Y'all don't get it

[TheKentuckian]

61. Why? They aren't even similar areas. It is entirely possible to trust a person in one area but not

another for any number of reasons.

One can also give a lot more trust in areas where there is no plausible downside.

What is going to be negotiated in a non proliferation agreement with Iran that can be anything but positive? Hell, I don't particularly care if Iran gets the bomb in present context. I don't want anyone including the US to have them but having them probably more than anything handcuffs the neocons but I'm not adamant about that opinion so if Obama or anyone (yes, including a hyper fictional, hypothetical Republican) wanted to work a deal otherwise I'm not seeing any skin coming off my nose.

Save this dumbass argument for the morons fearing sharia law at the point of an ICBM and Israel turned into a sheet of glass. Can you even articulate a reasonable downside on an Iran nonproliferation deal? I can't even define a deal that is bad for the American people.

This line of reasoning is bizarre as can be like a two dimensional black and white caricature of humanity when plain observation will tell you we all have strengths and weaknesses with areas of expertise and complete incompetence.

Your Teabagger relative can't be trusted in the voting booth a bit but might be awesome with the kids.

The best plumber in the world might he a bad mechanic.

Hell, a place may have the best brisket ever and the chicken can be meh.

Why should I distrust Hillary Clinton on women's health because I don't trust her with regulating multinationals?

There are dudes you can trust with your wallet and not your woman and vice versa.

There are folks who you can trust with your pets that will kill every plant in the house.

Why would I have not trust Dick Luger on nonproliferation despite not having much faith on about any other subject?

I don't see how this is even apples to bananas much less apples to apples. The expectation is kinda batty.