|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
“We have always done these kinds of operations historically, for the decades past, including the last administration,” said Shawn Neudauer, a spokesman for ICE. He went on to say that this operation was distinctive in that “this is focused on areas that have . . . self-proclaimed they are not going to cooperate with ICE.”
So much for states rights.
|
On September 30 2017 11:23 Nixer wrote:
AMP is still advantageous for newspapers, publishers and the user. The framework limits resources and web technologies that can be used by default. It's standardized, streamlined and takes advantage of lazy loading and rendering methods. Not to mention that AMP websites are also heavily cached on Google Cloud servers which has a big and better reach than most networks.
For example ads are generally less obnoxious, pages load faster which is really important for content publishers as a difference of seconds actually has quite the difference in amount of sessions and session time. All around it can be good for user experience too.
However like any frameworks it has it limitations, so it's up to the developers of a website to understand when to use it and when not to use it. I haven't been particularly annoyed by it. Of course AMP effectively results in a significant SEO boost as Google values speed and good mobile user experiences. Perhaps too much, perhaps not. However you can't ignore everything else regarding SEO either, it's not that simple and straightforward.
-- Now as WolfintheSheep said AMP is relatively new anyway, neither is it Google's responsibility to ensure it's a good idea to use it at all times. That's up to you, you're the one who has to weigh the pros and cons.
(I mean AMP itself shouldn't boost your search ranking, it's the effect it has and this effect can be produced by developing your own optimized mobile frameworks or expanding on something else. AMP is just another building block)
I think there's just a bit of a misunderstanding with how web development works. Let me know if you want any explanations.
Yeah, I mean, there is obvious reasons to use the framework, and I would not be remotely shocked if executives in newspaper orgs understood the full extent of the change, but thought that the logo at the top was good enough to distinguish themselves and that their existing reputation was enough to set them apart.
I don't even know if they have a serious issue with the "genericness" of their mobile pages right now.
|
We are the country that preformed the Berlin air lift. If Trump wants to talk about unity, this would unify the country.
|
This is a sickening display. I guess we know what it looks like when you combine the US's historic and baffling inability to prepare for any kind of disaster, with our president's dislike of brown people. I hope our administration's future actions surprise me.
|
this is rapidly turning into a katrina-like situation.
|
It'll be much worse than Katrina. New Orleans only had 450k people, PR has 2.4 million across a much larger area.
|
On September 30 2017 10:09 Nevuk wrote:
The response to Puerto Rico has been pretty appalling. I know if they had electoral votes there's no way they would be so ignored.
People keep calling them American citizens, but then they don't actually have representation. It's hard for me to imagine people thinking this is okay in 2017.
For people who argued not long ago they prefer it this way, seeing the response from the fed to this disaster, I sincerely doubt it. Sounds like some government officials are used to just saying whatever the Feds do is good, and those that are actually trying to save Americans who are in absolutely dire situations saying the Feds are messing up and people are dying.
|
On September 30 2017 11:29 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/SeanMcElwee/status/913795598754689025Show nested quote +“We have always done these kinds of operations historically, for the decades past, including the last administration,” said Shawn Neudauer, a spokesman for ICE. He went on to say that this operation was distinctive in that “this is focused on areas that have . . . self-proclaimed they are not going to cooperate with ICE.” So much for states rights.
First, that's not how I read that statement at all. Second, Congress and the federal government are in control of immigration, and I thought this was the way everyone wanted it.
Third, I haven't seen anything indicating that the PR response is the federal government failing in any egregious way. Every story talks about how there simply is no more infrastructure or able-bodies able to distribute what's already available. This again seems like more twitter punditry in search of Katrina.
|
On September 30 2017 13:25 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2017 11:29 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/SeanMcElwee/status/913795598754689025“We have always done these kinds of operations historically, for the decades past, including the last administration,” said Shawn Neudauer, a spokesman for ICE. He went on to say that this operation was distinctive in that “this is focused on areas that have . . . self-proclaimed they are not going to cooperate with ICE.” So much for states rights. First, that's not how I read that statement at all. Second, Congress and the federal government are in control of immigration, and I thought this was the way everyone wanted it. Third, I haven't seen anything indicating that the PR response is the federal government failing in any egregious way. Every story talks about how there simply is no more infrastructure or able-bodies able to distribute what's already available. This again seems like more twitter punditry in search of Katrina.
