It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Louisiana Doesn't Need My Distractions

page: 17
54
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2016 @ 05:25 PM
link   
originally posted by: Puppylove
This:

The problem I have is with people acting like what he did was such a great thing and it really was insignificant compared to what neighbors did for each other but that wasn't worthy enough to be the topic of the thread.

is actually almost the same as this:

That would have better been argued by saying "I personally have more respect for the people actually there working everyday out of a sense of community and out of the kindness of their hearts than the politician who's probably there to garner votes and move on.


And the only difference to this:

Instead your whole thing was about Trumps contribution not really helping and being insignificant in comparison to the above mentioned people...

Is how you seemed to have defined insignificant.

In fact, insignificant does not mean "nothing" it means "little" and that is exactly how much he helped "a little". What is wrong with saying that if it is the truth?


edit on 21-8-2016 by daskakik because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 21 2016 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

But what he didn't isn't LITTLE. It's a lot, because every single thing that happens to help the people there because of his actions is directly linked back to him.

Your confusing effort with effect.

The amount of effort he put in was insignificant in comparison to these people. The help gained by that action is however more significant in terms of help gained by it.

The issue is you can't get past the effort put in to see the bigger picture.

You're confusing effort with effect.

The effect = help caused by said action. Which is what we're all discussing.

Effort = Work done to create an effect. Which you can't seem to get past.

Those who put in more effort to help deserve more respect because it entails more sacrifice.

That however has no effect on the effect of said actions actually done.

For example a bunch of ants move half of salt from one tray to another. It takes them hours, they put in a whole lot of work to do it.

Now a monkey does the same thing by picking up one tray and dumping all the other half of the salt onto the other tray.

I'd say the individual ants put in more work time and effort and are deserving of more respect than the monkey. The monkey by merely having the capacity of being a monkey was able to do a lot more than the individual ants for much less effort.

Has the individual ant contributed equally to the monkey? No it has not, the monkey objectively did more than any one ant. He clearly contributed more than any individual ant to filling the tray with salt from the other tray.

Effort does not equal effect it equals sacrifice, sacrifice equals worth more respect.

Effect = effect, more effect is simply more effect.

Objectively Trumps actions while objectively less significant in effort is objectively more significant in effect.

The issue is, you keep trying to argue that he's insignificant in effect which is objectively not true as he's clearly more significant in effect.

He is however less significant in terms of effort taken. This has no effect of the good caused however, only an effect on respect deserved for their contributions.

You cannot objectively argue that Trumps contribution is insignificant which is what you are doing. They objectively are not in terms of effect.

If given a choice between someone snapping their fingers and making things all better effortlessly through the power of magic, or more people working harder to do the same thing, most of those hard working people will be glad to have less work to do. So bitching because he got more done for less effort is silly. His actions mean those hard working people have less work to do.
edit on 8/21/2016 by Puppylove because: (no reason given)

edit on 8/21/2016 by Puppylove because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2016 @ 06:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

It's a little in comparison.

Links back to him? You're trying too hard. 20,000 people were rescued before Trump came along and that compared to a trailer of stuff is about the same to you?

If you think so, great, go with it but I disagree.



posted on Aug, 21 2016 @ 06:20 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Did any one person rescue those people, tell me, split it up, who's responsible for those rescues? I bet it's split up among a lot of people. You want Trump to compete with every single person who's contributed before he showed up as if they all are one massive super entity, then yeah he loses. Duh. But if you're going to lump the totality of every person who's contributed into one entity then it's not fair to not include Trump equally in that entity. At which point your singling him out is a rather biased and unfair act.

Are there people out there who've contributed more than Trump if we follow the dominoes that fall after them? Possibly, if you can find them, then we should know who they are so we can give them the acknowledgment they deserve.

But seriously expecting Trump to compete with everyone that's helped that's not him as one massive super entity is silly in the extreme.

Wait a minute your doing it again... Trump with a trailer of stuff. Back to ignoring everything people are saying to repeat silly statements.

I'm not being drawn in again. Dammit I mean it this time. No more being baited back in.

I'm going to get dragged down to your level then get beaten by experience. I can already feel it happening.



posted on Aug, 21 2016 @ 06:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

Did Trump load, drive and unload the 18-wheeler himself? You really should stop.

Yes, it's a big job tackled by many people of which Trump is a small part.

See how that works? That is why his part is little. Why is that so hard to accept?



posted on Aug, 21 2016 @ 09:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: daskakik

In that case blame the media, not Trump for actually acting and thus forcing the media to put it out there more.

The media is too busy propping up Clinton and attacking Trump to put real attention on Louisiana.

Fortunately there's away around that Media blackout. By Trump showing up himself created a bigger media splash than it was getting.

People don't have some magical connection to each other that tells them when bad # is happening somewhere. There actually does need to be a flowing of information.

And yes there was news on it before Trump went there, but it wasn't really prime time, and it wasn't really hitting all that much alternate media, nor creating the discussion that Trumps visit created.

