Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Trump the Needler

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by myth View Post
    Thanks for finally commenting my actual point, even though it was like pulling teeth to get it out of you, and your comment was a curt dismissal with no actual argument beyond an unsupported assertion of a fact. Also, thanks for repeating yourself again. Saying it for like the 8th time is sure to convince me, especially when it's a poor argument. But you keep on doing you. People getting the weather from the White House? When did I say that? Exactly, I didn't, you're just saying random stuff again.
    YOU said this:
    Originally posted by myth View Post
    What a disgrace. His cavalier treatment of the truth caused confusion an distraction as multiple states prepared for a major emergency. And now, he can't even admit he made a mistake, let alone apologize for it. I'm so angry that I had to vote for this morally-depraved idiot.

    If anyone is curious about the details of this incident, I found a good article written by a meteorologist. https://arstechnica.com/science/2019...e-forecasters/
    *emphasis mine

    It DID NOT HAPPEN. Nothing happened - as I have stated repeatedly - that in any way substantiates the above statement.

    Broadcasting the map caused NO discernible 'confusion an distraction' (sp).


    I was going to ask you a serious of questions: like why it has no bearing in the "real world",
    No panic or official actions occurred as a direct result of the 'broadcast'.

    when it caused meteorologists to be distracted
    Now someone correcting a simple error is a distraction?


    and now has NOAA reversing itself
    While providing documentation that in fact supports Trump's claim.


    as the Trump Administration forces yet another federal agency to bend to it's will despite pesky things like facts.
    If the pesky facts refute Trump, where'd they get the pesky documentation.

    Also, considering how this is another reason why voters (including people who voted for Trump like myself) can't trust anything at all he says.
    Because what, you won't even consider he might have had a reason - or he's just supposed to be infallible?
    I was going to ask how, as a Christian, you seem to have such unabashed support for Trump?
    How does 'maybe he wasn't completely airheaded' translate to unabashed support? Literally the only valid argument I've seen in weeks was an aside between KG and Sam. Otherwise, it's been an endless parade of 'orange man bad'. He literally gets criticized for every nonsense thing in the book - but NOTHING on policy.

    Yes, I get Roe v. Wade, it's why I voted for him....but do we really have to always defend him despite obvious blunders?
    Only those of us who think fairness is a good idea.
    But it's very difficult to argue with you when you spend all your time repeating yourself, attacking straw men, and ignoring the very things I'm saying in the first place. Kinda hard for the discussion to go anywhere, don't you think? Unless you want to pay attention to the issues at hand and have a real discussion, I'll be withdrawing form arguing with you about this any further.
    I answered what you said - quoted above. I repeated myself because you seem to think that evidence contrary to your assertion does not exist. It's no strawman - it's the counter argument to what you said and reaffirmed in this post.

    The reason there was no discernible confusion and distraction was because we don't get our weather from the WH - your 'confusion and distraction' depends on the WH, which is effectively calling us morons, which is what started this.
    Last edited by Teallaura; 09-06-2019, 11:38 PM.

    "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


    "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

    My Personal Blog

    My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

    Comment


    • #47
      Useful chart here. By Sept. 1, NHS had all but removed AL from the forecast cone.

      ED0aMhsWsAAYB1f.jpg
      "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

      Comment


      • #48
        Okay, so, calmer now and read the new article again.

        First: my apologies for getting so angry. I shouldn't have done that - I took my irritation out on you, Myth, and I sincerely apologize.

        Second, having reread the material, I think the real problem was Birmingham. Either they got permission to respond to the President, in which case some supervisor is an idiot, or, more likely, they just smarted off. That could be political - B'ham is as blue as it gets, or NWS hires teenagers for its social media work. Either way, B'ham mishandled the situation.

        And yes, I'm sure - I have had to tell doctors they made treatment mistakes (because most doctors even now rarely see syphilis cases) and never once did one complain. A few asked for protocol copies - which is perfectly sensible - and all authorized the corrected treatments.

        What should have happened is that NWS should have contacted the President's office directly and explained the problem. What happened was B'ham contradicted him publicly - and wasn't even polite about it (this makes me think politics played a role - it's a Southern thing). Hilarity predictably ensues.

        And before y'all defend the twerp in B'ham - would you rudely contradict your superior in public?

        "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


        "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

        My Personal Blog

        My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
          Okay, so, calmer now and read the new article again.

          First: my apologies for getting so angry. I shouldn't have done that - I took my irritation out on you, Myth, and I sincerely apologize.

