Jump to content
gottaplan

The Trump Presidency

Recommended Posts

^To be fair, Obama actually tried limiting access to Fox News reporters at some briefings in his first term. It took other journalists standing up for FN to end that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.newsweek.com/trump-pardon-arpaio-alex-jones-infowars-matt-drudge-654341

 

TRUMP WILL PARDON JOE ARPAIO BECAUSE OF ALEX JONES’S INFOWARS AND MATT DRUDGE

 

(Alex)Jones accepted credit, saying: “It’s Dr. Corsi writing the articles, and it’s Matt Drudge picked him up, and the president saw it in Matt Drudge’s Twitter feed, and then said, ‘Is this true? I haven’t even heard of this on Fox.’ And he called [Fox News host Sean] Hannity up, and said, ‘Why aren’t you covering this?’”

 

Oh good...our pardons are now going to be determined by Alex Jones and Matt Drudge.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^To be fair, Obama actually tried limiting access to Fox News reporters at some briefings in his first term. It took other journalists standing up for FN to end that.

 

And honestly, after watching FNC the last couple nights, they are not 100% for Trump and his media bashing.  There has been a surprising amount of defense of the media.  They are smart enough to know that they could be the next ones in the cross hairs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^To be fair, Obama actually tried limiting access to Fox News reporters at some briefings in his first term. It took other journalists standing up for FN to end that.

 

And honestly, after watching FNC the last couple nights, they are not 100% for Trump and his media bashing.  There has been a surprising amount of defense of the media.  They are smart enough to know that they could be the next ones in the cross hairs.

 

I can't comment (unlike some people who claim not to watch but still have opinions) since I cut cable awhile back.  I can't give a personal opinion or firsthand account of the cable news stations.  Occasionally, I will watch CBS News or ABC News via antennae.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's nice to see that there are at least a few people in the legacy media community that still prefer to report the news, rather than comment on it:

 

Wall Street Journal Editor Admonishes Reporters Over Trump Coverage

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/23/business/media/wall-street-journal-editor-admonishes-reporters-over-trump-coverage.html

He added in a follow-up, “Could we please just stick to reporting what he said rather than packaging it in exegesis and selective criticism?”

 

That raises another question, what is the difference between journalism and a stenography?  If all you are doing is "reporting what he said" then you're not a journalist, you're a court reporter, a stenographer, or maybe a marketer -- you're a mouthpiece broadcasting someone else's message.  It sounds like the President can say anything he wants and the Journal will broadcast it for him.

 

Journalism requires more than reporting what the subject says, or what each side in a dispute says.  Journalism requires the reporter to add background and context so that the reader has a full picture of what is going on.  If the President mispeaks (or lies), a journalist should say "that isn't true."  That is not inserting opinion into the report.

 

Similarly, if the President says one thing on Monday and something completely different on Tuesday, a reporter isn't adding "opinion" when saying the President "pivoted" or "changed directions" or whatnot when describing those Tuesday statements.

 

So while there may be ways of describing an event that would spill over into opinion ("the President's plan to build an ugly wall") or would add commentary that is unsupported by the facts ("the President intentionally lied"), you can't only repeat what someone said and be a journalist.  Hopefully the editors at the Journal and other reputable "legacy media," and new media, understand the difference.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some polls out there that say 35% of people believe Trump over the news media. So if they feel they are being "patriotic" by believing their prez in everything he says they will also be in for a big letdown when charges come forth.

  The argument i end up having with people that are mildly supportive of trump is that there is no russia thing and if there was, so what.  Since obviously i can't prove that trump will be indicted, the support remains since it is considered "fake" that there are multiple investigations going on.  Apparently also fake that Manafort and Gen Flynn have sealed indictments. So now perhaps 2 obstruction of justice charges.

  The great thing is he is picking a fight with the senate.  They can kick his butt to the curb pretty fast. The question is when and if.  Does Trump have dirt on McConnell? Is that why things are being slow walked?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's nice to see that there are at least a few people in the legacy media community that still prefer to report the news, rather than comment on it:

 

Wall Street Journal Editor Admonishes Reporters Over Trump Coverage

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/23/business/media/wall-street-journal-editor-admonishes-reporters-over-trump-coverage.html

He added in a follow-up, “Could we please just stick to reporting what he said rather than packaging it in exegesis and selective criticism?”

