Trump's disgusting twitter rant on Puerto Rico

[Dr. Arch]

Figures that folks like Doctor Imperialism and ProudModerate2 are continuing their providing nothing of value to the forum.

That nonsense aside, Trump and others who already pointed it out here weren't exactly wrong in that the large numbers of people who died weren't because of the hurricane, but rather horrible infrastructure that has always been a problem on the island. The hurricane just made that disaster in waiting happen sooner rather than later.

I don't agree with how the administration handled things post-Maria, and I don't agree with blaming the Democrats for the numbers, but he didn't deny their deaths, just the cause of their deaths.

You are giving far, far, FAR too much credit to his intellect and restraint.

He absolutely is denying the number of deaths here.

BTW, your first sentence absolutely belongs in the irony ore mine.

That nonsense aside, Trump and others who already pointed it out here weren't exactly wrong in that the large numbers of people who died weren't because of the hurricane, but rather horrible infrastructure that has always been a problem on the island. The hurricane just made that disaster in waiting happen sooner rather than later.

I don't agree with how the administration handled things post-Maria, and I don't agree with blaming the Democrats for the numbers, but he didn't deny their deaths, just the cause of their deaths.

"3000 people did not die" "3000 people did not die" "3000 did not die"

Reading really shouldn't be this difficult for you two. If he just said 3000 people did not die, then yes, the argument that he is denying their deaths would be accurate. But if you actually read the entire first sentence, he is obviously denying the cause of their deaths.

I get that Trump Derangement Syndrome has affected the both of you pretty hard, but you don't need to cherry pick the things he says to find something you don't like.

Oh, we're reading just fine. Unless you're referring to comprehension? Maybe, but perhaps your adult reading level hasn't helped you distinguish basic concepts yet. It's okay. I understand your pain, that your party's leader is a total fool, and you have to parse things out differently so you don't feel embarrassed every time you wake up and read the news and/or the latest flaming hot pile of sh**t tweets.

But, I digress, regardless of whether he goes on to justify the initial statement with some suggestion of number tampering, the initial statement remains true--a declarative sentence stating that "3,000 people did not die."

Also, it seems that you don't know what a "sentence" is. The most basic definition is that it is a noun and a verb in a grammatical clause. The full first sentence is "3000 people did not die in the two hurricanes that hit Puerto Rico," and that's it.

So, while you're on your little train of condescension, because you really have nothing else to say or do to defend the disgusting actions of this president, at least make sure you know what you're talking about.

I would gladly treat you better if you know how to have reasonable discourse, but please do take the same medicine you dish out. In fact, swallow it. I couldn't care less.

[Take your vitamins and say your prayers, Brother!]

Trump must've actually struck a nerve because the blue avatars are really REALLy working hard to try and control the narrative in this thread.

It took quite a long time to find out how many died in Katrina.  Puerto Rico was devastation on a much bigger scale with poorer infrastructure.  Places went months without electricity or adequate access to clean water.  It is not hard to grasp that a territory with 2.5 times as many people as NOLA could see 3 times as many deaths directly or indirectly caused by the hurricane.

But no... defend Trump.  He was right to minimize the suffering and grief of Puerto Ricans, politicize it, and then blame the Democrats for a conspiracy.  You guys are right.  And so reasonable, too!  

It's not unreasonable to assert the possibility that the majority of these deaths are due to massive infrastructure issues that existed before Trump came to office.  I'm all for a proper apportionment of blame here, but blaming Trump for all of this just because he's being Maximum Trump here doesn't do justice to either the victims or history.

Trump may be minimizing the losses of the Puerto Rican people, but his opponents are milking it for all it's worth, politically.  Now, don't get me wrong; that's really an OK thing to do.  Every tragic event in my lifetime has been milked for political advantage, so this isn't a knock.  But let's be real here about the political motives all around.  Trump is, however, the ultimate political animal; he's NEVER going to admit he's wrong because if he does, his enemies will overtake him, and he's not going to let that happen.  That's Donald Trump on politics, and, truthfully, politicians that DO take responsibility for what they do wrong get nothing but grief, both in the press and at the polls, and Trump has decided that this isn't going to be him.

[The DEI Hire]

Figures that folks like Doctor Imperialism and ProudModerate2 are continuing their providing nothing of value to the forum.

That nonsense aside, Trump and others who already pointed it out here weren't exactly wrong in that the large numbers of people who died weren't because of the hurricane, but rather horrible infrastructure that has always been a problem on the island. The hurricane just made that disaster in waiting happen sooner rather than later.

I don't agree with how the administration handled things post-Maria, and I don't agree with blaming the Democrats for the numbers, but he didn't deny their deaths, just the cause of their deaths.

You are giving far, far, FAR too much credit to his intellect and restraint.

He absolutely is denying the number of deaths here.

BTW, your first sentence absolutely belongs in the irony ore mine.

That nonsense aside, Trump and others who already pointed it out here weren't exactly wrong in that the large numbers of people who died weren't because of the hurricane, but rather horrible infrastructure that has always been a problem on the island. The hurricane just made that disaster in waiting happen sooner rather than later.

I don't agree with how the administration handled things post-Maria, and I don't agree with blaming the Democrats for the numbers, but he didn't deny their deaths, just the cause of their deaths.

"3000 people did not die" "3000 people did not die" "3000 did not die"

Reading really shouldn't be this difficult for you two. If he just said 3000 people did not die, then yes, the argument that he is denying their deaths would be accurate. But if you actually read the entire first sentence, he is obviously denying the cause of their deaths.

