Trump skips WWI ceremony due to rain...

[HCM]

Idk. This guy has lots of experience and had a critique, so maybe it’s just the same old tribal politics crap. Sure wish I could moderately criticize the guy without picking a side in the Trump Patriot / Antifa Liberal contest of idiocy.

Anyway, certainly not going to burn my PF bridges over a mild criticism Donald Trump’s travel itineraries. Guess I’m wrong. On to next week’s topic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ben Rhodes is a political creature. You just answered your own question.

[BehindBlueI's]

He's right, as far as it goes. There's a lot of options in place. But they aren't equal and aren't all in play just because.

I don't really know how best to phrase it, but imagine you have a plan for clearing a tennis court to use it for an emergency med-evac site. Then you use that plan because of a medical emergency, not because you're tired of hearing the grunting of tennis players. The option exists, but it's not used unless it's important enough to use it. Then somebody bitches about the noise from the tennis court, says "well you have an option of clearing it!" and blames you for ignoring their noise concerns. Yes, the option exists. Is it applicable to this, and is the logistics worth it?

Last time I worked a POTUS detail, he delayed his departure by about 20 minutes and I thought our logistics guy was going to cry. There were some 150 officers *just on overtime* to sweep and secure the route, which was less than 20 miles. This does not include all the traffic guys who were on duty. I spent 5 hours under an overpass with the sole job of being the only human under the overpass. I've similarly guarded bathrooms to make sure nobody was in the bathroom in case the bathroom was needed, guarded hallways to make sure nobody else was in the hallway, a locked door to make sure it stayed locked, etc. Even domestically, moving POTUS by ground is a freaking undertaking. I have no experience with it abroad, but would figure it's even more of a pain.

So, in short, I believe he's technically truthful about an option existing but conveying a false narrative by releasing only the portion of the truth relevant to his interests.

[GardoneVT]

At this point, keeping Trump in office pragmatically helps my industry and thus my wallet. I am thus forced to back Team Trump for the duration,regardless of how many dead hookers he gets caught with or disrespect he shows to veterans . Alcohol and nausea meds are still available, and so we endure.

[Zincwarrior]

He skipped the Arlington ceremony too, but managed to get in a few tweets from the golden throne.

[Rick62]

Idk. This guy has lots of experience and had a critique

Rhodes is a progressive political hack.

Sure wish I could moderately criticize the guy without picking a side in the Trump Patriot / Antifa Liberal contest of idiocy

Well reasoned criticism and polite disagreement is awesome, and should be encouraged, perhaps now more than at any time in recent history.
Blaming Trump for for unsafe flying conditions and refusing to acknowledge why the alternative routes of transport were, appropriately, not utilized, is tribalism bullshit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LockedBreech]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Or maybe I just don’t believe the reason provided, at least not entirely? Is skepticism of government not a thing here anymore? I don’t think I was disrespectful at any point. I complimented trump IN my critique of him!

How can I be tribal when I am not a member of either party and have voted for both side’s presidential candidates? I think I’ve complimented trump at least as much as I’ve taken shots at him on this forum. Rhoades is a political hack and Sanders isn’t? That seems like tribalism too.

I think we’re going in circles and I said I was bowing out, so I will. I’m just baffled if I’m being interpreted as outraged, tribal, ignorant, etc. I’ve been mild, complimented the guy, and basically just been skeptical of the official line. That’s it.

Ben Rhodes is a political creature. You just answered your own question.

And Sarah Sanders isn’t? C’moooon.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LockedBreech]

He's right, as far as it goes. There's a lot of options in place. But they aren't equal and aren't all in play just because.

I don't really know how best to phrase it, but imagine you have a plan for clearing a tennis court to use it for an emergency med-evac site. Then you use that plan because of a medical emergency, not because you're tired of hearing the grunting of tennis players. The option exists, but it's not used unless it's important enough to use it. Then somebody bitches about the noise from the tennis court, says "well you have an option of clearing it!" and blames you for ignoring their noise concerns. Yes, the option exists. Is it applicable to this, and is the logistics worth it?

