Opinion U.S., "I Agree!"

[beth]

CNN Opinion ("I Agree")

In theory, there is nothing objectionable about the White House's plan to send a message from President Trump to virtually every cell phone in the country. The message is a test of a warning system -- created under President Barack Obama in 2016 -- designed to alert the public about national emergencies.


There is no opting out. Most people with a cell phone — turned on and within range of a cell phone tower -- will receive a "presidential alert" text at 2:18 p.m. ET on October 3.


As broadcast TV and land-based phone lines become obsolete, our homeland security apparatus needs to keep up with current technology. This test should be seen as a positive step, bringing crisis communications into the wireless era.


But some are not seeing it that way -- and it's the Trump administration's fault. By continually and bitterly politicizing things that shouldn't be political, like natural disasters, journalism, the criminal-justice system, you name it -- Trump and his followers have fanned growing fears that everything they do is about partisan advantage. It's understandable that people believe this cell phone test is just another authoritarian attempt by Trump to bully his way into our daily lives.


So, let's be clear. The statute that Obama signed into law allows for this national communication only when the event "relate(s) to a natural disaster, act of terrorism, or other man-made disaster or threat to public safety." It cannot be used for political purposes. It gives a president the capability to direct the public, should they need guidance or knowledge of an event of such national consequence, just as is tested on televisions with the Emergency Alert System.

But, as the test date approaches, there has been real concern about Trump's having access to the nation's cell phone numbers and what he might do with them. These concerns -- even if they seem overblown at times -- are the direct result of a White House that has turned emergencies into political fodder and Trump loyalty tests.


First, there is no reason that the alert needs to be titled "presidential alert." Nothing in the statute requires it; it isn't the term that is used for television alerts. Instead, a more generic term like "national alert" or even "DHS alert" would take Trump, an unpopular President who consistently lies about basic facts, out of the calculation.

If the goal is to honestly assess alert capability, there's zero need for the term "president" to be used in the roll-out.


Second, because the President has so politicized basic facts about emergency management and made them about himself and his White House's capabilities, we can have no confidence that the benign nature of the test will remain so. This became clear last month when Trump repeatedly used his office to question the validity of non-partisan, George Washington University study on the death toll in Puerto Rico, blaming the Democrats for concocting lies to make him look bad.


In fact FEMA Administrator Brock Long was doubling down on the President's language, arguing that "I don't know why these studies were done. . . They are all over the place." Maybe, Administrator Long, so that we might determine how many are dead.


Now FEMA and the White House, just days after these surprising pronouncements, want us to have confidence in an objective alert system deployed in a crisis by the very federal agency and White House that has "graded" every single one to date.

The US needs to ensure it can communicate with the population on cellular phones. It is so obvious that, at any other time, it would seem like an essential upgrade for America's capabilities. But the consequences of years of misstatements and lies from the President's mouth and Twitter feed inevitably have consequences for the most anodyne of policies.


I am not surprised that even the most generic alert system has become a new source of controversy for this White House where truth is whatever Trump hopes it to be.


www-m.cnn.com/2018/09/17/opinions/worst-person-to-put-in-charge-of-emergency-alerts-kayyem/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F

[Jessiealan]

The entire effort of Trump to put himself in touch with all americans stinks of extreme partisan politics and giving him dictator status. He is a frightening, dangerous man and any who do not realize it should take heed.

[men an tol]

Oct 4, 2018 17:38:39 GMT -5 Jessiealan said:

The entire effort of Trump to put himself in touch with all americans stinks of extreme partisan politics and giving him dictator status. He is a frightening, dangerous man and any who do not realize it should take heed.

An interesting view of this system.

Does this point of view then mean that the system is not needed?

[men an tol]

Oct 3, 2018 19:12:09 GMT -5 beth said:

CNN Opinion ("I Agree")

In theory, there is nothing objectionable about the White House's plan to send a message from President Trump to virtually every cell phone in the country. The message is a test of a warning system -- created under President Barack Obama in 2016 -- designed to alert the public about national emergencies.


There is no opting out. Most people with a cell phone — turned on and within range of a cell phone tower -- will receive a "presidential alert" text at 2:18 p.m. ET on October 3.


As broadcast TV and land-based phone lines become obsolete, our homeland security apparatus needs to keep up with current technology. This test should be seen as a positive step, bringing crisis communications into the wireless era.


