Is the Louisiana flooding Obama's Katrina?

[Tony Stark]

Well, it looks like Obama is going to visit Louisiana on Tuesday, only five days after Gov. Edwards said that he would want him to "wait a week or two" so as not to divert precious state resources away from search and recovery.

So my question is about the timing. Did Obama decide to go earlier than planned because Trump's visit put pressure on him, or was it because the Baton Rouge golf courses are drying out faster than expected?

Are you trying to prove how severe your case of ODS is?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Thank goodness Donald Trump is bringing attention to this under reported humanitarian crisis. He deserves kudos for taking time out of his busy campaign schedule to help the needy, don't you think?

ETA: From the same link:



Well, that's a relief.

Under-reported?

Trump certainly did his part, he helped unload a truck of relief supplies for about 30 seconds and went on a three hour tour (that sounds familiar Skipper).

 

[kookbreaker]

Apparently "under reported" means they aren't hanging Obama out to dry like They did with Bush's displayed incompetence. Never mind that might have something to do with the federal agencies doing their job properly since they aren't filled with cronies.

 

[Stacko]

Apparently "under reported" means they aren't hanging Obama out to dry like They did with Bush's displayed incompetence. Never mind that might have something to do with the federal agencies doing their job properly since they aren't filled with cronies.

There's also some perspective needed. 1500 people died in Louisiana during Katrina. 13 dead now.

 

[DavidJames]

Well, it looks like Obama is going to visit Louisiana on Tuesday, only five days after Gov. Edwards said that he would want him to "wait a week or two" so as not to divert precious state resources away from search and recovery.

So my question is about the timing. Did Obama decide to go earlier than planned because Trump's visit put pressure on him, or was it because the Baton Rouge golf courses are drying out faster than expected?

Edwards also said yesterday

"The president is welcome to visit whenever he wants to visit."

So guess what. You have nothing. Maybe you should start a thread about HRC's deathly medical condition. Or the Clinton death list, Or maybe Bigfoot.

Why choose reality when you've got liberals to smear.

 

[sunmaster14]

There's also some perspective needed. 1500 people died in Louisiana during Katrina. 13 dead now.

What difference does that make? Presumably the President would come for the living, not the dead. Dead people are dead after all. They're not even going to know if the President came to visit.

Actually, I take that back. He probably thinks that he can raise their spirits.

 

[tyr_13]

There's also some perspective needed. 1500 people died in Louisiana during Katrina. 13 dead now.

What difference does that make? Presumably the President would come for the living, not the dead. Dead people are dead after all. They're not even going to know if the President came to visit.

Actually, I take that back. He probably thinks that he can raise their spirits.

Are you *********** kidding me?

 

[DavidJames]

Are you *********** kidding me?

No. It was simply a set up for his "joke".

Yeah,

 

[kookbreaker]

So, flooding happens and while most people think "this is aiwful! I hope rescue efforts minimize any further suffering and casualties!" You think "At last! Something I can bash Obama for due to its superficial resemblance to Katrina"

'K

 

[fuelair]

What difference does that make? Presumably the President would come for the living, not the dead. Dead people are dead after all. They're not even going to know if the President came to visit.

Actually, I take that back. He probably thinks that he can raise their spirits.

Brilliant. Unlike trump, Obama is an actually not stupid person. But you wouldn't be able to recognize such based on your posts.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Not at all. I wanted to see if anybody else acknowledged the double standard that Obama benefits from. If Bush were still President, he would be absolutely raked over the coals in the media for golfing while tens of thousands of people were suffering.

If you say so.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Well, it looks like Obama is going to visit Louisiana on Tuesday, only five days after Gov. Edwards said that he would want him to "wait a week or two" so as not to divert precious state resources away from search and recovery.

So my question is about the timing. Did Obama decide to go earlier than planned because Trump's visit put pressure on him, or was it because the Baton Rouge golf courses are drying out faster than expected?

He decided to go because he's a thin-skinned narcissist, of course! Or something.

I'm guessing here, trying as I might to think irrationally.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Speaking of thin-skinned narcissists.... How much of his yuge fortune did Donald donate to help out the victims?

I like the plant in the crowd - maybe Mrs. Sunmaster? - "We're sure glad you're here instead of playing golf in Martha's Vineyard." Hardly staged at all.

 

[Babbylonian]

Well, it looks like Obama is going to visit Louisiana on Tuesday, only five days after Gov. Edwards said that he would want him to "wait a week or two" so as not to divert precious state resources away from search and recovery.

So my question is about the timing. Did Obama decide to go earlier than planned because Trump's visit put pressure on him, or was it because the Baton Rouge golf courses are drying out faster than expected?

1. Trump can exert zero pressure on the President. Not only is Trump a crazy buffoon who will have difficulty getting cleared for a White House tour, let alone winning the election, but President Obama isn't running for anything.
2. There is no time that you would have found a presidential visit acceptable, at least not for this particular occupier of the office. You've proven that by taking issue with him not going and now with him planning to go.

Short version: You clearly have no real opinion on this issue. You have only a desire to criticize the President no matter what decision he makes.

 

[Foolmewunz]

1. Trump can exert zero pressure on the President. Not only is Trump a crazy buffoon who will have difficulty getting cleared for a White House tour, let alone winning the election, but President Obama isn't running for anything.
2. There is no time that you would have found a presidential visit acceptable, at least not for this particular occupier of the office. You've proven that by taking issue with him not going and now with him planning to go.

Short version: You clearly have no real opinion on this issue. You have only a desire to criticize the President no matter what decision he makes.

It's a win/win situation. Or win/win/win. First, the timing of the thread... just as we were waiting for the pending arrival of His Trumpiness and his Indiana doorstop. "Gee, look. The GOP cares. See?"