No one should have been surprised that the infrastructure would be destroyed and should have planned accordingly. They didn't and are now scrambling to get there.
|
On September 30 2017 13:38 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2017 13:25 Introvert wrote:On September 30 2017 11:29 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/SeanMcElwee/status/913795598754689025“We have always done these kinds of operations historically, for the decades past, including the last administration,” said Shawn Neudauer, a spokesman for ICE. He went on to say that this operation was distinctive in that “this is focused on areas that have . . . self-proclaimed they are not going to cooperate with ICE.” So much for states rights. First, that's not how I read that statement at all. Second, Congress and the federal government are in control of immigration, and I thought this was the way everyone wanted it. Third, I haven't seen anything indicating that the PR response is the federal government failing in any egregious way. Every story talks about how there simply is no more infrastructure or able-bodies able to distribute what's already available. This again seems like more twitter punditry in search of Katrina. No one should have been surprised that the infrastructure would be destroyed and should have planned accordingly. They didn't and are now scrambling to get there.
even if I granted that it's still a far cry from katrina.
|
On September 30 2017 14:07 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2017 13:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 30 2017 13:25 Introvert wrote:On September 30 2017 11:29 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/SeanMcElwee/status/913795598754689025“We have always done these kinds of operations historically, for the decades past, including the last administration,” said Shawn Neudauer, a spokesman for ICE. He went on to say that this operation was distinctive in that “this is focused on areas that have . . . self-proclaimed they are not going to cooperate with ICE.” So much for states rights. First, that's not how I read that statement at all. Second, Congress and the federal government are in control of immigration, and I thought this was the way everyone wanted it. Third, I haven't seen anything indicating that the PR response is the federal government failing in any egregious way. Every story talks about how there simply is no more infrastructure or able-bodies able to distribute what's already available. This again seems like more twitter punditry in search of Katrina. No one should have been surprised that the infrastructure would be destroyed and should have planned accordingly. They didn't and are now scrambling to get there. even if I granted that it's still a far cry from katrina.
If anything the devastation was more predictable than Katrina but I'm just more curious about what you think are the significant differences?
|
|
|
Wow. And I was just there a couple weeks ago.
|
It seems like things miiiight be all clear with respect to the airforce academy thing:
"At about 12:27 a.m. the El Paso County Sheriff's Office reported there were no injuries and no active shooter.
The report came in at about 10 p.m., at about 11:25 p.m. the Academy tweeted, "We received reports of active shooter on Academy grounds. There are no confirmation of shots fired. Security forces are sweeping the area."
-source
|
On September 30 2017 14:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2017 14:07 Introvert wrote:On September 30 2017 13:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 30 2017 13:25 Introvert wrote:On September 30 2017 11:29 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/SeanMcElwee/status/913795598754689025“We have always done these kinds of operations historically, for the decades past, including the last administration,” said Shawn Neudauer, a spokesman for ICE. He went on to say that this operation was distinctive in that “this is focused on areas that have . . . self-proclaimed they are not going to cooperate with ICE.” So much for states rights. First, that's not how I read that statement at all. Second, Congress and the federal government are in control of immigration, and I thought this was the way everyone wanted it. Third, I haven't seen anything indicating that the PR response is the federal government failing in any egregious way. Every story talks about how there simply is no more infrastructure or able-bodies able to distribute what's already available. This again seems like more twitter punditry in search of Katrina. No one should have been surprised that the infrastructure would be destroyed and should have planned accordingly. They didn't and are now scrambling to get there. even if I granted that it's still a far cry from katrina. If anything the devastation was more predictable than Katrina but I'm just more curious about what you think are the significant differences?
Katrina was more legitimate of a fuckup due to no one really having the obligation to know the levy was going to burst causing the city to be flooded and FEMA making a fuckup due to not having their logistics in order to deal with a lack of infrastructure to the area.
PR is everyone knowing it was going to be as bad as it was bad days in advance and not doing anything until a week or more afterwords and still not anywhere near enough to stop the deaths from piling up. waffling on the shipping act like he shouldn't just ignore laws in a crisis and making repeated lies to whats happening in front of peoples eyes like people arn't dieing.