I get that Trump Derangement Syndrome has affected the both of you pretty hard, but you don't need to cherry pick the things he says to find something you don't like.

Oh, we're reading just fine. Unless you're referring to comprehension? Maybe, but perhaps your adult reading level hasn't helped you distinguish basic concepts yet. It's okay. I understand your pain, that your party's leader is total fool, and you have to parse things out differently so you don't feel embarrassed every time you wake up and read the news and/or the latest flaming hot pile of sh**t tweets.

But, I digress, regardless of whether he goes on to justify the initial statement with some suggestion of number tampering, the initial statement remains true--a declarative sentence stating that "3,000 people did not die."

Also, it seems that you don't know what a "sentence" is. The most basic definition is that it is a noun and a verb in a grammatical clause. The full first sentence is "3000 people did not die in the two hurricanes that hit Puerto Rico," and that's it.

So, while you're on your little train of condescension, because you really have nothing else to say or do to defend the disgusting actions of this president, at least make sure you know what you're talking about.

I would gladly treat you better if you know how to have reasonable discourse, but please do take the same medicine you dish out. In fact, swallow it. I couldn't care less.

Few things I want to point out
1. I'm not a Republican, never have identified as one (my Atlas avatar is mostly a joke between me and a few posters), and have no plans to ever actually affiliate with the Republican Party. So I'll stop you there on the whole "your party" nonsense.  
2. It actually seems that you are the one who doesn't know what a sentence is. As you pointed out, the first sentence is "3000 people did not die in the two hurricanes that hit Puerto Rico," but all you are focusing on, and is even quoted in there is "3000 people did not die" (you actually repeated it three times). If you actually read the full first sentence, he isn't denying that 3000 people died, he is denying that 3000 people died in the hurricanes. So my point still stands.
3. I never defended the actions of the President. I made that pretty clear. Here, I'll quote it again and even bold the parts since you're having such a hard time:

Like I said, I don't approve with how the administration handled the situation post-Maria. I have family that was displaced, some that still are, and the ones still with their farms lost much of their crops in the hurricane. He is dumb when it comes to the numbers he's using in his tweet, he is dumb to blame the numbers on the Democrats, and he is dumb to claim that his administration's response to Maria was a success. But it is fair for him to question the actual cause of their deaths given the long gap that the Govt of Puerto Rico left jumping from 64 to almost 3000 and the fact that the island has suffered with substandard infrastructure for a long time.

4. I don't really care about how you treat me, but at least come up with a better argument next time you make an attempt to give me "the same medicine you dish out".

[Take your vitamins and say your prayers, Brother!]

Figures that folks like Doctor Imperialism and ProudModerate2 are continuing their providing nothing of value to the forum.

That nonsense aside, Trump and others who already pointed it out here weren't exactly wrong in that the large numbers of people who died weren't because of the hurricane, but rather horrible infrastructure that has always been a problem on the island. The hurricane just made that disaster in waiting happen sooner rather than later.

I don't agree with how the administration handled things post-Maria, and I don't agree with blaming the Democrats for the numbers, but he didn't deny their deaths, just the cause of their deaths.

You are giving far, far, FAR too much credit to his intellect and restraint.

He absolutely is denying the number of deaths here.

BTW, your first sentence absolutely belongs in the irony ore mine.

That nonsense aside, Trump and others who already pointed it out here weren't exactly wrong in that the large numbers of people who died weren't because of the hurricane, but rather horrible infrastructure that has always been a problem on the island. The hurricane just made that disaster in waiting happen sooner rather than later.

I don't agree with how the administration handled things post-Maria, and I don't agree with blaming the Democrats for the numbers, but he didn't deny their deaths, just the cause of their deaths.

"3000 people did not die" "3000 people did not die" "3000 did not die"

Reading really shouldn't be this difficult for you two. If he just said 3000 people did not die, then yes, the argument that he is denying their deaths would be accurate. But if you actually read the entire first sentence, he is obviously denying the cause of their deaths.

I get that Trump Derangement Syndrome has affected the both of you pretty hard, but you don't need to cherry pick the things he says to find something you don't like.

Oh, we're reading just fine. Unless you're referring to comprehension? Maybe, but perhaps your adult reading level hasn't helped you distinguish basic concepts yet. It's okay. I understand your pain, that your party's leader is total fool, and you have to parse things out differently so you don't feel embarrassed every time you wake up and read the news and/or the latest flaming hot pile of sh**t tweets.

But, I digress, regardless of whether he goes on to justify the initial statement with some suggestion of number tampering, the initial statement remains true--a declarative sentence stating that "3,000 people did not die."

Also, it seems that you don't know what a "sentence" is. The most basic definition is that it is a noun and a verb in a grammatical clause. The full first sentence is "3000 people did not die in the two hurricanes that hit Puerto Rico," and that's it.

So, while you're on your little train of condescension, because you really have nothing else to say or do to defend the disgusting actions of this president, at least make sure you know what you're talking about.

I would gladly treat you better if you know how to have reasonable discourse, but please do take the same medicine you dish out. In fact, swallow it. I couldn't care less.

