Washington Air Disaster

[William Treseder]

I think you’re way off track here, suggesting other scenarios. This tragedy happened in a country and their ‘leader’ came out with a crass, unsympathetic statement, immediately putting the blame on others with no evidence or proof.
Of course if in such a disaster a loved one of mine passed I’d want answers as soon as possible but one of those answers wouldn’t have been ‘I’m blaming my predecessor’s administration’. Especially when you look at it he was in charge 4-8 years ago and did nothing to change the situation that he’s challenging.

We’ll agree to disagree and move on. 👍

[az city]

Dear God is there no end to your defence of the likes of Trump? Should I have headed it ‘ Washington Air Disaster, Trump Is A Prick’? Then put no words in the actual post. You do like to twist things to justify your warped views. Then again every is entitled to their opinion, it’s just that yours are invariably disgusting to decent folk.

Wales is a bona fide idiot. S/he has nothing interesting to contribute.

[az city]

What I mean is, I’m no Trump supporter, but if there is proof of anything he claimed in his remarks, then I’d rather hear that, than gushing sympathy.

Trump engaged in wild speculation and folded in veiled racist tropes to feed red meat to his hounds. What he said was absolutely vile. At the point in time he made his remarks they hadn't even recovered the flight recorders. The time for "answers" is after evidence collection, investigation and reflection.

In the imeediate aftermath of a tragic event what else can a leader come out with other than statements of condolence?

[JamesWales]

Come on now, be fair - all he’s saying is that he knows better than you why you started this thread.

Right so I am supposed to read his mind, I am supposed to ignore what he wrote in the written language I have known for nearly 40 years, I am supposed to take your and his rants over the NY times, Fox News, NY Post, Simple flying aviation website, AOL articles?

I then have to ignore the fact there is a shortage of air traffic controllers. I have to ignore the fact there is a current legal case ongoing and I have to ignore the fact that the FAA's policies seemingly turned down qualified applicants based on race?

And if we do all that then we still have to believe your position that you have put forward with zero evidence whatsoever?

I mean, you are asking a lot here Bob! The reality is, that there may be something in what was said, however prematurely and crassly it was done. You may need to wrench open that closed mind just a tiny bit to accept it though.

[JamesWales]

I think you’re way off track here, suggesting other scenarios. This tragedy happened in a country and their ‘leader’ came out with a crass, unsympathetic statement, immediately putting the blame on others with no evidence or proof.
Of course if in such a disaster a loved one of mine passed I’d want answers as soon as possible but one of those answers wouldn’t have been ‘I’m blaming my predecessor’s administration’. Especially when you look at it he was in charge 4-8 years ago and did nothing to change the situation that he’s challenging.

No one, literally no one on here doubts the crassness of the timings and you know that.

What is being questioned is whether there is any truth in what was said. And it you read the numerous articles posted any reasonable person would conclude that there could well be.

[Tuerto]

Right so I am supposed to read his mind, I am supposed to ignore what he wrote in the written language I have known for nearly 40 years, I am supposed to take your and his rants over the NY times, Fox News, NY Post, Simple flying aviation website, AOL articles?

I then have to ignore the fact there is a shortage of air traffic controllers. I have to ignore the fact there is a current legal case ongoing and I have to ignore the fact that the FAA's policies seemingly turned down qualified applicants based on race?

And if we do all that then we still have to believe your position that you have put forward with zero evidence whatsoever?

I mean, you are asking a lot here Bob! The reality is, that there may be something in what was said, however prematurely and crassly it was done. You may need to wrench open that closed mind just a tiny bit to accept it though.

All of those posts just to say 'That there may be something in what he said'..........

[JamesWales]

All of those posts just to say 'That there may be something in what he said'..........

Essentially, yes. Coupled with links evidencing it, dealing with the inevitable ad hominem attacks and then repeating everything in the hope we get there in the end!

Way he said it? Zero support from anyone.
Potentially something in what he said? Quite possibly. Should at least be open minded on it
👍

[splott parker]

Shouldn’t people wait for an official investigation, offer condolences etc rather than be Trumpist (is that a word?)and immediately start pointing fingers.

[JamesWales]

Shouldn’t people wait for an official investigation, offer condolences etc rather than be Trumpist (is that a word?)and immediately start pointing fingers.

I think so yes, but also that isn't how politics works rightly or wrongly, and Trump supercharged that.

[splott parker]

I think so yes, but also that isn't how politics works rightly or wrongly, and Trump supercharged that.

I shouldn’t think the bereaved families are particularly bothered about politics at the moment, I’d imagine they’re in shock and bewilderment at the whole tragedy. The whys and wherefores will come out later and, no doubt, anger will take over from grief. But this man pointing fingers, a man who has recently pardoned a load of unstable nutters, could, with a daft statement with no foundation put a target on people’s backs. The USA seems a very unstable place under this regime and potentially stoking the flames is a stupid thing to do particularly from the head of state.

