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?
100% it should be investigated because that worker who was fired said it was ordered from on high. That this was not the only time and they do this regularly. That entire agency needs to be cleaned out or just dissolved and remade.
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?
100% it should be investigated because that worker who was fired said it was ordered from on high. That this was not the only time and they do this regularly. That entire agency needs to be cleaned out or just dissolved and remade.