Few things I want to point out
1. I'm not a Republican, never have identified as one (my Atlas avatar is mostly a joke between me and a few posters), and have no plans to ever actually affiliate with the Republican Party. So I'll stop you there on the whole "your party" nonsense.  
2. It actually seems that you are the one who doesn't know what a sentence is. As you pointed out, the first sentence is "3000 people did not die in the two hurricanes that hit Puerto Rico," but all you are focusing on, and is even quoted in there is "3000 people did not die" (you actually repeated it three times). If you actually read the full first sentence, he isn't denying that 3000 people died, he is denying that 3000 people died in the hurricanes. So my point still stands.
3. I never defended the actions of the President. I made that pretty clear. Here, I'll quote it again and even bold the parts since you're having such a hard time:

Like I said, I don't approve with how the administration handled the situation post-Maria. I have family that was displaced, some that still are, and the ones still with their farms lost much of their crops in the hurricane. He is dumb when it comes to the numbers he's using in his tweet, he is dumb to blame the numbers on the Democrats, and he is dumb to claim that his administration's response to Maria was a success. But it is fair for him to question the actual cause of their deaths given the long gap that the Govt of Puerto Rico left jumping from 64 to almost 3000 and the fact that the island has suffered with substandard infrastructure for a long time.

4. I don't really care about how you treat me, but at least come up with a better argument next time you make an attempt to give me "the same medicine you dish out".

There's no reasoning with ProudModerate2.  None.

[Dr. Arch]

Figures that folks like Doctor Imperialism and ProudModerate2 are continuing their providing nothing of value to the forum.

That nonsense aside, Trump and others who already pointed it out here weren't exactly wrong in that the large numbers of people who died weren't because of the hurricane, but rather horrible infrastructure that has always been a problem on the island. The hurricane just made that disaster in waiting happen sooner rather than later.

I don't agree with how the administration handled things post-Maria, and I don't agree with blaming the Democrats for the numbers, but he didn't deny their deaths, just the cause of their deaths.

You are giving far, far, FAR too much credit to his intellect and restraint.

He absolutely is denying the number of deaths here.

BTW, your first sentence absolutely belongs in the irony ore mine.

That nonsense aside, Trump and others who already pointed it out here weren't exactly wrong in that the large numbers of people who died weren't because of the hurricane, but rather horrible infrastructure that has always been a problem on the island. The hurricane just made that disaster in waiting happen sooner rather than later.

I don't agree with how the administration handled things post-Maria, and I don't agree with blaming the Democrats for the numbers, but he didn't deny their deaths, just the cause of their deaths.

"3000 people did not die" "3000 people did not die" "3000 did not die"

Reading really shouldn't be this difficult for you two. If he just said 3000 people did not die, then yes, the argument that he is denying their deaths would be accurate. But if you actually read the entire first sentence, he is obviously denying the cause of their deaths.

I get that Trump Derangement Syndrome has affected the both of you pretty hard, but you don't need to cherry pick the things he says to find something you don't like.

Oh, we're reading just fine. Unless you're referring to comprehension? Maybe, but perhaps your adult reading level hasn't helped you distinguish basic concepts yet. It's okay. I understand your pain, that your party's leader is total fool, and you have to parse things out differently so you don't feel embarrassed every time you wake up and read the news and/or the latest flaming hot pile of sh**t tweets.

But, I digress, regardless of whether he goes on to justify the initial statement with some suggestion of number tampering, the initial statement remains true--a declarative sentence stating that "3,000 people did not die."

Also, it seems that you don't know what a "sentence" is. The most basic definition is that it is a noun and a verb in a grammatical clause. The full first sentence is "3000 people did not die in the two hurricanes that hit Puerto Rico," and that's it.

So, while you're on your little train of condescension, because you really have nothing else to say or do to defend the disgusting actions of this president, at least make sure you know what you're talking about.

I would gladly treat you better if you know how to have reasonable discourse, but please do take the same medicine you dish out. In fact, swallow it. I couldn't care less.

Few things I want to point out
1. I'm not a Republican, never have identified as one (my Atlas avatar is mostly a joke between me and a few posters), and have no plans to ever actually affiliate with the Republican Party. So I'll stop you there on the whole "your party" nonsense. 
2. It actually seems that you are the one who doesn't know what a sentence is. As you pointed out, the first sentence is "3000 people did not die in the two hurricanes that hit Puerto Rico," but all you are focusing on, and is even quoted in there is "3000 people did not die" (you actually repeated it three times). If you actually read the full first sentence, he isn't denying that 3000 people died, he is denying that 3000 people died in the hurricanes. So my point still stands.
3. I never defended the actions of the President. I made that pretty clear. Here, I'll quote it again and even bold the parts since you're having such a hard time:

Like I said, I don't approve with how the administration handled the situation post-Maria. I have family that was displaced, some that still are, and the ones still with their farms lost much of their crops in the hurricane. He is dumb when it comes to the numbers he's using in his tweet, he is dumb to blame the numbers on the Democrats, and he is dumb to claim that his administration's response to Maria was a success. But it is fair for him to question the actual cause of their deaths given the long gap that the Govt of Puerto Rico left jumping from 64 to almost 3000 and the fact that the island has suffered with substandard infrastructure for a long time.

4. I don't really care about how you treat me, but at least come up with a better argument next time you make an attempt to give me "the same medicine you dish out".

1. I'm sorry that the forum is not privy to an inside joke, silly me. You wear the avatar, then my reasonable assumption is exactly that, and you can expect that from anyone else.

2. "3,000 people did not die" is actually a full and grammatical sentence, regardless of whether it has prepositional phrases attached. In my second post, I quoted the whole thing, which includes  what you quoted above, so the "you do not know" point kind of falls off the rail from the get-go.