But some are not seeing it that way -- and it's the Trump administration's fault. By continually and bitterly politicizing things that shouldn't be political, like natural disasters, journalism, the criminal-justice system, you name it -- Trump and his followers have fanned growing fears that everything they do is about partisan advantage. It's understandable that people believe this cell phone test is just another authoritarian attempt by Trump to bully his way into our daily lives.


So, let's be clear. The statute that Obama signed into law allows for this national communication only when the event "relate(s) to a natural disaster, act of terrorism, or other man-made disaster or threat to public safety." It cannot be used for political purposes. It gives a president the capability to direct the public, should they need guidance or knowledge of an event of such national consequence, just as is tested on televisions with the Emergency Alert System.

But, as the test date approaches, there has been real concern about Trump's having access to the nation's cell phone numbers and what he might do with them. These concerns -- even if they seem overblown at times -- are the direct result of a White House that has turned emergencies into political fodder and Trump loyalty tests.


First, there is no reason that the alert needs to be titled "presidential alert." Nothing in the statute requires it; it isn't the term that is used for television alerts. Instead, a more generic term like "national alert" or even "DHS alert" would take Trump, an unpopular President who consistently lies about basic facts, out of the calculation.

If the goal is to honestly assess alert capability, there's zero need for the term "president" to be used in the roll-out.


Second, because the President has so politicized basic facts about emergency management and made them about himself and his White House's capabilities, we can have no confidence that the benign nature of the test will remain so. This became clear last month when Trump repeatedly used his office to question the validity of non-partisan, George Washington University study on the death toll in Puerto Rico, blaming the Democrats for concocting lies to make him look bad.


In fact FEMA Administrator Brock Long was doubling down on the President's language, arguing that "I don't know why these studies were done. . . They are all over the place." Maybe, Administrator Long, so that we might determine how many are dead.


Now FEMA and the White House, just days after these surprising pronouncements, want us to have confidence in an objective alert system deployed in a crisis by the very federal agency and White House that has "graded" every single one to date.

The US needs to ensure it can communicate with the population on cellular phones. It is so obvious that, at any other time, it would seem like an essential upgrade for America's capabilities. But the consequences of years of misstatements and lies from the President's mouth and Twitter feed inevitably have consequences for the most anodyne of policies.


I am not surprised that even the most generic alert system has become a new source of controversy for this White House where truth is whatever Trump hopes it to be.


www-m.cnn.com/2018/09/17/opinions/worst-person-to-put-in-charge-of-emergency-alerts-kayyem/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F

No surprise that CNN has such an opinion.

This is not the first time that a President has been described in similar comments. As the Franklin Roosevelt progressed similar views of his administration grew. There was a growing number of people who saw him working to establish a dictatorship. Attempts to do such things as packing the Supreme Court with ‘his’ people fed a growing number of people who saw him as a danger.

This is a common response to a strong President.

[annaj26]

Oct 4, 2018 21:55:50 GMT -5 men an tol said:

Oct 3, 2018 19:12:09 GMT -5 beth said:

CNN Opinion ("I Agree")

In theory, there is nothing objectionable about the White House's plan to send a message from President Trump to virtually every cell phone in the country. The message is a test of a warning system -- created under President Barack Obama in 2016 -- designed to alert the public about national emergencies.


There is no opting out. Most people with a cell phone — turned on and within range of a cell phone tower -- will receive a "presidential alert" text at 2:18 p.m. ET on October 3.


As broadcast TV and land-based phone lines become obsolete, our homeland security apparatus needs to keep up with current technology. This test should be seen as a positive step, bringing crisis communications into the wireless era.


But some are not seeing it that way -- and it's the Trump administration's fault. By continually and bitterly politicizing things that shouldn't be political, like natural disasters, journalism, the criminal-justice system, you name it -- Trump and his followers have fanned growing fears that everything they do is about partisan advantage. It's understandable that people believe this cell phone test is just another authoritarian attempt by Trump to bully his way into our daily lives.


So, let's be clear. The statute that Obama signed into law allows for this national communication only when the event "relate(s) to a natural disaster, act of terrorism, or other man-made disaster or threat to public safety." It cannot be used for political purposes. It gives a president the capability to direct the public, should they need guidance or knowledge of an event of such national consequence, just as is tested on televisions with the Emergency Alert System.

But, as the test date approaches, there has been real concern about Trump's having access to the nation's cell phone numbers and what he might do with them. These concerns -- even if they seem overblown at times -- are the direct result of a White House that has turned emergencies into political fodder and Trump loyalty tests.


