Trump warned Alabama about Dorian. So we sent someone to cover the ‘hurricane.’

Dec 2007
51,580
38,335
Pennsylvania, USA
#91
If any president warns me about a hurricane, I would go to the NOAA site, or one of the many weather sites... I might even turn on my local weather report. ;)

Their caption thats above indicates a more neener attitude towards the creation of the article, wouldn't you agree?
I agree that the WP's title was more "mocking" than it needed to be. However given the bizarre story, Sharpie pens and all, it's hard to fault them for straying from the high road.

More to the point, there was a time that when the President addressed the nation during a time of crisis, he was speaking based on the best knowledge at his disposal. When Bush went on the air after the 9/11 attacks, he did not stray from the experts, and announce that St. Louis was in imminent danger of further attacks. If he had done this, for whatever reason, he would have been duly excoriated.

Think about my example - yes... in the case of a weather event, you could second-guess the President by going to the NOAA... Assuming that the President has not made efforts to control what the NOAA shares with the public. But what about a military threat? Where will you go to second-guess the President?
 
Jul 2011
63,798
12,959
Old NYC/DMS
#92
I agree that the WP's title was more "mocking" than it needed to be. However given the bizarre story, Sharpie pens and all, it's hard to fault them for straying from the high road.

More to the point, there was a time that when the President addressed the nation during a time of crisis, he was speaking based on the best knowledge at his disposal. When Bush went on the air after the 9/11 attacks, he did not stray from the experts, and announce that St. Louis was in imminent danger of further attacks. If he had done this, for whatever reason, he would have been duly excoriated.

Think about my example - yes... in the case of a weather event, you could second-guess the President by going to the NOAA... Assuming that the President has not made efforts to control what the NOAA shares with the public. But what about a military threat? Where will you go to second-guess the President?


My problem is you have a media caught having meetings about "undermining the president" so their hands aren't clean, neither are trumps. yes he's the president and his actions were dumb as fuck, but would the newsmen of the 50's working for supposed prestigious newspapers have stood for this nonsense? I don't know.
 
Nov 2013
11,244
11,068
NY
#93
My problem is you have a media caught having meetings about "undermining the president" so their hands aren't clean, neither are trumps. yes he's the president and his actions were dumb as fuck, but would the newsmen of the 50's working for supposed prestigious newspapers have stood for this nonsense? I don't know.
Would politicians, or the public, in the 50's have stood for the nonsense coming from Trump ? I don't know, yet I assume they would not have, at all.
 
Nov 2013
11,244
11,068
NY
#95
probably not, but the media would have focused on the actual issues, not the mans hands and penis size.
The issue is him falsifying a weather map out of his inability to say "oops, sorry."
"The president and his actions were dumb as fuck".. this is a direct quote from your previous post.
And THAT is the issue at hand. That's what the focus is on.
Noone is this thread has spoken about anyone's hands, or penis, at all.
 
Jul 2011
63,798
12,959
Old NYC/DMS
#96
The issue is him falsifying a weather map out of his inability to say "oops, sorry."
"The president and his actions were dumb as fuck".. this is a direct quote from your previous post.
And THAT is the issue at hand. That's what the focus is on.
Noone is this thread has spoken about anyone's hands, or penis, at all.


it was dumb as fuck, not worth 1000 post thread and 3-10 other threads on #sharpiegate, nor was it worth the media fighting him over it and you all losing your shit dutifully.


I recently posted 6 threads on shootings over labor day weekend, 75 shot, not a single one thought that was as even 1/1000 as important as marking a half circle on a weather map.
 
Nov 2013
11,244
11,068
NY
#97
it was dumb as fuck, not worth 1000 post thread and 3-10 other threads on #sharpiegate, nor was it worth the media fighting him over it and you all losing your shit dutifully.


I recently posted 6 threads on shootings over labor day weekend, 75 shot, not a single one thought that was as even 1/1000 as important as marking a half circle on a weather map.
200!!! of the posts in that specific thread are from you alone !!!

Your flooding of the forum with 6 threads on the same topic within 30 minutes, is also NOT the topic at hand. You complain about the lack of attention to these threads repeatedly ever since.. get over it !
 
Jul 2011
63,798
12,959
Old NYC/DMS
#98
200!!! of the posts in that specific thread are from you alone !!!

Your flooding of the forum with 6 threads on the same topic within 30 minutes, is also NOT the topic at hand. You complain about the lack of attention to these threads repeatedly ever since.. get over it !


I just like pointing out your hypocrisy, and no, when there were 500 posts, lunchboxy claimed I was responsible for 2000 of them! hahahahahahaaaa


I posted a lot in that thread because the idiots in that thread were dumber than trump on the issue, and responding to your buddies trolling me. how well did that work out for them. ;)
 
Dec 2007
51,580
38,335
Pennsylvania, USA
#99
My problem is you have a media caught having meetings about "undermining the president" so their hands aren't clean, neither are trumps. yes he's the president and his actions were dumb as fuck, but would the newsmen of the 50's working for supposed prestigious newspapers have stood for this nonsense? I don't know.
You also have media having meetings about reinforcing the president. The President literally communicates with Fox News officials and executives (including the CEO) to coordinate message delivery. So back to your question - "would the newsmen of the 50's working for supposed prestigious newspapers have stood for this nonsense?"
 
Likes: NeoVsMatrix
Jan 2008
107,541
98,956
Most Insidious
probably not, but the media would have focused on the actual issues, not the mans hands and penis size.
Let's not pretend. The media of the 1950s would most certainly have not ignored a president who publicly talked about his hand size, penis size, grabbing people by the pussy, good white nationalists, shithole countries, vile dictators he loved or admired, whether the previous president was born in Kenya or not, pet nicknames he gave to other politicians, that the press is the enemy of the state, or how he is the most victimized president ever, among many other things. And if they did, they'd be WAY wrong to do so.