I'll add, hurricane death tolls include deaths as a direct and indirect cause of the phenomenon. It is not only logical, but expected that the updated count includes people who did not die at the moment of the impact. Trump is using this as a diversion to confuse people who don't know this little tidbit. The fact that you argue that he meant -only during the hurricane- doesn't really help either his case (for his either willful ignorance of how this is done or his intentional diversion) or your case, for the same reasons.

3. After all those statements about the "administration," you proceed to give him a "fair" point in questioning the toll. That's all that needs to be said there.

4. I wasn't trying to argue more than be condescending for the sake of it, just like you were. It worked out just fine, so them's the breaks.

[7,052,770]

Anyone with a basic understanding of English can read the entire Tweet and see that he's denying the 3000 deaths happened at all. He literally blames Democrats for fabricating the number!

Trump Derangement Syndrome refers to the lengths his fans (or non-fans on this thread I guess) go to defend him and recast every sentence he utters into "well technically he wasn't wrong"

[Dr. Arch]

Anyone with a basic understanding of English can read the entire Tweet and see that he's denying the 3000 deaths happened at all. He literally blames Democrats for fabricating the number!

Trump Derangement Syndrome refers to the lengths his fans (or non-fans on this thread I guess) go to defend him and recast every sentence he utters into "well technically he wasn't wrong"

[The DEI Hire]

Figures that folks like Doctor Imperialism and ProudModerate2 are continuing their providing nothing of value to the forum.

That nonsense aside, Trump and others who already pointed it out here weren't exactly wrong in that the large numbers of people who died weren't because of the hurricane, but rather horrible infrastructure that has always been a problem on the island. The hurricane just made that disaster in waiting happen sooner rather than later.

I don't agree with how the administration handled things post-Maria, and I don't agree with blaming the Democrats for the numbers, but he didn't deny their deaths, just the cause of their deaths.

You are giving far, far, FAR too much credit to his intellect and restraint.

He absolutely is denying the number of deaths here.

BTW, your first sentence absolutely belongs in the irony ore mine.

That nonsense aside, Trump and others who already pointed it out here weren't exactly wrong in that the large numbers of people who died weren't because of the hurricane, but rather horrible infrastructure that has always been a problem on the island. The hurricane just made that disaster in waiting happen sooner rather than later.

I don't agree with how the administration handled things post-Maria, and I don't agree with blaming the Democrats for the numbers, but he didn't deny their deaths, just the cause of their deaths.

"3000 people did not die" "3000 people did not die" "3000 did not die"

Reading really shouldn't be this difficult for you two. If he just said 3000 people did not die, then yes, the argument that he is denying their deaths would be accurate. But if you actually read the entire first sentence, he is obviously denying the cause of their deaths.

I get that Trump Derangement Syndrome has affected the both of you pretty hard, but you don't need to cherry pick the things he says to find something you don't like.

Oh, we're reading just fine. Unless you're referring to comprehension? Maybe, but perhaps your adult reading level hasn't helped you distinguish basic concepts yet. It's okay. I understand your pain, that your party's leader is total fool, and you have to parse things out differently so you don't feel embarrassed every time you wake up and read the news and/or the latest flaming hot pile of sh**t tweets.

But, I digress, regardless of whether he goes on to justify the initial statement with some suggestion of number tampering, the initial statement remains true--a declarative sentence stating that "3,000 people did not die."

Also, it seems that you don't know what a "sentence" is. The most basic definition is that it is a noun and a verb in a grammatical clause. The full first sentence is "3000 people did not die in the two hurricanes that hit Puerto Rico," and that's it.

So, while you're on your little train of condescension, because you really have nothing else to say or do to defend the disgusting actions of this president, at least make sure you know what you're talking about.

I would gladly treat you better if you know how to have reasonable discourse, but please do take the same medicine you dish out. In fact, swallow it. I couldn't care less.

Few things I want to point out
1. I'm not a Republican, never have identified as one (my Atlas avatar is mostly a joke between me and a few posters), and have no plans to ever actually affiliate with the Republican Party. So I'll stop you there on the whole "your party" nonsense. 
2. It actually seems that you are the one who doesn't know what a sentence is. As you pointed out, the first sentence is "3000 people did not die in the two hurricanes that hit Puerto Rico," but all you are focusing on, and is even quoted in there is "3000 people did not die" (you actually repeated it three times). If you actually read the full first sentence, he isn't denying that 3000 people died, he is denying that 3000 people died in the hurricanes. So my point still stands.
3. I never defended the actions of the President. I made that pretty clear. Here, I'll quote it again and even bold the parts since you're having such a hard time:

Like I said, I don't approve with how the administration handled the situation post-Maria. I have family that was displaced, some that still are, and the ones still with their farms lost much of their crops in the hurricane. He is dumb when it comes to the numbers he's using in his tweet, he is dumb to blame the numbers on the Democrats, and he is dumb to claim that his administration's response to Maria was a success. But it is fair for him to question the actual cause of their deaths given the long gap that the Govt of Puerto Rico left jumping from 64 to almost 3000 and the fact that the island has suffered with substandard infrastructure for a long time.

4. I don't really care about how you treat me, but at least come up with a better argument next time you make an attempt to give me "the same medicine you dish out".

1. I'm sorry that the forum is not privy to an inside joke, silly me. You wear the avatar, then my reasonable assumption is exactly that, and you can expect that from anyone else.

2. "3,000 people did not die" is actually a full and grammatical sentence, regardless of whether it has prepositional phrases attached. In my second post, I quoted the whole thing, which includes  what you quoted above, so the "you do not know" point kind of falls off the rail from the get-go.