The media sucks, Trump forcing them to put it back out there by his actions is a good thing.

Place your ire where it belongs, at the election obsessed media. Don't get mad at Trump taking advantage of that obsession to force the Media to actually show it.




It shows ya how much of a crap the media cares about the American people.

It takes Trump to bring to light Obama and hillary's attitude towards the people also.




posted on Aug, 21 2016 @ 09:12 PM
link   
a reply to: burgerbuddy

Yeah, it's seriously depressing. There was a time the media at least tried to to the right thing and be the good guys.



posted on Aug, 21 2016 @ 09:16 PM
link   
a reply to: burgerbuddy

I got 34 pages of results on the flooding from google before the visit. Maybe people were to busy doing other things?



posted on Aug, 21 2016 @ 09:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: burgerbuddy

I got 34 pages of results on the flooding from google before the visit. Maybe people were to busy doing other things?



Were they helping or just writing about it?

Cum on pal, move along now. Nothing to see here.




posted on Aug, 21 2016 @ 09:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: burgerbuddy
Were they helping or just writing about it?

The google results? They were just sitting there on the screen.

The post you replied to was about the media reporting, even mentioning a media blackout.

Context is a thing.
edit on 21-8-2016 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2016 @ 10:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: burgerbuddy

Yeah, it's seriously depressing. There was a time the media at least tried to to the right thing and be the good guys.


I hear ya and I completely agree. It's amazing what 10 short years does. When Katrina happened the media was all over it, remember? And all these stupid movie actors jumped on board in their boats to 'save the day', for a little tv face time.

Ten years later, and you don't hear boo about the flooding in the same area. At least until Trump went in there. For all the BS some people on this thread are trying to present to minimize Trump's actions, the fact remains that he WAS THERE. While the people in our freaking gov't, you know, the ones who are SUPPOSED TO BE THERE, were off at 100,000$ a plate dinners and playing golf.

SMH. There is no excuse for that. None. Especially to top the whole thing off with some off-hand rude comment about 'discrimination'...as if THIS is going to do any good for the people down there...you know...the black and white and vietnamese and hispanic people who are being destroyed by the floods. I'm sure they'll be happy to know that they shouldn' t 'discriminate' while they swimming for their freaking lives.



posted on Aug, 22 2016 @ 05:56 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Well he did bring a semi full of relief supplies. But I guess that doesn't count.



posted on Aug, 22 2016 @ 06:00 AM
link   
a reply to: reldra

So now that we have a Dem Prez it is a strain and a good thing he did not go. But back under Bush, when he desided to hold off going it was a scandal?

OK...



posted on Aug, 22 2016 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: dismanrc
a reply to: theantediluvian

Well he did bring a semi full of relief supplies. But I guess that doesn't count.


...actually, there's some question about this as well. occupydemocrats.com...

At the moment (as far as I can track) this is just a Twitter chain from a reporter. I'd wait to see if it develops into a full story. Perhaps someone with more time than I have today will check Tweets from Ascension's official feed and give us the scoop (with links)?



posted on Aug, 22 2016 @ 11:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

Keep us updated if true then all three candidates have major egg on their faces. I kind of need to know, cause this is one of the big issues having me on the fence for him.

It seems odd that so many positive reports of people happy over his visit were coming in if it's all one big fabrication.



posted on Aug, 22 2016 @ 12:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: dismanrc
a reply to: theantediluvian

Well he did bring a semi full of relief supplies. But I guess that doesn't count.


...actually, there's some question about this as well. occupydemocrats.com...

At the moment (as far as I can track) this is just a Twitter chain from a reporter. I'd wait to see if it develops into a full story. Perhaps someone with more time than I have today will check Tweets from Ascension's official feed and give us the scoop (with links)?


Here is a reporter saying that "an official" stated that Trump donated an 18 wheeler full of supplies. Who is the official she is referring to? I don't know.




posted on Aug, 22 2016 @ 12:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: dismanrc
a reply to: theantediluvian

Well he did bring a semi full of relief supplies. But I guess that doesn't count.


...actually, there's some question about this as well. occupydemocrats.com...

At the moment (as far as I can track) this is just a Twitter chain from a reporter. I'd wait to see if it develops into a full story. Perhaps someone with more time than I have today will check Tweets from Ascension's official feed and give us the scoop (with links)?



You know what's really funny? ...and by funny, I mean suspicious.

Your source claims that he got the information from a fell named David A. Fahrenthold. I dug around on this and found something curious...

Oddly enough, if you go to that guys website at the Washington Post David A. Fahrenthold

...you wont find any evidence of this "finding". I mean, correct me if I'm wrong. Are you able to find the actual source? We're seeing this information from a 3rd party and not the horses mouth. Though, if you do find proof of this actually being false against Trump and that he had nothing to do with the supplies, I'll admit that I was misled about it. Though I still credit him for going in the first place but my appreciation would be far less and I'll chalk it up to a personal need for a photo-op.

