It’s on CNN and ABC, in addition to Fox of course.
Would y’all still be mad if the story was instead that due to receiving verbal and physical threats from residents whose homes bore “Black Lives Matter” signs, 20 BLM homes had been skipped?
Would you then be in favor of arming FEMA first responders so they can defend themselves against violent residents? After what happened to Peanut, that seems like an easy overreach to me.
If you were hit by storms and you need help and the rescuers are here, are you going to be violent toward them? What kind of assumption is that? Is MAGA violent? Trump supporters are rules and laws followers. Where do you get the assumption that Trump signs meant violent?
That’s what the entire story is about. Did you not read about this? Ya gotta go beyond the headlines or twenty second tweets, man. I’m not making that assumption, that is the official allegation being made.
According to the woman who was fired and is calling for a public investigation, there was a pattern of harassment and threats to government workers coming from houses with Trump signs. The superiors who fired her are acting like this was a unilateral decision she made purely for ideological reasons - she claims she was following the book and there are receipts of the incidents logged.
I’m not saying the incidents definitely happened. All I am saying is that if there was a strong pattern, using your available information in a disaster scenario to get help where it needs to go and is actually welcomed without risking your human resources makes sense - plus, hell yeah, let’s open up the books. Bring on the investigation.
And let’s not pretend that humans don’t act weirdly and jumpy when under great stress. Are the accusations likely? Debatable. But absolutely possible - all bets are off when your world is turned upside down. But again, let’s see the books.
This calls up the argument from when BLM was going, "All Lives Matter". Our politics are meant to be forgotten once natural disasters are killing people.
This is sidestepping the question. It’s not about politics, it’s about the allegation that certain signage coincided with violent threats. When you are on what is essentially a battlefield and your opponent is mother nature, you have only so many resources to use.
Are you really telling me if that there were reports that FEMA agents trying to coordinate aid were being consistently greeted by angry armed Black residents you would be advocating continuing to waste time and risk lives on people who are violently refusing help? Or would you say that we should instead be allocating human resources to where they are actually wanted and your resources will not be put at risk?
Note: this of course is all dependent on the reports of violence actually being accurate. If those are false and it is purely unsubstantiated avoidance based on political beliefs, of course that’s wrong. I’m just trying to see if anyone will recognize that, IF the pattern of violent threats was accurate, why the adopted strategy would be prudent, regardless of which group was impeding the aid process. But that’s why I’m glad the fired FEMA person is calling for an investigation, let’s actually see those reports.
That's what my last sentence was pointing out. That is literally what I said. I am not sidestepping anything.
The Democrats tell their people that we are violent. By and large we on the MAGA side are not violent. So there likely are false accusations of violence.
My only point is that when there are disasters, we are meant to help each other regardless of party affiliation. That is how it used to be until the last 5-10 years or whatever. I can't speak for why/how they make decisions on the left other than they want us dead.
Of course if the left was being violent against aid workers I would not send them in. But that isn't what's happening. Those FEMA workers are avoiding Trump supporters because of false reports of violence. The left tells them we are violent and because they live in an echo chamber they believe it.
The left claims to be the party of empathy and isn't. We are, and so I stand behind all lives matter.
We don’t know that those reports are false, though. We can suspect, sure, but people don’t act normal in a disaster. And ANYONE is capable of violence. If that wasn’t true, we wouldn’t need Jesus. And if accepting Jesus into your heart was a one-time fix that guaranteed you would never make mistakes again, there would be only one world religion.
Can we agree that, no matter how unlikely we believe the scenario to be, IF there were actually violent threats towards FEMA workers consistently coming from houses with particular signage, then avoiding that signage would not be an act of politics, but strategy? And that regardless of the political affiliation of the signage, that’s a claim that should be investigated instead of just firing someone low on the rungs and trying to sweep it under the carpet?
English, unlike most other languages, doesn’t have separate words for the second-person singular pronoun and the second-person plural pronoun. Which is why the slang contraction for “you all” is so helpful, and so unfortunate that it has been derided by the cultural and academic elite for so long.
LOL yes but the question was who is the antecedent to y'all. (The antecedent is whom or what the pronoun stands for.)
In all languages, a pronoun takes the place of a noun, which is the name of a person, place, or thing. It isn't clear in the prior message which noun the pronoun y'all is intended to replace.
It’s on CNN and ABC, in addition to Fox of course.