Also Katrina was obamas fault ofc. /s
|
On September 30 2017 09:20 Plansix wrote:
And I don't need to read up on web development, I understand the problems. I just don't give a shit how much harder it makes programmers jobs. People make my job harder and change the rules all the time. You get used to it.
Seems quite like past encryption conversations where you don't know a thing about this topic and refuse to listen to anyone explain it to you.
+ Show Spoiler +On September 30 2017 04:51 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2017 04:43 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On September 30 2017 04:37 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2017 04:30 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On September 30 2017 04:13 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2017 04:03 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 30 2017 03:10 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2017 03:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 30 2017 02:52 Plansix wrote:
Being more critical of who is posting news articles to their site would go a long way. There were articles about who Facebook’s auto formatting was turning the most poorly made bullshit news site to a CNN quality product. That seems like something they could look at and maybe adjust or turn off.
As far as I know (and I honestly don't know much, because I don't use Facebook at all), but articles aren't even posted directly on Facebook. There are snippets from existing articles that will show up depending on how people link the content (and how the website works with Facebook's API), and users will share those links which will include those snippets. But people don't use Facebook as a news posting medium, they use it as a sharing tool for their own sites. Here is the verge article about it from a year ago. I don’t know how much has changed since then, but the systems that google and facebook set up made it harder for the end user to tell “does this website look professional.” Everyone had dealt with this problem when looking for a product review on google and every site looks weirdly similar. https://www.theverge.com/2016/12/6/13850230/fake-news-sites-google-search-facebook-instant-articles Okay, this article probably isn't talking about the things you are referring to. At least, I don't think so. Those are frameworks you can set up on your website to work better with mobile devices (less images, less javascript, etc.). News sites opt-in because it's cheaper than paying a web developer to figure it out themselves, and random conspiracy bloggers do the same for the same reason (I guess, or maybe Wordpress uses it automatically). Basically why all vBulletin forums look the same-ish, because they're using the same tool that comes with a fairly packaged design. But the end user, the reader, loses out because it becomes more challenging to tell the difference between trash and real news. It makes it easier for the people making the articles and increases the reach of companies like Goolge, but leaves the public fending for themselves a market that grows more homogeneous all the time. Companies use standard frameworks because it is a lot cheaper than hiring someone to design and style your website. Front end web devs are not cheap, especially if you want something that works and has an excellent user experience. You need the end user to put more value in appearance for it to be worthwhile for the companies to develop such things. These frameworks that homogenize websites isn't a feature that facebook and google turn on and off like you're thinking. It's as simple as copy pasting a few lines of code from a website that hosts the framework. You probably want to do a bit more than that, but you get 80% of the product with 20% of the work so that is often good enough. So what you are saying is it benefits everyone but the end user? Everyone saves money, but the end user gets a shittier product across the board, where they have to work harder to figure out which websites providing quality information. Infowars looks similar to the Wall Street Journal. Which is great for Info Wars. Not so good for the WJS, an informed public or the national discourse. Sure, but are you willing to wait longer for your news to load? Are you going to pay more money for the company to hire a developer to design and implement a better user experience? For most people, the page loading faster and cheaper is the better product. I subscribe to the NYT and pay for magazines. I have zero problems paying for quality content and reduced ads. The modern internet is a trash pile that is increasingly filled with copy cat information, content farmers and straight up garbage. “News articles” that are simply a copy pasted press release and stock photos. So yeah, bring on 20 second load times and a few more pay walls. Its better than fishing through piles of content farmed shit to fine a good review on a set of blue tooth headphones.
Plansix pays money and blames the tech industry for the company's choice to use that web framework. If you really want news websites to not have the same design as info wars you should stop paying them. When they ask you why you're unsubscribing you should tell them that their design looks just like info wars and they might change it. It is not on Google or the tech industry to make your website distinct from info wars.
+ Show Spoiler +On September 30 2017 05:36 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2017 05:19 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 30 2017 04:58 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2017 04:53 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 30 2017 04:51 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2017 04:43 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On September 30 2017 04:37 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2017 04:30 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On September 30 2017 04:13 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2017 04:03 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
Okay, this article probably isn't talking about the things you are referring to. At least, I don't think so.
