Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Mayhem]

Like, this is so basic that I don't for one hot second believe anyone bitching about it actually believes their own schtick.

You don't plan around handling 100-year+ events. That would mean over-spending the rest of the time, building capacity that might be used, on average, once a century or so. It's the same for hurricanes, it's the same for floods, it's the same for tornadoes, etc. You plan for regular events, maybe up to decadal strengths. Beyond that, and the over-investment becomes impossible to politically justify. Whether it's even financially justifiable is questionable and will generally depend on the specifics.

But, if you're a perpetual bellyacher, you get to be "right" in the wrong way every time. You're either "correct" that money was spent for years in preparation of a problem that didn't present itself, or you're "correct" that spending was insufficient to handle a major century-level event. Which isn't a coherent position; it's Schrodinger's Whine. You're gonna whine, just like how the isotope will decay, but whether you're bitching about over-spending or under-spending depends on what the issue is and who's your political enemy.

It's just straight-up dishonest, seeking the veneer of validity retroactively. But they were always gonna condemn the status quo.

Not to brag but Viennas flood protection conquered a 1000-year flood last summer. So yes, you can do that, well in a country that actually gives a shit about stuff at least. Probably not in a country that has almost 7000 levees and can't be arsed to hire enough people to inspect them regularly.

[Breccia]

How bad is Seth Meyers on NBC, a ‘network’ run by a truly bad group of people. I got stuck watching Marble Mouth Meyers the other night, the first time in months, and every time I watch this moron I feel an obligation to say how dumb and untalented he is, merely a slot filler for the Scum that runs Comcast.

-- 1:30AM post not even good enough for Twitter

Half of y'all voted for this man to be the mouthpiece of the United States.

[Rasulis]

Considering that red states are hit the hardest with natural disasters due to having the worst infrastructures I am not sure they want to set that precedent. However I think republicans know that democrats have no balls and won't do a tit for tat if the shoe is on the other foot.

Democrats are way too nice. Report about the Texas Panhandle 2024 fires which nobody seems to care despite being the second largest fire in US history which happened during what was supposed to be the wet season in the Texas panhandle.

The Smokehouse Creek Fire was ignited by downed power lines from a broken utility pole, flagged for replacement two weeks earlier. High winds on February 26, 2024, caused the line to fall onto dry grass, igniting the fire. Not a one time thing either. In the past two decades, power lines have been a leading cause of wildfires in the Texas Panhandle. Did Democrats made replacement of aging power infrastructure and regulatory gaps a pre-requisite for Federal funding? Nope. Never even came up.

Some other factors.

Coordination among local, state, and federal entities during the wildfire response was ineffective, leading to delays in deploying crucial resources, including aviation support.

Most fire responses in the Panhandle rely on volunteer firefighters, but VFDs are underfunded and lack the necessary equipment and training. Outdated communications systems also inhibit effective wildfire response.

Texas homeowners’ insurance premiums are significantly higher than the national average and have been rising due to increased weather-related claims and climate change concerns. Governor Greg Abbott noted that many homes in rural Panhandle counties affected by recent fires had no insurance. Likewise, most fencing and cattle losses were uninsured unless landowners had special endorsements.

Lack of ignition source detection technology. Fires burned unnoticed for hours before being reported.

Lack of state-owned firefighting air fleet to respond quickly to wildfires.

Improved fire prediction and modeling.

Enhanced oversight of oil and gas operators and utilities.

Better job protection for volunteer firefighters who are often at risk of losing their primary employment due to emergency response duties.

Any of those sounds familiar?

Newsom during the Panhandle fires. Cal Fire independently sent their own crews and fleet as part of the Wildfire compacts between US states.

“In times of crisis, Americans stand together. California has built a nation-leading firefighting fleet and we’re proud to lend a helping hand to Texas as the Lone Star State battles the largest wildfire in its history.”

“The California National Guard always stands ready for disaster, and we are proud to lend support for this mission,” said Major General Matthew P. Beevers, Adjutant General of the California National Guard. “The 146th Airlift Wing is home to some of the best airmen in the country and are prepared to support state and federal efforts to respond to this natural disaster.”

The CalGuard’s 146th Airlift Wing known as the “Hollywood Guard” is one of the four C-130 Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve units in the nation that are equipped with the Modular Airborne Fire Fighting System (MAFFS) supplied by the U.S. Forest Service. This system is mounted in the aircraft and provides effective suppression with retardant in large wildland fires from the air. This military air tanker serves as an emergency backup resource to the civilian air tanker fleet used in fighting wildfires nationwide.

Last summer, California provided assistance to Florida and Georgia in response to Hurricane Idalia and sent firefighting resources and personnel to Hawaii and Oregon. In 2022, California deployed emergency personnel to Florida during Hurricane Ian. California also sent firefighters, disaster recovery experts and other personnel to Oregon, New Mexico, and Montana. In 2021, California sent firefighting equipment and personnel to assist Oregon’s response to the Bootleg Fire.

B-roll footage of the C-130J Super Hercules being prepared for deployment is available here.

Gregg Abbot on why planes and helicopters weren't used to fight the fires.

“It’s something that when we realized that, because of winds, because of other challenges, there was air support that was not provided initially. If it had been provided, its possible that the fire could have been more contained,” Abbott said. “That’s the kind of thing that lets me and other decision makers in Austin, Texas know that if we can provide the type of equipment and personnel that we’ll be able to better fight fires like this, it’s something that we need to step up and do. Bottom line is we want to make sure that we don’t have a repeat of this type of fire in the future.”

