Presidents in disaster zones, page 2

posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 07:19 PM

link

a reply to: FredT
Not to mention a President will only get in the way....

posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 07:44 PM

link

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: FredT
Not to mention a President will only get in the way....

I'm serious it really does. If Marine 1 is in the air we cannot lift. If he is on the ground we have to go through all kinds of shenanigans to lift. Presidential motorcade? forget about it. Now can you imagine trying to rescue people ad hoc and have your rescue space closed down? Id be seriously pissed. Also when AF-1 takes of and lands ALL air traffic is held etc.

icanteven

posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 07:47 PM

link

a reply to: FredT

For Trump, it's all about the optics.

AugustusMasonicus

posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 07:49 PM

link

Every President has been in a joint session of Congress, therefore every President has been in the greatest man-made disaster in the country's history.

redhorse

posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 07:53 PM

link

originally posted by: FredT
Please note this is not a Trump issue but rather speaks to every president that has to deal with a disaster.

Why do they insist on coming to the scene. I realize they want to look presidential but dealing with a president and their entourage can strain a disaster zone to its limit.

Airspace restrictions (shhesh you should see the shenanigans we have to go through to lift whenever the president is in the area be it land or air)
Security resources needed
etc etc etc

How exactly does this dog and pony show help the victims? Pull the directors of relief aganecies and EMS to brief the president when they should be on the front lines etc.
All of those resources wasted could be diverted to aid relief. Heck the advance team that showed up can roll up their sleeves and do some SAR etc.

Can we just say collectively that in this modern age of video conferencing that he can stay in Washington, help where needed by directing the relevant agencies to assist, and we the public and media wont give them flack for not showing up personally?

Thoughts?

Well, I see what you're saying, but I think that the overall social cue outweighs the risks of more strain on already strained infrastructure.

I think it does help the country and even some of the people involved in the disaster feel like the President is paying attention. It's reassuring.

I'll tear Trump apart all day long, but I think he did this right. Credit where it's due.

edit on 29-8-2017 by redhorse because: (no reason given)

FredT

posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 07:54 PM

link

originally posted by: icanteven
a reply to: FredT

For Trump, it's all about the optics.

That's true for any president to be fair. Thats why I want to give current and future POTUS's a pass on actually going.

Lurker1

posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 07:59 PM

link

a reply to: FredT

In Trump's case, specifically, he was blamed today for drawing resources away from the relief efforts.

If he hadn't gone they would have bitched about that too.

The press is being contrary just to be divisive dicks.

In fact, they went so far as to bitch about Melania's shoes in the midst of a national crisis. PETTY.

As far as I'm concerned, he did the right thing.

edit on 8/29/2017 by Lurker1 because: ETA.

Teikiatsu

posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 08:03 PM

link

It's been the expectation ever since *I think* Nixon visited a hurricane zone. Before that they sent VPs and Secretaries.

I don't agree with it either. What's the President going to do? Much better to let the people on the ground do their job instead of devote additional resources to an observer.

FredT

posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 08:07 PM

link

a reply to: Lurker1

Thats my point dammed if you and dammed if you don't. Give them a pass. Republican or Democrat. Stay in Washington and be briefed. The Governor of the state is there dealing with it already. He can have a direct line to POTUS if he needs POTUS to kick some ass with a federal agency not helping.

carewemust

posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 08:10 PM

link

Candidate Trump went to Louisiana 12 months ago, to show empathy for flood victims last year. He donated a tractor-trailer full of food, and $100,000.

Remember? - www.washingtonpost.com... term=.5227db6430e3

Hillary Clinton was sick, apothetic, or scared..who the hell knows. She didn't go.

FredT

posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 08:23 PM

link

Plus other than a hope you feel better photo op, the cost must be staggering. As I noted on the aviation thread BOTH VC-25A's were up for this trip plus untold C-17's, and support planes, Plus a few E-3's etc and thats just the aviation assets

xpert11

posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 07:13 AM

link

originally posted by: intrepid
It's physiological. It shows the big man cares. He seeing for himself. And probably the biggie, he's standing with us. Those things have a lot of value. If out of real concern and not political grandstanding it's much needed.

