I think this speaks to both sides.

@marine I think you missed the point friend.

@ghettophilosopher Nope I am right on the money, the people he has appointed know nothing about the departments they head and his objective is to destroy these departments and that which they stand for.

@Marine

Is it possible those departments should be destroyed?

Why does this message lead you to only attack one side?

The point is obviously that both sides are incompetent.

@Marine While I completely agree with your observation, it's tangential at best. Political appointments are exactly who this statement is NOT talking about. Appointees don't get elected. They don't campaign. So while in this case, their lack of expertise (or in fact any knowledge over their given purview), is a valid concern, they're not politicians. This statement in particular doesn't apply to them.

I don't agree there either @BryanLV. Neither side is incompetent. In fact, they only got to where they are because they are very savvy. Rather, they mostly have the wrong competencies. They struggle to move us forward because they lack understanding with regard to the problems that need to be addressed. They don't struggle with climate change, for example, because they're idiots; they struggle with it because they're not scientists (admittedly, there's some benefit of the doubt thrown in here for sake of argument, but I think the point stands).
Politics for its own sake is useless at best and dangerous at worst.

@ghettophilosopher

You said neither side is incompetent, then followed it up with saying they have the wrong competencies. That's just playing semantics and being disagreeable. If they have incorrect competency, then obviously they are incompetent in some more meaningful area.

On your climate change example, I will leave you with this. Climate change "scientists" polls may say "scientists" are in the consensus, but what is rated as a "climate change scientist" for the sake of these polls?

There are many scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections and consensus. These scientists have said, "That it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the 21st century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling"

If you look at the period of time that humans have been mapping things like ocean currents, glacial patterns, and many other geological features of the Earth, it can easily be deduced by many scientists, and it is, that the statistical body of evidence is not enough to accurately draw many of the conclusions that have been stated. Many of the studies are government funded and run and meet an end goal to grab power or authority to tax some given area for revenue.

There are many scientists that argue global warming is natural, that the cause is unknown, or that the impact of global warming is inaccurate or overstated.

Be careful when scientific consensus is claimed, because a majority of scientists have also been incorrect in the past to the detriment of society. Things must be put to test.