[Dorcus]

I shouldn’t think the bereaved families are particularly bothered about politics at the moment, I’d imagine they’re in shock and bewilderment at the whole tragedy. The whys and wherefores will come out later and, no doubt, anger will take over from grief. But this man pointing fingers, a man who has recently pardoned a load of unstable nutters, could, with a daft statement with no foundation put a target on people’s backs. The USA seems a very unstable place under this regime and potentially stoking the flames is a stupid thing to do particularly from the head of state.

There's something statesmanlike and humane about employing decorum and showing solidarity in times of grief. Anything else is crass, disrespectful and opportunistic. Whoever would have thought Trump would fall into the latter camp?

[JamesWales]

I shouldn’t think the bereaved families are particularly bothered about politics at the moment, I’d imagine they’re in shock and bewilderment at the whole tragedy. The whys and wherefores will come out later and, no doubt, anger will take over from grief. But this man pointing fingers, a man who has recently pardoned a load of unstable nutters, could, with a daft statement with no foundation put a target on people’s backs. The USA seems a very unstable place under this regime and potentially stoking the flames is a stupid thing to do particularly from the head of state.

Indeed. I don't think anyone is defending how he said it and the timing of it.

[splott parker]

Indeed. I don't think anyone is defending how he said it and the timing of it.

So are you agreeing that that the man is a dangerous, loud mouthed, inflammatory, horrible, opportunistic twat?

[JamesWales]

So are you agreeing that that the man is a dangerous, loud mouthed, inflammatory, horrible, opportunistic twat?

Dangerous - not particularly. No more than other presidents, and he seems to be trying to clamp down on drugs and crime, and not get engaged in foreign wars, so the jury is out

Loud mouthed. 100%

Inflammatory. Yes, although again im not sure he's alone. I do think a lot of social fabric has become inflamed in recent years by some of the things he is rallying against too if I'm honest.

Horrible. I don't know him. Would I want to be mates with him? I doubt it. Does he seem nice? No he doesn't. Does he seem good natured? Depends on his mood it seems. Do his worst detractors seem nice? No they don't, either.

Opportunistic? What successful politician isn't?

I don't think we have to be totally binary on it all the time though. It doesn't have to be black and white on everything he does and I see that in this example tbh.

[Dave Blue]

So are you agreeing that that the man is a dangerous, loud mouthed, inflammatory, horrible, opportunistic twat?

James won’t but I will.

[JamesWales]

James won’t but I will.

Crack on!

[Harry Paget Flashman]

So are you agreeing that that the man is a dangerous, loud mouthed, inflammatory, horrible, opportunistic twat?

Are you talking about James Wales or Trump?

[az city]

Are you talking about James Wales or Trump?

Surely Wales is Trump.

[NYCBlue]

Right so I am supposed to read his mind, I am supposed to ignore what he wrote in the written language I have known for nearly 40 years, I am supposed to take your and his rants over the NY times, Fox News, NY Post, Simple flying aviation website, AOL articles?

I then have to ignore the fact there is a shortage of air traffic controllers. I have to ignore the fact there is a current legal case ongoing and I have to ignore the fact that the FAA's policies seemingly turned down qualified applicants based on race?

And if we do all that then we still have to believe your position that you have put forward with zero evidence whatsoever?

I mean, you are asking a lot here Bob! The reality is, that there may be something in what was said, however prematurely and crassly it was done. You may need to wrench open that closed mind just a tiny bit to accept it though.

What did the NYT say?

[PontBlue]

Dangerous - not particularly. No more than other presidents, and he seems to be trying to clamp down on drugs and crime, and not get engaged in foreign wars, so the jury is out

Loud mouthed. 100%

Inflammatory. Yes, although again im not sure he's alone. I do think a lot of social fabric has become inflamed in recent years by some of the things he is rallying against too if I'm honest.

Horrible. I don't know him. Would I want to be mates with him? I doubt it. Does he seem nice? No he doesn't. Does he seem good natured? Depends on his mood it seems. Do his worst detractors seem nice? No they don't, either.

Opportunistic? What successful politician isn't?

I don't think we have to be totally binary on it all the time though. It doesn't have to be black and white on everything he does and I see that in this example tbh.

So you think that air traffic controllers receiving death threats as the result of what trump said doesn't make him dangerous?

[the other bob wilson]

Right so I am supposed to read his mind, I am supposed to ignore what he wrote in the written language I have known for nearly 40 years, I am supposed to take your and his rants over the NY times, Fox News, NY Post, Simple flying aviation website, AOL articles?

I then have to ignore the fact there is a shortage of air traffic controllers. I have to ignore the fact there is a current legal case ongoing and I have to ignore the fact that the FAA's policies seemingly turned down qualified applicants based on race?

And if we do all that then we still have to believe your position that you have put forward with zero evidence whatsoever?

I mean, you are asking a lot here Bob! The reality is, that there may be something in what was said, however prematurely and crassly it was done. You may need to wrench open that closed mind just a tiny bit to accept it though.

This is a very odd thread because about a quarter, maybe more, of the posts in it are from you arguing against I'm not sure who, because no one, as far as I can see, is saying that Trump was definitely wrong in arguing what he did within a few hours of the crash occurring.

