Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

listermint

I've never seen so many Trump Supporters become subject matter experts within hours.

Its actually incredible.

Anytime the man utters anything about anything is promoters also become walking dictionaries for whatever topic is at hand. It goes beyond discussion. its almost satirical.

Do these people ever look at themselves in the daylight ? like take a step back and look.

Manic Moran

Leroy42 wrote: »

I merely asked what you felt it meant. You provided pictures to, I assume from the post, point that Trump had a point.

Do you think he meant hose equipped helicopters when he stated flying water tankers?

I don't know what he meant. "Water tanker" is not a term can recall ever hearing, even though for two years I was an incident response co-ordinator for flooding and wildfire in Nevada with our primary air asset being helicopters with bambi buckets, and was the only Army rep in my NIMS course which I took surrounded by firefighters. But suitable airborne firefighting aircraft do exist.

derossi

Manic Moran wrote: »

What would be your position on spray-equipped helicopters such as or

I fail to see much of a difference between the water output of that, and of a traditional hose on a ladder platform. The helo trades sustainability for the ability to get to places that traditional ladders cannot reach.

Dropping water is not the only way of delivering by air, it's just the most common: Usually wildfires don't care as much about accuracy, and skyscrapers tend to have fairly capable fire suppression systems.

I was mainly responding to the act fast and get water on part from that poster. Just wanted to add some factual information based on experience. I would imagine they would be used for a very specific risk. Admittedly I don't know much about them but I presume they are specific to the task with the need for a large tank and cannon system. Not sure if they could be used for anything else? The other helicopters require only to attach a bucket on to them which means they can be multi use or virtually anyone with a helicopter can assist. (we had a local doing just that, he had his own helicopter, worked alongside the army). Again then, and you'll know more about this, to have at least one ready to go you probably need a spare, then is it just one for the country or are they strategically placed, how many then, training etc. Starts to become a very expensive luxury and the streets of Paris look fairly narrow so the use of it might be very limited.


I have no doubt them crews will have done plenty of pre fire planning in that building. Have plans already made and fully knew their limitations and with the quick spread of the fire and location it was always an uphill task.



I think Paris has a specific height restriction and most of the time they will have no issues getting to the fire. Modern fire prevention has moved towards compartmentalising fires and containing it. Large buildings will have wet and dry risers, fire suppression and so on. That is a really old building and it would be very disingenuous to sit looking only at the pictures and videos and dictate the tactics that should be used to put it out without looking at the bigger picture. I think they did an amazing job in the circumstances to be honest.

RIGOLO

Manic Moran wrote: »

I don't know what he meant. "Water tanker" is not a term can recall ever hearing, even though for two years I was an incident response co-ordinator for flooding and wildfire in Nevada with our primary air asset being helicopters with bambi buckets, and was the only Army rep in my NIMS course which I took surrounded by firefighters. But suitable airborne firefighting aircraft do exist.

As everyone is pre-occupied with water , looks like Nancy wanted to get in on the act .

Today at teh LSE , London School of Economics

Pelosi Says 'A Glass Of Water' With A 'D' Could Win Districts Like Ocasio-Cortez's

https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/be-prepared/pelosi-says-a-glass-of-water-with-a-d-could-win-districts-like-ocasio-cortezs/vp-BBVZmCr

Nancy even likens her own win in the house elections to a 'glass of water with a D next to it ' ..

So congrats to all those Californians who voted for a near 80 year old glass of water to represent them, seems California has a number of water issues.

Roll on 2020 , Nancy has this the left are in good hands .....

duploelabs

Manic Moran wrote: »

Are you a fixed wing or a rotary wing guy? I presume you're thinking what I might call a "water bomber"

Don't get me wrong, the tweet was utterly inappropriate, as if the French fire brigade need his advice. But one can't deny that it's a capability gap, and it's not a stupid idea. Some countries fill it, some don't. Apparently the French don't.

