Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[fwc577]

What the fuck do you people continue to feed this fucking troll? The bullshit streaming from his cock hole is nonsense and his takes are borderline fucking retarded. Just put him on ignore.

[Rasulis]

It's routine in other parts of the country. Precisely because it is effective in stopping the worst, most destructive fires from reaching staggering tolls.

There mere existence of interest groups that want all-prevention no-controlled-burns is no excuse for a lack of leadership. No matter how beneficial such programs are, there will be lawsuits. And you have to fight them if you have a shred of responsibility for your citizens. If you won't do that, then you deserve the bad press and political backlash when predictable results happen.

Forest Service Halts Prescribed Burns in California. Is It Worth the Risk?

The concern over prescribed burn is justifiable. Colorado State Forest Service burned 23 homes in 2012 during a prescribed burn in Lower North Fork, Colorado. US Forest Service started the Cerro Grande fire in New Mexico in 2000 that ended up torching 280 homes. More recently, New Mexico Hermit Peak Fire in 2022 which is the largest wildfire in New Mexico history. The fire lasted months and burned over 340,000 acres.

The environment in Los Angeles is even more challenging for prescribed burns. Imagine trying to do controlled burns adjacent to and between densely populated neighborhoods traversed by steep, deep and wide canyons full of dry creosote-rich vegetations.

[En Sabah Nur]

Elon Musk Suddenly Backtracks on His Biggest DOGE Promise

In a live interview on X Wednesday evening with political strategist Mark Penn, the billionaire conceded that his initial goal of cutting the federal budget by “at least $2 trillion” was a taller task than he first believed.

“Do you think the $2 trillion is a realistic number now that you’re looking more closely at it?” Penn asked.

“I think we’ll try for $2 trillion. I think that’s the best-case outcome,” Musk responded. “But I do think that you kind of have to have some overage. I think if we try for $2 trillion, we’ve got a good shot at getting one [trillion].”

This is vindicating for budget specialists who have been deeply skeptical about Musk’s claims from the jump, as cutting $2 trillion from a $6.8 trillion budget is essentially unfeasible.

Musk has been touting DOGE as a fiscal savior fighting big government ever since Trump named him as co-chair of the advisory body in November. But its potential grows more and more questionable as Trump’s inauguration draws nearer—and as Republican intraparty rifts grow more pronounced. Musk’s retraction on the $2 trillion he boldly proclaimed onstage at the Madison Square Garden Rally is only the latest example.

Who could have possibly guessed this outcome?

[Doomcookie]

Trump is trolling until proven otherwise.

Relax, nobody is "annexing" Canada.

Greenland might be legitimately bought, however.

It's a pretty weird take, that you are saying you should always be treated as a liar, unless somehow proven otherwise.

- - - Updated - - -

Indefensible. I don't even want to find out what the cut funding was used for.

More and more people waking up to the fact of incompetent Dem governance. This is what I'm talking about when I say the Dem party is done for a generation. Anybody here that's caught up in this, I wish you luck and safety. I can't even imagine the scope of destruction.




https://www.kqed.org/science/1994972...nia-worth-risk

Weren't they done for a generation in 2019,a nd 2020?

Why do you suppose we should believe you, when you have explicitly stated you are only here to lie for rapists and trolls?

- - - Updated - - -

Again, this is who Trump has been for the last 8+ years. Some of the most empty bluster we've seen from any politician in our lifetimes. Why the hand wringing now?

It's pretty weird that you are bragging about lying for a rapist troll.

- - - Updated - - -

Republicans have hit at Democrats in California for not doing controlled burns for years. Republicans have hit Democrats for regulations that hinder the ability for insurance companies to properly price the risk of future fires. Republicans have hit Democrats for regulations that let limousine liberals prevent affordable multifamily units from being built.

They're just ignored.

Odd, Republicans in California whine every single time they do control burns in California.

Why are you lying?

- - - Updated - - -

It's routine in other parts of the country. Precisely because it is effective in stopping the worst, most destructive fires from reaching staggering tolls.

There mere existence of interest groups that want all-prevention no-controlled-burns is no excuse for a lack of leadership. No matter how beneficial such programs are, there will be lawsuits. And you have to fight them if you have a shred of responsibility for your citizens. If you won't do that, then you deserve the bad press and political backlash when predictable results happen.

