By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Responding to questions about the Texas floods, President Trump stated his administration had no plans to rehire meteorologists previously let go due to budget cuts. When asked if the government needed to rehire meteorologists, Trump responded, “I would think not,” as the floods occurred too quickly for anyone to have predicted the event. Critics on social media quickly condemned the president’s remarks, with many suggesting he was shirking responsibility for the disaster and the potential for more accurate forecasting. The president was also criticized for spending the weekend at a golf resort.
Read the original article here
Trump answers critics on responsibility for flood deaths and fired meteorologist. “This was a thing that happened in seconds. No one expected it.” Okay, so let’s unpack this statement and the reactions it sparked. It seems like a pretty clear case of someone trying to deflect blame after a tragic event, in this case, deadly floods. The phrase “No one expected it” is the key phrase, isn’t it? It’s the foundation of the argument, the implication being that since it was unforeseen, no one is really at fault. But, is that really the truth of the matter?
Well, the reality seems a bit more complicated. The meteorologists were predicting this. They were issuing warnings. There were already agencies that were fully staffed and funded, and were actually good at it. However, the comments suggest that the people who would have been prepared and possibly prevented more casualties were either fired or defunded by the same individual who is now disclaiming all responsibility. That’s a pretty significant detail, right? It’s the elephant in the room, or perhaps, the hurricane in the ocean.
The core of the criticism centers on the idea of culpability. The argument is, if you dismantle the very infrastructure designed to anticipate and respond to these kinds of events, can you genuinely claim no responsibility when disaster strikes? It’s like taking away a guardrail on a mountain path and then shrugging when someone falls. The comments highlight a pattern of behavior: a tendency to blame others, to minimize personal failings, and to avoid accountability. This pattern is described as narcissistic and lacking any care or concern for human suffering. It’s a brutal assessment, but one that emerges from the apparent facts.
The responses also delve into the potential consequences of these actions. There’s the argument that decisions made at the top have real-world repercussions. Cuts to pandemic response teams are said to make events far worse, and so do cuts in funding to agencies. The idea is that when you remove safeguards, you’re creating conditions where these tragedies can become even more devastating. The comments suggest that we might be seeing more of these unexpected events, and this is just the beginning.
The response from the other side of the political spectrum is brutal. The comments reference the “cult of stupidity”, the lack of “thoughts and prayers” from those in charge, and the politicization of weather forecasting. It’s a sharp critique of the belief systems, the lack of empathy, and the level of denial that is displayed by some when considering the tragedies. The comments go on to accuse Trump directly of causing these deaths. They also draw parallels between this situation and the handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, suggesting a consistent pattern of negligence and a lack of accountability.
The comments also talk about the idea that the weather has become political in the United States. They suggest that in other countries, rain is not a political issue, and that’s why they have the personnel and the budget to correctly identify potential flooding and give appropriate warnings. The comments mention the US is now deciding that weather is political. It’s a stark indictment of a situation where even basic science is now viewed through a political lens. The idea that the National Weather Service is seen as “useless woke waste of money” is a serious indictment of someone’s view of the weather.
Furthermore, there’s a recognition of the irony in defunding the agencies designed to prevent these tragedies and then claiming ignorance when they occur. The comments bring up the role of FEMA and the impact of cutting funding to critical forecasting resources. Again and again, the central point is hammered home: the person in charge made decisions that weakened the ability to predict, prepare for, and respond to a catastrophic event, and now they are avoiding responsibility.
In summary, the controversy surrounding Trump’s response is not simply about a claim of surprise. It’s about who expected it, who should have expected it, and who, through their actions, made it harder to expect. It’s about whether the person in charge is taking appropriate responsibility or whether he is dodging accountability for his decisions. The comments show a clear conviction that the phrase “No one expected it” is, at best, misleading, and at worst, a deliberate attempt to deflect blame from the choices that may have contributed to the loss of life.