This is why you shouldn't use the fixed-wing water dumper (the type trump suggested that's used in forest fires) on a delicate structure that's one fire that you want to preserve.


https://media.giphy.com/media/HNg3DbNsZ38Zy/giphy.mp4

Leroy42

Manic Moran wrote: »

I don't know what he meant. "Water tanker" is not a term can recall ever hearing, even though for two years I was an incident response co-ordinator for flooding and wildfire in Nevada with our primary air asset being helicopters with bambi buckets, and was the only Army rep in my NIMS course which I took surrounded by firefighters. But suitable airborne firefighting aircraft do exist.

And that is precisely the point. You don't know what he meant, I don't either. But you have taken it upon yourself to try to paint it as bordering on right if you take a certain view of it.

This is POTUS, the man with the best words, a top education and the best advisors. Yet here you, and others, are yet again making up stuff to try to excuse him.

I don't get it. I don't understand why people feel the need to go to bat for him when he has been repeatedly shown to be both a liar and ignorant.

What use was a tweet that was so obviously lacking in any details? Why bother at all when he didn't need to and could have/should have simply offered his sympathies?

This was a classic example of Trump and a classic example of Trump supporters firstly trying to make it out that he was right, then claiming it wouldn't matter if he was right as the MSM hate him anyway before simply moving on to a new topic and trying to forget about what just happened.

Maybe, just maybe, we should let the man speak for himself and if he is incapable of doing so then maybe it is best to accept that if he can't deal with pretty straighforward issues like a building fire then maybe he isn't the best person to be running the most powerful country in the world.

Manic Moran

Leroy42 wrote: »

And that is precisely the point. You don't know what he meant, I don't either. But you have taken it upon yourself to try to paint it as bordering on right if you take a certain view of it.

Forgive me for pointing it out, but the tweet is being lambasted partially because people are presuming they know what he meant, and they are imagining a fixed-wing. Why not add a little balance to the equation, and at the same time, observe the capabilities gap? Or is making an assumption about what he meant only inappropriate if it indicates the possibility that he might, by some chance, actually have been thinking rotary-wing? There is certainly evidence to show that some posters on here are not even aware that cannon-equipped firefighting helicopters are even a thing.

What use was a tweet that was so obviously lacking in any details? Why bother at all when he didn't need to and could have/should have simply offered his sympathies?

This, I agree with. Regardless of the technical issues of aerial firefighting, it was a daft thing to tweet. So the correct course of action is to lambast him for the definite and unjustifiable act of giving advice to the French fire services, not for his possible incorrectness or correctness of the suggestion. It's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

jochenstacker

listermint wrote: »

I've never seen so many Trump Supporters become subject matter experts within hours.

Its actually incredible.

Anytime the man utters anything about anything is promoters also become walking dictionaries for whatever topic is at hand. It goes beyond discussion. its almost satirical.

Do these people ever look at themselves in the daylight ? like take a step back and look.

They also all became experts in Scandinavian forest management with 20 years experience within seconds when he suggested they rake the forest bed.
And now they suddenly have a dozen French friends that they just spoke to just this morning who are in complete agreement with Trump.
Well, my French friends (who are real, rather than imagined) are utterly disgusted by Trump's utterings and I can't tell you what else they said because it would be against the forum charter.

mcmoustache

I've always wanted a Trump interpreter to explain what Trump was saying in the following piece. I've read it multiple times and while English is one of my first languages, I can't parse this into anything resembling a point.

Any takers?

Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart — you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I’m one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it’s true! — but when you’re a conservative Republican they try — oh, do they do a number — that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune — you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged — but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me — it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are — nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what’s going to happen and he was right, who would have thought? — but when you look at what’s going on with the four prisoners — now it used to be three, now it’s four — but when it was three and even now, I would have said it’s all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don’t, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years — but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us.

Igotadose

RIGOLO wrote: »

As everyone is pre-occupied with water , looks like Nancy wanted to get in on the act .

Today at teh LSE , London School of Economics

Pelosi Says 'A Glass Of Water' With A 'D' Could Win Districts Like Ocasio-Cortez's

https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/be-prepared/pelosi-says-a-glass-of-water-with-a-d-could-win-districts-like-ocasio-cortezs/vp-BBVZmCr

Nancy even likens her own win in the house elections to a 'glass of water with a D next to it ' ..

