I don’t know if you’ve already forgotten, but I asked you about that exact issue a few posts ago:
That would have seemed like an appropriate time to “point out the difference”. Instead, we’ve been treated to a string of posts that act like the only choice is to drop “tons” (or “shit-tons”) of water on the structure or none at all:
I don’t know if France has any available, but there are modern aerial firefighting aircraft that can moderate how much water they drop, specifically so that they don’t destroy the structure in a deluge of water. For example, Erickson operates a fleet of S-64 Aircrane Helitankers. They describe their capabilities like this:
Would such an aircraft be useful in France? I don’t know for certain, but it doesn’t seem “deranged” or “bizarre” to suggest that spraying / dropping water on the ablaze roof might help. JohnT’s tweeting firefighter seemed to suggest it might be useful if only they could reach it.
You people are forgetting that Trump probably knows more about fighting fires than almost anybody. He’s seen many, many fires over the course of his lifetime.
ISTM that it’s been “much more” about trying to laugh at whatever President Trump says, regardless of whether there’s some truth to it.
I think some of you got too caught up in laughing to realize there’s some logic there, and I’m willing to point that out, as much as you may not like it.
We laugh because we aren’t correctly positioned to have him removed from his post for his obvious mental incompetence. Or his crimes.
So if I’m reading you right, you think that it’s theoretically possible to polish this particular turd, so you’re focusing on this specific instance as though it will make everything else he’s said go away.
That tweet does not exist in isolation, instead being just the latest of a long line of examples. The reality is, that one can present to Donald Trump any subject and he will claim to know more about it than the experts on that subject. Here’s a video compilation for your perusal.
Yes, but doesn’t the President of the United States have anything better to do than watch TV and tweet something that no doubt occurred to (and was dismissed by) every competent fire-fighting authority in France? That’s something you expect from your retired uncle, not the person with literally the greatest responsibility in the world.
BB’s post #58 quoted me, and I assume was directed at me. It happened to be at the end of the thread when I opened it, so I decided to jump in with a response. It struck me as a plenty-defensible argument, so I decided to defend it. Remember, the opening line from the OP, that prompted my question and BB’s response, was:
Does your post mean that you accept that Trump’s firefighting tweet wasn’t “deranged” or “bizarre”?
I’ll certainly acknowledge that President Trump isn’t exactly a polished speaker, or tweeter, and so I’m sure you can find examples of him mis-speaking if you look, but I don’t think he generally comes across as “deranged” or “bizarre”, and I don’t see his rallies “becoming more and more” of that either.
Eh, there’s probably better things he could do with his time. Do you think if we looked through tweets here we might find some that weren’t the best use of BHO’s time too?
So you equate the warm-hearted thanks and appreciations of an outgoing two-term president during his last days in office with the random blurts of someone who presumably, in the middle of his term, has actual issues of state and governance to deal with? Okay.
Of course it was deranged. Of course it was bizarre. Do you know how many other people watching this logged onto twitter to suggest, with exclamation marks, to “send in the planes?” I scrolled through about a couple of hundred comments on the fire today. Only a single person made a call for sending in the tankers. That fact alone is objectively bizarre.
Gotta tell you, Ditka, asking people to comb through BHO’s Twitter account in a defense of Trump’s use of the medium is an applause-worthy bit of chutzpah. 10/10.
Oh, I’m aware that you were handed a line. I question your choice to keep your teeth sunk into it this long, though.
It was more of an example of what a completely incompetent moron he is, mouthing off about things he knows literally nothing about. I will concede that he’s displayed his bizarre derangement much, much more blatantly in other things he’s said.
I think he generally comes across as demented. As in, literally suffering from dementia. Decaying speech patterns and word usage, failing memory, rambling disjointed thought processes, blatant stupidity.
I agree. He seems to feel a need to use his bully pulpit Twitter account at moments like this, to provide armchair-quarterback-style advice about things on which he clearly doesn’t have any expertise.
There are shitloads of things getting posted to Twitter daily. You think that because you scrolled through “a couple of hundred comments on the fire” that President Trump is the only single person that posted something there suggesting that aerial firefighting might be useful? And you think that’s a “fact”? LOL! (“with exclamation marks”)
…is this your “GOTCHA” moment? You didn’t think I absolutely knew that this was going to be your response to what I posted?
Good god you are predictable. I’m absolutely sure that there are people out there who might have thought that “aerial firefighting might be useful.” But absolutely none of them expressed that opinion in the deranged and bizarre fashion that the “Leader of the fucking free world” did on twitter.