[juner]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/20/us/politics/paul-manafort-resigns-donald-trump.html

Serious campaign chaos and still makes time to go help in Louisiana. Impressive.

[Snupes]

What'd he help with? Serious question.

[juner]

What'd he help with? Serious question.

Donating a semi-truck full of food and supplies, and helping distribute supplies from said truck. Also raising awareness to a catastrophe that the media couldn't be bothered to report on, so much so that the NYT issued a "we are super sorry we blew it" article regarding the lack of coverage.

[garygreen]

a catastrophe that the media couldn't be bothered to report on

you mean the historical flooding that literally every news outlet that outlets news is reporting?

[juner]

a catastrophe that the media couldn't be bothered to report on

you mean the historical flooding that literally every news outlet that outlets news is reporting?

Maybe now because of huge backlash. It was a footnote on the ticker for way too long. I guess the NYT doesn't "outlet news" though and published this just for fun:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/08/16/public-editor/louisiana-flooding-the-times-late-public-editor-liz-spayd.html?_r=0

The Times is not the only news organization being criticized for doing too little too late on the floods. Even so, from my scanning of the media’s reaction, The Times’s performance seems particularly weak.

But yeah, let's pretend like there wasn't an issue. I'm sure something Trump said or some swimmers lying about a story in Rio is way more important to cover than the thousands suffering.

[garygreen]

the flooding started on the friday the 11th.  the first nyt piece appeared on sunday the 13th.  oh wow two whole weekend days that this one outlet didn't cover the flood.

[juner]

the flooding started on the friday the 11th.  the first nyt piece appeared on sunday the 13th.  oh wow two whole weekend days that this one outlet didn't cover the flood.

Cool story, bro. It isn't like there's a 24 hour news cycle or anything... I'm definitely going to take your opinion of the NYT on this matter over an actual editor of the NYT (I'm not).

I'm sure you've looked into all of the outlets that did and didn't provide coverage. You're going to have to try harder.

[garygreen]

i agree with the opinion of the nyt that they did not cover the flood for two days.  gasp.  anyone who didn't know about the louisiana flood until trump visited today probably isn't super into the news.

[juner]

i agree with the opinion of the nyt that they did not cover the flood for two days.  gasp.  anyone who didn't know about the louisiana flood until trump visited today probably isn't super into the news.

I feel like you're intentionally dismissing and minimizing what the crux of the issue is. No one is saying that there was no coverage at all, but rather minimal coverage from news outlets until an uproar occurred. The NYT is one of the most prevalent news sources we have in the US; they admit their fault in the coverage and allude to other outlets that didn't provide adequate coverage as well. The theme here is that this event should've had a lot more coverage than other, less-impactful topics.

Regardless of that. Trump still showed up and helped a lot of people. I think it's at least one positive thing to come from this tragedy. I'm more interested in the helping part at this point, as opposed to the already admitted failure of the news media.

[Rama Set]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/20/us/politics/paul-manafort-resigns-donald-trump.html

Serious campaign chaos and still makes time to go help in Louisiana. Impressive.

The making time to help is part of righting the ship on his campaign. I'm not saying it's not a good thing to do, but you make it seem like this is a huge sacrifice for him. One semi-truck of supplies is nothing to this guy.

[Lord Dave]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/20/us/politics/paul-manafort-resigns-donald-trump.html

Serious campaign chaos and still makes time to go help in Louisiana. Impressive.

The making time to help is part of righting the ship on his campaign. I'm not saying it's not a good thing to do, but you make it seem like this is a huge sacrifice for him. One semi-truck of supplies is nothing to this guy.

Well, donald is direct.  Others get donations in the millions for victims.  Donald gives them Trump Steaks.

[juner]

...you make it seem like this is a huge sacrifice for him.

No, I didn't. It was something worth pointing out. You're the one who wants to reduce it to making up for campaign issues.

One semi-truck of supplies is nothing to this guy.

Ah, there it is. I was waiting for someone to minimize it. How many trucks worth should he have personally provided?

Well, donald is direct.  Others get donations in the millions for victims.  Donald gives them Trump Steaks.

Do you have a source to support any of these claims?

[Lord Dave]

Also, the semi was full of water and diapers and stopped for 15 min. At a time.

[juner]

Also, the semi was full of water and diapers and stopped for 15 min. At a time.

So I'll assume you have no source for your previous claims, then.

As far as your current claim goes, I'm sure there were water and diapers on the truck, as those things are very important to people who have lost everything. If you watched the video for two seconds, you can see there's obviously more than just water and diapers on the truck, though.

If you read or listen to the accounts of people who actually live there, you'll see they're very grateful for the help. That's all that really matters at this point, people getting help.

[Rama Set]

No, I didn't. It was something worth pointing out. You're the one who wants to reduce it to making up for campaign issues.

Donald Trump's track record on human compassion is pretty bad, so this just stinks to high hell. I hope there wasn't any babies crying while he was handing out supplies. Why are you impressed that Donald Trump is helping out?

Ah, there it is. I was waiting for someone to minimize it. How many trucks worth should he have personally provided?

