Terrible, horrible accident.
"The first is that there's never one single thing to blame for disasters, especially when it involves airliners; so much redundancy is built into the system that numerous things have to go wrong, either simultaneously or over a period of time, for a crash to happen. The second is that nobody -- nobody -- knows what caused the disaster in the first 24 hours. (Anyone old enough to remember how wrong we were about TWA Flight 800 being bombed or hit by a missile?)"
The question raises itself: We weren't hiring air-traffic controllers, some of the most critical positions in civilian government employ, simply on the basis of merit?
Fact check: Accurate, unfortunately.
"More than ten years ago, the Obama Administration scrapped 1000 qualified candidates. The administration’s justification was that the pool of applicants was not diverse enough, so they would be purged from consideration. Instead of hiring candidates with the most competency, individuals were elevated for hiring consideration based on their race.
Let's start from an archived 2013 version of the Federal Aviation Administration's website and its "diversity and inclusion" page.
"Diversity is integral to achieving FAA's mission of ensuring safe and efficient travel across our nation and beyond," the page read. "Because diversity is so critical, FAA actively supports and engages in a variety of associations, programs, coalitions and initiatives to support and accommodate employees from diverse communities and backgrounds
"From 1989 to 2013, the Collegiate Training Initiative program was a pipeline to a career in air traffic control. The program aimed to ensure future air traffic controllers had the skills and knowledge necessary to carry out the job," the Washington Times reported in May 2024.
Thanks, cutworm!
So you are defending President Trumps response?
Are you claiming this was a factor in what caused the accident?
What is your evidence, please?
If there is no evidence, than what is the reasoning for bringing it up, when doing so makes a really, really bad situation (when people need to come together form both parties) even worse by trying to EXPLOIT IT FOR PURE POLITICAL REASONS.
From my above post
"The first is that there's never one single thing to blame for disasters, especially when it involves airliners; so much redundancy is built into the system that numerous things have to go wrong, either simultaneously or over a period of time, for a crash to happen. The second is that nobody -- nobody -- knows what caused the disaster in the first 24 hours. (Anyone old enough to remember how wrong we were about TWA Flight 800 being bombed or hit by a missile?)"
Unfortunately Trump is doing exactly the same thing that Biden and crew do (did) every time there is a shooting. That is exploiting it for political gain. Thats a fact.
Thanks, cutworm,
When there is a shooting, we know that a gun was used, correct?
Every single time that we have a shooting, a gun is used.
While I don't always agree with the position, there is direct relevancy to the fact that a gun was used when we have a shooting. When its with a high powered, high velocity weapon, I STRONGLY agree and it makes complete sense to bring it up at exactly that time more than any other time.
So this is what you are comparing to:
1. Shootings with a gun (especially high velocity gun) that are always used in 100% of the shootings, or they wouldn't be shootings
2. Gun laws
Lets take these 2 situations and decide if the same equivalency applies:
1. A major plane crash of unknown cause
2. Merit based system for people
Are all plane crashes caused by the lack of merit based programs in the United States? If not, then this is a false equivalency like apples and oranges at this point in time.
If the investigation comes out that a human hired, who was not qualified to do the job made a big blunder, then you have an authentic equivalency. Not just human error but human error by an unqualified person.
No that is not what I am saying.
Both Biden and now Trump at this time both are using these disasters for political gain. So who is more divisive? Is it more divisive to use an airplane disaster or a shooting for political gain?
cutworm,
I'm confused.
if that’s not how Biden or Ds use a shooting for political gain, telling me “that’s not what you are saying” is leaving me with no explanation for what you ARE saying.
Please tell me how Biden uses a shooting for political gain since I’m unable to guess what else that could be. Outside of what I thought was the obvious……gun control laws.
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-responds-philadelphia-plane-crash-2024574
++++++++++++++
What's even sadder is when we have a tragedy like this and one of the first things we do is check to see what President Trump is saying.........and that includes me because of this particular thread/discussion on his previous, very unpresidential, divisive, purely political/self serving response.
He did good this time. Learning a lesson?
We can always hope.
cutworm,
On this particular issue, we are having a disagreement about how Trump initially responded to the first plane crash.
We also have strong disagreement on the tolerance to what I would refer to as Trump's "bombastic" demeanor, which is something that Larry and joj and I AGREE on.
However, we do have very strong agreement in several other areas, some that our outside of politics and Trump.
And even if that wasn't the case, I think its important to stress respect and friendship OVER tribalism in discussions like this. Fortunately for us/me and MarketForum, you've constantly displayed respectful, thoughtful communicating, so disagreements don't damage the friendship .
Its not that big of a surprise that Trump acts this way. I voted for him knowing that and because the other side represented the worst administration in the history of the United States in my opinion.
Despite that, Trumps behavior and extreme actions are frequently way over the top (for me) and at those times, I will be more in agreement with the other side.