 

That raises another question, what is the difference between journalism and a stenography?  If all you are doing is "reporting what he said" then you're not a journalist, you're a court reporter, a stenographer, or maybe a marketer -- you're a mouthpiece broadcasting someone else's message.  It sounds like the President can say anything he wants and the Journal will broadcast it for him.

 

Journalism requires more than reporting what the subject says, or what each side in a dispute says.  Journalism requires the reporter to add background and context so that the reader has a full picture of what is going on.  If the President mispeaks (or lies), a journalist should say "that isn't true."  That is not inserting opinion into the report.

 

Similarly, if the President says one thing on Monday and something completely different on Tuesday, a reporter isn't adding "opinion" when saying the President "pivoted" or "changed directions" or whatnot when describing those Tuesday statements.

 

So while there may be ways of describing an event that would spill over into opinion ("the President's plan to build an ugly wall") or would add commentary that is unsupported by the facts ("the President intentionally lied"), you can't only repeat what someone said and be a journalist.  Hopefully the editors at the Journal and other reputable "legacy media," and new media, understand the difference.

 

True enough, but if you click on the link, that NYT article actually (to its credit) cites specific examples of the language that the WSJ EIC apparently removed as being too opinionated: the statement that Charlottesville "reshaped" Trump's presidency, and a description of the Arizona rally as "an off-script return to campaign form."  The first one strikes me as clearly opinionated, and the second one certainly seems a little bit loaded as well, though there is a factual point there that could be made with less loaded language.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

White House is holding its first press briefing in three weeks.

 

"We're going to be the most transparent administration in history."

 

I could make an argument that they are. They're transparently full of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

White House is holding its first press briefing in three weeks.

 

"We're going to be the most transparent administration in history."

 

Increaseed transparency will only translate to them making even more a fool of themselves to the American public. . Tragic. The worst part about it is having a president too full of himself and too arrogant and narcissistic  to resign when he really should.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some polls out there that say 35% of people believe Trump over the news media. So if they feel they are being "patriotic" by believing their prez in everything he says they will also be in for a big letdown when charges come forth.

 

No they won't. When Trump is charged and impeached, his followers' anger will only grow. Some will form political movements, acquire more media outlets, expand their systematic recruiting/brainwashing/militant activism through Christian fundamentalists and megachurches, increase their arsenals, resort to terrorism, or engage in armed conflict against the U.S. military. The only wall that will matter by that time is the one that's built between what's left of the USA and Trumpnation.


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some polls out there that say 35% of people believe Trump over the news media. So if they feel they are being "patriotic" by believing their prez in everything he says they will also be in for a big letdown when charges come forth.

 

No they won't. When Trump is charged and impeached, his followers' anger will only grow. Some will form political movements, acquire more media outlets, expand their systematic recruiting/brainwashing/militant activism through Christian fundamentalists and megachurches, increase their arsenals, resort to terrorism, or engage in armed conflict against the U.S. military. The only wall that will matter by that time is the one that's built between what's left of the USA and Trumpnation.

 

I tend to agree.  The time where this all was going to end well ended November 8th, 2016.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some polls out there that say 35% of people believe Trump over the news media. So if they feel they are being "patriotic" by believing their prez in everything he says they will also be in for a big letdown when charges come forth.

 

No they won't. When Trump is charged and impeached, his followers' anger will only grow. Some will form political movements, acquire more media outlets, expand their systematic recruiting/brainwashing/militant activism through Christian fundamentalists and megachurches, increase their arsenals, resort to terrorism, or engage in armed conflict against the U.S. military. The only wall that will matter by that time is the one that's built between what's left of the USA and Trumpnation.

 

OMG hilarious. Well actually the entire post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks! :)

 

BTW, Trump is still a mental midget....

 

Former intelligence official questioned Trump's fitness for office, so Trump tweeted at him https://t.co/4jgDPn7qZ3


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks! :)

 

BTW, Trump is still a mental midget....

 

Former intelligence official questioned Trump's fitness for office, so Trump tweeted at him https://t.co/4jgDPn7qZ3

Pro military industrial complex 2 time lying under oath Clapper CIA crap. LOL. There is NO difference among Clinton Bush Romney Obama etc. Self made Billionaire is a mental midget LOL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well ok i meant the 35% will no longer be 35%. Once indictments come out i think there will be a dawning on a third of those people that it is getting real.  I have no doubt that 20% of people will support the trumpster through indictments and convictions and stil be certain he is a great billionaire industrialist that has earned everything he ever worked for. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some polls out there that say 35% of people believe Trump over the news media. So if they feel they are being "patriotic" by believing their prez in everything he says they will also be in for a big letdown when charges come forth.