Would y’all still be mad if the story was instead that due to receiving verbal and physical threats from residents whose homes bore “Black Lives Matter” signs, 20 BLM homes had been skipped?
I would still be upset because "All Lives Are Sacred." and that includes Black.
Would you then be in favor of arming FEMA first responders so they can defend themselves against violent residents? After what happened to Peanut, that seems like an easy overreach to me.
If you were hit by storms and you need help and the rescuers are here, are you going to be violent toward them? What kind of assumption is that? Is MAGA violent? Trump supporters are rules and laws followers. Where do you get the assumption that Trump signs meant violent?
That’s what the entire story is about. Did you not read about this? Ya gotta go beyond the headlines or twenty second tweets, man. I’m not making that assumption, that is the official allegation being made.
According to the woman who was fired and is calling for a public investigation, there was a pattern of harassment and threats to government workers coming from houses with Trump signs. The superiors who fired her are acting like this was a unilateral decision she made purely for ideological reasons - she claims she was following the book and there are receipts of the incidents logged.
I’m not saying the incidents definitely happened. All I am saying is that if there was a strong pattern, using your available information in a disaster scenario to get help where it needs to go and is actually welcomed without risking your human resources makes sense - plus, hell yeah, let’s open up the books. Bring on the investigation.
And let’s not pretend that humans don’t act weirdly and jumpy when under great stress. Are the accusations likely? Debatable. But absolutely possible - all bets are off when your world is turned upside down. But again, let’s see the books.
This calls up the argument from when BLM was going, "All Lives Matter". Our politics are meant to be forgotten once natural disasters are killing people.
This is sidestepping the question. It’s not about politics, it’s about the allegation that certain signage coincided with violent threats. When you are on what is essentially a battlefield and your opponent is mother nature, you have only so many resources to use.
Are you really telling me if that there were reports that FEMA agents trying to coordinate aid were being consistently greeted by angry armed Black residents you would be advocating continuing to waste time and risk lives on people who are violently refusing help? Or would you say that we should instead be allocating human resources to where they are actually wanted and your resources will not be put at risk?
Note: this of course is all dependent on the reports of violence actually being accurate. If those are false and it is purely unsubstantiated avoidance based on political beliefs, of course that’s wrong. I’m just trying to see if anyone will recognize that, IF the pattern of violent threats was accurate, why the adopted strategy would be prudent, regardless of which group was impeding the aid process. But that’s why I’m glad the fired FEMA person is calling for an investigation, let’s actually see those reports.
" It’s not about politics"
That's what my last sentence was pointing out. That is literally what I said. I am not sidestepping anything.
The Democrats tell their people that we are violent. By and large we on the MAGA side are not violent. So there likely are false accusations of violence.
My only point is that when there are disasters, we are meant to help each other regardless of party affiliation. That is how it used to be until the last 5-10 years or whatever. I can't speak for why/how they make decisions on the left other than they want us dead.
Of course if the left was being violent against aid workers I would not send them in. But that isn't what's happening. Those FEMA workers are avoiding Trump supporters because of false reports of violence. The left tells them we are violent and because they live in an echo chamber they believe it.
The left claims to be the party of empathy and isn't. We are, and so I stand behind all lives matter.
We don’t know that those reports are false, though. We can suspect, sure, but people don’t act normal in a disaster. And ANYONE is capable of violence. If that wasn’t true, we wouldn’t need Jesus. And if accepting Jesus into your heart was a one-time fix that guaranteed you would never make mistakes again, there would be only one world religion.
Can we agree that, no matter how unlikely we believe the scenario to be, IF there were actually violent threats towards FEMA workers consistently coming from houses with particular signage, then avoiding that signage would not be an act of politics, but strategy? And that regardless of the political affiliation of the signage, that’s a claim that should be investigated instead of just firing someone low on the rungs and trying to sweep it under the carpet?
Who is "y'all"?
English, unlike most other languages, doesn’t have separate words for the second-person singular pronoun and the second-person plural pronoun. Which is why the slang contraction for “you all” is so helpful, and so unfortunate that it has been derided by the cultural and academic elite for so long.
LOL yes but the question was who is the antecedent to y'all. (The antecedent is whom or what the pronoun stands for.)
In all languages, a pronoun takes the place of a noun, which is the name of a person, place, or thing. It isn't clear in the prior message which noun the pronoun y'all is intended to replace.
I feel the “all” makes it pretty clear