It’s not a vacation. He’s there on a planned political trip.
I hate the defend the guy because he’s an idiot, but this outrage as if this is like when cruz fles the state on an actual vacation to avoid a situation he helped cause doesn’t make any sense.
But then again, it’s not about making sense, it’s about being the most outraged over this.
“While I am in Taiwan, South Korea & Japan working on business deals worth billions, I remain in daily contact with Texas Division of Emergency Management & local officials to ensure preparation for Hurricane Beryl. Your safety is our top concern,” he wrote.
Until investment transparency exists in Texas (and elsewhere) to show who’s pockets grow, it was a business trip worth billions. Texas is not his only business, and they are his top concern.
So your complaint is that the stated purpose of the trip is not actually the purpose of the trip. I can’t disprove your conspiracy theory, but you’re effectively agreeing with me that the outrage is misplaced.
We’ve gone from it being a vacation, to a conspiracy theory, to now out of order priorities.
I agree that he should stay, but the ever shifting justification for the outrage, without any admission that the previous explanations were contrived, just kind of proves my point that this isn’t about being reasonable, but outraged.
A hurricane has a serious impact on the people and infrastructure of a state. A governor unwilling to put an emergency among the people he was elected to represent ahead of a foreign investment trip deserves every drop of the outrage that he brings upon himself.
This is an example of when outrage is real and deserved rather than manufactured. Your hand waving is out of place.
Whether he deserves “every drop of outrage” is subjective, so hard to argue with you on that.
However, you’re arguing here a case of priorities, one I agree with.
But the top level poster is claiming that he’s going on vacation instead. Which is not reasonable. It’s basically lying. Which is my point: it’s not about being reasonable (in your case pointing out misplaced priorities), it’s about being as outraged as possible (spinning it into a vacation).
You seem like a reasonable person, so don’t defend this garbage.
I was commenting on the garbage decision of the governor to leave the state, rather than the garbage decision of OP to make up or repeat misinformation that it was outrage over a Cruz vacation. I’m with you on avoiding manufactured outrage.
“It’s not a vacation. He’s there on a planned political trip.” can be seen defense of the governor when you omit the details.
You didn’t just call out OP’s bad information garbage, you implied, whether intentionally or not, that there was no issue of what the governor was doing.
You didn’t just call out OP’s bad information garbage, you implied, whether intentionally or not, that there was no issue of what the governor was doing.
In my own defense, I did not imply it, you inferred it probably because you interpreted any defense of him, despite being couched in trepidation of defending him at all, as a defense of the trip.
I can see why explicitly not saying it I left this open to interpretation, so I don’t consider myself blameless, but I certainly did not imply it.
It’s not a vacation. He’s there on a planned political trip.
I hate the defend the guy because he’s an idiot, but this outrage as if this is like when cruz fles the state on an actual vacation to avoid a situation he helped cause doesn’t make any sense.
But then again, it’s not about making sense, it’s about being the most outraged over this.
Until investment transparency exists in Texas (and elsewhere) to show who’s pockets grow, it was a business trip worth billions. Texas is not his only business, and they are his top concern.
So your complaint is that the stated purpose of the trip is not actually the purpose of the trip. I can’t disprove your conspiracy theory, but you’re effectively agreeing with me that the outrage is misplaced.
If an on-call senior systems administrator has plans, but a server goes down, do they continue on with their plans? Or go work on it?
Governor is a job title. You place yourself where your priorities are. There is no conspiracy in that.
We’ve gone from it being a vacation, to a conspiracy theory, to now out of order priorities.
I agree that he should stay, but the ever shifting justification for the outrage, without any admission that the previous explanations were contrived, just kind of proves my point that this isn’t about being reasonable, but outraged.
I haven’t been on that ride with you. It’s been about priorities for me since my first comment (for this particular episode, of which there are many).
Actually I take that back, I reread your comment and I misinterpreted it. My bad.
A hurricane has a serious impact on the people and infrastructure of a state. A governor unwilling to put an emergency among the people he was elected to represent ahead of a foreign investment trip deserves every drop of the outrage that he brings upon himself.
This is an example of when outrage is real and deserved rather than manufactured. Your hand waving is out of place.
Whether he deserves “every drop of outrage” is subjective, so hard to argue with you on that.
However, you’re arguing here a case of priorities, one I agree with.
But the top level poster is claiming that he’s going on vacation instead. Which is not reasonable. It’s basically lying. Which is my point: it’s not about being reasonable (in your case pointing out misplaced priorities), it’s about being as outraged as possible (spinning it into a vacation).
You seem like a reasonable person, so don’t defend this garbage.
I do try to remain reasonable.
I was commenting on the garbage decision of the governor to leave the state, rather than the garbage decision of OP to make up or repeat misinformation that it was outrage over a Cruz vacation. I’m with you on avoiding manufactured outrage.
“It’s not a vacation. He’s there on a planned political trip.” can be seen defense of the governor when you omit the details.
You didn’t just call out OP’s bad information garbage, you implied, whether intentionally or not, that there was no issue of what the governor was doing.
That is what compelled my reply.
In my own defense, I did not imply it, you inferred it probably because you interpreted any defense of him, despite being couched in trepidation of defending him at all, as a defense of the trip.
I can see why explicitly not saying it I left this open to interpretation, so I don’t consider myself blameless, but I certainly did not imply it.