 

No they won't. When Trump is charged and impeached, his followers' anger will only grow. Some will form political movements, acquire more media outlets, expand their systematic recruiting/brainwashing/militant activism through Christian fundamentalists and megachurches, increase their arsenals, resort to terrorism, or engage in armed conflict against the U.S. military. The only wall that will matter by that time is the one that's built between what's left of the USA and Trumpnation.

 

I tend to agree.  The time where this all was going to end well ended November 8th, 2016.

 

Naw, it ended here during the RNC. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pro military industrial complex 2 time lying under oath Clapper CIA crap. LOL. There is NO difference among Clinton Bush Romney Obama etc. Self made Billionaire is a mental midget LOL.

 

Because a moron who didn't even know what NATO does obviously knows more than the men and women who have spent their lives guarding this nation from enemies both foreign and domestic. You and your fearful leader should be honoring them, not ridiculing them.

 

A mental midget worries about what everyone says about them and tries to identify and discredit those who criticize them.

 

A democratic leader of a diverse nation listens to and heeds all input, especially from those with differing opinions. An autocrat chooses inputs that confirms already held beliefs and policies and seeks to block all others.

 

Any fool can inherit money and steal from others. Trump would have increased his father's inheritance by four times more had he invested in a market index fund. I may have started with less but I've earned greater returns than Trump has. That doesn't make me a good government leader either.


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not the only one postulating a horrific post-Trump America...

 

The scarier question is what comes after President Trump's betrayals

Opinion by Brent Larkin: The president is merely the symptom of an American divisiveness - a political unrest rooted in the failure of both parties to meaningfully address the nation's vast economic inequities. Nevertheless, Trump's contempt for American values is almost unimaginable.

 

MORE:

http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2017/08/the_scarier_question_may_be_wh.html


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@tombrokaw

 

mr president,

 

i've been a journalist 50 yrs. Never met one who didn't love USA.

Many risk  their lives reporting on US values.

Cheap shot


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some polls out there that say 35% of people believe Trump over the news media. So if they feel they are being "patriotic" by believing their prez in everything he says they will also be in for a big letdown when charges come forth.

 

No they won't. When Trump is charged and impeached, his followers' anger will only grow. Some will form political movements, acquire more media outlets, expand their systematic recruiting/brainwashing/militant activism through Christian fundamentalists and megachurches, increase their arsenals, resort to terrorism, or engage in armed conflict against the U.S. military. The only wall that will matter by that time is the one that's built between what's left of the USA and Trumpnation.

 

And if Trump runs for reelection and wins, what will you do?

 

There are some polls out there that say 35% of people believe Trump over the news media. So if they feel they are being "patriotic" by believing their prez in everything he says they will also be in for a big letdown when charges come forth.

 

No they won't. When Trump is charged and impeached, his followers' anger will only grow. Some will form political movements, acquire more media outlets, expand their systematic recruiting/brainwashing/militant activism through Christian fundamentalists and megachurches, increase their arsenals, resort to terrorism, or engage in armed conflict against the U.S. military. The only wall that will matter by that time is the one that's built between what's left of the USA and Trumpnation.

 

I tend to agree.  The time where this all was going to end well ended November 8th, 2016.

 

You think a Clinton victory would have been "ending well?"  Forget the "well" part of that phrase.  What would have ended on that date, other than Trump's candidacy?  If that's the sum and total of what you're thinking, yes.  But the divisions that Trump recognized and harnessed would remain, and in fact in some ways be worse, with an unapologetic globalist in the White House.  Don't get me wrong, there are many policies that I think Clinton would have been much better on than Trump.  But you're kidding yourself if you think that the anti-globalist movement would have seen the Clinton presidency as a final defeat and surrendered unconditionally.  The Republicans would still hold the House and Senate and in fact likely have been in better shape for 2018 (where the map was already favorable to Republicans) without having to defend a Republican president who is erratic at best.

 

A democratic leader of a diverse nation listens to and heeds all input, especially from those with differing opinions. An autocrat chooses inputs that confirms already held beliefs and policies and seeks to block all others.