I'll add, hurricane death tolls include deaths as a direct and indirect cause of the phenomenon. It is not only logical, but expected that the updated count includes people who did not die at the moment of the impact. Trump is using this as a diversion to confuse people who don't know this little tidbit. The fact that you argue that he meant -only during the hurricane- doesn't really help either his case (for his either willful ignorance of how this is done or his intentional diversion) or your case, for the same reasons.

3. After all those statements about the "administration," you proceed to give him a "fair" point in questioning the toll. That's all that needs to be said there.

4. I wasn't trying to argue more than be condescending for the sake of it, just like you were. It worked out just fine, so them's the breaks.

Plenty of Atlas users change avatars to parties they aren't actually affiliated with. It's nothing new on the forum.

I'm well aware that the final death toll includes direct and indirect numbers, I never denied that. There was nothing wrong with the "to be fair" point because if you look at someone who has a lot of issues they need to worry about at once such as the President, of course they need to rely on official government reports. So for someone to see the number stay at 64 for a year then jump to 3000, they're obviously going to question it. I realize the hurricanes were the straw that broke the camel's back in Puerto Rico, but I'm not going to blame Trump for the fact that infrastructure issues were the real cause of death for most of these people, because that was a concern long before Trump ever took office.

[ProudModerate2]

Figures that folks like Doctor Imperialism and ProudModerate2 are continuing their providing nothing of value to the forum.

That nonsense aside, Trump and others who already pointed it out here weren't exactly wrong in that the large numbers of people who died weren't because of the hurricane, but rather horrible infrastructure that has always been a problem on the island. The hurricane just made that disaster in waiting happen sooner rather than later.

I don't agree with how the administration handled things post-Maria, and I don't agree with blaming the Democrats for the numbers, but he didn't deny their deaths, just the cause of their deaths.

You are giving far, far, FAR too much credit to his intellect and restraint.

He absolutely is denying the number of deaths here.

BTW, your first sentence absolutely belongs in the irony ore mine.

That nonsense aside, Trump and others who already pointed it out here weren't exactly wrong in that the large numbers of people who died weren't because of the hurricane, but rather horrible infrastructure that has always been a problem on the island. The hurricane just made that disaster in waiting happen sooner rather than later.

I don't agree with how the administration handled things post-Maria, and I don't agree with blaming the Democrats for the numbers, but he didn't deny their deaths, just the cause of their deaths.

"3000 people did not die" "3000 people did not die" "3000 did not die"

Reading really shouldn't be this difficult for you two. If he just said 3000 people did not die, then yes, the argument that he is denying their deaths would be accurate. But if you actually read the entire first sentence, he is obviously denying the cause of their deaths.

I get that Trump Derangement Syndrome has affected the both of you pretty hard, but you don't need to cherry pick the things he says to find something you don't like.

Oh, we're reading just fine. Unless you're referring to comprehension? Maybe, but perhaps your adult reading level hasn't helped you distinguish basic concepts yet. It's okay. I understand your pain, that your party's leader is total fool, and you have to parse things out differently so you don't feel embarrassed every time you wake up and read the news and/or the latest flaming hot pile of sh**t tweets.

But, I digress, regardless of whether he goes on to justify the initial statement with some suggestion of number tampering, the initial statement remains true--a declarative sentence stating that "3,000 people did not die."

Also, it seems that you don't know what a "sentence" is. The most basic definition is that it is a noun and a verb in a grammatical clause. The full first sentence is "3000 people did not die in the two hurricanes that hit Puerto Rico," and that's it.

So, while you're on your little train of condescension, because you really have nothing else to say or do to defend the disgusting actions of this president, at least make sure you know what you're talking about.

I would gladly treat you better if you know how to have reasonable discourse, but please do take the same medicine you dish out. In fact, swallow it. I couldn't care less.

Few things I want to point out
1. I'm not a Republican, never have identified as one (my Atlas avatar is mostly a joke between me and a few posters), and have no plans to ever actually affiliate with the Republican Party. So I'll stop you there on the whole "your party" nonsense. 
2. It actually seems that you are the one who doesn't know what a sentence is. As you pointed out, the first sentence is "3000 people did not die in the two hurricanes that hit Puerto Rico," but all you are focusing on, and is even quoted in there is "3000 people did not die" (you actually repeated it three times). If you actually read the full first sentence, he isn't denying that 3000 people died, he is denying that 3000 people died in the hurricanes. So my point still stands.
3. I never defended the actions of the President. I made that pretty clear. Here, I'll quote it again and even bold the parts since you're having such a hard time:

Like I said, I don't approve with how the administration handled the situation post-Maria. I have family that was displaced, some that still are, and the ones still with their farms lost much of their crops in the hurricane. He is dumb when it comes to the numbers he's using in his tweet, he is dumb to blame the numbers on the Democrats, and he is dumb to claim that his administration's response to Maria was a success. But it is fair for him to question the actual cause of their deaths given the long gap that the Govt of Puerto Rico left jumping from 64 to almost 3000 and the fact that the island has suffered with substandard infrastructure for a long time.

4. I don't really care about how you treat me, but at least come up with a better argument next time you make an attempt to give me "the same medicine you dish out".

There's no reasoning with ProudModerate2.  None.

LMAO.
Hey ..... Fake Christian ...
fhtagn is not responding to a post of mine. She is responding to Arch.
I'm not in this post chain at all. Open your eyes and read it again.
You are totally obsessed with me at this hour. I must have touched a nerve, because you are acting like a chicken without a head.