          Second, having reread the material, I think the real problem was Birmingham. Either they got permission to respond to the President, in which case some supervisor is an idiot, or, more likely, they just smarted off. That could be political - B'ham is as blue as it gets, or NWS hires teenagers for its social media work. Either way, B'ham mishandled the situation.

          And yes, I'm sure - I have had to tell doctors they made treatment mistakes (because most doctors even now rarely see syphilis cases) and never once did one complain. A few asked for protocol copies - which is perfectly sensible - and all authorized the corrected treatments.

          What should have happened is that NWS should have contacted the President's office directly and explained the problem. What happened was B'ham contradicted him publicly - and wasn't even polite about it (this makes me think politics played a role - it's a Southern thing). Hilarity predictably ensues.

          And before y'all defend the twerp in B'ham - would you rudely contradict your superior in public?
          If my job was to inform the public of dangerous weather conditions and if my superior was making a gross misstatement of fact regarding those weather conditions, yes, definitely.

          --Sam
          "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

          Comment


          • #50
            An interesting development...

            Source: NOAA backs Trump on Alabama forecast, and rebukes Weather Service office that accurately contradicted him


            The federal agency that oversees the National Weather Service has sided with President Donald Trump over its own scientists in the ongoing controversy over whether Alabama was at risk of a direct hit from Hurricane Dorian.

            In a statement released Friday afternoon, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) stated Alabama was in fact threatened by the storm at the time Trump tweeted Alabama would "most likely be hit (much) harder than anticipated."

            Referencing archived hurricane advisories, the NOAA statement said that information provided to the president and the public between Aug. 28 and Sept. 2 "demonstrated that tropical-storm-force winds from Hurricane Dorian could impact Alabama."

            In an unusual move, the statement also admonished its National Weather Service office in Birmingham, Alabama, which had released a tweet contradicting Trump's claim and stating, "Alabama will NOT see any impacts from #Dorian."

            The NOAA statement said: "The Birmingham National Weather Service's Sunday morning tweet spoke in absolute terms that were inconsistent with probabilities from the best forecast products available at the time."

            Released six days after Trump's first tweet on the matter, the NOAA statement was unsigned, neither from the acting head of the agency nor any particular spokesman. It also came a day after the president's homeland security and counterterrorism adviser released a statement justifying Trump's claims of the Alabama threat.

            The NOAA statement Friday makes no reference to the fact that when Trump tweeted that Alabama was at risk, it was not in the National Hurricane Center's "cone of uncertainty," which is where forecasters determine the storm is most likely to track. Alabama also had not appeared in the cone in days earlier, and no Hurricane Center text product ever mentioned the state.

            Trump's tweet that Alabama would be affected by the storm gained national attention Wednesday when he presented a modified version of the forecast cone from Aug. 29, extended into Alabama - hand-drawn using a Sharpie. The crudely altered map appeared to represent an effort to retroactively justify the original Alabama tweet.

            The doctored map went viral, becoming a source of ridicule among political pundits and late-night talk show hosts, who accused the president of dishonesty.

            Altering official government weather forecasts is actually illegal. Per 18 U.S. Code 2074, which addresses false weather reports: "Whoever knowingly issues or publishes any counterfeit weather forecast or warning of weather conditions falsely representing such forecast or warning to have been issued or published by the Weather Bureau, United States Signal Service, or other branch of the Government service, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ninety days, or both." (The Weather Service is the modern version of the Weather Bureau.)

            In the face of criticism about the modified map, Trump fired off additional tweets Wednesday and Thursday, insisting Alabama was at risk all along, including presenting a map from Aug. 29 depicting a small possibility that Alabama would see tropical-storm-force winds.




            Source

            © Copyright Original Source



            Story continues at link provided


            ETA: I see Teal already mentioned this.

            I'm always still in trouble again

            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Sam View Post
              If my job was to inform the public of dangerous weather conditions and if my superior was making a gross misstatement of fact regarding those weather conditions, yes, definitely.

              --Sam
              Bullcrap.

              "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


              "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

              My Personal Blog

              My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

              Comment


              • #52
                I've seen many instances of Trump saying things that caused a media to blow up and seemed almost made to be vexing. I don't think this is one of those situations.

                Comment


                • #53
                  So, returning to the original post...

                  Originally posted by whag View Post
                  I'm hearing a lot from some Trump supporters that POTUS intentionally says or does stupid stuff to provoke more TDS. It's like a chess move, is how they describe it. But I don't think this is true, or if it is, how effective a strategy it is. Case in point, Trump's weird defense of the Dorian map ...
                  I think there are several things at play, and it's not always clear which is predominant at any moment.