First, there is no reason that the alert needs to be titled "presidential alert." Nothing in the statute requires it; it isn't the term that is used for television alerts. Instead, a more generic term like "national alert" or even "DHS alert" would take Trump, an unpopular President who consistently lies about basic facts, out of the calculation.

If the goal is to honestly assess alert capability, there's zero need for the term "president" to be used in the roll-out.


Second, because the President has so politicized basic facts about emergency management and made them about himself and his White House's capabilities, we can have no confidence that the benign nature of the test will remain so. This became clear last month when Trump repeatedly used his office to question the validity of non-partisan, George Washington University study on the death toll in Puerto Rico, blaming the Democrats for concocting lies to make him look bad.


In fact FEMA Administrator Brock Long was doubling down on the President's language, arguing that "I don't know why these studies were done. . . They are all over the place." Maybe, Administrator Long, so that we might determine how many are dead.


Now FEMA and the White House, just days after these surprising pronouncements, want us to have confidence in an objective alert system deployed in a crisis by the very federal agency and White House that has "graded" every single one to date.

The US needs to ensure it can communicate with the population on cellular phones. It is so obvious that, at any other time, it would seem like an essential upgrade for America's capabilities. But the consequences of years of misstatements and lies from the President's mouth and Twitter feed inevitably have consequences for the most anodyne of policies.


I am not surprised that even the most generic alert system has become a new source of controversy for this White House where truth is whatever Trump hopes it to be.


www-m.cnn.com/2018/09/17/opinions/worst-person-to-put-in-charge-of-emergency-alerts-kayyem/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F

No surprise that CNN has such an opinion.

This is not the first time that a President has been described in similar comments. As the Franklin Roosevelt progressed similar views of his administration grew. There was a growing number of people who saw him working to establish a dictatorship. Attempts to do such things as packing the Supreme Court with ‘his’ people fed a growing number of people who saw him as a danger.

This is a common response to a strong President.

Suit yourself, Men an tol. How did YOU feel about Roosevelt?

This opinion piece is more about Trump putting himself online with most of the population. Strange and over the top.

[men an tol]

Oct 4, 2018 23:29:08 GMT -5 annaj26 said:

Oct 4, 2018 21:55:50 GMT -5 men an tol said:

No surprise that CNN has such an opinion.

This is not the first time that a President has been described in similar comments. As the Franklin Roosevelt progressed similar views of his administration grew. There was a growing number of people who saw him working to establish a dictatorship. Attempts to do such things as packing the Supreme Court with ‘his’ people fed a growing number of people who saw him as a danger.

This is a common response to a strong President.

Suit yourself, Men an tol. How did YOU feel about Roosevelt?

This opinion piece is more about Trump putting himself online with most of the population. Strange and over the top.

No surprise that CNN has such an opinion.

This is not the first time that a President has been described in similar comments. As the Franklin Roosevelt administration progressed, similar views of his administration grew. There was a growing number of people who saw him working to establish a dictatorship. Attempts to do such things as packing the Supreme Court with ‘his’ people fed a growing number of people who saw him as a danger.
Roosevelt was a great politician. But as a leader of economics (Blumenthal) he was not so good.
This is a common response to a strong President.

[mouse]

Oct 4, 2018 21:41:39 GMT -5 men an tol said:

Oct 4, 2018 17:38:39 GMT -5 Jessiealan said:

The entire effort of Trump to put himself in touch with all americans stinks of extreme partisan politics and giving him dictator status. He is a frightening, dangerous man and any who do not realize it should take heed.

An interesting view of this system.

Does this point of view then mean that the system is not needed?

good job it was Obama the pure and not trump the baad that initiated this form of communication

but as has been said about messages on here.... ignore them... delete and move on
afterall no one can force you to read any messages


out of interest how di it go on the 3rd ?

[men an tol]

Oct 5, 2018 3:55:10 GMT -5 mouse said:

Oct 4, 2018 21:41:39 GMT -5 men an tol said:

An interesting view of this system.

Does this point of view then mean that the system is not needed?

good job it was Obama the pure and not trump the baad that initiated this form of communication

but as has been said about messages on here.... ignore them... delete and move on
afterall no one can force you to read any messages


out of interest how di it go on the 3rd ?

Neither my wife or I got anything. One of my sons got the message and I haven't talked to the other son about it.

[annaj26]

Oct 5, 2018 3:55:10 GMT -5 mouse said:

Oct 4, 2018 21:41:39 GMT -5 men an tol said:

An interesting view of this system.