 

For example, invading Libya with no Congressional authorization?  Or passing a regulatory nationalization of the entire health care sector on a strict party-line vote and then unilaterally imposing mandates pursuant to that new authority that are utter anathema to those who believe that unborn humans have souls and dignity worth protecting?  Maybe sending threatening letters to colleges that didn't go far enough in abrogating due process protections for those accused of sexual misconduct, or to public K-12 school districts that adopted the position that restrooms and locker rooms should be separated based on biology and not internal state of mind?  Yeah, presidents always "listen to and heed all input, especially from those with dissenting views."  Right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Re your second paragraph, completely agree.  Re your third paragraph, I get it, but none of that is new.  Those types of disagreements on policy and legislation have occurred throughout our nation's history.  Trump is a different animal.  He is not comparable to any past President who I am aware of.  And, yes, I understand that is a big part of why his base likes him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some polls out there that say 35% of people believe Trump over the news media. So if they feel they are being "patriotic" by believing their prez in everything he says they will also be in for a big letdown when charges come forth.

 

No they won't. When Trump is charged and impeached, his followers' anger will only grow. Some will form political movements, acquire more media outlets, expand their systematic recruiting/brainwashing/militant activism through Christian fundamentalists and megachurches, increase their arsenals, resort to terrorism, or engage in armed conflict against the U.S. military. The only wall that will matter by that time is the one that's built between what's left of the USA and Trumpnation.

 

And if Trump runs for reelection and wins, what will you do?

 

There are some polls out there that say 35% of people believe Trump over the news media. So if they feel they are being "patriotic" by believing their prez in everything he says they will also be in for a big letdown when charges come forth.

 

No they won't. When Trump is charged and impeached, his followers' anger will only grow. Some will form political movements, acquire more media outlets, expand their systematic recruiting/brainwashing/militant activism through Christian fundamentalists and megachurches, increase their arsenals, resort to terrorism, or engage in armed conflict against the U.S. military. The only wall that will matter by that time is the one that's built between what's left of the USA and Trumpnation.

 

I tend to agree.  The time where this all was going to end well ended November 8th, 2016.

 

You think a Clinton victory would have been "ending well?"  Forget the "well" part of that phrase.  What would have ended on that date, other than Trump's candidacy?  If that's the sum and total of what you're thinking, yes.  But the divisions that Trump recognized and harnessed would remain, and in fact in some ways be worse, with an unapologetic globalist in the White House.  Don't get me wrong, there are many policies that I think Clinton would have been much better on than Trump.  But you're kidding yourself if you think that the anti-globalist movement would have seen the Clinton presidency as a final defeat and surrendered unconditionally.  The Republicans would still hold the House and Senate and in fact likely have been in better shape for 2018 (where the map was already favorable to Republicans) without having to defend a Republican president who is erratic at best.

 

Yes, I think it would've ended just fine.  Clinton isn't popular, but if we're talking tangible effects to the nation and its cultural, social and governmental institutions, things would've been fine.  I know this because I am not an irrational Clinton hater that believes her to be the Antichrist like seemingly most conservatives these days.  That didn't start with Trump, because that narrative has been around for decades.  Trump inflamed it, sure, but things like the endless Benghazi investigations were happening long before Trump arrived on the scene.  I don't think there is any politician in history whose negative reputation so far exceeds actual proven misdeeds and character flaws. 

 

And you really don't understand me here.  I could handle Republicans controlling Congress and endlessly trolling a Clinton presidency.  We've already seen that with Obama and the country moved forward in many ways regardless. Trump is so, so much worse in every regard, and it remains stunning that so many conservatives like yourself, even recognizing Trump as terrible, still can't quite bring yourself to really come to terms with the truth.  The constant equivalency attempts and rationalizing the irrational are going to be the downfall of the United States.  Globalist?  Give me a break.  We are so far beyond that now.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And if Trump runs for reelection and wins, what will you do?

 

Take pictures of flying pigs.

 

You think a Clinton victory would have been "ending well?" 

 

No. But ending better than a sociopath in the Oval Office? Yes. (Hint: some things aren't black/white decisions)

 

 

For example, invading Libya with no Congressional authorization?  Or passing a regulatory nationalization of the entire health care sector on a strict party-line vote and then unilaterally imposing mandates pursuant to that new authority that are utter anathema to those who believe that unborn humans have souls and dignity worth protecting?  Maybe sending threatening letters to colleges that didn't go far enough in abrogating due process protections for those accused of sexual misconduct, or to public K-12 school districts that adopted the position that restrooms and locker rooms should be separated based on biology and not internal state of mind?  Yeah, presidents always "listen to and heed all input, especially from those with dissenting views."  Right.

