Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The fact that you can laugh when your president denies the deaths of 3000 Puerto Ricans because FEMA was totally inept and uncaring...(just read about the hospital ship anchored offshore for weeks and how badly it was used to aid the people who needed health intervention for example)...
The fact that you can laugh and know that the senior officials in Trump's campaign, including his family members, have been implicated in more than one instance of inappropriate actions with the Russians
The fact that you know how much Trump has spent on his self-aggrandize trips to his Trump golf courses so he can indulge his ego (and don't even mention Obama's golf trips--no comparison for expenses in first two years)
The fact that anyone with common sense in the WH knows they are dealing with a child but are selfish enough to use that fact to press THEIR agenda and greed
The fact that Trump and his WH posse have stolen 35 MILLION dollars from two agencies that deal directly with hurricane/emergency management (FEMA and the Coast Guard) and likely there are more agencies who have been bled to pay for kiddie jails and overpriced private agencies to gorge on government money
That fact that you can laugh when you see the wreckage Trump and his cronies are creating minute by minute is why I think Beto has a good chance to beat Cruz...
Because people see that selfish behavior and they don't like it...
And I think they realize the only way to stop it is to vote them out of office...
There was not an actual body count, only a study using stats to estimate the death toll. Also, the death toll includes death up to 6 months after the storms hit.
The GWU study concluded the initial death toll only included those killed directly by hurricanes Maria and Irma - either by drowning, flying debris or building collapse.GWU researchers also counted those who died in the six months following as a result of poor healthcare provision and a lack of electricity and clean water. How did they get their figure?
The key part of the research is an estimate of "excess mortality" from September 2017 to February 2018. Put simply, this is the difference between the predicted normal death rate if the hurricane had not struck (estimated using historical data), and the actual death rate for the period afterwards. The researchers also factored in migration away from Puerto Rico in the wake of the storms. "Overall, we estimate that 40% of municipalities experienced significantly higher mortality in the study period than in the comparable period of the previous two years."
<snip>
However, the Harvard researchers pointed out they were not giving a precise figure, and that there was an element of uncertainty in their estimates. Mr Cuffe adds: "Can we say that every extra death that happened up to six months after the hurricane was caused by it? Not definitively. "Some extra people will have died of old age earlier than they would have if there'd been no hurricane."
In its official explanation for the funds transfer, the Trump administration describes the cuts this way: “Mission impact is minimized as FEMA will curtail training, travel, public engagement sessions, IT security support and infrastructure maintenance, and IT investments in the legacy grants systems.†DHS said this was money that had already been saved and was going to expire at the end of the fiscal year unless otherwise used. And the funds taken from response and recovery only make up about 0.2 percent of the Operations and Support budget. So while the Trump administration will likely face fierce criticism if its response to Florence is inadequate, it’s not clear that a few million more dollars in the agency’s coffers would make the difference between success and catastrophe.
The WP and NYT used to be reputable sources, not any longer. A perfect example is the attack on Nikki Haley for the purchase of expensive curtains; turns out Susan Rice was the culprit.
We should all be appalled and angry by such excessive spending of taxpayer $$$ by our gov't, no matter dem or rep.
Out of $23 million raised, only $54,000 is from PACs (one fifth of one percent) and this is all from other candidate's committees. (about $1.000 each from 43 candidates)
Yes. Beto claims he receives $0 from PACS. Not true.
The new Quinnipiac University poll surveyed likely voters instead of registered voters like it did in past iterations. About time they got around to checking on Likely Voters instead of whoever the youngest person in the house is.
Beto's Anti-Gun stance is not going to serve him well in Texas. He should know better.
There was not an actual body count, only a study using stats to estimate the death toll. Also, the death toll includes death up to 6 months after the storms hit.
I don't get why you think this is a good point, it basically says that most of those increased deaths were preventable since they weren't killed by the immediate storm. It means our response was unable to help them. I'm not even getting into whether our response was adequate or not, I haven't looked into it enough to really know, but the numbers pretty much say that more people died from lack of resources than from the storm.
Also, they always estimate deaths when it comes to hurricanes. The Katrina numbers are an estimate and includes the people who died in hospitals when the electricity went out. Same goes for Irma and those senior citizens that were left in an un air conditioned nursing home and died.
The correct thing for a leader to do would have been to acknowledge the estimates, and to note that one death is one too many and that we will use what we learned in Maria to be better prepared for the next one. He could also have pointed out that it was the third major hurricane of the season and that FEMA and the response teams were overextended with personnel and resources. Denying the numbers and saying they were fabricated to make you look bad is just idiotic.
The new Quinnipiac University poll surveyed likely voters instead of registered voters like it did in past iterations. About time they got around to checking on Likely Voters instead of whoever the youngest person in the house is.
Beto's Anti-Gun stance is not going to serve him well in Texas. He should know better.
And that's a left leaning poll.
If a district which has been blue for over a century can flip(special election or not), what makes anyone on here think the Irishman can beat the Zodiac lol?
I think we are seeing what I mentioned a few weeks ago- people do not like Cruz but the Rs would come home to roost at election time. If O'Rourke can push beyond 45% that would be great for Democrats. They need to start heavily contesting Texas now if they want to flip it in 6-8 years.
Beto's Anti-Gun stance is not going to serve him well in Texas. He should know better.
While personally I am anti-gun, I recognize that politically it can be necessary to take a softer stance on it. Look at that Democrat from PA-18 that won the district even though historically it is R+11. Part of the reason he did it? He had some moderate stances. Some stances were generally leaning Democrat, but a few were more in the middle. He is for background checks but against further restrictions.
I think what most Democratic candidates fail to realize is that they don't need to fall in line with each and every part of the Democratic agenda. Sometimes it is "just enough." Say you are pro-choice but not looking to extend the time limits past 20 weeks. Say you are pro-background checks but not anti-gun. Those are some of the most divisive topics for politicians.
Politicians need to bring in those undecided voters. And a politician that can walk that fine line of being (for example) a Democrat that isn't looking to rock the boat with Republicans on key issues might bring in some undecided voters to make the difference.
According to Beto's website, his stances on gun safety are:
1. Background checks
2. Limit further sales of "weapons of war" (I guess that's assault rifles?)
3. Limit sales of high capacity magazines
4. Opposes Concealed Carry Reciprocity (I guess this forces people coming into the state to abide by Texas-specific laws)
5. Federal research on gun violence
If you ask me, #1 4 and 5 shouldn't be a big deal. Most people seem to agree with background checks. #4 actually protects Texans. It might harm out-of-staters, but voting Texans shouldn't care about them. It allows Texas to set their own rules for concealed carry. And #5 is just "let's look into this, but not promise anything."
#2 and #3 are deal breakers for some conservatives. And that's where Beto might have made a miscalculation. I don't know if you can win in Texas if you are talking about banning assault rifles. That's not to say all Texans carry around these weapons. But, the NRA has done a good job of preaching "give an inch and they take a mile." Now, if these are Beto's principles and he won't budge - good for him. But he likely won't win since those principles might not align with the voters he needs to attract from across the aisle.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