So congrats to all those Californians who voted for a near 80 year old glass of water to represent them, seems California has a number of water issues.

Roll on 2020 , Nancy has this the left are in good hands .....

Did you watch the full video? Here's something I think you'll be able to understand as it's a common refrain from SHS when POTUS45 says something outrageous and stupid and offensive: joking.

She was joking. Making a point that solidly Democratic districts in the midterm went Democratic (duh!) but that the Democratic party gained 40+ 'middle of the road' districts. And that was going to be part of the strategy for 2020 as well.

She also praised Ocasio-Cortez for winning the primary.

So, all good. Get back the middle of the road areas and pull the nation back from the bigoted racism and right-wing nuttery pervasive in today's GOP.

On a different note, accused molester and tGOP exemplar Roy Moore is leading in the Alabama senate primary, wants another crack at the guy that beat him.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/439063-poll-roy-moore-leading-alabama-gop-field

rossie1977

Pelosi isn't running in 2020 and while she is a good politician and wiped the floor with Trump when he attempted to out-politic her over shutdown she is still a political dinosaur.

AOC winning the seat wasn't impressive. Her beating one of the strongest Democrats in the country in Joe Crowley with no party funding and no press coverage in the run up was. Arguably one of biggest upsets in years.

That's why Republicans and right wing media are obsessed with her.

Donald Trump

mcmoustache wrote: »

I've always wanted a Trump interpreter to explain what Trump was saying in the following piece. I've read it multiple times and while English is one of my first languages, I can't parse this into anything resembling a point.

Any takers?

Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart — you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I’m one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it’s true! — but when you’re a conservative Republican they try — oh, do they do a number — that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune — you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged — but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me — it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are — nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what’s going to happen and he was right, who would have thought? — but when you look at what’s going on with the four prisoners — now it used to be three, now it’s four — but when it was three and even now, I would have said it’s all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don’t, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years — but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us.

1) Not everyone in the Trump family is an eejit. There has to be some brains there because an uncle worked in a famous college

2) If running as a Democrat, Democrats would hold up those "qualifications" as a proof of being a great lad.

3) Nuclear energy is a source of power and can be harnessed into destructive bombs that threaten the US

4) There used to be four prisoners and now there are 3
5) There is a gender imbalance in the hard sciences. Ivanka is a ride.

6) Iranians are good at negotiating so they ran rings around the Americans

jobbridge4life

Manic Moran wrote: »

I don't know what he meant. "Water tanker" is not a term can recall ever hearing, even though for two years I was an incident response co-ordinator for flooding and wildfire in Nevada with our primary air asset being helicopters with bambi buckets, and was the only Army rep in my NIMS course which I took surrounded by firefighters. But suitable airborne firefighting aircraft do exist.

Aerial options like the one suggested by US President Donald Trump were also considered unrealistic.
"Perhaps flying water tankers could be used to put it out. Must act quickly!" Trump said in a tweet.
But according to Corbett, no plane pilot could drop water "exactly in that one spot moving several hundred miles an hour over it."
Corbett also ruled out the use of helicopters: "One of the issues you've got here, is that thermal updraft, that's a chimney effectively, you can't fly a helicopter in hot air. The air is so thin."

Glenn Corbett, associate professor of fire science at New York's John Jay College of Criminal Justice.

RIGOLO

rossie1977 wrote: »

Pelosi isn't running in 2020 and while she is a good politician and wiped the floor with Trump when he attempted to out-politic her over shutdown she is still a political dinosaur.

AOC winning the seat wasn't impressive. Her beating one of the strongest Democrats in the country in Joe Crowley with no party funding and no press coverage in the run up was. Arguably one of biggest upsets in years.

That's why Republicans and right wing media are obsessed with her.

Pelosi wiped the floor with Trump did she on the Goverment shutdown.
Tell that to Adam Schiff as he had to get off the bus whilst waiting for a plane to take him and a few other senior Democrats to Europe on a junket during the shutdown.
And Trump gave a magnificent SOTU in the House even though Nancy attempted to block him.
And the last I heard on this was Trump issued an Executive order (EO Executive_Order_13767 ) to build the wall and will probably end up using FUNDS that the Democrats signed off on and approved in the 2017-28 budget increase for the Military.