Does this point of view then mean that the system is not needed?

good job it was Obama the pure and not trump the baad that initiated this form of communication

but as has been said about messages on here.... ignore them... delete and move on
afterall no one can force you to read any messages

out of interest how di it go on the 3rd ?

I don't know what your point is but Jessie said nothing that is not so.

You sound (read) like 2 true Trumpies, trying to promote your brand.

[men an tol]

Oct 5, 2018 14:54:18 GMT -5 annaj26 said:

Oct 5, 2018 3:55:10 GMT -5 mouse said:

good job it was Obama the pure and not trump the baad that initiated this form of communication

but as has been said about messages on here.... ignore them... delete and move on
afterall no one can force you to read any messages

out of interest how di it go on the 3rd ?

I don't know what your point is but Jessie said nothing that is not so.

You sound (read) like 2 true Trumpies, trying to promote your brand.

When I asked if, “ . . . does this mean the system is not needed . . . . ” was because it sounded as if the system was put together only so President Trump could talk directly to the people. I do not think Jessiealan meant it that way and I was only seeking clarification.

Even so, your comment Annaj26, “ . . . You sound (read) like 2 true Trumpies, trying to promote your brand. . . . “ is apparently making an assumption not stated. That is, that we (myself) are some mindless followers of President Trump and that such a definition is not offered as a positive description.

First, I have often stated that I am not fond of his management style but have stated that I appreciate some of his policy actions and believe them to be good for the country.

Secondly, since my comments were not necessarily supportive of President Trump, does your response mean that any reference about President Trump will result in some negative comment in response? If so that seems to mean that any posting with any reference about President Trump will be interpreted as being some mindless supporter of him, is that true?

[Sysop3]

It is not very important whether you approve of his management style or the way he wears his hair or eats his big macs, if you're happy with him in office you qualify as a Trumpie/Trumpster.

Many of us believe as long as he's in office the country is at risk and will show up to vote him out in 2020 unless something unexpected changes things.

[men an tol]

Oct 5, 2018 19:09:19 GMT -5 Sysop3 said:

It is not very important whether you approve of his management style or the way he wears his hair or eats his big macs, if you're happy with him in office you qualify as a Trumpie/Trumpster.

Many of us believe as long as he's in office the country is at risk and will show up to vote him out in 2020 unless something unexpected changes things.

Here I’ve been told I don’t communicate with others by using good manners. Maybe, maybe not. But you folks are really without manners because you make up descriptive terms to define others, even when those others tell you they are not true.

For example, in this case You refer to me as a Trumpie/Trumpster and I’m guessing that is, from your mouth, meant as a derisive term. I have explained the course I follow and a small part of how I evolved to where I am. That has nothing to do with being what you define as a Trumpie/Trumpster or a member of any political party or Left or Right and certainly not a Trumpie/Trumpster. If that is the best you can think of you might as well be Kronks.

Donald Trump became President in the way described within the Constitution. As such, while doing the things of a President he deserves at least a modicum of respect, but no, that isn’t good enough for you folks. Instead you deride him and what he does and any who might show any positive interest in what he does. Rather than follow our Constitutional processes you act more like those in Congress (such as Chuck Schumer) who lied about Brett Kavanah. Generation after generation our country has progressed working back and forth within the political system, but no, not you. Say all sorts of things about President Trump except the truth. He can be beat ‘in an election’ using the ‘truth.’ Or he will win using the ‘truth.’

I am a Constitutionalist, something you will never understand.

[Jessiealan]

Oct 5, 2018 21:01:30 GMT -5 men an tol said:

Oct 5, 2018 19:09:19 GMT -5 Sysop3 said:

It is not very important whether you approve of his management style or the way he wears his hair or eats his big macs, if you're happy with him in office you qualify as a Trumpie/Trumpster.

Many of us believe as long as he's in office the country is at risk and will show up to vote him out in 2020 unless something unexpected changes things.

Here I’ve been told I don’t communicate with others by using good manners. Maybe, maybe not. But you folks are really without manners because you make up descriptive terms to define others, even when those others tell you they are not true.

For example, in this case You refer to me as a Trumpie/Trumpster and I’m guessing that is, from your mouth, meant as a derisive term. I have explained the course I follow and a small part of how I evolved to where I am. That has nothing to do with being what you define as a Trumpie/Trumpster or a member of any political party or Left or Right and certainly not a Trumpie/Trumpster. If that is the best you can think of you might as well be Kronks.