                  -- Sometimes he trolls for his own amusement.

                  -- Sometimes he posts with purpose, to change the focus of the news.

                  -- Sometimes he releases whatever odd flatus is floating around in his head.

                  -- If vexed, he will never just let it drop. He will always respond bigly.

                  -- And sometimes he will just post relatively normal, mundane stuff.
                  Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                  Beige Nationalist.

                  "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                  Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                    Okay, so, calmer now and read the new article again.

                    First: my apologies for getting so angry. I shouldn't have done that - I took my irritation out on you, Myth, and I sincerely apologize.

                    Second, having reread the material, I think the real problem was Birmingham. Either they got permission to respond to the President, in which case some supervisor is an idiot, or, more likely, they just smarted off. That could be political - B'ham is as blue as it gets, or NWS hires teenagers for its social media work. Either way, B'ham mishandled the situation.

                    And yes, I'm sure - I have had to tell doctors they made treatment mistakes (because most doctors even now rarely see syphilis cases) and never once did one complain. A few asked for protocol copies - which is perfectly sensible - and all authorized the corrected treatments.

                    What should have happened is that NWS should have contacted the President's office directly and explained the problem. What happened was B'ham contradicted him publicly - and wasn't even polite about it (this makes me think politics played a role - it's a Southern thing). Hilarity predictably ensues.

                    And before y'all defend the twerp in B'ham - would you rudely contradict your superior in public?
                    Thank you for your apology, Teallaura. I also apologize if I was rude or too blunt. I was a little torqued out over what I thought was a false accusation against me. You're normally pretty level headed and I couldn't understand why you seemed so angry. Out of curiosity, did you read the article I linked (there were several linked here, so I'm not sure which ones you read). Here it is, in case you are interested: https://arstechnica.com/science/2019...e-forecasters/

                    In reference to the 'twerp' in Birmingham -- think about it the other way around, Teal. Just like Sam said. He's a lowly bureaucrat in an obscure government office. Does he publicly contradict the president and risk his job over being accussed of partisanship? Or, if he has any sense...does he risk his own career to publish more accurate information in the interest of public safety? Even the articles I'm readying now say stuff like "NOAA turns against their own scientists", etc....who is more likely to play politics, the federal agency admin most likely to be sacked if the don't play nice with the WH, or the individual scientists who spend their entire career studying weather in order to help protect the public?

                    Most news articles are reporting that basically Trump used a sharpie, HIMSELF, on a map he posted in his defense. Let's ignore the previous criminal allegation -- does that not just seem a little crazy to you? For clarity, I earlier admitted the chance of the media hoopla actually harming someone was slim -- I'm simply offended that the POTUS would risk that (however slight), because of his need to deceive in order to appear correct.

                    Trump has a real problem with telling the truth, more than even other politicians. And this coming from a socially conservative who's only ever voted for Republicans (me). Check this out:

                    Obama's record:
                    https://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/

                    Trumps':
                    https://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

                    So basically, of the statement's they've examined...60% Trump's statements have ranged from "mostly false" to "pants on fire". We should question literally every word that comes out of his mouth.
                    "If you believe, take the first step, it leads to Jesus Christ. If you don't believe, take the first step all the same, for you are bidden to take it. No one wants to know about your faith or unbelief, your orders are to perform the act of obedience on the spot. Then you will find yourself in the situation where faith becomes possible and where faith exists in the true sense of the word." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by myth View Post
                      I was going to ask you a serious of questions: like why it has no bearing in the "real world", when it caused meteorologists to be distracted and now has NOAA reversing itself as the Trump Administration forces yet another federal agency to bend to it's will despite pesky things like facts.
                      To my thinking, this is a break from Trump's standard two-step:

                      1. Back up into a landmine.
                      2. Escape into a tank trap.

                      By which I mean he escapes each old crisis by creating a larger one as a distraction.

                      He's not trying to escape this time.

                      Which wouldn't bother me much at this point, except the actual real world consequence is likely to be career disaster for the NWS/Birmingham staffer who contradicted him. That projection has a very long baseline.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                        Bullcrap.
                        Let's roll with the medical analogy: if I'm a resident and some hospital administrator sends a mass email to all my patients telling them something I know for a fact is untrue -- like the hospital is at risk of getting hit with an Ebola outbreak three states away that has no chance of showing up in my state, let alone my hospital -- I'm gonna make sure each and every one of those patients knows that's not true.