So much for Pelosi wiping the floor with anyone.

Republicans and right wing conservatives are not obsessed with AOC in the same way the left are with Trump. AOC is amusing for those on the right, and she represents an endless gift that is all but guaranteeing Trump 2020 victory thru her long litany of gaffs.
I even here some people comparing AOC (ex bartender served 3 months in Congress to FDR ) , thats the sort of craziness that the left portrays about AOC that gets the right amused.
Trump on the other hand was an obsession that the left had that ended up winning the 45th POTUS election from under their feet.

Thats a huge difference in one sides obsession with another sides personel.

Pelosi may not be running in 2020 but she sure has a senior position in the DNC and no doubt will perform to the same level as when she managed to lose both the house and the presidential election that was all but guaranteed for Hilary .

Manic Moran

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Glenn Corbett, associate professor of fire science at New York's John Jay College of Criminal Justice.

So the urban fire departments that use helicopters to put out fires don't know what they're doing?

They cost a few million dollars each, I would have thought by now they'd have noticed if they were wasting their money.

Igotadose

RIGOLO wrote: »

Pelosi wiped the floor with Trump did she on the Goverment shutdown.
Tell that to Adam Schiff as he had to get off the bus whilst waiting for a plane to take him and a few other senior Democrats to Europe on a junket during the shutdown.
And Trump gave a magnificent SOTU in the House even though Nancy attempted to block him.

No, he was blocked. Then, he gave it later than normal, once unblocked. Sorry, you're wrong

And the last I heard on this was Trump issued an Executive order (EO Executive_Order_13767 ) to build the wall and will probably end up using FUNDS that the Democrats signed off on and approved in the 2017-28 budget increase for the Military.

Last I heard, this was still under debate and there are lawsuits progressing. So, no, no wall yet.

So much for Pelosi wiping the floor with anyone.

Yep, she did great!

Republicans and right wing conservatives are not obsessed with AOC in the same way the left are with Trump. AOC is amusing for those on the right, and she represents an endless gift that is all but guaranteeing Trump 2020 victory thru her long litany of gaffs.

3000 pieces on Fox news in like 6 weeks. How do *you* define obsessed? She's just a short-term congressman as you point out.

I even here some people comparing AOC (ex bartender served 3 months in Congress to FDR ) , thats the sort of craziness that the left portrays about AOC that gets the right amused.

Point it out. This is more lying by you. No one's compared her to FDR - the righties would LIKE someone to do that.

Trump on the other hand was an obsession that the left had that ended up winning the 45th POTUS election from under their feet.

He's the POTUS. 24x7 coverage. Get over it.

Thats a huge difference in one sides obsession with another sides personel.

Pelosi may not be running in 2020 but she sure has a senior position in the DNC and no doubt will perform to the same level as when she managed to lose both the house and the presidential election that was all but guaranteed for Hilary .

Time will tell.

jobbridge4life

Manic Moran wrote: »

So the urban fire departments that use helicopters to put out fires don't know what they're doing?

They cost a few million dollars each, I would have thought by now they'd have noticed if they were wasting their money.

You might take that up with the associate professor of fire science at the world's premier law enforcement/first responder college, Manic. I'm sure he's never considered that point.

RIGOLO

If your going to call someone a liar , you better be sure of your facts ...

Igotadose wrote: »

Point it out. This is more lying by you. No one's compared her to FDR - the righties would LIKE someone to do that.

RIGOLO wrote: »

I even here some people comparing AOC (ex bartender served 3 months in Congress to FDR ) , thats the sort of craziness that the left portrays about AOC that gets the right amused.
Trump on the other hand was an obsession that the left had that ended up winning the 45th POTUS election from under their feet.

rossie1977 wrote: »

Many will. FDR walked 4 elections and AOC is running on similar platform to what he did in 1944.

jochenstacker

rossie1977 wrote: »

Pelosi isn't running in 2020 and while she is a good politician and wiped the floor with Trump when he attempted to out-politic her over shutdown she is still a political dinosaur.