Forest Service Halts Prescribed Burns in California. Is It Worth the Risk?

Once again, you are straight fucking lying.

They do control burns all around California. Republicans are the ones opposing them.

- - - Updated - - -

The hyper partisans here refuse to take a look at their own party's mismanagement.

In a sane world, the voters would punish Newsom and Bass. But it's CA, they'll just elect similar leaders and wonder why the same thing keeps happening.

Entrenched partisan government sucks.

- - - Updated - - -



All I said is that it doesn't bother me one bit.

I don't see any of those other people lying for rapists.

That's just you and Tehdang. Feel free to disagree with that factual statement.

- - - Updated - - -

What you just said doesn't bother me.

It doesn't mean I support you or your views in their entirety.

Of course it doesn't bother you. You have explicitly stated your only purpose for being here, is to lie for a rapist.

[Rasulis]

It's routine in other parts of the country. Precisely because it is effective in stopping the worst, most destructive fires from reaching staggering tolls.

There mere existence of interest groups that want all-prevention no-controlled-burns is no excuse for a lack of leadership. No matter how beneficial such programs are, there will be lawsuits. And you have to fight them if you have a shred of responsibility for your citizens. If you won't do that, then you deserve the bad press and political backlash when predictable results happen.

Forest Service Halts Prescribed Burns in California. Is It Worth the Risk?

The article talked about the US Forest Service. Not Cal Fire. CA does not have any control over the US Forest Service.

While our president talked shit. Other states are sending their firefighting units to Los Angeles.

State Office of Emergency Services is sending 250 additional engine companies from Northern California, staffed with over 1,000 personnel.

Oregon state fire marshal confirmed that the agency sent 12 strike teams to Los Angeles County, which included 240 firefighters and 60 engines.

Teams from Phoenix were also expected to make the trek to Los Angeles County.

Los Angeles officials expect 10 firefighting units from New Mexico, 15 from Utah, and several from Arizona as well, he said.

California National Guard has also been called to assist. Col. Brian Hill said 200 personnel trained by Cal Fire were headed to Los Angeles.

The San Francisco Fire Department said in a post on the social media platform X that it was sending 22 firefighters and 6 engines to assist in the Palisades fire.

On the federal level, the Biden administration announced that five U.S. Forest Service air tankers were already operating in Los Angeles, and another was en route. Ten federal helicopters were already deployed to the area, and dozens of fire engines were being readied to be deployed if needed.

Canada and Mexico are sending their fire fighting units to Los Angeles also.

Canadian water bombers, helicopters on the way to help fight Los Angeles wildfire

You couldn't ask for better neighbors.

[Breccia]

Trump is --

Name not changed yet.

I would also like to point out that "the person I support and voted for is trolling until otherwise noted" is a self-admission about some very poor character traits.

- - - Updated - - -

What you--

Name not changed yet.

[Somewhatconcerned]

It's a pretty weird take, that you are saying you should always be treated as a liar, unless somehow proven otherwise.

- - - Updated - - -



Weren't they done for a generation in 2019,a nd 2020?

CA voters recently rejected just about every progressive ballot initiative and easily passed Prop 36, a conservative initiative. People are done with the high crime, high costs and basic inability to provide for citizen's safety and well being.

This is what I mean when I say they're done for a generation. You keep acting like the old rules and norms apply. You don't even realize how many of your own voters loathe what's become of their states.

I bet Rs could flip that governor's mansion if they ran a decent candidate.

[Kathandira]

CA voters recently rejected just about every progressive ballot initiative and easily passed Prop 36, a conservative initiative. People are done with the high crime, high costs and basic inability to provide for citizen's safety and well being.

This is what I mean when I say they're done for a generation. You keep acting like the old rules and norms apply. You don't even realize how many of your own voters loathe what's become of their states.

I bet Rs could flip that governor's mansion if they ran a decent candidate.

They don't want progress. But also don't want the old rules and norms. Sounds like they don't know what they want.

[Rasulis]

CA voters recently rejected just about every progressive ballot initiative and easily passed Prop 36, a conservative initiative. People are done with the high crime, high costs and basic inability to provide for citizen's safety and well being.

This is what I mean when I say they're done for a generation. You keep acting like the old rules and norms apply. You don't even realize how many of your own voters loathe what's become of their states.