[The DEI Hire]

Anyone with a basic understanding of English can read the entire Tweet and see that he's denying the 3000 deaths happened at all. He literally blames Democrats for fabricating the number!

Trump Derangement Syndrome refers to the lengths his fans (or non-fans on this thread I guess) go to defend him and recast every sentence he utters into "well technically he wasn't wrong"

Please point out where tweets specifically state those deaths never happened, without cherry picking.

He even says in the second tweet that he thinks people who died of causes unrelated to the hurricane were added to those numbers "If a person died for any reason, like old age, just add them to the list". He isn't saying these people never died, he's questioning how they died and were added to the most recent numbers.

[Sestak]

fhtagn, the point you don't seem to addressing is that Trump isn't questioning here. He's stating them as if they were facts. As if the "6 to 18" was the real number of people who died in the storm and the 3000 is definitively a fabrication by the Democrats.

To question it is one thing. To state it is another.

[The DEI Hire]

fhtagn, the point you don't seem to addressing is that Trump isn't questioning here. He's stating them as if they were facts. As if the "6 to 18" was the real number of people who died in the storm and the 3000 is definitively a fabrication by the Democrats.

To question it is one thing. To state it is another.

I already pointed out that he was wrong about the numbers. I've said it more than once in this thread.
I also already said that I disagreed with him blaming the Democrats for it.

I just don't agree with the false claim on here that he's denying that these deaths even happened.

[Take your vitamins and say your prayers, Brother!]

fhtagn, the point you don't seem to addressing is that Trump isn't questioning here. He's stating them as if they were facts. As if the "6 to 18" was the real number of people who died in the storm and the 3000 is definitively a fabrication by the Democrats.

To question it is one thing. To state it is another.

I already pointed out that he was wrong about the numbers. I've said it more than once in this thread.
I also already said that I disagreed with him blaming the Democrats for it.

I just don't agree with the false claim on here that he's denying that these deaths even happened.

The question is not what Trump said.  The question is how much blame Trump should be assigned in the 3,000 deaths, versus blame for the infrastructure situation that was present pre-Maria.

The people driving this thread are not interested in public policy.  They are interested in driving a narrative, which, however accurate, will do little to solve the problem here.

Trump, the tone-deaf doofus and Trump, the person whose policies are often surprisingly viable, are two different conversations.  People are clinging to Trump's statements because they are vintage Trump, but they are not pointing to a narrative of how Trump's FEMA specifically made the problem worse.  And that may well be the case, but no one's making that case here.

[7,052,770]

fhtagn, the point you don't seem to addressing is that Trump isn't questioning here. He's stating them as if they were facts. As if the "6 to 18" was the real number of people who died in the storm and the 3000 is definitively a fabrication by the Democrats.

To question it is one thing. To state it is another.

I already pointed out that he was wrong about the numbers. I've said it more than once in this thread.
I also already said that I disagreed with him blaming the Democrats for it.

I just don't agree with the false claim on here that he's denying that these deaths even happened.

I don't understand what you're making a big deal over? We all agree that 3,000 is the death toll and Trump is being a total moron by saying that it "did not go up by much" from 18 and that the 3,000 is a fabrication.

I mean, the total number of deaths in Puerto Rico since the storm would be over 30,000 if you count everything and assume a 1% death rate per year. Trump's insinuation that people are just taking regular deaths and counting them as storm deaths is wrong by an order of magnitude.

I don't think anyone here is alleging that Trump has claimed that the island suddenly became immortal, so you're either arguing just to argue (probably because you and some other posters have a weird beef that I've never understood the cause of), or you're just pedantically splitting hairs
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Mette Frederiksen Stan]

Anyone with a basic understanding of English can read the entire Tweet and see that he's denying the 3000 deaths happened at all. He literally blames Democrats for fabricating the number!

Trump Derangement Syndrome refers to the lengths his fans (or non-fans on this thread I guess) go to defend him and recast every sentence he utters into "well technically he wasn't wrong"

[Hammy]

nuke this thread

[ProudModerate2]

fhtagn, the point you don't seem to addressing is that Trump isn't questioning here. He's stating them as if they were facts. As if the "6 to 18" was the real number of people who died in the storm and the 3000 is definitively a fabrication by the Democrats.

To question it is one thing. To state it is another.

I already pointed out that he was wrong about the numbers. I've said it more than once in this thread.
I also already said that I disagreed with him blaming the Democrats for it.

I just don't agree with the false claim on here that he's denying that these deaths even happened.

The question is not what Trump said.  The question is how much blame Trump should be assigned in the 3,000 deaths, versus blame for the infrastructure situation that was present pre-Maria.

The people driving this thread are not interested in public policy.  They are interested in driving a narrative, which, however accurate, will do little to solve the problem here.

Trump, the tone-deaf doofus and Trump, the person whose policies are often surprisingly viable, are two different conversations.  People are clinging to Trump's statements because they are vintage Trump, but they are not pointing to a narrative of how Trump's FEMA specifically made the problem worse.  And that may well be the case, but no one's making that case here.

No Fuzzy, the question IS what trump said.
This thread was created because of what trump said, as indicated by his copied Tweet in the OP.
That is the topic ... that is the subject.
It is you that is trying to "drive" and steer this car to another zip code altogether.
If you want to create a separate thread on the discussion of how much blame trump and/or "infrastructure" had on the deaths, then you should go and do so.

[Take your vitamins and say your prayers, Brother!]