Those are frameworks you can set up on your website to work better with mobile devices (less images, less javascript, etc.). News sites opt-in because it's cheaper than paying a web developer to figure it out themselves, and random conspiracy bloggers do the same for the same reason (I guess, or maybe Wordpress uses it automatically).
Basically why all vBulletin forums look the same-ish, because they're using the same tool that comes with a fairly packaged design. But the end user, the reader, loses out because it becomes more challenging to tell the difference between trash and real news. It makes it easier for the people making the articles and increases the reach of companies like Goolge, but leaves the public fending for themselves a market that grows more homogeneous all the time. Companies use standard frameworks because it is a lot cheaper than hiring someone to design and style your website. Front end web devs are not cheap, especially if you want something that works and has an excellent user experience. You need the end user to put more value in appearance for it to be worthwhile for the companies to develop such things. These frameworks that homogenize websites isn't a feature that facebook and google turn on and off like you're thinking. It's as simple as copy pasting a few lines of code from a website that hosts the framework. You probably want to do a bit more than that, but you get 80% of the product with 20% of the work so that is often good enough. So what you are saying is it benefits everyone but the end user? Everyone saves money, but the end user gets a shittier product across the board, where they have to work harder to figure out which websites providing quality information. Infowars looks similar to the Wall Street Journal. Which is great for Info Wars. Not so good for the WJS, an informed public or the national discourse. Sure, but are you willing to wait longer for your news to load? Are you going to pay more money for the company to hire a developer to design and implement a better user experience? For most people, the page loading faster and cheaper is the better product. I subscribe to the NYT and pay for magazines. I have zero problems paying for quality content and reduced ads. The modern internet is a trash pile that is increasingly filled with copy cat information, content farmers and straight up garbage. “News articles” that are simply a copy pasted press release and stock photos. So yeah, bring on 20 second load times and a few more pay walls. Its better than fishing through piles of content farmed shit to fine a good review on a set of blue tooth headphones. Okay...then the NYT should just stop using AMP then. Problem solved? Web developers should consider if their tools can be used to deceive the end user as part of the quality of their product. If Info Wars can be mistaken for “quality, main stream news site”, it should be considered a design flaw. Be response for the thinks they make, rather than just saying “we made it open source, we can’t control how people use it.” It's a design template. I don't think you understand. If I use AMP, it's because I want my website to look and act a certain way on a mobile device. I'm not sure how that can be misconstrued as something else. Dude I get it. I understand how it works. It makes all websites look similar and lacks options to make the NYT look like the NYT. So some blog looks like a news article until someone does a little digging, which is hard on your phone sometimes. Its goal is making pages load faster on phones, which is what the web designers believe people want. Just like how smart phone email clients made phishing easier because its harder to see the full email address on them.
You do not understand. The NYT chooses to use AMP. They do this because it makes the website load faster improving the user experience. They also use it because familiarity is a good thing. That one website you use where all the buttons are in a different place is a shit user experience. Everything following the same pattern helps humans use and understand the website without ever having been there. You can complain that info wars and NYT don't look distinct, but it is designed that way for a reason.
+ Show Spoiler +On September 30 2017 06:43 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2017 05:55 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 30 2017 05:36 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2017 05:19 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 30 2017 04:58 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2017 04:53 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 30 2017 04:51 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2017 04:43 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On September 30 2017 04:37 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2017 04:30 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
[quote]
Companies use standard frameworks because it is a lot cheaper than hiring someone to design and style your website. Front end web devs are not cheap, especially if you want something that works and has an excellent user experience. You need the end user to put more value in appearance for it to be worthwhile for the companies to develop such things.