I bet Rs could flip that governor's mansion if they ran a decent candidate.

36 passed. However, 2 (Public Education Funding), 3 (Constitutional Right to Same-Sex Marriage), 4 (Natural Resources Bond), and 35 (Permanent Funding for Medi-Cal) also passed.

[Edge-]

36 passed. However, 2 (Public Education Funding), 3 (Constitutional Right to Same-Sex Marriage), 4 (Natural Resources Bond), and 35 (Permanent Funding for Medi-Cal) also passed.

Oh look, more facts and reality. I'm Somewhateconcerned that some people here may indeed be ignorant, dishonest partisans.

[tehdang]

The concern over prescribed burn is justifiable. Colorado State Forest Service burned 23 homes in 2012 during a prescribed burn in Lower North Fork, Colorado. US Forest Service started the Cerro Grande fire in New Mexico in 2000 that ended up torching 280 homes. More recently, New Mexico Hermit Peak Fire in 2022 which is the largest wildfire in New Mexico history. The fire lasted months and burned over 340,000 acres.

The environment in Los Angeles is even more challenging for prescribed burns. Imagine trying to do controlled burns adjacent to and between densely populated neighborhoods traversed by steep, deep and wide canyons full of dry creosote-rich vegetations.

Yet, if you don't do them, the fuel just builds up. You're not actually removing risk by stopping them. You're just putting yourself in a better posture to finger-point at mother nature or climate change or whatever when the next one happens.

But I like this debate. I don't mind Newsom or Bass or somebody explaining that they chose the risk of avoiding controlled burns over the risk of setting controlled burns.

The article talked about the US Forest Service. Not Cal Fire. CA does not have any control over the US Forest Service.

While our president talked shit. Other states are sending their firefighting units to Los Angeles.

It's an example illustrating my point. There's a twin problem in this. CA wildfires also start on federal land, not just state land.

[Kaleredar]

36 passed. However, 2 (Public Education Funding), 3 (Constitutional Right to Same-Sex Marriage), 4 (Natural Resources Bond), and 35 (Permanent Funding for Medi-Cal) also passed.

@Somewhatconcerned is clucking about passing the most down-the-line, simple “crime is bad” coded proposition passing as being some portent of a “red wave.”

Meanwhile as you state gay marriage (progressive,) government-funded healthcare (progressive), protections for natural resources (progressive) and government-funded education (progressive) all passed.


So that’s four progressive policies versus… one… centrist policy?

It’s like I keep saying. The muppet doesn’t know why he cackles. He doesn’t even understand what Trumpa the Hutt is saying. He just knows that when Trumpa laughs, he must laugh too. And that stands whether he’s a Russian troll or just a dishonest idiot; their output is fundamentally no different.

[Rasulis]

Yet, if you don't do them, the fuel just builds up. You're not actually removing risk by stopping them. You're just putting yourself in a better posture to finger-point at mother nature or climate change or whatever when the next one happens.

But I like this debate. I don't mind Newsom or Bass or somebody explaining that they chose the risk of avoiding controlled burns over the risk of setting controlled burns.

It's an example illustrating my point. There's a twin problem in this. CA wildfires also start on federal land, not just state land.

Many faceted issues.

Bass has nothing to do with prescribed burns. Although, cutting LAFD budget by $17M before the fire season started probably was not a smart move.

Newsom yes. To a limited degree. Here is the crux of the issue, The Feds owns 58% of CA forests, 39% by private entities, and only 3% are under State government direct control. That makes it very hard for the State to do comprehensive controlled burns.

There is another issue. While Cal Fire is one of the most well-funded firefighting departments in the WORLD. The US Forest Services, the agency in charge of more than half of CA forest lands, is understaffed and underfunded. In fact, the US Forest Service firefighters have the worst pay in the nation. Google Federal Wildland Firefighters underpaid.

[SAY HER NAME]

It's routine in other parts of the country. Precisely because it is effective in stopping the worst, most destructive fires from reaching staggering tolls.

There mere existence of interest groups that want all-prevention no-controlled-burns is no excuse for a lack of leadership. No matter how beneficial such programs are, there will be lawsuits. And you have to fight them if you have a shred of responsibility for your citizens. If you won't do that, then you deserve the bad press and political backlash when predictable results happen.

Forest Service Halts Prescribed Burns in California. Is It Worth the Risk?