Figures that folks like Doctor Imperialism and ProudModerate2 are continuing their providing nothing of value to the forum.

That nonsense aside, Trump and others who already pointed it out here weren't exactly wrong in that the large numbers of people who died weren't because of the hurricane, but rather horrible infrastructure that has always been a problem on the island. The hurricane just made that disaster in waiting happen sooner rather than later.

I don't agree with how the administration handled things post-Maria, and I don't agree with blaming the Democrats for the numbers, but he didn't deny their deaths, just the cause of their deaths.

You are giving far, far, FAR too much credit to his intellect and restraint.

He absolutely is denying the number of deaths here.

BTW, your first sentence absolutely belongs in the irony ore mine.

That nonsense aside, Trump and others who already pointed it out here weren't exactly wrong in that the large numbers of people who died weren't because of the hurricane, but rather horrible infrastructure that has always been a problem on the island. The hurricane just made that disaster in waiting happen sooner rather than later.

I don't agree with how the administration handled things post-Maria, and I don't agree with blaming the Democrats for the numbers, but he didn't deny their deaths, just the cause of their deaths.

"3000 people did not die" "3000 people did not die" "3000 did not die"

Reading really shouldn't be this difficult for you two. If he just said 3000 people did not die, then yes, the argument that he is denying their deaths would be accurate. But if you actually read the entire first sentence, he is obviously denying the cause of their deaths.

I get that Trump Derangement Syndrome has affected the both of you pretty hard, but you don't need to cherry pick the things he says to find something you don't like.

Oh, we're reading just fine. Unless you're referring to comprehension? Maybe, but perhaps your adult reading level hasn't helped you distinguish basic concepts yet. It's okay. I understand your pain, that your party's leader is total fool, and you have to parse things out differently so you don't feel embarrassed every time you wake up and read the news and/or the latest flaming hot pile of sh**t tweets.

But, I digress, regardless of whether he goes on to justify the initial statement with some suggestion of number tampering, the initial statement remains true--a declarative sentence stating that "3,000 people did not die."

Also, it seems that you don't know what a "sentence" is. The most basic definition is that it is a noun and a verb in a grammatical clause. The full first sentence is "3000 people did not die in the two hurricanes that hit Puerto Rico," and that's it.

So, while you're on your little train of condescension, because you really have nothing else to say or do to defend the disgusting actions of this president, at least make sure you know what you're talking about.

I would gladly treat you better if you know how to have reasonable discourse, but please do take the same medicine you dish out. In fact, swallow it. I couldn't care less.

Few things I want to point out
1. I'm not a Republican, never have identified as one (my Atlas avatar is mostly a joke between me and a few posters), and have no plans to ever actually affiliate with the Republican Party. So I'll stop you there on the whole "your party" nonsense. 
2. It actually seems that you are the one who doesn't know what a sentence is. As you pointed out, the first sentence is "3000 people did not die in the two hurricanes that hit Puerto Rico," but all you are focusing on, and is even quoted in there is "3000 people did not die" (you actually repeated it three times). If you actually read the full first sentence, he isn't denying that 3000 people died, he is denying that 3000 people died in the hurricanes. So my point still stands.
3. I never defended the actions of the President. I made that pretty clear. Here, I'll quote it again and even bold the parts since you're having such a hard time:

Like I said, I don't approve with how the administration handled the situation post-Maria. I have family that was displaced, some that still are, and the ones still with their farms lost much of their crops in the hurricane. He is dumb when it comes to the numbers he's using in his tweet, he is dumb to blame the numbers on the Democrats, and he is dumb to claim that his administration's response to Maria was a success. But it is fair for him to question the actual cause of their deaths given the long gap that the Govt of Puerto Rico left jumping from 64 to almost 3000 and the fact that the island has suffered with substandard infrastructure for a long time.

4. I don't really care about how you treat me, but at least come up with a better argument next time you make an attempt to give me "the same medicine you dish out".

There's no reasoning with ProudModerate2.  None.

LMAO.
Hey ..... Fake Christian ...
fhtagn is not responding to a post of mine. She is responding to Arch.
I'm not in this post chain at all. Open your eyes and read it again.
You are totally obsessed with me at this hour. I must have touched a nerve, because you are acting like a chicken without a head.

I've not forgotten that when I posted an account of my own life regarding one of my grandchildren being aborted, you called me a liar, and said I was making it up.

Whatever one thinks of me, I don't make up tragedies to milk.  

I haven't forgotten that you taunted another poster, really quite unmercilessly.  

And I notice that you resumed your attacks on me once you learned that you weren't going to be sanctioned by the mods.  That's fine; now I know that your modus operandi is OK within the ToS around here.  I'm sure everything I do and say here is OK with the mods, because everything you've said and done is OK with them.

I doubt you've ever made someone else's life better.  I'm sure you know how to whine, but I doubt you've never made anyone's life better.  Because if you had, you'd be a different kind of poster here.  Maybe not like me, but your life's mission is for you to prove you're a better person than Donald Trump.  OK, you win.  You're better than Roy Moore, too, if we're going to set a low bar.  But you aren't Gary Condit even on your best day.

You've designated yourself as an attack dog for me.  That's fine, too; you haven't been sanctioned for it.  Since you're not too sharp at reading people, you'll notice that I'm more thick-skinned than you, and I can maintain coherence while going on offense.  I don't need pictures of laughing heads to make my point.  You are, indeed, the kind of person that makes political discourse tough here.  Your name-calling is what it is, but it appears to be OK here.  

