events and world politics.  He relies on the news to decide what action he wants to take. 

It's all a matter of reaction vs. action.  Obama was reacting to information released (leaked) by someone else, and it is not unreasonable to believe that he had not been given that information beforehand, either because it was still being investigated or the final report was not ready.  Not knowing about information that had not been brought to his attention is not being "clueless."

On the other hand, Trump is acting on information he hears in the news.  Why bother with intelligence services when you have Fox and Friends? His tweeting is (or at least was) so in sync with Fox reporting its ridiculous.

And as far as being clueless about world politics, well, I just don't see how anyone can defend his ignorance on China v. NK. It's "Asian Political Studies 101," and he should have known about it before meeting with China's leader.  Again, Trump voters wanted a "business leader" and were sold a bill of goods by Trump.  He is NOT a good business leader if he doesn't know that you need to do your research before meeting with the other side, whether the meeting is for the purpose of collaboration or negotiation.  Comparing this level of ignorance to Obama's "gotcha" moments when the press asked about leaked or newly released information about administrative matters is just wrong.

<shrugs> I always hope that people are operating from a place where they don't understand. So the optimist in me thinks that if we can find common language maybe we will find a common understanding. I don't think I'm inflammatory, or obnoxious, or engaging in name-calling or hyperbole. And honestly, engaging in these types of non-productive encounters on an anonymous message board helps equip me for similar arguments I encounter in my real life. It seems better to practice my responses then stand there with the Anderson Cooper face.

I guess if you don't like it, you can block me.

You're right I'm done with trying to reason.

It just seems to me that when you (general) debate with intelligent people who have different views it informs and elevates you. When you argue with someone who is basically unhinged and repetitious beyond belief it just drags you and the entire discussion down. What is the point of allowing yourself to be manipulated into going over the same ground ad nauseam? Is there a point or an end goal?