 

In our ridiculously over-simplistic and non-representative two-party system of governance, Obama reached across the aisle and found the only other party unwilling to negotiate because its members had either considered their political beliefs inseparable from their religious beliefs (how do you negotiate away your fundamentalist religious beliefs?), and/or they were merely corrupt hand puppets of the 1% who consider the little people only as expendable gears in their money-making machines. So, sometimes you have to act on behalf of the country, regardless of its popularity with the tyrannical few who had lost control of the White House for 8 years.


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of tangible consequences to Trump's presidency (and the cancer of irrational conservatism), we had city mayors in coastal Texas stating that people didn't have to evacuate for Hurricane Harvey because government shouldn't tell them what to do and people should do what they want.  Forecasts call for a major cat 3 or 4 landfall with rainfall amounts exceeding 40"-50" in places.  This has the potential to be a huge disaster, both in terms of people being dumb because the reputations of the media/science/government have been completely undermined, and also because we have a president who is undoubtedly going to seriously botch the relief response a al Bush 2005 or worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of tangible consequences to Trump's presidency (and the cancer of irrational conservatism), we had city mayors in coastal Texas stating that people didn't have to evacuate for Hurricane Harvey because government shouldn't tell them what to do and people should do what they want.  Forecasts call for a major cat 3 or 4 landfall with rainfall amounts exceeding 40"-50" in places.  This has the potential to be a huge disaster, both in terms of people being dumb because the reputations of the media/science/government have been completely undermined, and also because we have a president who is undoubtedly going to seriously botch the relief response a al Bush 2005 or worse.

 

Wow.

 

BTW, what's the name of Trump's FEMA director?? ;)


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, I think it would've ended just fine.  Clinton isn't popular, but if we're talking tangible effects to the nation and its cultural, social and governmental institutions, things would've been fine.  I know this because I am not an irrational Clinton hater that believes her to be the Antichrist like seemingly most conservatives these days.  That didn't start with Trump, because that narrative has been around for decades.  Trump inflamed it, sure, but things like the endless Benghazi investigations were happening long before Trump arrived on the scene.  I don't think there is any politician in history whose negative reputation so far exceeds actual proven misdeeds and character flaws.

 

I'm on record on these forums, I think in the Obama Presidency thread, as saying that the Benghazi investigations were wildly overblown and focused on the wrong target because of irrational hatred of Secretary Clinton.  If anything, that ire should have been turned on Obama for invading Libya at all without authorization for military force, but the Republicans didn't do that because they knew that Clinton was a likely presidential frontrunner and they wanted to damage her as much as possible.  (Not to mention that they'd likely enjoy having the Libya precedent out there when a Republican was in the White House, and lo and behold, one is there now and has been engaged in saber-rattling with North Korea that is far more dangerous given that the most recent president also started a war without even a fig leaf of Congressional authorization.)  I'm not an irrational Clinton hater.

 

But you think that the damage to our "cultural, social, and governmental institutions" "would've been fine?"  The only thing I can conclude from that is that you are OK with damaging the cultural and social institutions she would have damaged (and, perhaps more importantly, that her Supreme Court nominees would have damaged).  The real difference between us isn't our personal opinions of Clinton's character.  It's that some of the things you think would have been features of her presidency and its effect on our institutions, I call serious dangers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of tangible consequences to Trump's presidency (and the cancer of irrational conservatism), we had city mayors in coastal Texas stating that people didn't have to evacuate for Hurricane Harvey because government shouldn't tell them what to do and people should do what they want.  Forecasts call for a major cat 3 or 4 landfall with rainfall amounts exceeding 40"-50" in places.  This has the potential to be a huge disaster, both in terms of people being dumb because the reputations of the media/science/government have been completely undermined, and also because we have a president who is undoubtedly going to seriously botch the relief response a al Bush 2005 or worse.