But you add nothing constructive here.  Nothing.  And I doubt you've ever left a constructive legacy anywhere in your life.  Since it's OK to call me a liar, I'm sure it's OK for me to draw this conclusion and share it.  Live with that legacy.

[ag]

Since you're not too sharp at reading people, you'll notice that I'm more thick-skinned than you, and I can maintain coherence while going on offense.

Now, sir. Whatever else you say here, but this statement is at clear variance with observable facts

[Sic Semper Tyrannis]

Trump could shoot a man to death on fifth avenue and blue avatars would be claiming they were just warning shots.

[ag]

Trump could shoot a man to death on fifth avenue and blue avatars would be claiming they were just warning shots.

Standing his ground, you know.

[ProudModerate2]

I've not forgotten that when I posted an account of my own life regarding one of my grandchildren being aborted, you called me a liar, and said I was making it up.

Whatever one thinks of me, I don't make up tragedies to milk.  

I haven't forgotten that you taunted another poster, really quite unmercilessly.  

And I notice that you resumed your attacks on me once you learned that you weren't going to be sanctioned by the mods.  That's fine; now I know that your modus operandi is OK within the ToS around here.  I'm sure everything I do and say here is OK with the mods, because everything you've said and done is OK with them.

I doubt you've ever made someone else's life better.  I'm sure you know how to whine, but I doubt you've never made anyone's life better.  Because if you had, you'd be a different kind of poster here.  Maybe not like me, but your life's mission is for you to prove you're a better person than Donald Trump.  OK, you win.  You're better than Roy Moore, too, if we're going to set a low bar.  But you aren't Gary Condit even on your best day.

You've designated yourself as an attack dog for me.  That's fine, too; you haven't been sanctioned for it.  Since you're not too sharp at reading people, you'll notice that I'm more thick-skinned than you, and I can maintain coherence while going on offense.  I don't need pictures of laughing heads to make my point.  You are, indeed, the kind of person that makes political discourse tough here.  Your name-calling is what it is, but it appears to be OK here.  

But you add nothing constructive here.  Nothing.  And I doubt you've ever left a constructive legacy anywhere in your life.  Since it's OK to call me a liar, I'm sure it's OK for me to draw this conclusion and share it.  Live with that legacy.

Listen SnowFlake.
You go around from one thread to another, many times posting and commenting about me in a snarky way, where I have not said a single thing about you.
So you look for trouble, and I give it to you back, bigtime. As Stallone said, you "drew first blood, not me." So don't go on your crying ways (like here), having a tantrum. I mean, listen to yourself right now, it's pathetic. Practically begging for mommy's help.

Secondly, and I have said this before, your disguised bigotry towards others with a different sexual orientation or different colored skin is horrendous.
I for one will not put up with it, and I don't care how many Bible versus or "toned down" words you use to achieve your hatred objective. I will continue to disclose it, and I will point out every vile bone in your entire body. That I promise you.

[The DEI Hire]

I've not forgotten that when I posted an account of my own life regarding one of my grandchildren being aborted, you called me a liar, and said I was making it up.

Whatever one thinks of me, I don't make up tragedies to milk.  

I haven't forgotten that you taunted another poster, really quite unmercilessly.  

And I notice that you resumed your attacks on me once you learned that you weren't going to be sanctioned by the mods.  That's fine; now I know that your modus operandi is OK within the ToS around here.  I'm sure everything I do and say here is OK with the mods, because everything you've said and done is OK with them.

I doubt you've ever made someone else's life better.  I'm sure you know how to whine, but I doubt you've never made anyone's life better.  Because if you had, you'd be a different kind of poster here.  Maybe not like me, but your life's mission is for you to prove you're a better person than Donald Trump.  OK, you win.  You're better than Roy Moore, too, if we're going to set a low bar.  But you aren't Gary Condit even on your best day.

You've designated yourself as an attack dog for me.  That's fine, too; you haven't been sanctioned for it.  Since you're not too sharp at reading people, you'll notice that I'm more thick-skinned than you, and I can maintain coherence while going on offense.  I don't need pictures of laughing heads to make my point.  You are, indeed, the kind of person that makes political discourse tough here.  Your name-calling is what it is, but it appears to be OK here.  

But you add nothing constructive here.  Nothing.  And I doubt you've ever left a constructive legacy anywhere in your life.  Since it's OK to call me a liar, I'm sure it's OK for me to draw this conclusion and share it.  Live with that legacy.

Listen SnowFlake.
You go around from one thread to another, many times posting and commenting about me in a snarky way, where I have not said a single thing about you.
So you look for trouble, and I give it to you back, bigtime. As Stallone said, you "drew first blood, not me." So don't go on your crying ways (like here), having a tantrum. I mean, listen to yourself right now, it's pathetic. Practically begging for mommy's help.

Secondly, and I have said this before, your disguised bigotry towards others with a different sexual orientation or different colored skin is horrendous.
I for one will not put up with it, and I don't care how many Bible versus or "toned down" words you use to achieve your hatred objective. I will continue to disclose it, and I will point out every vile bone in your entire body. That I promise you.

I'm neither white, straight, nor Christian but get along just fine with Fuzzy Bear. Seems it's you who has the real issues.

[Kingpoleon]

3000 Puerto Ricans = ~12 REAL AMERICANS

[ag]

I'm neither white, straight, nor Christian but get along just fine with Fuzzy Bear. Seems it's you who has the real issues.

So, you are Fuzzy's requisite "Jewish friend"?