Like I said, I am happy he helped, but one truck of supplies will not go a long way and he has the capacity to do more. I applaud his effort but let's not pretend it's a huge deal. I am personally not impressed, but am happy he did something.

[juner]

Bah, I fucked up my reply on mobile. I'll post again when I'm done moving, not that anyone cares.

Basically yelled at Rama for saying I thought it was impressive when I didn't. Although I did use the word impressive in an earlier post so I can see how that was taken.

[Lord Dave]

Well, donald is direct.  Others get donations in the millions for victims.  Donald gives them Trump Steaks.

Do you have a source to support any of these claims?

Not really, no.  But generally, politicians campaign and ask for donations to X organization to aid in Y disaster if they wanna look good.

Also, the semi was full of water and diapers and stopped for 15 min. At a time.

So I'll assume you have no source for your previous claims, then.

As far as your current claim goes, I'm sure there were water and diapers on the truck, as those things are very important to people who have lost everything. If you watched the video for two seconds, you can see there's obviously more than just water and diapers on the truck, though.

If you read or listen to the accounts of people who actually live there, you'll see they're very grateful for the help. That's all that really matters at this point, people getting help.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/19/donald-trump-louisiana-floods-supplies
Though it seems another video says blanket and cleaning supplies.

Great.
His new campaign manager knows his stuff.

Wonder if he did that during Superstorm Sandy..
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/christie-misspoke-trump-gift-hurricane-sandy-charity-article-1.2716184

Nope.

So this was a publicity stunt.  Great that it helped people, but it's all for his PR, not for any humanitarian reason.

[Rama Set]

Bah, I fucked up my reply on mobile. I'll post again when I'm done moving, not that anyone cares.

Basically yelled at Rama for saying I thought it was impressive when I didn't. Although I did use the word impressive in an earlier post so I can see how that was taken.

Me using the word "sacrifice" was really hyperbolic too.

[Pete Svarrior]

https://blog.chibicode.com/you-can-submit-a-pull-request-to-inject-arbitrary-js-code-into-donald-trumps-site-here-s-how-782aa6a17a56#.g0yzhqz52


Trump is hiring shit people.  Clearly he does not know the best people.

Politics aside, purely on a technological level, this is just about the dumbest drivel I've ever read in my life.

"hey guys did you know that if you edit a public library to say 'trump is a dum-dum' and the maintainer of said public library accepts it, stuff will happen??"

No fucking shit. That's why no self-respecting library maintainer would ever do that, unless they wanted to jettison their software to obscurity. It's like saying that you could add "lol the erth is round!!!" to this website and it would only take one click of a button from Parsifal, Blanko or myself to accept it. It's true on a technicality, but definitely not worth an article in its own right. This is nothing but pandering to the non-technical anti-Trump crowd who will see this article as "Trump did something bad/stupid!" and share it with all their friends.

Yes, sure, there is a mild risk of the maintainer deciding to troll Trump, and I guess it's kinda-sorta mitigated by using a local copy of the library rather than an upstream link (assuming you don't update it regularly, or that you rigorously scrutinise your libraries before updating them). There are some stability and compatibility concerns. But to say that you can arbitrarily inject JS code into his website is a yuuuge stretch.

God damn it I hate people who pretend to understand how shit works.

[Lord Dave]

https://blog.chibicode.com/you-can-submit-a-pull-request-to-inject-arbitrary-js-code-into-donald-trumps-site-here-s-how-782aa6a17a56#.g0yzhqz52


Trump is hiring shit people.  Clearly he does not know the best people.

Politics aside, purely on a technological level, this is just about the dumbest drivel I've ever read in my life.

"hey guys did you know that if you edit a public library to say 'trump is a dum-dum' and the maintainer of said public library accepts it, stuff will happen??"

No fucking shit. That's why no self-respecting library maintainer would ever do that, unless they wanted to jettison their software to obscurity. It's like saying that you could add "lol the erth is round!!!" to this website and it would only take one click of a button from Parsifal, Blanko or myself to accept it. It's true on a technicality, but definitely not worth an article in its own right. This is nothing but pandering to the non-technical anti-Trump crowd who will see this article as "Trump did something bad/stupid!" and share it with all their friends.

Yes, sure, there is a mild risk of the maintainer deciding to troll Trump, and I guess it's kinda-sorta mitigated by using a local copy of the library rather than an upstream link (assuming you don't update it regularly, or that you rigorously scrutinise your libraries before updating them). There are some stability and compatibility concerns. But to say that you can arbitrarily inject JS code into his website is a yuuuge stretch.

God damn it I hate people who pretend to understand how shit works.

Well, yeah.  If code is checked, its pointless. 
Doesn't mean its not impossible to put in a back door vulnerability in that's hard to spot.
Heck, the guy in charge of checking could do it.

Point is, it was a foolish thing to do.  Not for some small business or low risk site but for a major political candidate who has drawn a ton of criticism, right or wrong. 

Plus, sucking bandwidth from gitbub is a shit move, even if its only a few kb per visit.