It also distracted from Vladimir's mole resigning.

And next week, Breitbart will invent a number... any number, as the famous "trip to India story proved", and attack Obama for "spending six hundred brazillion dollars on a trip to Louisiana for political purposes".

 

[sunmaster14]

1. Trump can exert zero pressure on the President. Not only is Trump a crazy buffoon who will have difficulty getting cleared for a White House tour, let alone winning the election, but President Obama isn't running for anything.

He still cares about his approval ratings and his reputation. There's no question that he and his minions are on the defensive about the optics here. That's one reason they keep stressing the fact that a Presidential visit would divert resources needed at a crucial time, which, while technically plausible, is almost certainly a desperate, ex-post facto excuse. I'll note also that the Louisiana flooding was not given the media coverage it deserved for whatever reason (possibly it was "swamped" by Olympics and Presidential election coverage), and a Presidential visit could have turned that around immediately. It seems likely that an early Presidential visit would have had a very positive net impact on the flood victims.

2. There is no time that you would have found a presidential visit acceptable, at least not for this particular occupier of the office. You've proven that by taking issue with him not going and now with him planning to go.

You have no rational basis for saying that. Your "proof" seems to be my mockery of the excuses for not going earlier, but that doesn't mean I would have criticized him for going earlier. I think, in retrospect, he should have. To be honest, I didn't even know about the Louisiana flooding until Wednesday, which is pretty remarkable given how devastating the flooding is and how much of a political news junkie I am.

Short version: You clearly have no real opinion on this issue. You have only a desire to criticize the President no matter what decision he makes.

Actually, the whole point of this thread was to point out the double standard in the mainstream media, and among Democratic partisans (but I keep repeating myself). Bush was excoriated for circling over the Katrina flooding in Air Force One while returning to Washington DC, instead of (I suppose) landing a Boeing 747 at a parially flooded airport and taking his entourage on a tour of a submerged city. At the time, I thought Bush's actions were completely appropriate. Obviously, FEMA's performance was harshly criticized (in my opinion, unfairly), but that was a separate issue. It was Bush's seeming indifference and nonchalance which was at issue concerning his delayed visit to Louisiana.

Now we have a similar situation (eerily similar actually), but most people here are twisting themselves into pretzels to defend Obama's decision to keep golfing. And, honestly, I think Obama's seeming indifference and nonchalance has actually had a material negative impact in this case because of the dearth of media attention. At least with Katrina, media attention wasn't a problem. Or at least too little wasn't a problem. Too much probably was actually.

 

[sunmaster14]

Just to back up my claim that the media underplayed the story of the Louisiana flooding for the first 4 or 5 days, here is a viral letter from a Baton Rouge lawyer complaining about that very issue. It is a powerful letter.

Dear CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, ABC News, CBS News, Good Morning America, the Today Show and whatever other news organizations professing to employ people who refer to themselves as Journalists:

cc: all Facebook Friends (as promised)

FYI There is a flood in Louisiana.

You've met us before. You came and camped out over here during a very painful period in our existence about a month ago. You went into a neighborhood you've never been in, in a state it's quite possible that you've never visited (despite that you are "very well-travelled"). Although, I realize you are sophisticated, and accepting of "other" cultures, you managed to pass judgment on an entire community in your own country, who were mourning and struggling to figure out - what the hell just happened - and where do we go from here - all of us (well most of us) - in good faith. You didn't offer help, you didn't offer support, you offered criticism - and then you left.

Oh you came back, a few weeks later, a lunatic, who also had never been here, showed up and murdered three of our finest citizens. In broad daylight. In the middle of town. You came back. With more criticism. More speculation. More side taking. When in the community I live, we were basically all on the same side. We're all in this together. I hate to pull a hashtag, but seriously #unBRoken.

Not one person I watched on the national news during the weeks following Alton Sterling's death, or the murder of three police officers gave my friends, my family, my neighbors - any credit or the benefit of the doubt. Nope. The entire news media looked for someone to blame. Depending on what network you watched the target of blame was Sterling himself, the cops, the South, the guns, the whatever. Not one person I watched on the national news assumed that the whole city was by and large, and in good faith, just trying to wrap our brains around what happened, and trying to make our city whole again.

I think you people are stone cold silent about this flood, because really, there's no agenda to push. There's no side to take. There's nobody to blame. So even though you don't seem in the least bit curious, here's what's been happening around here since you left.

...

 

[thaiboxerken]

Wow. The ODS is strong in some people. I guess Obama won't get re-elected.

 

[Myron Proudfoot]

Are you trying to prove how severe your case of ODS is?

in that case, a job well done!

 

[Nova Land]

There is no time that you would have found a presidential visit acceptable, at least not for this particular occupier of the office.

You have no rational basis for saying that.

Actually there is a rational basis for saying that.

Obama has been president for close to 8 years. That has provided plenty of opportunities for people to criticize him for things he has done wrong and praise him for things he has done right.

I'm not familiar with all your threads and posts, but my impression is that you routinely find things to criticize in Obama and that you rarely if ever find things to praise. I don't recall you ever approving of any significant action Obama has taken or policy Obama has espoused.

If that impression is correct -- and I suspect that's Babbylonian's impression as well -- then that's a reasonable basis for Babbylonian's belief that you would have criticized Obama regardless of when he chose to visit.

As I said, I'm not familiar with all your threads and posts. But you should have a fairly good recollection of them. Can you provide links to some of the posts you've made praising Obama's actions or policies?

If you can show that in the past you have been inclined to find actions Obama has taken to be well-considered, that would show Babbylonian's belief is ill-founded. If you can't provide significant examples of actions by Obama you approved of, that would indicate Babbylonian's belief is reasonable and is based on the available evidence.