I think if she wiped the floor with Trump, she's doing quite well for a dinosaur.
But don't forget, Trump's no spring chicken himself. And women live longer.
As a side note, by the amount of hate against AOC on any platform that allows any kind of public post, the republicans are scared sh*tless of her.
I hope she runs, wins and dances into office. So many right wingers are going to spit acid and poop their pants in disgust.

Midlife

RIGOLO wrote: »

If your going to call someone a liar , you better be sure of your facts ...

It really comes through when you actually think you're correct.

It's very different to the times you post nonsense you know to be false.

Keeep up the good work!

Out of curiosity, given the speech mentioned earlier, do you think Trump was really a top student?

rossie1977

RIGOLO wrote: »

Pelosi wiped the floor with Trump did she on the Goverment shutdown.
Tell that to Adam Schiff as he had to get off the bus whilst waiting for a plane to take him and a few other senior Democrats to Europe on a junket during the shutdown.

Trump's shutdown ground the government to a halt. Shutdown happened nobody is arguing that. Pelosi showed who the true politician was between them. She completely schooled Trump.

And Trump gave a magnificent SOTU in the House even though Nancy attempted to block him.

Well magnificent is up for debate. And your second point is totally incorrect. Pelosi clearly stated there would be no SOTU until shutdown was ended due to lack of security. Trump ended shutdown and SOTU was allowed to take place.

And the last I heard on this was Trump issued an Executive order (EO Executive_Order_13767 ) to build the wall and will probably end up using FUNDS that the Democrats signed off on and approved in the 2017-28 budget increase for the Military.

EO means diddly squat. Trump himself doesn't even reference wall much anymore, it's now border security or fence.

If top Republicans don't agree on spending tens of billions on a wall there is no chance it gets built.

So much for Pelosi wiping the floor with anyone.

Trump caved, Pelosi didn't. Even Trump's biggest supporters said Pelosi made a fool out of him.

Republicans and right wing conservatives are not obsessed with AOC in the same way the left are with Trump.

Trump is president and already a big tv star prior to him running.

AOC is one representative in the House among hundreds. Yet only she has been getting thousands of articles and stories on her since beating Crowley.

AOC is amusing for those on the right, and she represents an endless gift that is all but guaranteeing Trump 2020 victory thru her long litany of gaffs.

What gaffs are you referring to exactly? Trump makes daily gaffs so it's really weird to try and belittle her in that way.

Trying to say she amuses people on the right is laughable. Why waste so much time talking about a little known politican

I even here some people comparing AOC (ex bartender served 3 months in Congress to FDR ) , thats the sort of craziness that the left portrays about AOC that gets the right amused.

I said she is running on a similar platform to what FDR proposed in 1944. AOC is part of Justice Democrats whose progressive platform follows many of the later social policies proposed by FDR

Those look similar to me...

Trump on the other hand was an obsession that the left had that ended up winning the 45th POTUS election from under their feet.

Thats a huge difference in one sides obsession with another sides personel.

Networks are no doubt obsessed with Trump and that was one of the reasons he won yes given he got all of the air time while his opponents got little or none. Major networks also failed to point out Trump's many indiscretions during the campaign.

Trump's obsession is because of his celebrity status so why the AOC obsession?

Pelosi may not be running in 2020 but she sure has a senior position in the DNC and no doubt will perform to the same level as when she managed to lose both the house and the presidential election that was all but guaranteed for Hilary .

Paul Ryan had little effect on 2016 election. Pelosi's main job in 2020 will be to ensure Democrats get a comfortable win in the House like in November.

martingriff

Quin_Dub wrote: »

##Mod Note##

No more of this please.

Apologies got a bit too spirited will not happen again

DreamsBurnDown

jochenstacker wrote: »

As a side note, by the amount of hate against AOC on any platform that allows any kind of public post, the republicans are scared sh*tless of her.

