Nancy Pelosi said the public isn't interested in impeaching Trump.

Is she becoming more stupid by just being around him or something?

"You are using skepticism to outright reject claims made by others, before giving inference a chance first."

>So if there were claims I rejected without giving inference a shot, which would you point to?

Do you have footage of these interactions?

This is an example of you demonstrating a high degree of skepticism and rejecting this person's claim, by virtue of wanting direct proof. Despite them trying to paint a picture for you using their lived (and of course subjective) experiences, your jump to request such evidence is a clear rejection of inference. There are many such examples, this is hardly isolated.

I think it's safe to say you have cemented a reputation here for this type or behaviour. People have ample evidence to infer that you participate in these discussions in bad faith, using such double-standards. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate otherwise.

Nancy Pelosi said the public isn't interested in impeaching Beloved Leader.

Is she becoming more stupid by just being around him or something?

You don't make such predictions when you are not qualified to make such predictions.  That's dangerous. 

Perfectly appropriate course of action is to let the experts tell us where the storm is expected to go.  Not start the beginnings of "potential damage and costs of engaging emergency operations at the city, county and state government level? Resource allocation that may get planned such as food, water, repairmen, services, etc...that could be better allocated to the correct states? The costs of businesses preparing to shut down expensive infrastructure and computer hardware or diverting communications to cold site or disaster recovery facilities? The costs of people buying provisions and emergency rations when they are already economically struggling as so many in Alabama already are? The lost work hours for those that may have called out of work to prepare? And on and on and on."

Speaking of becoming increasingly stupid, Trump went on Twitter to announce that he was inviting the President of Afghanistan AND leader of the Taliban over to the United States, and just THREE FUCKING DAYS before the anniversary of 9/11.

What's wrong Don? Tired of the white supremacist terrorists who voted for you so you invited different terrorists to America?

Apparently he cancelled, but the clusterfuck is still there.

>Do you believe that based solely on a tweet, expensive emergency procedures will then be undertaken before any further information is sought? 

Ignoring the several other times when Trump mentioned it.

>Businesses, workplaces, and members of the general public wouldn't tune in to their news networks or the weather channel to start getting updates on an incoming hurricane?

Well there's plenty of evidence right in this thread that common sense has gone out the window.  

>They wouldn't look out their window or go outdoors to see if the wind was starting to pick up or if the horizon showed an incoming disturbance?

"Look, there's a hurricane outside our window.  Good thing we noticed. Good thing hurricanes always alert us to their presence to give us just enough time to get out of danger."

You can say that Trump was speculating or whatever else.  I'm still going to say it's not okay for him to do that in matters like this.  

------------------------------------------------------

On the NOAA, several people have come out, claiming that the release seems politically motivated.  

"An NOAA meteorologist anonymously commented on the agency’s attempt at self-censorship, “This is the first time I’ve felt pressure from above to not say what truly is the forecast...One of the things we train on is to dispel inaccurate rumors and ultimately that is what was occurring—ultimately what the Alabama office did is provide a forecast with their tweet, that is what they get paid to do.”"

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/09/trump-alabama-hurricane-noaa-statement

"On the NOAA, several people have come out, claiming that the release seems politically motivated.  

"An NOAA meteorologist anonymously commented on the agency’s attempt at self-censorship, “This is the first time I’ve felt pressure from above to not say what truly is the forecast...One of the things we train on is to dispel inaccurate rumors and ultimately that is what was occurring—ultimately what the Alabama office did is provide a forecast with their tweet, that is what they get paid to do.”"

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/09/trump-alabama-hurricane-noaa-statement"

>Mr. or Ms. anonymous meteorologist, I think the problem was the NWS Birmingham tweet "spoke in absolute terms" about a weather event and seemed to ignore "the best forecast products available at the time" which showed Alabama potentially being affected.

"The Birmingham National Weather Service’s Sunday morning tweet spoke in absolute terms that were inconsistent with probabilities from the best forecast products available at the time."

"Ignoring the several other times when Trump mentioned it."

>So how many other times has Trump mentioned Alabama getting hit by the hurricane?

"Look, there's a hurricane outside our window.  Good thing we noticed. Good thing hurricanes always alert us to their presence to give us just enough time to get out of danger."

>As a hurricane approaches, warnings signs can be seen. Wind speeds increasing, heavier rain fall, and ocean swell can tell you there may be a hurricane approaching.

"You can say that Trump was speculating or whatever else.  I'm still going to say it's not okay for him to do that in matters like this."

>And I think it's perfectly fine. Issuing a warning can make people aware of potential weather hazards. They can then tune into the weather channel or a news network for further updates.

------------------------------------------------------

"On the NOAA, several people have come out, claiming that the release seems politically motivated.  

"An NOAA meteorologist anonymously commented on the agency’s attempt at self-censorship, “This is the first time I’ve felt pressure from above to not say what truly is the forecast...One of the things we train on is to dispel inaccurate rumors and ultimately that is what was occurring—ultimately what the Alabama office did is provide a forecast with their tweet, that is what they get paid to do.”"

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/09/trump-alabama-hurricane-noaa-statement"

>Mr. or Ms. anonymous meteorologist, I think the problem was the NWS Birmingham tweet "spoke in absolute terms" about a weather event and seemed to ignore "the best forecast products available at the time" which showed Alabama potentially being affected.

"The Birmingham National Weather Service’s Sunday morning tweet spoke in absolute terms that were inconsistent with probabilities from the best forecast products available at the time."

So are you not at all skeptical about that statement?

Bruh the hurricane isnt hitting Alabama and Trump continued to claim it would after he was corrected on multiple occasions. Idk how this is even an argument.