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

In a nutshell this is correct. Any head of state, who does or did not make such a visit would lose the respect of their subjects or citizens. The UK Royal Family does have the advantage of sending family members to represent the Queen around the globe. In 2011, I sat in a crowd, who saw Prince William speak at the Christchurch Earthquake memorial service. This positive and reinforcing emotional experience has stayed with me and may it always do so.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

FredT

posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 01:50 PM

link

a reply to: xpert11

But he was speaking at a memorial right? Not flying into the disaster zone.

xpert11

posted on Aug, 31 2017 @ 04:31 AM

link

a reply to: FredT

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

In all fairness, quake effected areas are not the same mass flooding. Prince William did see parts of the quake hit areas and meet with USAR team members.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

Aazadan

posted on Aug, 31 2017 @ 05:22 AM

link

a reply to: FredT

The main reason these days, is that a personal visit increases the visibility of the affected area, and helps win support for assistance in rebuilding.

Remember, part of being the President involves ceremonial roles. It's not all management.

edit on 31-8-2017 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)

FredT

posted on Aug, 31 2017 @ 12:47 PM

link

a reply to: Aazadan

In this age with a 24 hour news cycle and social media Texas is front page. I can see that would be the case decades ago but not in this age. Attention is already there

AndyFromMichigan

posted on Aug, 31 2017 @ 01:40 PM

link

originally posted by: loam

Bush calls Katrina photo 'huge mistake'

It is one of the most recognizable photographs of George W. Bush’s presidency – and it was a big mistake, the ex-president says.

...

"Huge mistake," the former president said of the photograph, adding that it made him look “detached and uncaring.”

...

“I immediately knew it was a problem."

The former president said ultimately the decision was made not to land in Lousiana out of fear it would have diverted precious resources to the already-strained recovery effort. But in hindsight, Bush said, it would have been more valuable to clearly show he understood how dire the conditions were.

“I should have touched down in Baton Rouge, met with the governor and walked out and said, ‘I hear you. We understand. And we're going to help the state and help the local governments with as much resources as needed.’ And then got back on a flight up to Washington. I did not do that. And paid a price for it.”

As Bush found out, we want to know that the president cares about the disaster victims, and looking out the window of Air Force One as it flies over at 30,000 feet simply does not convey that.

Really, tho, I feel like Bush got scapegoated over Katrina. It wasn't his fault that FEMA totally fumbled the pass.

Aazadan

posted on Aug, 31 2017 @ 10:21 PM

link

originally posted by: FredT
a reply to: Aazadan

In this age with a 24 hour news cycle and social media Texas is front page. I can see that would be the case decades ago but not in this age. Attention is already there

With the pace the news cycle moves at, you have to keep things in the forefront if you're someone who sets headlines. That's the role of a President, and I would think it would come naturally to someone as media savvy as Trump. Instead he fumbled it.

AndyFromMichigan

posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 07:14 AM

link

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: FredT
a reply to: Aazadan

In this age with a 24 hour news cycle and social media Texas is front page. I can see that would be the case decades ago but not in this age. Attention is already there

With the pace the news cycle moves at, you have to keep things in the forefront if you're someone who sets headlines. That's the role of a President, and I would think it would come naturally to someone as media savvy as Trump. Instead he fumbled it.

What are you talking about? The worst criticism anyone can manage is that Melania wore high heels. Most people think Trump handled the disaster just fine.

Aazadan

posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 07:43 AM

link

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
What are you talking about? The worst criticism anyone can manage is that Melania wore high heels. Most people think Trump handled the disaster just fine.

No, the worst criticism is that he showed up, only gave campaign speeches and talked about the size of the crowds he was getting. Then used the disaster zone as a place to sell his $40 MAGA hats.