Timeline for Has president Trump been "very strict on Commercial Aviation"?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
28 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 30, 2020 at 6:33 | history | edited | SQB | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Link to other
|
| Nov 15, 2019 at 0:05 | comment | added | reirab | How widely is this claim defining "any member of the Trump administration?" I would normally consider the FAA, like other executive agencies, to be part of the administration and they make thousands upon thousands of "action aimed to improve aviation safety" annually, both before and during the Trump administration. That being said, it seems like the bolded question at the end is very different from the title question and from Trump's claim (and the answer to those questions is different.) | |
| Mar 4, 2018 at 7:29 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackSkeptic/status/970199463338930176 | ||
| Feb 28, 2018 at 9:41 | vote | accept | SQB | ||
| Feb 28, 2018 at 9:27 | answer | added | Evargalo | timeline score: 26 | |
| Feb 28, 2018 at 2:05 | history | reopened |
SQB user22865 LangLаngС DenisS Golden Cuy |
||
| Feb 26, 2018 at 11:02 | comment | added | SQB | @Oddthinking not to single you out, but this question whether children were safer in the good old days has the same (IMHO) problems of interpretation. Your answer there solved that problem quite well. What would prevent a similar approach here? "Trump (or his administration) has done / set in motion / ordered X, Y, and Z related to civil aviation. X is regarded by experts as an improvement, Y as detrimental, opinions on Z are inconclusive." | |
| Feb 24, 2018 at 7:11 | comment | added | SQB | @Brythan and that is exactly what I'm asking. Has president Trump done anything that could qualify as "strict"? | |
| Feb 24, 2018 at 3:35 | comment | added | Brythan | But the problem remains that that is not necessarily what he meant. He may well mean that the person that he appointed to oversee the department has strict standards. You are developing your own definition of "very strict". But your claim isn't notable. If you want to fact check your point, you need to find someone who is saying that there were or were not regulatory/legal changes caused by Trump. | |
| Feb 23, 2018 at 13:25 | history | edited | user22865 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 2 characters in body
|
| Feb 23, 2018 at 12:07 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| Feb 28, 2018 at 2:05 | |||||
| Jan 18, 2018 at 9:44 | comment | added | SQB | @Sklivvz no, I've tried to formulate what I would find an acceptable interpretation of "being strict". I've edited it a couple of times, mostly because I'm not a US citizen and not familiar with the workings of the US administration. But it keeps coming down to "has Trump taken any action aimed to improve (commercial) aviation safety and has he not taken any action detrimental to it?" | |
| Jan 16, 2018 at 23:00 | comment | added | Sklivvz | @SQB You are putting on us the onus of finding out what Trump meant in order to answer the question... what is he referring to when he says he's been very strict? | |
| Jan 16, 2018 at 9:53 | comment | added | SQB | @Oddthinking I fully agree that "very strict" is hard to quantify. But why can't we start with "any action aimed to improve aviation safety" and "foregoing any action detrimental to aviation safety"? I can't possibly fathom what The Donald would think to be "very strict", but if he hasn't done anything at all, or has done something clearly detrimental, we could rule this claim as false, couldn't we? | |
| Jan 16, 2018 at 7:56 | comment | added | Sklivvz | It's now an implied claim... which we don't allow.The problem is that "being strict " is not a clear factual statement that is debunkable. The problem with assuming all Trump says is notable (as I warned) is that single source statements lead to questions that can't be fixed, like this one. Has Trump in another occasion clarified what he means here? That would help. | |
| Jan 15, 2018 at 16:28 | comment | added | SQB | @DJClayworth I had the second part in there because had he taken some action that is clearly detrimental to commercial aviation safety, he would not have been "very strict". In other words, prohibiting purple paint while at the same time saying that it's up to local residents to clean up the walls, would not constitute being "very strict" on graffiti. | |
| Jan 15, 2018 at 16:06 | comment | added | DJClayworth | Trump clearly claims that he has taken some action with regard to commercial aviation safety. Has any action been taken that relates to aviation safety, which could reasonably improve this, and which could reasonably be said to have originated with Trump or those close to him? This isn't rocket science, and can easily be checked. It may be there isn't a clear answer, but that is no reason not to ask the question. | |
| Jan 15, 2018 at 15:38 | comment | added | DJClayworth | @Sklivvz It's not stretching a point to take a reasonable, logical, interpretation of what a person says and look to see if that statement is true. We have already established that Trump's pronouncements are notable. | |
| Jan 15, 2018 at 14:44 | comment | added | Sklivvz | @DJClayworth I disagree that taking a single source statement, stretching it to the point you like and that answering is "allowed" or "notable" or "the point of this site". The notability rules are there exactly to prevent this kind of straw man arguments. | |
| Jan 15, 2018 at 14:26 | history | edited | DJClayworth | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 41 characters in body
|
| Jan 15, 2018 at 14:25 | comment | added | DJClayworth | @Sklivvz We are allowed to make reasonable interpretations of statements, even Trump's. No reasonable person would say that total deregulation was 'being strict', even if their ideal was anarchy | |
| Jan 15, 2018 at 9:05 | comment | added | Sklivvz | Now the question is not notable. It's not what Trump is claiming. Beyond not being notable (nor answering the original question as posed), the second question posed is asking to prove a negative and the first is asking about motivation. What "being strict" means a mere opinion. One could think that deregulating aviation safety is "being strict" if their ideal is anarchy. | |
| Jan 15, 2018 at 8:14 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| Jan 23, 2018 at 3:01 | |||||
| Jan 15, 2018 at 8:07 | history | edited | SQB | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Clarification of "being strict"
|
| Jan 14, 2018 at 22:30 | comment | added | Sklivvz | Clearly an opinion based question, there's no standard by which to judge objectively what "very strict" looks like (or "not so strict") for that matter. | |
| Jan 14, 2018 at 22:28 | history | closed | Sklivvz | Opinion-based | |
| Jan 14, 2018 at 21:31 | history | edited | Brythan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 171 characters in body
|
| Jan 14, 2018 at 14:29 | history | asked | SQB | CC BY-SA 3.0 |