I think that's a very naive view. Republicans and Fox News are so focused on AOC because they plan to use her as the primary target to attack Democrats in 2020. They will paint Democrats as socialists who want to destroy capitalism and replace it with an economic system where the government runs all corporations, from small to large. In a country where congress is at a 17% approval rating, so the confidence people have in government (either party) to run anything isn't exactly great.

Now you can say that is lying, and it is, because AOC's positions are not extreme socialist in the sense of destroying capitalism. But AOC is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America and you can be sure that Republicans will use every utterance by DSA members and leaders as cannon fodder before 2020. Even though the DSA have no agreed platform as yet and have a broad spectrum of members with differing views, here is one leader quoted recently: "The end goal ultimately is social control of the means of production. You know what we want is not just to improve capitalism, we will ultimately want to get rid of it".

Expect that quote and others like it to be featured on every TV ad as we go into the 2020 election cycle. While a majority of Americans favor more affordable health care, reducing the onerous student debt on millions of Americans, large corporations paying more in tax (many pay nothing), etc. you will find very few Americans outside of perhaps college students who want to destroy capitalism and replace it with workers and the government running everything.

Democrats have a lot more to fear from the DSA than Republicans, as Republicans will use the DSA to paint all Democrats as economic extremists. That will be a big issue if the economy is still reasonably strong. Now it doesn't represent too much of a problem for the field of presidential contenders as none of them are DSA members (even Bernie), and they can distance themselves from the destroy capitalism narrative, but it would be extremely naive to expect it won't become a central plank of the Republican attack.

https://www.npr.org/2018/07/26/630960719/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-democratic-socialists-of-america

derossi

Manic Moran wrote: »

Forgive me for pointing it out, but the tweet is being lambasted partially because people are presuming they know what he meant, and they are imagining a fixed-wing. Why not add a little balance to the equation, and at the same time, observe the capabilities gap? Or is making an assumption about what he meant only inappropriate if it indicates the possibility that he might, by some chance, actually have been thinking rotary-wing? There is certainly evidence to show that some posters on here are not even aware that cannon-equipped firefighting helicopters are even a thing.



This, I agree with. Regardless of the technical issues of aerial firefighting, it was a daft thing to tweet. So the correct course of action is to lambast him for the definite and unjustifiable act of giving advice to the French fire services, not for his possible incorrectness or correctness of the suggestion. It's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Just incase I wasn't clear, and to be honest I was just trying to encourage debate without trying to override it, it's an absolutely terrible idea whether fixed wing, rotary or whatever for this type of fire for many many reasons. You appear to have certain experience in this area and you should know full well why it is a bad idea. We all know what the response should have been, it's ok for him not to have experience in an area and accept that he was wrong......strange.

Christy42

Manic Moran wrote: »

derossi wrote: »

I have been around those helicopters in this country as they drop water and the volume they drop is significant and as much as they try and drop it accurately it is definitely not an exact science. Grand in an open area where crews can stay back but in a hugely built up area I can see no positive benefit. If they are to operate no crews could work in the area and would you really want aircraft in and around the fire, never heard of it to be honest.

What would be your position on spray-equipped helicopters such as or

I fail to see much of a difference between the water output of that, and of a traditional hose on a ladder platform. The helo trades sustainability for the ability to get to places that traditional ladders cannot reach.

Dropping water is not the only way of delivering by air, it's just the most common: Usually wildfires don't care as much about accuracy, and skyscrapers tend to have fairly capable fire suppression systems.

Trump's language did not suggest this type of helicopter.

If he wants to suggest that let him. Until then I am sticking with he is an idiot who doesn't have a clue about firefighting (he is an idiot for trying to call out others on a subject he knows nothing about, I would be fine if he kept it to offering condolences and knew nothing of firefighting).

If every single thing he says needs an interpreter maybe he needs to find someone with better words.

I get little errors from politicians get blown up in the press or phrases are twisted but nearly everything he says needs to be rephrased and twisted to look in any way sensible. I am going with Occam's razor, he is not being misinterpreted he just has no idea what is going on. No one else gets this much effort put in to try and make them look sensible. I fail to see why Trump should get it.

jobbridge4life

Christy42 wrote: »

Trump's language did not suggest this type of helicopter.