I still think the focus should be in the interface between houses and fire risk.

“This is sort of what everybody’s been preparing for,” said Karl Susman, an insurance broker in West Los Angeles who’s filing dozens of claims on behalf of clients. “This is why rates are going up. This is why carriers are freaking out.”

State Farm dropped nearly 70 percent of its policies in the Pacific Palisades neighborhood last year, according to a state filing — more than any other ZIP code in the state — in a sign it saw the neighborhood as risky. That forced more people onto the FAIR Plan, which was originally created in the 1960s to insure riot-scarred Los Angeles neighborhoods but has since found more demand in rural and suburban fire-prone regions.

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/0...ornia-00197196

The fires are an isssue but the reason people are affected is bc they built their houses in fire risk areas with few entrances and exits. This is the biggest failure of dem leadership if there is any. Those houses should not be there in the first place and LA should be allowed to be built up as opposed to pure single family homes

[Edge-]

The fires are an isssue but the reason people are affected is bc they built their houses in fire risk areas with few entrances and exits. This is the biggest failure of dem leadership if there is any. Those houses should not be there in the first place and LA should be allowed to be built up as opposed to pure single family homes

Where does the article say the bolded?

When were these houses built?

[Doomcookie]

CA voters recently rejected just about every progressive ballot initiative and easily passed Prop 36, a conservative initiative. People are done with the high crime, high costs and basic inability to provide for citizen's safety and well being.

This is what I mean when I say they're done for a generation. You keep acting like the old rules and norms apply. You don't even realize how many of your own voters loathe what's become of their states.

I bet Rs could flip that governor's mansion if they ran a decent candidate.

But, you already admitted that Democrats are better than you and the GOP in every single way.

That's another weird take.

Crime rates tend to be higher in red states. Lying for rapists is not the best look.

[Rasulis]

I still think the focus should be in the interface between houses and fire risk.



https://www.politico.com/news/2025/0...ornia-00197196

The fires are an isssue but the reason people are affected is bc they built their houses in fire risk areas with few entrances and exits. This is the biggest failure of dem leadership if there is any. Those houses should not be there in the first place and LA should be allowed to be built up as opposed to pure single family homes

Wildfire high-risk neighborhoods like Pacific Palisades, Hollywood Hills, Laurel Canyons, Topanga Canyons, etc. go back 60 to 100 years. Most new constructions have been limited to remodel or replacement of existing structures. Not sure how the City of LA can retroactively tell homeowners to abandon their homes or forbid them from building homes on previously approved parcels.

I do agree with your assessment. Just not sure what the City or State could do about that without getting embroiled in multi-million-dollar lawsuits.

[SAY HER NAME]

Where does the article say the bolded?

When were these houses built?

The Pacific Palisades are filled with villages and suburbs that have one or two entrances and exits. But in general, this is the design of the places near the mountains, which are filled with condos, villas and whatnot.

[tehdang]

Many faceted issues.

Bass has nothing to do with prescribed burns. Although, cutting LAFD budget by $17M before the fire season started probably was not a smart move.

If she's cutting the firefighting budget, she needs to know about fire risk. It's part of informed decision making. Even if she can't personally authorize controlled burns, she's still responsible to agitate for the concerns of the residents in her city.

Newsom yes. To a limited degree. Here is the crux of the issue, The Feds owns 58% of CA forests, 39% by private entities, and only 3% are under State government direct control. That makes it very hard for the State to do comprehensive controlled burns.

There is another issue. While Cal Fire is one of the most well-funded firefighting departments in the WORLD. The US Forest Services, the agency in charge of more than half of CA forest lands, is understaffed and underfunded. In fact, the US Forest Service firefighters have the worst pay in the nation. Google Federal Wildland Firefighters underpaid.

So you see why I brought up the federal department. Good. Let's see some investigation into why this fall's controlled burns in California at the federal level were cancelled. If there's political blowback, let's see some informed political blowback. Defend the manner of controlling risk, while simultaneously speaking about the risk on both sides of controlled burns.

[Edge-]

The Pacific Palisades are filled with villages and suburbs that have only one entrance and out. But in general this is the design of the places near the mountains, which are filled with condos, villas and whatnot.

First off, citation on the single entrance/exist since the article still doesn't say that and excuse me if I don't just blindly trust you.

When was it built, though?