 

I wouldn't be so sure Trump will screw up the response.  Don't get me wrong, if he were actually in charge of the response I have no doubt it would be a disaster, but everything I know about the current FEMA director leads me to believe we're in pretty good hands.  Brock Long has had a long career in emergency response and seems to be very well respected in the field.  He has only been on the job for a couple months though, so there are bound to be some hiccups.  A tough test for sure and I'm interested to see how well we respond.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of tangible consequences to Trump's presidency (and the cancer of irrational conservatism), we had city mayors in coastal Texas stating that people didn't have to evacuate for Hurricane Harvey because government shouldn't tell them what to do and people should do what they want.  Forecasts call for a major cat 3 or 4 landfall with rainfall amounts exceeding 40"-50" in places.  This has the potential to be a huge disaster, both in terms of people being dumb because the reputations of the media/science/government have been completely undermined, and also because we have a president who is undoubtedly going to seriously botch the relief response a al Bush 2005 or worse.

 

Looks like you fell for fake news.

 

http://abc13.com/weather/mayor-squashes-social-media-rumors-about-harvey/2338991/

 

https://weather.com/storms/hurricane/news/hurricane-harvey-forecast-gulf-coast-texas-louisiana

 

"All residents of Houston and surrounding areas should rely solely on proven information sources, including the National Weather Service and the city Office of Emergency Management, to decide how to prepare for the heavy rainfall expected here," Turner said.

 

They are/were trying to prevent on "over panic" due to fake posts about 50+ inches of rain, 3 days without power, etc.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of tangible consequences to Trump's presidency (and the cancer of irrational conservatism), we had city mayors in coastal Texas stating that people didn't have to evacuate for Hurricane Harvey because government shouldn't tell them what to do and people should do what they want.  Forecasts call for a major cat 3 or 4 landfall with rainfall amounts exceeding 40"-50" in places.  This has the potential to be a huge disaster, both in terms of people being dumb because the reputations of the media/science/government have been completely undermined, and also because we have a president who is undoubtedly going to seriously botch the relief response a al Bush 2005 or worse.

 

Looks like you fell for fake news.

 

http://abc13.com/weather/mayor-squashes-social-media-rumors-about-harvey/2338991/

 

https://weather.com/storms/hurricane/news/hurricane-harvey-forecast-gulf-coast-texas-louisiana

 

"All residents of Houston and surrounding areas should rely solely on proven information sources, including the National Weather Service and the city Office of Emergency Management, to decide how to prepare for the heavy rainfall expected here," Turner said.

 

They are/were trying to prevent on "over panic" due to fake posts about 50+ inches of rain, 3 days without power, etc.

 

No, I'm not and haven't.  Here's some of the latest ensemble model rain forecasts.  A mean max near 30" is ridiculously high, and would include many individual models with significantly higher amounts than what that shows.  Some models have been showing 50" and even 60"+ amounts over several days as the hurricane stalls/moves very slowly near the coast.  Whether or not those verify, they are NOT being made up.  Even 20" would be devastating as places like Houston are very susceptible to severe flooding.  So if anything, the news and local leadership is not taking it seriously enough.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From The National Weather Service:

"Local National Weather Service (NWS) offices have not minced words about the threat, warning of "some structures becoming uninhabitable or washed away" and "numerous road and bridge closures with some weakened or washed out," with record river flooding expected in some areas."

 

Here are the latest rainfall forecasts from the NHC and NOAA's Weather Prediction Center.

 

-Middle/upper Texas coast: 15 to 25 inches, with isolated totals up to 35 inches

-Deep South Texas and Texas Hill Country eastward to central and southwest Louisiana: 5 to 15 inches

 

Feel free to post actual sources citing 50-60 inches. EDIT - didn't see the map.  I'm just going off of NOAA.

 

There does seem to be a lack of urgency, perhaps in part because of distrust of science/the government.  Hope everyone down there stays safe.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

since this thread has veered off course from Trump, then I just would like to add: Woo-hoo, go Harvey! Okay, I'm sorry. Bad taste. I'm just trying to make up for my complete lack of school spirit when I was actually in school, probably due to the stigma that the name was associated for so long with the (eponymously titled) 1950 movie about a 6-foot imaginary rabbit seen by the alcoholic protagonist played by James Stewart. Hurricane Harvey begone!

36733153896_11f453762f_b.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not all hurricanes are bad, there are some very fine hurricanes.

 

Awesome! I'm stealing that one!!

 

5800373816f39.image.jpg

 

 


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   1 member

×
×
  • Create New...