These frameworks that homogenize websites isn't a feature that facebook and google turn on and off like you're thinking. It's as simple as copy pasting a few lines of code from a website that hosts the framework. You probably want to do a bit more than that, but you get 80% of the product with 20% of the work so that is often good enough. So what you are saying is it benefits everyone but the end user? Everyone saves money, but the end user gets a shittier product across the board, where they have to work harder to figure out which websites providing quality information. Infowars looks similar to the Wall Street Journal. Which is great for Info Wars. Not so good for the WJS, an informed public or the national discourse. Sure, but are you willing to wait longer for your news to load? Are you going to pay more money for the company to hire a developer to design and implement a better user experience? For most people, the page loading faster and cheaper is the better product. I subscribe to the NYT and pay for magazines. I have zero problems paying for quality content and reduced ads. The modern internet is a trash pile that is increasingly filled with copy cat information, content farmers and straight up garbage. “News articles” that are simply a copy pasted press release and stock photos. So yeah, bring on 20 second load times and a few more pay walls. Its better than fishing through piles of content farmed shit to fine a good review on a set of blue tooth headphones. Okay...then the NYT should just stop using AMP then. Problem solved? Web developers should consider if their tools can be used to deceive the end user as part of the quality of their product. If Info Wars can be mistaken for “quality, main stream news site”, it should be considered a design flaw. Be response for the thinks they make, rather than just saying “we made it open source, we can’t control how people use it.” It's a design template. I don't think you understand. If I use AMP, it's because I want my website to look and act a certain way on a mobile device. I'm not sure how that can be misconstrued as something else. Dude I get it. I understand how it works. It makes all websites look similar and lacks options to make the NYT look like the NYT. So some blog looks like a news article until someone does a little digging, which is hard on your phone sometimes. Its goal is making pages load faster on phones, which is what the web designers believe people want. Just like how smart phone email clients made phishing easier because its harder to see the full email address on them. Okay, so you understand that the tool is literally something to make your website look more generic to load faster. And is something you have to take the time and effort and intentional action to make your website look generic. And you still want to blame Google for the NYT looking identical to a Word Press blog? No, I want to blame Google for not provide a service that allowed the NYT to look different from Infowars or some trash conservative blog filled with bullshit. You can read articles about publishers saying the AMP has flaws and limitations that they cannot control. https://digiday.com/media/google-amp-presents-challenges-publishers-mobile-design/But because it is the industry standard now, there are few options for websites. And I am not even saying it should be banned or removed. It should just be improved to address issues like what we are talking about. People wrote this software, they can write more software to address problems. Change the goal of the software. The tech industry is the only place I know where someone makes a product that has a drawback and then people argue that drawback cannot be corrected.
The NYT can develop their own style that looks distinct from info wars. They CHOOSE to use the same framework as info wars so their website looks the same. The tech industry makes a product and then you complain that the website you pay for you uses it instead of developing their own system that is better.
On September 30 2017 09:20 Plansix wrote:
I agree open source is good in general and I think a lot of good has come out of open source software. I just don't think there is enough thought put into all the bad things that can happen with it. Or people simply believe the good will outweigh the bad, so its fine as long as its a net gain. Especially since the internet is so dominated by a couple companies like Google and Facebook, so there isn't a lot of competition out there. Then it become even easier for these single, world wide solutions to be exploited. It is wonderful to make web development more accessible, but there might be some problems if that becomes a propaganda tool for hate speech and state actors.
You brought up earlier that mobile devices make phishing easier. Social engineering in general became a much bigger problem with the internet in general. With people more connected it is easier than ever to acquire information and abuse human nature. This isn't a tech industry problem, but you aren't wrong that tech makes it easier. Can we do more to fix that? Absolutely. When you miss attribute problems to the tech industry, I feel like you're an occupy wall street protester. You want change, but you have no idea what you want or how to get there. People explain it to you and you end up repeating, but google and facebook are really powerful and bad. You're not working towards a solution, you're just ranting about an industry you don't like.
|
On September 30 2017 14:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2017 14:07 Introvert wrote:On September 30 2017 13:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 30 2017 13:25 Introvert wrote:On September 30 2017 11:29 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/SeanMcElwee/status/913795598754689025“We have always done these kinds of operations historically, for the decades past, including the last administration,” said Shawn Neudauer, a spokesman for ICE. He went on to say that this operation was distinctive in that “this is focused on areas that have . . . self-proclaimed they are not going to cooperate with ICE.” So much for states rights. First, that's not how I read that statement at all. Second, Congress and the federal government are in control of immigration, and I thought this was the way everyone wanted it. Third, I haven't seen anything indicating that the PR response is the federal government failing in any egregious way. Every story talks about how there simply is no more infrastructure or able-bodies able to distribute what's already available. This again seems like more twitter punditry in search of Katrina. No one should have been surprised that the infrastructure would be destroyed and should have planned accordingly. They didn't and are now scrambling to get there. even if I granted that it's still a far cry from katrina. If anything the devastation was more predictable than Katrina but I'm just more curious about what you think are the significant differences?
