Citizen X said:

qman said:

koods said:

Let’s just point out that any other elected or government official would have been required to divest of these properties before taking office

---

What makes you think Trump would be the exception to the rule?

---

So instead of “acting” stupid and asking for examples, why don’t you just be honest and say you don’t give a flying fuck about the emoluments clause and the constitution and you support Trump wiping his ass with our cons

qman said:

Citizen X said:

We can continue to name call and act as deranged and childish as Donald Trump or we can talk about things that matter for example the emoluments clause and how Donald Trump basically wipes his ass with our constitution

Which road do you wish you to go down?

---

How does Trump "wipes his ass with the constitution?

---

Brian Jones said:

Every President has probably made money off the office. No one has ever been this obvious about it before.

---

qman said:

koods said:

Let’s just point out that any other elected or government official would have been required to divest of these properties before taking office

---

What makes you think Trump would be the exception to the rule?

---

qman said:

Citizen X said:

Does anyone really need examples of how Trump is profiteering from the office of the presidency?

---

Yes. I'm unaware.

---

Why can’t you just be honest and stop acting stupid and just say you don’t care if Trump wipes his with the constitution because I’m a partisan hack?

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

From your article:

"At the time of Trump’s initial tweet, the most recent forecast from the National Hurricane Center showed that a sliver of the state had a less than 10 percent chance of seeing tropical storm-force winds."  So there WAS a possibility of it hitting the state, though "The National Weather Service office in Birmingham clarified that day that Alabama was NOT in the storm's path."

Technically, NOAA actually confirmed that 2+2=4.

But this is kind of a silly topic for us and I think we're getting hung up on very minor things, so I'll let you have the final word if you like.

---

Quote:

A Message from Craig McLean: Hurricane Dorian and Exceptional Service
Dear Colleagues,

The fierce storm we know as Hurricane Dorian has concluded its ferocious path through the Bahamas and along the U.S. East Coast. Many of you have contributed to the excellent science that has underpinned the forecasts and current understanding of storms such as this one, which accelerated quite rapidly in intensity. The storm also presented challenges in track which improved with enhanced observations. We know that our collective work, from the scientists in the aircraft penetrating the storm, to the scientists deploying the glider picket line, to the modelers and folks working the physics of the storms, across OAR and in our CI'S, and across all NOAA Lines, we are working the problem in order to give the NWS forecasters the best tools we possibly can to keep America and our neighbors safe. Thank you.

During the course of the storm, as I am sure you are aware, there were routine and exceptional expert forecasts, the best possible, issued by the NWS Forecasters. These are remarkable colleagues of ours, who receive our products, use them well, and provide the benefit of their own experience in announcing accurate forecasts accompanied by the distinction of all credible scientists—they sign their work. As I'm sure you also know, there was a complex issue involving the President commenting on the path of the hurricane. The NWS Forecaster(s) corrected any public misunderstanding in an expert and timely way, as they should. There followed, last Friday, an unsigned press release from "NOAA" that inappropriately and incorrectly contradicted the NWS forecaster. My understanding is that this intervention to contradict the forecaster was not based on science but on external factors including reputation and appearance, or simply put, political. Our NOAA Scientific Integrity Policy and Code of Scientific Conduct make clear that all NOAA employees shall approach all scientific activities with honesty, objectively, and completely, without allegiance to individuals, organizations, or ideology. The content of this press release is very concerning as it compromises the ability of NOAA to convey life-saving information necessary to avoid substantial and specific danger to public health and safety. If the public cannot trust our information, or we debase our forecaster's warnings and products, that specific danger arises.

You know that the value of our science is in the complexity of our understanding, our ability to convey that understanding to a wide audience of users of this information, and to establish and sustain the public trust in the truth and legitimacy of that information. Unfortunately, the press release of last Friday violated this trust and violated NOAA's policies of scientific integrity. In my role as Assistant Administrator for Research, and as I continue to administratively serve as Acting Chief Scientist, I am pursuing the potential violations of our NOAA Administrative Order on Scientific Integrity. Thankfully, we have such policies that are independently cited as among the best in the federal community, if not the best. Your NOAA and OAR management and leadership team believes in these policies and principles. I have a responsibility to pursue these truths. I will.