Last time I worked a POTUS detail, he delayed his departure by about 20 minutes and I thought our logistics guy was going to cry. There were some 150 officers *just on overtime* to sweep and secure the route, which was less than 20 miles. This does not include all the traffic guys who were on duty. I spent 5 hours under an overpass with the sole job of being the only human under the overpass. I've similarly guarded bathrooms to make sure nobody was in the bathroom in case the bathroom was needed, guarded hallways to make sure nobody else was in the hallway, a locked door to make sure it stayed locked, etc. Even domestically, moving POTUS by ground is a freaking undertaking. I have no experience with it abroad, but would figure it's even more of a pain.

So, in short, I believe he's technically truthful about an option existing but conveying a false narrative by releasing only the portion of the truth relevant to his interests.

This cleared things up a lot. Thank you.

For what it’s worth, I have no issue with being wrong. I’m wrong often. I have an issue with being interpreted as outraged / tribal / unreasonable when I cared about this story maybe 3 out of 10 and only posted about it because I was bored on the toilet. Risks of the internet and not being able to convey vocal tone I guess. Just goes to confirm that old rule I’ve been trying to stick by and failing for years: when it comes to politics, race, exes, or asking if a woman is pregnant, it’s pretty much always better to hush.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rick62]

Or maybe I just don’t believe the reason provided, at least not entirely? Is skepticism of government not a thing here anymore? I don’t think I was disrespectful at any point. I complimented trump IN my critique of him!

How can I be tribal when I am not a member of either party and have voted for both side’s presidential candidates? I think I’ve complimented trump at least as much as I’ve taken shots at him on this forum. Rhoades is a political hack and Sanders isn’t? That seems like tribalism too.

I think we’re going in circles and I said I was bowing out, so I will. I’m just baffled if I’m being interpreted as outraged, tribal, ignorant, etc. I’ve been mild, complimented the guy, and basically just been skeptical of the official line. That’s it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think it’s 100% healthy to view the world with a heavy dose of skepticism. I certainly don’t think you were disrespectful in any of your replies. Rhodes and Sanders are certainly both political animals. I mentioned Rhodes obvious biases simply because you offered his remark as a “supporting source” for your position.
Where is see the tribalism creeping in is in the “why didn’t they use plan b, how did everyone else get there, don’t they have roads and cars and walking in France” type of questions that have been posed in this thread. (Certainly not all by you). These questions ignore the obvious reality that I and others have brought up.
FWIW I’ve always found you to be a reasonable and thoughtful poster. Perhaps that’s why I was somewhat irked and some of the, in my view, silly, points that were raised.
Also, I’d hate for you to bow out as a result of any push back I’ve offer. I appreciate your insight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[txdpd]

Maybe Rhodes can explain why President Obama skipped out on Maj Gen Greene's funeral. Weather isn't a good excuse but inconvenient timing is legit.

The first rule of inclement weather plans is don't get your ass in a bind due to known inclement weather. Reagan almost bled to death on the way to a hospital. If you can't fly to an event due to rain, you can't medevac either. 10% of our Presidents have been assassinated and there have been known assassination attempts against a third of them.

[LockedBreech]

I think it’s 100% healthy to view the world with a heavy dose of skepticism. I certainly don’t think you were disrespectful in any of your replies. Rhodes and Sanders are certainly both political animals. I mentioned Rhodes obvious biases simply because you offered his remark as a “supporting source” for your position.
Where is see the tribalism creeping in is in the “why didn’t they use plan b, how did everyone else get there, don’t they have roads and cars and walking in France” type of questions that have been posed in this thread. (Certainly not all by you). These questions ignore the obvious reality that I and others have brought up.
FWIW I’ve always found you to be a reasonable and thoughtful poster. Perhaps that’s why I was somewhat irked and some of the, in my view, silly, points that were raised.
Also, I’d hate for you to bow out as a result of any push back I’ve offer. I appreciate your insight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks for the kind words. My jimmes are 0% rustled, I am just bowing out because the consensus from people who know better seems to be that I was in the wrong here, so I'm not sure I have much more to contribute. I try to be the kind of person who can realize I'm digging myself a hole before it gets too deep.