- Jun 11, 2005
- 42,470
- 17,324
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Trump Burns 500 Tons of Food Meant for the Hungry
- Thread starter Fantine
- Start date
- Jul 2, 2003
- 156,090
- 20,835
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Upvote
0
- Nov 15, 2006
- 52,701
- 18,103
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Charismatic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
The cost of the high calorie biscuits is 800,000, not 800,000,000
And it is a total waste, they should have distributed it first
And it is a total waste, they should have distributed it first
Upvote
0
- Jul 2, 2003
- 156,090
- 20,835
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Here is an article about it:
www.the-express.com
It includes this:
Trump admin set to burn nearly 500 metric tons of emergency food
The food is set to expire soon after the USAID program was shut down and could no longer distribute the food
It includes this:
To make matters worse, The Atlantic reveals that even more food may soon expire and have to be discarded. Hundreds of thousands of "boxes of emergency food pastes, also already purchased, are currently collecting dust in American warehouses," the publication reports.
This includes about 60,000 metric tons of food already bought by the government that is now "sitting in warehouses across the world." It remains uncertain what will become of most of this food.
President Donald Trump's cuts to the USAID office are projected to result in the deaths of '14 million people,' many of whom are children, according to a recent study published in The Lancet.
Upvote
0
CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN
My dad died 1/12/2023. I'm still devastated.
- Jul 1, 2007
- 18,518
- 5,819
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Seeker
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Since USAID shut down. Workers weren't able to give food, to people in need. So, it's sound like Trump rather waist money on food. Then giving food to people, that need it. This is an evil act. But I'm not surprised, since we're talking about Trump. Remember that the next time people in the White House claim to be praying. As far as I've seen, they do everything that God /Jesus wouldn't do.
Upvote
0
- Jun 11, 2005
- 42,470
- 17,324
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
To be fair, it is not the economic cost that most bothers me. It is the cruelty of spending $130,000 to burn the food instead of spending that money to deliver it to starving children.
They chose not to do so.
Upvote
0
- Jun 11, 2005
- 42,470
- 17,324
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
By ordering their destruction Before the expiration date, they chose to deny 1.5 million children a week's food.
Upvote
0
- Jun 11, 2005
- 42,470
- 17,324
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Upvote
0
DaisyDay
I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State
- Jan 7, 2003
- 44,462
- 21,590
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Unitarian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Are you asking if the Trump admin could now make a different choice, negating their previous one in time?
I read your post and hers. You asked if the Trump administration could have distributed the food before it expired. She replied, "They chose not to."
Implicit in the idea of a choice being made is that a choice exists; in other words, they had a choice to distribute the food and took the "no distribution" choice. How that is unresponsive is beyond me.
Upvote
0
Clare73
Blood-bought
- Jun 12, 2012
- 30,163
- 7,768
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Likewise Implicit in the idea of "choice" is that they were not able to do so in compliance with regulations regarding expiration, thereby necessitating the "choice" not to do so.
Choosing to indict without all the facts. . .reveals bias, prejudice and lack of objectivity, necessary for arriving at the truth of a matter.
The revealed bias, prejudice and lack of objectivity here do no service to the discussion.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
DaisyDay
I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State
- Jan 7, 2003
- 44,462
- 21,590
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Unitarian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Say what?
You're arguing that an option impossible to exercise counts as a "choice"? What aninteresting take on the idea of choice: they chose to not do the impossible! 
Please add to our store of known facts: they were in charge of distributing food; they decided not to; the food is reaching expiration date; they decide to destroy rather than distribute. The initial choice to cancel the existing contracts to distribute the food, knowing that food expires, was theirs. The choice to not distribute the food as the months passed was also theirs.
They didn't simply delay the distribution - they cancelled it, well before it was due to expire.
Making excuses for those who made the choice to do away with the program and destroy the food rather than feed the children, on the other hand, is a great service! I do question exactly who in this discussion lacks objectivity, given known facts.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Feb 10, 2013
- 43,153
- 23,512
- 30
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Celibate
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
Similar threads