Donald Trump became President in the way described within the Constitution. As such, while doing the things of a President he deserves at least a modicum of respect, but no, that isn’t good enough for you folks. Instead you deride him and what he does and any who might show any positive interest in what he does. Rather than follow our Constitutional processes you act more like those in Congress (such as Chuck Schumer) who lied about Brett Kavanah. Generation after generation our country has progressed working back and forth within the political system, but no, not you. Say all sorts of things about President Trump except the truth. He can be beat ‘in an election’ using the ‘truth.’ Or he will win using the ‘truth.’

I am a Constitutionalist, something you will never understand.

He was very simply telling you how you appear to others, Men an tol. Your fellow Americans. You're pro Trump and that is very obvious. It colors all your political opinions, like it or not. From my point of view, you are not a good person to discuss politics because you are very prone to attack others who hold different opinions, even to name calling.

I doubt any American's here expected Kavanaugh to lose the place on the SCOTUS with a Republican in the WH and as the majority in the Senate. No need to get into a fuss with anyone over that. Relax.

[men an tol]

Oct 6, 2018 0:26:48 GMT -5 Jessiealan said:

Oct 5, 2018 21:01:30 GMT -5 men an tol said:

Here I’ve been told I don’t communicate with others by using good manners. Maybe, maybe not. But you folks are really without manners because you make up descriptive terms to define others, even when those others tell you they are not true.

For example, in this case You refer to me as a Trumpie/Trumpster and I’m guessing that is, from your mouth, meant as a derisive term. I have explained the course I follow and a small part of how I evolved to where I am. That has nothing to do with being what you define as a Trumpie/Trumpster or a member of any political party or Left or Right and certainly not a Trumpie/Trumpster. If that is the best you can think of you might as well be Kronks.

Donald Trump became President in the way described within the Constitution. As such, while doing the things of a President he deserves at least a modicum of respect, but no, that isn’t good enough for you folks. Instead you deride him and what he does and any who might show any positive interest in what he does. Rather than follow our Constitutional processes you act more like those in Congress (such as Chuck Schumer) who lied about Brett Kavanah. Generation after generation our country has progressed working back and forth within the political system, but no, not you. Say all sorts of things about President Trump except the truth. He can be beat ‘in an election’ using the ‘truth.’ Or he will win using the ‘truth.’

I am a Constitutionalist, something you will never understand.

He was very simply telling you how you appear to others, Men an tol. Your fellow Americans. You're pro Trump and that is very obvious. It colors all your political opinions, like it or not. From my point of view, you are not a good person to discuss politics because you are very prone to attack others who hold different opinions, even to name calling.

I doubt any American's here expected Kavanaugh to lose the place on the SCOTUS with a Republican in the WH and as the majority in the Senate. No need to get into a fuss with anyone over that. Relax.

Thank you for the reply Jessiealan, and I appreciate what you said. However, you should understand by now that I really don’t care what others think of me and I really do not need instruction from others as to what I believe. As to what you have stated about my preference for President Trump, it is wrong. I have stated so more than once but that doesn’t make any difference as you folks have made up your mind and cannot accept any view counter to what you believe.

I doubt that any of you understand what a Constitutionalist is or why being one forecloses support for President Trump. That doesn’t mean that some of his acts are not acceptable. Moreover, what you term attacks of mine is clearly the only way you can assess views such as mine, even though your opinion of my views have nothing to do with reality.

Your views seem to be entirely composed of disliking President Trump and either all others accept your views as their own or, they are President Trump supporters. That is not only not realistic but could be considered as reflecting a desire to not enter any type of political discourse. Describe others as something despised (in this case a President Trump supporter), and there is no reason to discuss any thing.

[mouse]

Oct 5, 2018 14:54:18 GMT -5 annaj26 said:

Oct 5, 2018 3:55:10 GMT -5 mouse said:

good job it was Obama the pure and not trump the baad that initiated this form of communication

but as has been said about messages on here.... ignore them... delete and move on
afterall no one can force you to read any messages

out of interest how di it go on the 3rd ?

I don't know what your point is but Jessie said nothing that is not so.

You sound (read) like 2 true Trumpies, trying to promote your brand.

do I care if I sound like a trumpie…… no... its meaningless babble ...
but like I wrote its a good job the phone messages were initiated by Obama the good and not trump
the baad
and has been said about messages on this site.. ignore and move on

and quite how those words morph into being a true trumpie.. is quite beyond me...
its also beyond me how you keep insisting that I support trump....in spite of being told repeatedly I don't give a monkeys about him ? why would I ? he is nothing of any importance in my country .. weird