Thank you for your continued excellent work, and your trust. Carry on.

Craig McLean, NOAA Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Assistant Administrator
Assistant Administrator
Oceanic and Atmospheric Research
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

---

shivas.wisdom said:

Do you honestly believe that the statement "a sliver of the state had a less than 10 percent chance of seeing tropical storm-force winds" is equal to "will most likely be hit (much) harder than anticipated", by "one of the largest hurricanes ever"?

---

shivas.wisdom said:

that unsigned statement also said that the forcast provided by the Birmingham NWS office was wrong.

---

koods said:

No one is contesting the fact that the other states were appropriately warned.

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

shivas.wisdom said:

Do you honestly believe that the statement "a sliver of the state had a less than 10 percent chance of seeing tropical storm-force winds" is equal to "will most likely be hit (much) harder than anticipated", by "one of the largest hurricanes ever"?

---

No, but you left out the the important context.  He Tweeted:  "In addition to Florida - South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama, will most likely be hit (much) harder than anticipated."  So he wasn't just focused on Alabama as you and the media are trying to make believe.

---

shivas.wisdom said:

One example: your decision to continue to act as of this is a debate about Trump making a mistake of geography in a tweet (a petty and irrelevant thing), rather than being about Trump forcing the national weather service to conform to his mistake instead of letting the expert scientists do objective work (a significant and relevant thing). Stop misrepresenting the discussion.

---

shivas.wisdom said:

The discussion has never been that Trump only warned Alabama, it has always been that Trump erroneously included Alabama with the other states. Stop misrepresenting this

---

Alabama was the ONLY state anyone mentioned in the first 40 posts of this thread. 

shivas.wisdom said:

Your "important context" doesn't do anything other than allow you to avoid responding to the actual substance - which is that an unsigned statement issued by the NOAA equated the two statements above and, as you agree, these were not equivalent statements. 2+2=5. Whether the initial tweet was about only Alabama or not doesn't change anything.

---

shivas.wisdom said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

The National Weather Service office in Birmingham said that Alabama was NOT in the storm's path, but there actually was ~10% chance.  So they should have said it was LIKELY not in the storm's path to be correct.

---

There is no such thing as certainty is weather forcast. Their job is to interpret the data and relate in to the general public in the most understandable way.

---

Quote:

Trump didn't make a mistake about geography.  One could certainly argue that he shouldn't have included Alabama in his tweet since the hurricane forecast was shifting North, but Alabama WAS still included, and the National Weather Service office in Birmingham was wrong to say that Alabama was NOT in the storm's path when there was actually still a ~10% chance it could hit Alabama.

---

koods said:

Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you? The WEATHER FORCASTERS IN ALABAMA WERE WRONG? Did Alabama get hit?

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

koods said:

Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you? The WEATHER FORCASTERS IN ALABAMA WERE WRONG? Did Alabama get hit?

---

Now you're arguing something completely different while accusing me of arguing in bad faith.

YOU are the one that showed the forecasts going through Alabama.

---

Citizen X said:

What you’re confused about is hypothetical lines vise a forecast

---

Citizen X said:

What you’re confused about is hypothetical lines vise a forecast

---

Citizen X said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

koods said:

Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you? The WEATHER FORCASTERS IN ALABAMA WERE WRONG? Did Alabama get hit?

---

Now you're arguing something completely different while accusing me of arguing in bad faith.

YOU are the one that showed the forecasts going through Alabama.

---

That’s not a forecast buddy you should learn the difference between the two.

---

Citizen X said:

No Trump used hypothetical lines and tried to make that into a forecast

---

So this was 'hypothetical lines' and not a forecast?