DescentBB

And if the president can interrupt his vacation for a swanky fundraiser for fellow Democrat Hillary Clinton, as he did on Monday, then surely he can make time to show up for a catastrophe that’s displaced thousands.

So remember all the flack Bush got for seemingly to ignore LA? Why is the press not jumping over Obama for playing his proverbial fiddle. Once again we see the press bias.

I think it would be helpful to become familiar with the genesis, evolution and history of the American elitology.

yeah, I'm sure he is COMPLETELY unaware and his administration is doing nothing......like Bush did.

Oh come on slick, the operative word is "optics". The lack of which was what Bush fell short of and what Obama is guilty of. Leaders lead and don't lounge around while others suffer.

of course, Obama has already GONE to Baton Rouge for other reasons, but maybe just staying put and letting the locals help one another is the most intelligent approach now:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/amid-b ... li=BBnbcA1

of course, intelligence isn't something you put much stock in, huh, Woody?

Slick, that is the most ludicrous spin I've ever heard in defense of something.

It's the truth. Are the residents lacking in resources from the Feds? Was the response a week late? No optics needed, no matter whether the Obama haters wish to make it so.

so HERE is why Woody is ranting....it's all part of the propaganda machine(note, from article, the Governor does not want high level visitors, as they muck up the efforts on the ground, and the ONLY newspaper that opined about Obama is a conservative mouthpiece in a conservative locale).

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... li=BBnb7Kz

oh, and I urge all to join me in giving to the Red Cross' relief efforts.

callmeslick wrote:so HERE is why Woody is ranting....it's all part of the propaganda machine(note, from article, the Governor does not want high level visitors, as they muck up the efforts on the ground, and the ONLY newspaper that opined about Obama is a conservative mouthpiece in a conservative locale).

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... li=BBnb7Kz

Hahaha.....Trump can't even try to help the people of LA without the Dems trying to turn it into a troll session. Your party is so fecked up it is unbelievable.

I think a big part of judging a President's response to a natural disaster is how they've prepared. For example, I didn't expect Bush to manage minutia like supervising timely water shipments or things like that. But I did have an expectation that he would tap people experienced in crisis management to lead things. Instead, we got unqualified Brownie as head of FEMA.

So, does Obama have qualified people in the right places? I haven't a clue. That seems more important to me than a Presidential fly over.

woodchip wrote: Hahaha.....Trump can't even try to help the people of LA without the Dems trying to turn it into a troll session. Your party is so fecked up it is unbelievable.

please explain how driving through in a limo, and grabbing a photo-op with out-of-work GOP former state officials helps a damned soul.

Vander wrote:I think a big part of judging a President's response to a natural disaster is how they've prepared.

spot on. Bush got criticized, not for failing to show up in a helicopter or for photo-ops, but for appointing idiots that were asleep at the switch for 5 days, couldn't get supplies needed to the folks that needed them and then declared their feeble efforts a success. From ALL reports, every disaster on Obama's watch has seen a first rate professional response, led by professionals in emergency management (as opposed to a show horse judge that Bush appointed). Even Christie was flattering to Obama over the Sandy response, and Sandy was far more extensive in damage than this mess.

The governor of LA said last night that Obama was welcome to come, but that they have all the help they need from the Feds and that Obama's visit would only take away already overworked first responders from flood detail work and rescues in order to put them on security and motorcade detail for the president. If that was Bush's reason for not visiting, that was fine too, but he royally bungled a whole lot more with his total response.

Some facts about the Katrina response by Bush. Some of it good, some of it downright crazy from officials on both sides of the isle and some of it politically motivated neglect by Republicans. But either way, a Republican Congressional investigation did put most of the blame on Bush, but a good part of it went towards New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin for not ordering evacuations until 24 hours before Katrina hit. It wasn't enough time to clear out the population when they had the chance.

http://www.politico.com/story/2012/10/1 ... nse-081957

callmeslick wrote:

Vander wrote:I think a big part of judging a President's response to a natural disaster is how they've prepared.

spot on. Bush got criticized, not for failing to show up in a helicopter or for photo-ops, but for appointing idiots that were asleep at the switch for 5 days, [..]

