• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump seeks to cut Ebola funding the same day Ebola breaks out in the Congo

late

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
4,583
Reaction score
1,261
Location
Southern Maine
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Ebola is dangerous, so much so that we have a program that helps countries at risk get ready to contain it when it breaks out. That's cheaper, safer, and way better than trying to deal with it when it gets here.

So naturally the Trump crowd wants to stop doing it.

As luck would have it, that same day, there was a new outbreak of Ebola in the Congo, the DRC.

"That timing couldn’t be worse.

“The entire global health community would agree that cutting funding is a bad idea,” Rebecca Katz, an associate professor and co-director of Georgetown University’s Center for Global Health Science and Security, told The Daily Beast. “An outbreak anywhere can be everywhere within a matter of days. Viruses do not respect political boundaries, which means we have a collective risk and a collective responsibility to prevent, detect, and respond.”

This is a wake up call, people. You don't have a president, what you have is Russian Roulette. Which is more than a little ironic, all things considered.




https://www.thedailybeast.com/ebolas-backand-it-could-be-worse-thanks-to-trump?ref=wrap
 
Ebola is dangerous, so much so that we have a program that helps countries at risk get ready to contain it when it breaks out. That's cheaper, safer, and way better than trying to deal with it when it gets here.

So naturally the Trump crowd wants to stop doing it.

As luck would have it, that same day, there was a new outbreak of Ebola in the Congo, the DRC.

"That timing couldn’t be worse.

“The entire global health community would agree that cutting funding is a bad idea,” Rebecca Katz, an associate professor and co-director of Georgetown University’s Center for Global Health Science and Security, told The Daily Beast. “An outbreak anywhere can be everywhere within a matter of days. Viruses do not respect political boundaries, which means we have a collective risk and a collective responsibility to prevent, detect, and respond.”

This is a wake up call, people. You don't have a president, what you have is Russian Roulette. Which is more than a little ironic, all things considered.




https://www.thedailybeast.com/ebolas-backand-it-could-be-worse-thanks-to-trump?ref=wrap

Trump is on charge of the funding??
 
Trump is in charge of the funding??

Read the article...

That language is a routine rhetorical device, you don't want a 'headline' to be overly wordy.

I do love the way you dive into silly trivia. Very impressive.
 
Read the article...

That language is a routine rhetorical device, you don't want a 'headline' to be overly wordy.

I do love the way you dive into silly trivia. Very impressive.
So the answer is no he is not in charge of the funding.
So your thread is silly trivia, ok.....
 
So the answer is no he is not in charge of the funding.
So your thread is silly trivia, ok.....

The Trump administration is seeking to cut funding for Ebola, and it's silly trivia???

Do you know what Ebola can do to a human body?
 
The Trump administration is seeking to cut funding for Ebola, and it's silly trivia???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

???

Seeking is not getting.
You are the one that called it trivia.
 
2) Seeking is not getting.

1) You are the one that called it trivia.

1) Your choice to ignore the topic, and focus on the way the title was worded was lame. Calling your objection trivial was an exercise in understatement.

2) The point is he went there. Depending on your point of view, that's incompetent, or insane. Either way, it tells us he's in the wrong job.
 
1) Your choice to ignore the topic, and focus on the way the title was worded was lame. Calling your objection trivial was an exercise in understatement.

2) The point is he went there. Depending on your point of view, that's incompetent, or insane. Either way, it tells us he's in the wrong job.

I asked a question, you did not like the question, enough said.
Already know he is not Presidential material, before he even won the Party nomination.
 
Ebola is dangerous, so much so that we have a program that helps countries at risk get ready to contain it when it breaks out. That's cheaper, safer, and way better than trying to deal with it when it gets here.

So naturally the Trump crowd wants to stop doing it.

As luck would have it, that same day, there was a new outbreak of Ebola in the Congo, the DRC.

"That timing couldn’t be worse.

“The entire global health community would agree that cutting funding is a bad idea,” Rebecca Katz, an associate professor and co-director of Georgetown University’s Center for Global Health Science and Security, told The Daily Beast. “An outbreak anywhere can be everywhere within a matter of days. Viruses do not respect political boundaries, which means we have a collective risk and a collective responsibility to prevent, detect, and respond.”

This is a wake up call, people. You don't have a president, what you have is Russian Roulette. Which is more than a little ironic, all things considered.




https://www.thedailybeast.com/ebolas-backand-it-could-be-worse-thanks-to-trump?ref=wrap

You know that the money to build that big beautiful wall to keep that nasty bola out has to come from somewhere don't you?
 
You know that the money to build that big beautiful wall to keep that nasty bola out has to come from somewhere don't you?

If you had told me this a decade ago, I would have said you were mad.
 
Ebola is dangerous, so much so that we have a program that helps countries at risk get ready to contain it when it breaks out. That's cheaper, safer, and way better than trying to deal with it when it gets here.

So naturally the Trump crowd wants to stop doing it.

As luck would have it, that same day, there was a new outbreak of Ebola in the Congo, the DRC.

"That timing couldn’t be worse.

The entire global health community would agree that cutting funding is a bad idea,” Rebecca Katz, an associate professor and co-director of Georgetown University’s Center for Global Health Science and Security, told The Daily Beast. “An outbreak anywhere can be everywhere within a matter of days. Viruses do not respect political boundaries, which means we have a collective risk and a collective responsibility to prevent, detect, and respond.”

This is a wake up call, people. You don't have a president, what you have is Russian Roulette. Which is more than a little ironic, all things considered.




https://www.thedailybeast.com/ebolas-backand-it-could-be-worse-thanks-to-trump?ref=wrap



So let the rest of the 'global health community' pony up the money.

In addition, what is being 'cut' is actually money left from the previous year. Apparently it wasn't needed?
$252 million “in prior year balances of emergency funding appropriated in FY 2015 for the Ebola response.”
 
The Trump administration is seeking to cut funding for Ebola, and it's silly trivia???

Do you know what Ebola can do to a human body?

You are mis-representing what is being reported. The ultimate in spin.

It is a rescission of money from a previous years funding that has not been used.

Also:
“In my opinion, [the funds] have been put to good use to build up infrastructure in the most vulnerable countries,” she told The Daily Beast. “I say that because DRC is one of those success stories, a country where international assistance has been put to building a system that can effectively respond, map, and control an Ebola outbreak.”

Job done, move on.
 
The Trump administration is seeking to cut funding for Ebola, and it's silly trivia???

Do you know what Ebola can do to a human body?

But, but, but....THE CHILDREN!
 
There are literally dozens of billionaires who can be tapped for the money. Why does everything lie at the feet of the American taxpayer?
 
Ebola is dangerous, so much so that we have a program that helps countries at risk get ready to contain it when it breaks out. That's cheaper, safer, and way better than trying to deal with it when it gets here.

So naturally the Trump crowd wants to stop doing it.

As luck would have it, that same day, there was a new outbreak of Ebola in the Congo, the DRC.

"That timing couldn’t be worse.

“The entire global health community would agree that cutting funding is a bad idea,” Rebecca Katz, an associate professor and co-director of Georgetown University’s Center for Global Health Science and Security, told The Daily Beast. “An outbreak anywhere can be everywhere within a matter of days. Viruses do not respect political boundaries, which means we have a collective risk and a collective responsibility to prevent, detect, and respond.”

This is a wake up call, people. You don't have a president, what you have is Russian Roulette. Which is more than a little ironic, all things considered.




https://www.thedailybeast.com/ebolas-backand-it-could-be-worse-thanks-to-trump?ref=wrap

This isn't Trump's choice. Nor should it be our job to babysit the rest of the world.

I can seen the idea behind cutting the funding, though its going to be a while before people will want to move on it. Simply for the fact that its Trump trying to do it. Had Obama asked this, people would have most likely fallen in line on day one.

This is just another person bitching about Trump in their article..
If I wanted to read stuff like this all day. I would have stayed on DemocraticUnderground.
 
This isn't Trump's choice. Nor should it be our job to babysit the rest of the world.

I can seen the idea behind cutting the funding, though its going to be a while before people will want to move on it. Simply for the fact that its Trump trying to do it. Had Obama asked this, people would have most likely fallen in line on day one.

This is just another person bitching about Trump in their article..
If I wanted to read stuff like this all day. I would have stayed on DemocraticUnderground.

Weak.

First, Obama took the mess Cheney left behind, and got the CDC working again.

Second, Harry Truman had a sign on his desk that said "The buck stops here". Trump, and his excusers, never let the buck stop with Trump.

Third, waiting until an aggressive plague to get here, before you do anything, is one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard in my 66 years of life. Governments have worked to stop or prevent plague since England started it in the 1800s. It's the sane thing to do.
 
There are literally dozens of billionaires who can be tapped for the money. Why does everything lie at the feet of the American taxpayer?

Because life isn't a bake sale selling pot brownies.
 
You are mis-representing what is being reported. The ultimate in spin.

It is a rescission of money from a previous years funding that has not been used.

Also:
“In my opinion, [the funds] have been put to good use to build up infrastructure in the most vulnerable countries,” she told The Daily Beast. “I say that because DRC is one of those success stories, a country where international assistance has been put to building a system that can effectively respond, map, and control an Ebola outbreak.”

Job done, move on.

That money is there so we can deal with crisis quickly.

You quoted that in your previous post, but didn't understand it.
 
Weak.

First, Obama took the mess Cheney left behind, and got the CDC working again.

Second, Harry Truman had a sign on his desk that said "The buck stops here". Trump, and his excusers, never let the buck stop with Trump.

Third, waiting until an aggressive plague to get here, before you do anything, is one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard in my 66 years of life. Governments have worked to stop or prevent plague since England started it in the 1800s. It's the sane thing to do.

Then I suggest you stop listening and actually read what money was going to be pulled back.

Obama did help to deal with Cheney's mess and now Trump has been left with Obama's mess. The seat of the president is a ever revolving door for failure by inheritance. When he is gone, someone will have to deal with some mess that Trump didn't managed to square away. As is usual for such a position.

Truman has been dead since the early 70s and such worthless use of this platitudes should be even more dead than that. If you can't come up with a reason for why this money should stay. Then it should be allocated to a function to which it has a use.

Now if you have an idea for how it should be used. That is a topic I would like to discuss.
 
Then I suggest...

I suggest you stop babbling and learn a little about the topic.

I've said more than once in this thread what the emergency fund is for. It's for an Ebola outbreak, it's so we don't have to wait for months hoping Congress will fund an emergency response.
 
I suggest you stop babbling and learn a little about the topic.

I've said more than once in this thread what the emergency fund is for. It's for an Ebola outbreak, it's so we don't have to wait for months hoping Congress will fund an emergency response.

Then you should take your own advice. Instead of performing this continued act of screeching.

It is perfectly logical to take this portion of the money, especially since it has been sitting for so long.

Many of us would rather this money go to a good cause, instead of just sitting there doing nothing.
 
It is perfectly logical to take this portion of the money, especially since it has been sitting for so long.

Thanks, that was entertainingly dumb.

Epidemiologists know what they are doing.

You, not so much.
 
Thanks, that was entertainingly dumb.

Epidemiologists know what they are doing.

You, not so much.

Seeing as equally qualified people helped make the decision to do this. I think you are missing the point that its still a decision that you nor I have say on. Despite our stance.

So neither my postulations, nor your continued bitching is going to carry weight here. Except in our own little bubbles.
 
Seeing as equally qualified people helped make the decision to do this. I think you are missing the point that its still a decision that you nor I have say on. Despite our stance.

So neither my postulations, nor your continued bitching is going to carry weight here. Except in our own little bubbles.

As a matter of science policy, blindly cutting the CDC is insane, and that should be taken into account when it's time to vote.

Republicans have completely lost it.
 
As a matter of science policy, blindly cutting the CDC is insane, and that should be taken into account when it's time to vote.

Republicans have completely lost it.

Seeing as you have lack of evidence for this claim. Forgive me if I don't take you at your word.

However let me remind you just what kind of person the democrats have horribly viewed to for over a year now. Not even going back into the election itself. What does that tell you about them, that they could in anyway lose ground even in their own states.

The bigotry of low expectations, the continued identity politics and not to mention their own back room dealings. Its losing them ground faster then they can hem their losses.

So if republicans have completely lost it. What does that mean for the democrats?
 
Back
Top Bottom