If he wants to suggest that let him. Until then I am sticking with he is an idiot who doesn't have a clue about firefighting (he is an idiot for trying to call out others on a subject he knows nothing about, I would be fine if he kept it to offering condolences and knew nothing of firefighting).

If every single thing he says needs an interpreter maybe he needs to find someone with better words.

I get little errors from politicians get blown up in the press or phrases are twisted but nearly everything he says needs to be rephrased and twisted to look in any way sensible. I am going with Occam's razor, he is not being misinterpreted he just has no idea what is going on. No one else gets this much effort put in to try and make them look sensible. I fail to see why Trump should get it.

But he was still wrong. Helicopters, planes, 'water bombs' or canons. IT was all wrong. All just bluster.

Donald Trump

They should have just raked up the leaves.


That suggestion would be as useful as water bombing the Cathederal from above!

everlast75

My problem with Barr...

1) wrote memo on executive power to get the job
2) found out 3 weeks before report no charges recommended
3) made the finding that there was no obstruction
4) that he briefed the White house
5) enabling the WH to steal the March on the report release and prep their "rebuttal"
6) has not briefed Congress
7) he refused to deny the claim that the Mueller report was a witch hunt
8) used the term spying in reference to the US intelligence services investigation into Russian interference
9) refuses to go to Court to obtain release of grand jury material
10) wrote summary providing DJT with claim of vindication
11) didn't release summaries which were written by the SC team which were ready for public consumption
12) refuses to give all materials to the intelligence committee in a timely fashion
13) times release of redacted report on Thursday before Congress breaks.

Have i missed any?

jochenstacker

Donald Trump wrote: »

They should have just raked up the leaves.


That suggestion would be as useful as water bombing the Cathederal from above!

And if only Boeing had listened to him, those 737s would never have crashed.
It's easy being a Trump supporter.
Rule 1: everything he says is true and genius.
Rule 2: if he contradicts himself, this is also true, but the first statement is still true, also.
Rule 3: if a member of the opposition disagrees with him, they're wrong. If a member of the opposition agrees with him, they're also wrong. This does not affect the truthfulness if Trump's statements.
Rule 4: if a statement of Trump gets shown by evidence to be factually incorrect, the facts are wrong. Trump has better facts.

Slowly people are waking up to his nonsense.
In order to win the election, it is pointless to engage with his die hard supporters, as we have seen on this thread, they are brainless zealots and they're only function is to spew propaganda one way and block out everything coming the other way. They are either paid to spew propaganda, or they simply are trolls.

RIGOLO

rossie1977 wrote: »

Trump's shutdown ground the government to a halt. Shutdown happened nobody is arguing that. Pelosi showed who the true politician was between them. She completely schooled Trump.

House Democrats Punt on Budget Resolution, Turning Instead to Spending Increases
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/02/us/politics/democrats-budget-spending-caps.html

House Democrats formally punted on releasing a budget blueprint on Tuesday (April 2nd), instead unveiling a bill that would increase military and domestic spending caps by more than $350 billion over the next two years.

So the Trump administration released their budget blueprint last month, and the House Democrats under Nancy Pelosi (Nancy who on Monday jokingly remarked at the London School of Economics that a glass of water with a D on it could win her district) have failed to agree on even a budget blueprint outline .

Democrats are so disorganised and ripped apart by oppossing fractions that they cant even agree on a budget proposal .

rossie1977 wrote: »

EO means diddly squat.

And to claim an Executive Order means didly squat... well that just exposes a lack of understanding of the power invested in the triple branches of US Government, Executive, Legislative and Judicial

rossie1977 wrote: »

Pelosi's main job in 2020 will be to ensure Democrats get a comfortable win in the House like in November.

That was her job back in 2010 , and she blew it then.


Pelosi took over the House in 2007 after the Dems gained 30 seats , but she lost it in 2010 midterm losing 63 seats.
So not only did she lose the 30 seats they gained , she also lost an additional 33 seats ... thats some achievement.

Its a free country your welcome to put your faith in a 81 year old to keep the house in 2020 .