Unfortunately, the strategy of incorporating things from "outside of the box" often serves as more of a smokescreen than an illumination, because what it does is shift the focus. By bringing up criticisms of Trump's eating habits, you basically just erased the conversation that was being had and replaced your own, which was based upon a foundation that (I believe) most liberals would agree isn't particularly worth mentioning. Yes, there have been a couple of sensationalist articles about Trump's eating habits, but this does not in any way influence any of the very real and substantive criticisms of Trump. Moreso, that doesn't directly apply to the situation which was being discussed as the chicken was not being used in reference to its health or anyone's eating habits.
You have to be very careful when drawing connections, because a poor connection will muddy the water and make any progress impossible by weighing the conversation down with irrelevant asides.
Personally, I don't think the conversation that was being had was worthy of much more conversation so this is more of a theoretical critique than a functional one, but I don't think that makes it less relevant. At the end of the day, the testimony that Barr did provide is far more worthy of discussion than the testimony he did not provide.
I see your point, but you're not looking at it the way I was. I wasn't using it like some might, as a smoke screen or backup or topic changer to get away from the original subject because I was 'caught'. I simply used events to point out that neither side can be taken entirely seriously, and how quickly they can ruin a 'lead'.
Well what constitutes a poor connection isn't that clear because at times while some will say there is no connection at all, others will argue there's a strong connection. How can that be? As far as I'm concerned, either one side doesn't understand or doesn't get it, is missing something, or just doesn't want to acknowledge the comparison.
The thing is I wasn't trying to connect two things, I was simply using multiple events to point something out. My initial point wasn't based on the entire questioning itself, but a small portion that happened within it, which wasn't about the questions or answers, but the attitude towards them. Much like the attitude of eating and health and it's impacts based on your career, which was in a way thrown out the window by going against that, even if that wasn't the point they were trying to make. I was thinking outside the box, and used relevant events to support the point I was trying to make.
While every time this happens I could go and make a new thread about it, it's not exactly the thing that I could see turning into a new thread worthy debate, and I thought that was the point of the new layout of the politics section, so that there weren't a million short threads about every single little subject.
The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau