Georgia’s Republican governor praised Democratic President Joe Biden for reaching out to him in the wake of Hurricane Helene’s deadly devastation as the state and surrounding areas scramble to recover from the disaster.
Former President Donald Trump told a different story when he landed there to survey the damage.
“The governor’s doing a very good job. He’s having a hard time getting the president on the phone,” Trump told reporters. “The federal government is not being responsive.”
It wasn’t true.
Here’s what Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp had to say about Biden and the feds:
“The president just called me yesterday afternoon. I missed him and called him right back and he just said, ‘Hey, what do you need?’ And I told him, ‘We got what we need. We’ll work through the federal process. He offered that if there’s other things we need just to call him directly, which I appreciate that,” Kemp said.
“We’ve had FEMA embedded with us since a day or two before the storm hit in our state operating center in Atlanta. We’ve got a great relationship with them,” he said.
🗳️ Register to vote: https://vote.gov/
Point is that you’ll see various statements from victims regarding recovery, but they shouldn’t be given the level of truth that most would afford them. Trump lied, of that there is no doubt. It’s a given.
But what does this have to do within the context of what the article is talking about? Again, it sounds like you are dancing around, but still kind of implying, that the government of Georgia might not be telling the truth when it comes to what Biden has done.
The grain of salt but was directly tied to interviewing citizens affected by the disaster, saying they’re probably emotional and not fully present when interviewed.
It was not tied to Kemp, the gov’t, or any of that.
It’s about the majority of victims affected.
Except the only one that was interviewed who could be considered a victim is Kemp. Which is where the confusion came from. If you are saying that victims statements should be taken with a grain of salt, and in the context there is one victim, then it sounds like you are showing some doubt about what they are saying.
Dude how hard is it to get that this guy wasn’t directly commenting on the article
It’s not. I get it now. I’m just pointing out that the confusion was the result of their unrelated comment, rather than their accusation that I “want” it to imply something. I’m explaining what caused the confusion.
Valid, but you’re not doing it very clearly. This whole thread is a mess tbh
I know that you want to read some implications between the lines, but there are none.
Im reading your post in the context of the article. The only one who they got a comment from that could be considered a victim is Kemp, and you said they should be taken “with a grain of salt.” It now appears your post had nothing to do with the article, but just disasters in general.
It has nothing to do with me wanting anything, but you talking about some kind of unrelated and that causing confusion.
I can see you have strong feelings on the matter, if nothing else from your continuing response. Are you sure you don’t want something? Perhaps if I remove it and promise to never do whatever again you’ll feel better.
How strong my feelings are about the topic have nothing to do with the point. It’s interesting, however, that you are trying to make this about me rather than the point. That just tells me you realize I’ve made a good point, but don’t want to admit it.
I do realize this is a rather dreary conversation and I’d rather it be concluded, so if there is nothing more…
You know you could have just left when you originally abandoned the point. But I can see you have strong feelings on the matter, if nothing else from your continuing response.
I’ve abandoned nothing except boredom. Surely, you can bother someone else.