Maybe later.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08 ... oding.html

gee, Faux News has its panties in a bunch over NOTHING. No news there.

And slick one again mouths meaningless inanities. So far Trump is getting hugely positive responses while Obama and Hillary dither. Oh wait, Obama is going to visit for his photo ops now that Trump has shamed him. And Hillary Clinton? She still hasn't woke up from her nap.

woodchip wrote:So far Trump is getting hugely positive responses while Obama and Hillary dither.

What does that even mean? That he's better at exploiting a disaster for agitprop? (I felt some of the same distaste when Hillary parachuted into Flint) Used to be you hated it when Bill Clinton went somewhere and said "I feel your pain."

Ideally, the contest between Trump and Clinton in this regard shouldn't be who is exploiting it best, but who has the best ideas for recovery and preparation for future disasters.

Sometimes people want to see you take the time to commiserate with them instead of being a 1000 miles away playing golf. As I said it is all about optics and while slick may not agree with me publicly he knows it should of been Hillary there first and not Trump. Be interesting to see RCP results next week.

I suppose it's good enough that you recognize there's something in it for Trump. You should look for that pattern in the things he does. He's not there to commiserate. He's there for a photo op.

woodchip wrote: Be interesting to see RCP results next week.

judging by the continuing endorsements for Clinton by sane people, and looking at a normal range of social media(Trump is seen as a self-serving politician without a clue, largely), don't get your hopes up too much. Ipsos has him down by 8 and more alarmingly, down to 34% support nationwide. The trends he's been on don't indicate that he's going to pick up anything NEAR what he would need to even make the race close. See the Princeton graph. He's given little chance in their models.

callmeslick wrote:oh, and I urge all to join me in giving to the Red Cross' relief efforts.

Here is a list of secular charities.

Barack Obama spent the week in Martha's Vineyard, warning officials in Louisiana that he was watching them to make sure they weren't being racists—and of course, golfing. And there was speculation today that the Obamas would attend former President Clinton's big 70th birthday bash, which is being held in Martha's Vineyard tonight.

Following widespread criticism and Trump's trip, the White House announced Friday that the president will visit Louisiana to survey the flood damage...next week—after his vacation wraps up.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/08/19 ... ssistance/

Should we coddle people who were warned about epic flooding years ago? I mean, it's not like we didn't see this coming.

vision wrote:Should we coddle people who were warned about epic flooding years ago? I mean, it's not like we didn't see this coming.

Thats right, blame the victims. Why if she wasn't wearing the clothes she did, she wouldn't of been raped. Nice one vision, shows how far your head is up a certain orifice.

Heh. Conflating warning with blaming. Amazing.

Ferno wrote:Heh. Conflating warning with blaming. Amazing.

Is Obama warning the racists in charge of BLM?

The bloodflow to your obama hateboner is impeding your thought process. You should get that taken care of first

woodchip wrote:Thats right, blame the victims.

At what point does this become an issue of personal responsibility? If you live on a floodplain, and you are warned of the dangers but still live there anyway, why should the Federal Government take my tax dollars to help you?

We all live in some type of hazard zone vision. It's just that some zones have more frequent issues and hazards than others. I technically live in an earthquake hazard zone, even though it's not in California. If a home is built on the river valley floor here, where the soils can liquefy when shaken, anyone living in those areas will have far more property damage than say someone who has built on rock in the hills just down the street. How do you ameliorate the risks for everyone in a given local area? You can't pick and choose who gets disaster protection depending on where they live, because everywhere people live there are hazards of some sort. Tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, flooding, landslides, etc. It would be nice to have some government help if the big one ever hits here, but I'm not counting on it given the political climate we currently have.

vision wrote:

woodchip wrote:Thats right, blame the victims.

