Part 2 of assessment of Trump Jr. "Russia" meeting

It keeps coming back to three failings:
1. Lack of broad analytical skills or effort.
2. Political naiveté.
3. Business approach to information communication.

Click on to enlarge and read.

"LIBERALS ARE LIARS; CONSERVATIVES ARE CONFUSED"*

"LIBERALS ARE LIARS; CONSERVATIVES ARE CONFUSED"*

PEOPLE TEND TO PROJECT THEIR OWN MOTIVATIONS AND TRAITS INTO OTHERS. THAT'S WHY LIBERALS SAY CONSERVATIVES LIE, AND CONSERVATIVES SAY LIBERALS ARE DUMB.

Liberals tend to think that wrong statements or actions by opponents are willful efforts to be wrong, when quite often they are honest expressions from ignorance. Todd Akin was not pushing a falsehood to promote an anti-woman agenda. He honestly thought women couldn't (or that it was very difficult to) get pregnant from a rape. Sarah Palin was once caught calling for "profiling" to combat terrorism, then quickly followed use of that term up by saying we need to keep "profiles" on specific suspects. She wasn't trying to cover for a slip in support of something the Left considers "racist." She genuinely thought that's what the term meant. And Donald Trump Jr. didn't try to engage in or hide the smoking gun evidence of illicit "collusion." He sincerely was (is?) so politically naive that he had no idea what was going on, and so politically DUMB that he thought the business approach of being truthful but not more forthcoming than immediately necessary with information was the proper approach.

Conservatives know precise areas, but tend to be weak on the grand picture--i.e., they may study deep, but not broad. Liberals have broad perspective, but lie about particular areas. They may study deep, but can ignore what they find.

* NOTE: Firearms-related matters are probably the only exception to this formula--that is, it's the one place where liberals indeed genuinely will know less than conservatives and aren't necessarily lying when they spew garbage. It could be argued that religion is some contexts is another exception, but that is not nearly as universally the case as it is with gun matters.

(ADDENDUM ADDED) My comment on Donald Trump Jr.'s "Russia" meeting; with video of Hannity interview

I tweeted regarding the event: "Not evidence of collusion, as none occurred, but politically naive 'satellites' (w/ a dirty trickster) being suckered into such a move."

The point to remember--and many may not realize this--but the emails were completely wrong regarding the Russian government connection. It was a ruse, demonstrated by the fact that there is no "Crown prosecutor" in Russia. Don Jr.'s acquaintance was fed a ruse, which he passed on. So this is by its nature no more evidence of collusion than a Bullwinkle cartoon of Boris and Natasha walking into Trump Tower. A legitimate issue exists regarding the thinking of Don Jr, et al, on this, but as the full substance regarding the emails and event spreads over the next couple of days, anyone saying otherwise will be either ignorant or lying.

One question some have raised is why this is stretching out so much. Trey Gowdy, for instance, has suggested that the campaign staff should be locked in a room to told, "Okay, from the time you saw 'Dr. Zhivago,' to the time you had vodka with a guy named Boris, lay out every connection whatsoever you've had with Russia." One of the concerns I had during the campaign was the Trump team suffered a Tea Party-type lack of political understanding and an almost redneck hick-like lack of analysis skills when it comes to matters of social science. They are smart people, but like so many conservative-types, lack the benefit of the liberal arts-type education that is necessary for political action. Given that Trump Jr. is a businessman, which by nature means he more focused on the actual and direct (as opposed to the theoretical or cross-referenced), it is quite believable that he (and others) would brainfart on all of this and not have this event register. Since the "Russia-Russia-Russia!" craze was not going, it didn't register then. Since it was a complete case of nonsense, he put it out of his mind. And since his mind is trained toward business, not more theoretical things--and since conservative-types tend to be introspective by nature anyway--it would have been, unfortunately, all too easy for this meeting not to register later as an issue to mention.

So, as I said, it was total naiveté.

EDIT: One has to wonder, though, if this meeting might be the genesis of much of the rumoring about a collusion.  "The walls have ears."  Whispers and hints of this may well have leaked out and taken on lives of their own.  Foreign agencies may well have heard of it, causing "chatter" in our communications intercepts of their conversations.  Add in a few odd facts and the direction of the Obama people to politically weaponize intelligence, and this would fit.

WITH ADDENDUM: