Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Edge-]

If you don't want to pay through the nose for insurance maybe don't build in area's prone to wildfires...

A lot of folks living in homes that were built (or at least on property where homes were first built) long before they were born, and the risk of wildfires was dramatically lower then.

Things change over time. Climate change has changed quite a bit, already.

[Kaleredar]

If you don't want to pay through the nose for insurance maybe don't build in area's prone to wildfires...

These areas are in Los Angeles proper and have been built up for a century. These aren’t places newly built in the middle of nowhere.

The only feasible solution would have been “reduce the wilderness in Los Angeles to dirt” if your interest were in ensuring there were no wildfires… Of course, then you have mudslides when it rains, because you removed all the foliage.


It’s a side effect of climate change, one that’s being felt in other ways all throughout the world.

[Gorsameth]

These areas are in Los Angeles proper and have been built up for a century. These aren’t places newly built in the middle of nowhere.

The only feasible solution would have been “reduce the wilderness in Los Angeles to dirt” if your interest were in ensuring there were no wildfires… Of course, then you have mudslides when it rains, because you removed all the foliage.


It’s a side effect of climate change, one that’s being felt in other ways all throughout the world.

Im sure there are other means of stopping mudslides, probably easier to deal with then leaving the wilderness and having these fires.

Seems like I see news about neighbourhoods burning down to fires every year, you'd think people would do more about it. But maybe that's the Dutch in me talking.

[DarkTZeratul]

If you don't want to pay through the nose for insurance maybe don't build in area's prone to wildfires...

One of the two biggest fires is in Altadena, a location that is decidedly NOT fire-prone wilderness, because it's practically just a suburb of the city of Los Angeles. It's currently burning down because 100mph gusts are blowing embers all over the goddamn place and burning areas that aren't normally at risk of burning, on top of which it's a historically black neighborhood because it's one of the few places in the area that wasn't racially redlined back in the day, so maybe shut the fuck up about blaming the people who lost everything in a historically unprecedented firestorm, okay?

[diller]

I know everyone is laughing at Trump over this, but looking at it with an outside lens his idea does have some merit.

When you think about it, it was named the Gulf of Mexico due to being surrounded by mostly Mexico, but since then a lot of Mexico has been annexed by the USA, and now the gulf is surrounded by mostly the USA so renaming it does actually make a lot of sense (it's sort of like how Siberian tigers were renamed Amur tigers due to their habitat changing).

Not at all, he clearly wants to change it entirely for political reasons - using your flawed logic all Spanish named cities should be renamed to English as well.

[Poopymonster]

A lot of folks living in homes that were built (or at least on property where homes were first built) long before they were born, and the risk of wildfires was dramatically lower then.

Things change over time. Climate change has changed quite a bit, already.

Some of them may not believe in climate change, but their insurance companies sure as hell do.

[PhaelixWW]

If you don't want to pay through the nose for insurance maybe don't build in area's prone to wildfires...

Fuck that. That's the entirety of California.

[Breccia]

Some of them may not believe in climate change, but their insurance companies sure as hell do.

It's always interesting what people decide is real, and what people decide is fake, when it's their money on the line. Also insurance companies hire people like actuaries who know how to read things like "2024 was the hottest year on record, again"

[Rasulis]

One of the two biggest fires is in Altadena, a location that is decidedly NOT fire-prone wilderness, because it's practically just a suburb of the city of Los Angeles. It's currently burning down because 100mph gusts are blowing embers all over the goddamn place and burning areas that aren't normally at risk of burning, on top of which it's a historically black neighborhood because it's one of the few places in the area that wasn't racially redlined back in the day, so maybe shut the fuck up about blaming the people who lost everything in a historically unprecedented firestorm, okay?

There are parts of Los Angeles that feels like wilderness havens in the middle of the city. Canyons & hills covered in greeneries with houses tucked in-between. Our in-laws in Laurel Canyon showed us mountain lion footage captured on their backyard cam. Although, this time the wildfires driven by 100 mph winds actually extended well outside the wild land. Helicopter footage of Malibu below should give people some perspective of the scale of the damage which extends all the way to the coast.

[Templar 331]

Fuck that. That's the entirety of California.

For most of my life I've lived next to the Okefenokee Swamp. About every decade or so we get a pretty hard drought followed by the swamp catching fire. The biggest so far was the one in 2007.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bugaboo_Scrub_Fire

If a freaking swamp can catch fire and burn then anywhere can.

[NED funded]

If you don't want to pay through the nose for insurance maybe don't build in area's prone to wildfires...

This basically. It sucks for the people there but the insurance market is telling you something, its up to you to listen to it. And if insurance rates would have been allowed to increase as they should have, then maybe less people would have been affected by the wildfires.

Markets are always telling you something. Policymakers can choose to remain indifferent

[Kaleredar]

This basically. It sucks for the people there but the insurance market is telling you something, its up to you to listen to it. And if insurance rates would have been allowed to increase as they should have, then maybe less people would have been affected by the wildfires.

Markets are always telling you something. Policymakers can choose to remain indifferent

Yes, because insurance companies are always known for operating in good faith and with the customer's best intentions in mind.

They aren't taking any and every excuse to... what was it, deny, defend, depose?

[Surfd]

I'll say it here. The solution for responsibility is to govern well and inform the public when you're unable to perform your job responsibilities.

Imagine the kind of total lack of self reflection and the sheer level of cognitive dissonance required to post something like this while shilling for the Republican disaster that is Trump........

[NED funded]

Yes, because insurance companies are always known for operating in good faith and with the customer's best intentions in mind.

They aren't taking any and every excuse to... what was it, deny, defend, depose?

This isnt about the good faith of insurance companies. Its about their profit motive, if insurance companies are leaving bc of your regulations ask yourself why.

[Edge-]

if insurance companies are leaving bc of your regulations ask yourself why.

Jesus why are you so adamant on being wrong in so many threads?

They're leaving because of exposure, same as companies in Florida. They're leaving because the calculation of, "How when will we have to pay out and how much." is "Very often, and a helluva lot." which is not how insurance companies make their money. They don't like paying claims. Ever.

States can't enact policy that impacts global climate change, my dude.

[tehdang]

Imagine the kind of total lack of self reflection and the sheer level of cognitive dissonance required to post something like this while shilling for the Republican disaster that is Trump........

I do actually mean that if you have to Trump and Republicans for fire response in California, then maybe the problem is seeking blame far afield than wondering about California. This is shooting the messenger.

[Edge-]

I do actually mean that if you have to Trump and Republicans for fire response in California, then maybe the problem is seeking blame far afield than wondering about California. This is shooting the messenger.

May as well blame Florida for being in the path of hurricanes.

Welcome to the consequences of climate change that Republicans still regularly deny is a thing that exists, natural disasters can and are getting worse. As we're seeing.

[Roneth]

MAGA cultist (whispering): "But... I thought we still had to make America great?"

Out of curiosity, why do people get infractions for saying Trump derangement syndrome, but maga cultist trolling is okay? Is it the selective moderation here like meta is doing away with?

[Kaleredar]

Out of curiosity, why do people get infractions for saying Trump derangement syndrome, but maga cultist trolling is okay? Is it the selective moderation here like meta is doing away with?

Well if it walks like a cultist, talks like a cultist, and is blindly loyal like a cultist, then…?

I thought you admired when people told it like it was. Don’t tell me your feelings are being triggered, now.

[Edge-]

Out of curiosity, why do people get infractions for saying Trump derangement syndrome, but maga cultist trolling is okay? Is it the selective moderation here like meta is doing away with?

A great many members of MAGA Nation arguably fit that description.

You don't see any one really driving around in a Biden/Obama-wrapped truck, with multiple Biden/Obama flags flying, nor having Biden/Obama-themed weddings. That's all just a bit weird, I think we can agree. To each their own and all, but like, it's kinda weird to make the day of your marriage about another man who's not even there, yaknow?

I can't speak to the other mod question, you'd have to ask supermods as that's not a question for the forums.