At what point does this become an issue of personal responsibility? If you live on a floodplain, and you are warned of the dangers but still live there anyway, why should the Federal Government take my tax dollars to help you?

I the same vein, why should I have my tax dollars spent to prosecute a rapist when women all know wearing too revealing clothes increases her chances of being raped. So you are a misogynist also?

woodchip wrote:I the same vein, why should I have my tax dollars spent to prosecute a rapist when women all know wearing too revealing clothes increases her chances of being raped. So you are a misogynist also?

So we shouldn't prosecute rape? #MakeAmericaGreatAgain

vision wrote:At what point does this become an issue of personal responsibility? If you live on a floodplain, and you are warned of the dangers but still live there anyway, why should the Federal Government take my tax dollars to help you?

Spoken like a good little socialist.

So why should my tax dollars go to help provide you with healthcare if you smoke, drink and are fat…weren’t you warned?

woodchip wrote:

vision wrote:

woodchip wrote:Thats right, blame the victims.

At what point does this become an issue of personal responsibility? If you live on a floodplain, and you are warned of the dangers but still live there anyway, why should the Federal Government take my tax dollars to help you?

I the same vein, why should I have my tax dollars spent to prosecute a rapist when women all know wearing too revealing clothes increases her chances of being raped. [...]

Rape is different from flooding because with the former there is an actor making a conscious decision whereas with the latter it's not the water's fault for flooding.

Conscious act of choosing where to live doesn’t count?

edit: Ha! Ok I see, I misunderstood what you said…probably because the actions of water vs. rapists is an irrelevant point…and didn’t think that was what you meant.

The first act is really the only relevant action here, because if you understand increasing the odds of a negative act occurring…then you must be responsible for increasing those odds.

vision wrote:

woodchip wrote:I the same vein, why should I have my tax dollars spent to prosecute a rapist when women all know wearing too revealing clothes increases her chances of being raped. So you are a misogynist also?

So we shouldn't prosecute rape? #MakeAmericaGreatAgain

vision

If you live on a floodplain, and you are warned of the dangers but still live there anyway, why should the Federal Government take my tax dollars to help you?

Jeff250 wrote:

woodchip wrote:

vision wrote:

woodchip wrote:Thats right, blame the victims.

At what point does this become an issue of personal responsibility? If you live on a floodplain, and you are warned of the dangers but still live there anyway, why should the Federal Government take my tax dollars to help you?

I the same vein, why should I have my tax dollars spent to prosecute a rapist when women all know wearing too revealing clothes increases her chances of being raped. [...]

Rape is different from flooding because with the former there is an actor making a conscious decision whereas with the latter it's not the water's fault for flooding.

Boy, are you confused here Jeff. In both cases someone chooses to live or wear clothes that puts them at risk. By what people like you think the rapist is making a conscious decision to be a rapist and not because nature ruled the day. I suggest you look at what different societies and religions think about this.

Jeff250 wrote:Rape is different from flooding because with the former there is an actor making a conscious decision whereas with the latter it's not the water's fault for flooding.

Hang on. According to the leftists in charge of our country at the moment- all of the weather is humanity's fault. That's your 'actor' making the conscious decision.

According to John Kerry, air conditioners are more of a threat than ISIS.

If that's so, I propose that everyone that believes in anthropogenic global warming should stop using air conditioners...cars...jets...anything else that releases global warming gasses for the rest of their lives.

Don't be a global warming "rapist."

Spidey wrote:Conscious act of choosing where to live doesn’t count?

edit: Ha! Ok I see, I misunderstood what you said…probably because the actions of water vs. rapists is an irrelevant point…and didn’t think that was what you meant.

The first act is really the only relevant action here, because if you understand increasing the odds of a negative act occurring…then you must be responsible for increasing those odds.

I agree, but morally, the rapist, because he has free will and decided to rape, is still entirely at fault.