Hmmm.. ATS seems to cut my post towards the end. So far it's happened a few times to me.


As I was saying. I did see his personal twitter account (guessing it's a legit account) and he says the same as you mentioned and what the author of the link you shared, said. But... He only supposedly got no response for or against. Yet he didn't write a story on it, only blogged a statement. My point is... He just doesn't have enough information. It's counting chickens. In the end, if he's wrong, he wont go back and say "Opps... sorry. I made a mistake".


edit on 22-8-2016 by StallionDuck because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2016 @ 12:59 PM
link   
I have to add.. I should have held onto the post while reading more and thinking about the posts I'm seeing relating to this Trump vs the Supply truck.

See, I'm all about looking for the answers and I will base my beliefs and thoughts on what proofs I find.

So... I'm seeing a lot of links about this issue being a lie. The link provided to the dem site even expressly says "Trump NEVER Donated" When the post below it doesn't even say that.

So if anything is blatant lie, it's the post "Louisiana Officials Reveal Trump NEVER Donated “Truckload” Of Supplies"

Follow along - OFFICIALS REVEAL - TRUMP NEVER

Where did they reveal? According to the original author "We don’t have any info abt a donation truck that came from him directly"

They didn't say a damned thing about "NEVER" anything. They just said they had no INFORMATION.

Similar statements that mean the same... You've heard these before.

"I have no recollection of that".
"I have no Comment".



Can't people just come out and say what's really on their minds? Can't people just tell the truth and stop twisting words to suit themselves?

Jeeze!



posted on Aug, 22 2016 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: StallionDuck


Yeah, I would say "I don't have that info." and "He never donated." are two very different statements. It's a twisting of words to try and change the story.



posted on Aug, 22 2016 @ 04:46 PM
link   
After the info Byrd posted, I had to dig into this more to see what I can find on both sides.

One one side, I see a ton of posts saying the same thing. All of which have VERY misleading titles to push into democratic voters heads. (Gee.. I wonder why people hate this guy so much... And they say that Trump supporters are full of it) Every single post shows ZERO proof of anything. They all stem from this one single guy who questioned Trumps donations. One report even goes as far as to say this:



David Fahrenthold of the Washington Post reached out and asked the local Ascension Parish government whether Donald Trump had indeed donated the truckload of supplies in question. “We don’t have any info abt a donation truck that came from him directly,” was the spokesman’s diplomatic way of saying that Trump hadn’t donated any such thing.

Did you all catch that? "was the spokesman's diplomatic way of saying"... So this guy even goes as far as making a huge assumption of what this "spokesman" is trying to say when he didn't even speak to him! He seriously just called an apple an orange, matter of factly! Wow

But you have to love the daily news...

I'm not one to believe Snopes and I'm sure a lot of you folks can't really stand behind it either, but this was actually found there. Yes, I'm really surprised!


In addition to questioning the contents of Trump's donation, some were skeptical that the candidate had donated anything at all, claiming that Trump merely helped to unload a truck of supplies donated by another organization. However, CNN and The Creole, the latter an online news source for Ascension Parish in Louisiana, reported that Trump had "donated" an 18-wheeler full of supplies,


Trump spent approximately 20-25 minutes inside the command center and asked a lot of questions, according to [St. Amant Fire Chief James E.] LeBlanc. He also donated a 18-wheeler full of supplies and expressed concern for residents, damage to homes, how much water was in the area and if any assistance had been given by the federal government.

A church spokesperson also confirmed that the supplies were donated by Donald Trump:


We are responding to your email inquiring about the video showing Donald Trump unloading supplies at our church. These supplies were donated by Donald Trump.

While the exact list of items donated by Donald Trump is not yet available, it's clear the candidate assisted in providing more than just Play-Doh to the people of Louisiana.


So something positive about Trump on Snopes... Does that mean it's actually true? lol

The Great play-doh Conspiracy!


To be fair, I've seen only a couple of post where people claim that Trump did indeed donate with some kind of proof backing it up, but it's much more information and way more credible than the counter argument and source.

A lady does her own snooping and verifies that the information of his donation is 100% true...


Looks like Mr. Fahrenthold should have done about 10 minutes worth of research, which is about what it took me to find it. Mr. Trump donated about 70,000 pounds worth of supplies to Church International in St. Amant, Louisiana, according to Pastor Greg Crawford. Wow! Seems like someone from the Washington Post lied again! They are good at that! Better than CNN is apparently. Those poor saps got called out for lying twice this week! The most recent time being by John Bel Edwards, the Governor of Louisiana. OUCH! That had to hurt!


This was actually from the first source I presented.

And CNN even said that the info was true based on "officials". Again.. from CNN??



Crazy huh! When your own people are telling you one thing, some people just want to believe something totally and obviously ignorant. Isn't there a term for something that is true but so astounding to you that you just can't simply believe it?




top topics



 
54
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join