Okay, I have posted a link to a fact checking page which states that only one in fifty of FAA staff in 2023 were disabled as defined in Trump's speech and that the percentage of white male employees in the FAA fell slightly between 2016 and 2023, but they still make up some way over half of the agency's staff. I also pointed out the unarguable fact that any legislation still in place from the Obama Presidency has to have gone through Trump's first term without being challenged unless it was restored by Biden and the stuff Trump mentioned was not.

However, in one of my first posts in this thread, maybe the first one, I also said that the issue this time was not about Trump's politics with me, it was with his personality, yet despite having this being pointed out to you by me and various others in this thread on numerous occasions, you carry on with the same line regardless, while also occasionally inferring that you are somehow occupying the moral high ground here. Yet, at the same time, you also concede that those of us disgusted by the timing and insensitivity of Trump's reaction to the crash are right to be so - as I say, a very odd thread and it seems to me that there's only one person here making it that way.

[JamesWales]

What did the NYT say?

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/31/b...erstaffed.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/30/b...ane-crash.html

[Tuerto]

This is a very odd thread because about a quarter, maybe more, of the posts in it are from you arguing against I'm not sure who, because no one, as far as I can see, is saying that Trump was definitely wrong in arguing what he did within a few hours of the crash occurring.

Okay, I have posted a link to a fact checking page which states that only one in fifty of FAA staff in 2023 were disabled as defined in Trump's speech and that the percentage of white male employees in the FAA fell slightly between 2016 and 2023, but they still make up some way over half of the agency's staff. I also pointed out the unarguable fact that any legislation still in place from the Obama Presidency has to have gone through Trump's first term without being challenged unless it was restored by Biden and the stuff Trump mentioned was not.

However, in one of my first posts in this thread, maybe the first one, I also said that the issue this time was not about Trump's politics with me, it was with his personality, yet despite having this being pointed out to you by me and various others in this thread on numerous occasions, you carry on with the same line regardless, while also occasionally inferring that you are somehow occupying the moral high ground here. Yet, at the same time, you also concede that those of us disgusted by the timing and insensitivity of Trump's reaction to the crash are right to be so - as I say, a very odd thread and it seems to me that there's only one person here making it that way.

Bob, All Jim is saying is 'That there may be a bit of truth in what Trump has said' Not that outlandish, a casual throwaway observation, the sort of thing we say to each other every day without really listening. Except that isn't what he has said at all really, i know that and so does everyone else, And he's had about 20 hits at it. He's gold is jim, i can't get wound up by him anymore, he makes me laugh.

[JamesWales]

This is a very odd thread because about a quarter, maybe more, of the posts in it are from you arguing against I'm not sure who, because no one, as far as I can see, is saying that Trump was definitely wrong in arguing what he did within a few hours of the crash occurring.

Okay, I have posted a link to a fact checking page which states that only one in fifty of FAA staff in 2023 were disabled as defined in Trump's speech and that the percentage of white male employees in the FAA fell slightly between 2016 and 2023, but they still make up some way over half of the agency's staff. I also pointed out the unarguable fact that any legislation still in place from the Obama Presidency has to have gone through Trump's first term without being challenged unless it was restored by Biden and the stuff Trump mentioned was not.

However, in one of my first posts in this thread, maybe the first one, I also said that the issue this time was not about Trump's politics with me, it was with his personality, yet despite having this being pointed out to you by me and various others in this thread on numerous occasions, you carry on with the same line regardless, while also occasionally inferring that you are somehow occupying the moral high ground here. Yet, at the same time, you also concede that those of us disgusted by the timing and insensitivity of Trump's reaction to the crash are right to be so - as I say, a very odd thread and it seems to me that there's only one person here making it that way.

The point is that there may be some truth in what he has said, and this has been evidenced with various links. For that one gets a barrage of abuse.

If the thread is only about Trumps personality (upon which there seems to be general agreement) then there already threads on that. If it's about the air disaster then I would say it's fair to look into where there is any substance in what he's said, don't you?

We just get this all the time on here. For now it's Trump but the reoccurring feature is a barrage of abuse from a relatively small group of people if anyone dare offer a different perspective, even when it's backed up by a decent amount of evidence as in this case.

May I suggest that if it's just a thread about who hates Trump the most maybe that good be stated at the start of or something, so people who may want to look into it a little bit more can simply not bother? I'm sure that would make some of you happier too!?

[Tuerto]

The point is that there may be some truth in what he has said, and this has been evidenced with various links. For that one gets a barrage of abuse.

If the thread is only about Trumps personality (upon which there seems to be general agreement) then there already threads on that. If it's about the air disaster then I would say it's fair to look into where there is any substance in what he's said, don't you?

We just get this all the time on here. For now it's Trump but the reoccurring feature is a barrage of abuse from a relatively small group of people if anyone dare offer a different perspective, even when it's backed up by a decent amount of evidence as in this case.

May I suggest that if it's just a thread about who hates Trump the most maybe that good be stated at the start of or something, so people who may want to look into it a little bit more can simply not bother? I'm sure that would make some of you happier too!?

Jim, can you tell us what you're saying again, just so that i can be sure this time......