                        Because my job is to my patients first and it doesn't matter if the yahoo spouting dangerous nonsense is technically my 'boss'.

                        --Sam
                        "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by myth View Post
                          Trump has a real problem with telling the truth, more than even other politicians. And this coming from a socially conservative who's only ever voted for Republicans (me). Check this out:

                          Obama's record:
                          https://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/

                          Trumps':
                          https://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

                          So basically, of the statement's they've examined...60% Trump's statements have ranged from "mostly false" to "pants on fire". We should question literally every word that comes out of his mouth.
                          Trump lies from hello.

                          But as a moderate whose nonpartisan credentials date back to an exit from the Republican party after they nominated that dim-witted (but good-hearted) actor, and who was generally supportive of Obama, and more, as a math geek — I have to push harder on: "... of the statements they've examined."

                          The baseline on these measurements is the statements investigated, and in this case, there's every reason to suspect a sampling bias. Even if Trump's lies covered the whole spectrum as adequately as any of his predecessors, because the volume requires triage, the pants-on-fire ratio would be elevated.

                          As others have noted, the real issue with Trump is that he goes beyond any of his predecessors in endlessly repeating lies long since debunked, and then pushing the wheels of government into motion to retroactively back them up, wrecking careers, too often of valuable, seasoned professionals all along the track line.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Juvenal View Post
                            Trump lies from hello.

                            But as a moderate whose nonpartisan credentials date back to an exit from the Republican party after they nominated that dim-witted (but good-hearted) actor, and who was generally supportive of Obama, and more, as a math geek — I have to push harder on: "... of the statements they've examined."

                            The baseline on these measurements is the statements investigated, and in this case, there's every reason to suspect a sampling bias. Even if Trump's lies covered the whole spectrum as adequately as any of his predecessors, because the volume requires triage, the pants-on-fire ratio would be elevated.

                            As others have noted, the real issue with Trump is that he goes beyond any of his predecessors in endlessly repeating lies long since debunked, and then pushing the wheels of government into motion to retroactively back them up, wrecking careers, too often of valuable, seasoned professionals all along the track line.
                            I'm always concerned about sampling bias. However, a quick look at their headlines shows them calling out both republicans and democrats for telling falsehoods. I listened to a podcast with one of their fact-checker/reporters....it's a fairly interesting internal system before the decide how to categorize each statement.

                            I don't know much about their initial statement selection process. They seem to pick things that prove controversial in the news. To that end, it makes sense that they'd have more data to work with from Trump because he's on social media a lot more and tends to go off-script more than other politicians.

                            I'm a socially-conservative, right-leaning Independent voter who linked to a (probably) left-leaning website. Of course I'm suspicious of all that. But I'm suspicious about everyone and every thing, lol.
                            "If you believe, take the first step, it leads to Jesus Christ. If you don't believe, take the first step all the same, for you are bidden to take it. No one wants to know about your faith or unbelief, your orders are to perform the act of obedience on the spot. Then you will find yourself in the situation where faith becomes possible and where faith exists in the true sense of the word." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Trump just wants to undo anything Obama. The Russkies love him for it. Although he acts like one, it is difficult to say if he is actually a Russkie mole.
                              “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
                              “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
                              “not all there” - you know who you are

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
                                Trump just wants to undo anything Obama. The Russkies love him for it. Although he acts like one, it is difficult to say if he is actually a Russkie mole.
                                Oh come on, that's a bit outlandish. He kept courting the Russians earlier on because he didn't intend to be President or think he could win. He wanted to parlay his presidential-candidate status into a Trump Tower in Moscow and/or whatever else he could. As he began to do better in the election, he realized being president was a real possibility and changed strategies.
                                "If you believe, take the first step, it leads to Jesus Christ. If you don't believe, take the first step all the same, for you are bidden to take it. No one wants to know about your faith or unbelief, your orders are to perform the act of obedience on the spot. Then you will find yourself in the situation where faith becomes possible and where faith exists in the true sense of the word." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by seer, Today, 02:50 PM
                                12 responses
                                60 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post thormas
                                by thormas
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, Today, 02:18 PM
                                3 responses
                                38 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Whateverman, Yesterday, 07:17 PM
                                53 responses
                                221 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Stoic
                                by Stoic
                                 
                                Started by Whateverman, Yesterday, 04:39 PM
                                3 responses
                                37 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Whateverman  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, Yesterday, 03:30 PM
                                91 responses
                                423 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post seanD
                                by seanD
                                 
                                Working...
                                X