On September 30 2017 16:13 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2017 14:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 30 2017 14:07 Introvert wrote:On September 30 2017 13:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 30 2017 13:25 Introvert wrote:On September 30 2017 11:29 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/SeanMcElwee/status/913795598754689025“We have always done these kinds of operations historically, for the decades past, including the last administration,” said Shawn Neudauer, a spokesman for ICE. He went on to say that this operation was distinctive in that “this is focused on areas that have . . . self-proclaimed they are not going to cooperate with ICE.” So much for states rights. First, that's not how I read that statement at all. Second, Congress and the federal government are in control of immigration, and I thought this was the way everyone wanted it. Third, I haven't seen anything indicating that the PR response is the federal government failing in any egregious way. Every story talks about how there simply is no more infrastructure or able-bodies able to distribute what's already available. This again seems like more twitter punditry in search of Katrina. No one should have been surprised that the infrastructure would be destroyed and should have planned accordingly. They didn't and are now scrambling to get there. even if I granted that it's still a far cry from katrina. If anything the devastation was more predictable than Katrina but I'm just more curious about what you think are the significant differences? Katrina was more legitimate of a fuckup due to no one really having the obligation to know the levy was going to burst causing the city to be flooded and FEMA making a fuckup due to not having their logistics in order to deal with a lack of infrastructure to the area. PR is everyone knowing it was going to be as bad as it was bad days in advance and not doing anything until a week or more afterwords and still not anywhere near enough to stop the deaths from piling up. waffling on the shipping act like he shouldn't just ignore laws in a crisis and making repeated lies to whats happening in front of peoples eyes like people arn't dieing. Also Katrina was obamas fault ofc. /s
This is, of course not what people are talking about. No one is criticizing the government for the apparent lack of insight that "hey if a category 4 [or whatever it was] blows through here, we're screwed." Perhaps that will come in time.
In particular Nevuk refers to the response. I don't know why, besides that twitter was angry at Trump for tweeting about other things. Everything I've read talks purely about logistics. Nothing is left, drivers for trucks can't be found, etc. So in that sense waffling on the Jones Act (something that shouldn't have happened, true) didn't change too much. Could the effort be better? It's being overseen by the federal government, so I'm sure it could. But I haven't seen any justification for calling this "Trump's Katrina" besides certain people really wanting it to be.
|
The justification is that they knew there was going to be a big hurricane and they didn't really do anything. Then the hurricane hit and there are numerous reports that Trump didn't give a fuck, busy playing golf and discussing other things, until he noticed the negative press. Evidently, the fact that Puerto Rico isn't a state who votes in senators and presidents means they're not as important as Texas or Florida.
And he'd be sort of right, the amount of news Texas and Florida got is significantly more than Puerto Rico. If we're looking at the timeline, they're only starting to move when its getting too big of a snafu for Trump to say "we're doing an amazing job, the Mayor told me on the phone!" without getting slammed by everyone on the left and right for being a liar. Or at least everyone who doesn't try and handwave Puerto Rico away as not real Americans not deserving of help.
Its not the same as Katrina but its an example of purposeful government neglect. Its basically the Flint response. Where no one gives a fuck about what's happening to people until its gotten to the point that people are actually dying from lead poisoning. Where the people in power are less concerned about the fact people are dying from lead poisoning in a "1st world country" in 2017 and more concerned about the optics.
|
to be fair, most everything Trump tackles ends up being his katrina in a sense that he fucks up massively.
(I know LL will bring up ttip so we'll discredit this as a blind chicken finding a seed once in a while)
|
What exactly is the stuff that isn't being done in Puerto Rico though? I'm quite confused between the 'we are doing all efforts possible' from the government and the mayor saying she needs to send a mayday call.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
