insensitive pricks right

It's your opinion and you're entitled to it but that doesn't mean it's valid criticism worth listening to. It's the same old TDS with you in regards to whatever Trump does and/or says. Normal folks would just move on from that tweet instead of foaming at the mouth for the 9378th time since Trump became president.

As far as the second, I doubt it. Being critical of people that could have done something about this =/= insensitive. As Goom said there is plenty of criticism to go around. Bureaucracies are the antithesis to efficiency and God knows California has a lot of bureaucracy.

yes, it would be preferable for Trump to be compassionate and presidential while the fires are still ongoing, and to lay it into the incompetent california authorities afterwards - but that's just not who he is, how he works. He's insensitive, blunt, and he's absolutely right with his criticism.

I don't think the insensitivity is the takeaway here. I think it's the threat of revoking federal aid. Trump seems to treat states differently based on how they voted for him/their political makeup/their support of him. Whether California is mismanaging their land or not, you won't see Trump making the same kinds of threats when red states mismanage aspects of their government and consistently rank among the highest in federal aid per capita.

Trump is probably the most partisan president in recent times. Other presidents at least tried to reach out to the other side and bring America together. Trump is truly the divider-in-cheif, pitting Americans against each other and bringing out the worst in our politics.

I'll be curious to see how he works with the Democratic House. So far, it's been nasty jabs. But if he put together an infrastructure bill with the Democrats, he'd probably get a lot of political points.

Good point. He definitely is picking favorites among the states. This was also very evident when Hurricances struck Texas and Puerto Rico in quick succession last fall.

He certainly is a very partisan president and doesnt reach out to the other side - but I feel like the disdain not a one-way street. States like California have been extremely hostile towards Trump since before his inauguration.

About the infrastructure bill: I think there's no way the democrats can gain more politically out of passing a bipartisan infrastructure bill than Trump and the gop - and therefore, I dont think it's gonna happen, at least not before the 2020 election.

False equivalence and whataboutism from a Trumpshill? No wai.



You've chosen to listen to my criticism and respond to it... if it's irrelevant why do you bother?

Unlike you, I'm not invested ideologically or personally in a particular politician. My kneejerk reaction isn't to defend Trump, or defend Hillary, or defend Obama, etc. I just call balls and strikes as I see them.

So, if Trump had responded to this natural disaster like a real president, as he did with his next couple tweets, I wouldn't have criticized him.

But you and Goom are the opposite... you reflexively defend Trump from any criticism. There's no consistency. That's why it's hard to take either of you seriously.



It's not an either-or. Trump threatening that is just part of his insensitivity.

This post was edited by IceMage on Nov 10 2018 07:42pm

Hard to take some criticism of Trump seriously when it's literally 24/7 for every little minutia under the sun, ripe with double standards and hypocrisies. I'm still dumbfounded by how much attention Trump gets for even the most trivial and unimportant things. Not any, just really dumb criticism like crying about every single tweet he puts out. If you want to be critical, be critical of his policy or actual consequential things he says, not irrelevant things like this. There's too much white noise being highlighted every day by people like you that distorts the importance of actual important things in this world.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Nov 10 2018 08:22pm

trump's deep deep deep in his head as the leftists reminisces of trump paying off the dipping of his orange mushroom tip into an horseface pornstar

This post was edited by HeLiCaL on Nov 10 2018 08:45pm

You pointedly drew the comparison to start. Now you call it whataboutism.
Obama and other democratic and republican leaders besides Trump have in the past many times tweeted about tragedies / crises with the template of "bad thing, much prayer, now call to arms for political agenda as it relates to avoiding such tragedy"
For Trump to do it is hardly unprecedented since we've seen this same shit be tweeted after every major shooting, often before the facts are even in.

So I'm not sure what the difference is supposed to be to make it a false equivalence. The intent and functional impact of the tweets are the same. Obama had more polish and was slicker, Warren was more histrionic, Trump was more blunt?
People died, and politicians set themselves upon a crusade to attack the issues they felt are responsible. To me, the difference is that in Trump's case its actually right and has a manageable solution. Going down the gungrabbing rabbit hole leads nowhere.
So, is it supposed to be some classless embarrassment to America that Trump's response to a wildfire was to criticize those who mismanaged the land and demand a remedy at risk of taking punitive action? A forceful step that might actually be a solution? That he would have been better off with empty platitudes than bold action?

Aka he's a real man