[tehdang]

Trump's hallmark of casual cruelty. Looks like the condition is contagious.

Trump has long threatened to withhold California fire aid. Now Republicans in Congress are, too

Democrat's hallmark of playing politics.

$50 million appropriated by California Democrats to fight Trump

I'm sure that fellow-travelers of the Democrats in this forum will condemn such a divisive effort in a time where they are criticizing the potential of attaching strings to relief money. After all, this is playing politics in the wake of a disaster. I'm sure that the money can be better spent to help the state's struggling citizens instead of picking fights with an administration that hasn't even taken office yet.

A smarter politician would've canceled the lawfare and political messaging campaign to show the country that they are ready to come together with Congressional Republicans and Trump to discuss aid. Sadly, I think this is the more typical response to tragedy. Full speed ahead on political fighting, and hope that the rest of the country only notices the other sides' efforts.

[Edge-]

Democrat's hallmark of playing politics.

$50 million appropriated by California Democrats to fight Trump

I'm sure that fellow-travelers of the Democrats in this forum will condemn such a divisive effort in a time where they are criticizing the potential of attaching strings to relief money. After all, this is playing politics in the wake of a disaster. I'm sure that the money can be better spent to help the state's struggling citizens instead of picking fights with an administration that hasn't even taken office yet.

A smarter politician would've canceled the lawfare and political messaging campaign to show the country that they are ready to come together with Congressional Republicans and Trump to discuss aid. Sadly, I think this is the more typical response to tragedy. Full speed ahead on political fighting, and hope that the rest of the country only notices the other sides' efforts.

I don't see anything in that article about Democrats holding up needed disaster aid because the disaster is in a red state? What does it have to do with Rasulis's article?

[tehdang]

I don't see anything in that article about Democrats holding up needed disaster aid because the disaster is in a red state? What does it have to do with Rasulis's article?

Democrats continued the special session, despite recent disastrous fires, to appropriate tens of millions of dollars to fight Trump.

Let me quote from Rasulis's post:

Trump's hallmark of casual cruelty.

and mine

Democrat's hallmark of playing politics.

I'm sure you gather that continuing to spend millions dedicated to political warfare against Trump is an act of political division, just like if Republicans put an absolute ton of strings on disaster relief and how it's spent. Maybe you have thoughts on that, but I won't know if you don't write something.

[DarkTZeratul]

I'm sure you gather that continuing to spend millions dedicated to political warfare against Trump is an act of political division, just like if Republicans put an absolute ton of strings on disaster relief and how it's spent. Maybe you have thoughts on that, but I won't know if you don't write something.

Are you seriously comparing "Democrats spent millions campaigning against a Republican" with "Republicans want to make disaster relief conditional"? Seriously? Is that actually your argument, or am I misunderstanding? Because if I'm misunderstanding, you need to be crystal fucking clear as to what your actual point is, because that's fucking monstrous.

[Edge-]

Democrats continued the special session, despite recent disastrous fires, to appropriate tens of millions of dollars to fight Trump.

Let me quote from Rasulis's post:



and mine



I'm sure you gather that continuing to spend millions dedicated to political warfare against Trump is an act of political division, just like if Republicans put an absolute ton of strings on disaster relief and how it's spent. Maybe you have thoughts on that, but I won't know if you don't write something.

And? Are we back to, "Nobody can walk and chew gum at the same time!"

Were they inadequate in providing what aid and support the state could at the moment? I haven't seen you qualify that, but you're sure heavily implying it now.

It's almost like "Trump-proofing" a state that Donald has made it clear he wants to target is as important as providing what aid and support the state can for the fires in LA, as the state can't fix everything themselves just by having some meetings.

Again, just because Republicans struggle to focus on more than a single topic at a time because they get confused doesn't mean Democrats are incapable of that feat, too.

[Ivanstone]

I'm sure you gather that continuing to spend millions dedicated to political warfare against Trump is an act of political division, just like if Republicans put an absolute ton of strings on disaster relief and how it's spent. Maybe you have thoughts on that, but I won't know if you don't write something.

The GOP withholds disaster relief as a standard operating principle. Trump being in charge makes the problem worse.

California must now waste money on fighting the GOP because they know that they’ll be petty and vindictive.

This isn’t hard to understand.

[Polgara]

So when republicans voted against aid for burn pit veterans that wasn't playing politics? What about for first responders from 9/11? Whinging about one side "playing politics" will always be a hallmark of someone with no actual eyes on reality, but that's okay you never lived in it anyway.

[Edge-]

So when republicans voted against aid for burn pit veterans that wasn't playing politics? What about for first responders from 9/11? Whinging about one side "playing politics" will always be a hallmark of someone with no actual eyes on reality, but that's okay you never lived in it anyway.

No. That's Republicans voting to let Americans who sacrificed for their nation suffer because it's cheaper that way.

Not politics. That's just Good Economics(TM).

[gondrin]

Democrats continued the special session, despite recent disastrous fires, to appropriate tens of millions of dollars to fight Trump.

Let me quote from Rasulis's post:



and mine



I'm sure you gather that continuing to spend millions dedicated to political warfare against Trump is an act of political division, just like if Republicans put an absolute ton of strings on disaster relief and how it's spent. Maybe you have thoughts on that, but I won't know if you don't write something.

So, you are comparing using state funds to basically not work with federal agents to deport people who may or may not be here illegally as the same as withholding funds to help people rebuild? Because one is based on cruelty and the other is based on not seeing people get hurt. I'll let you figure out which is which.

A state is NOT required to help out the Federal Government do its job.

[Endus]

Democrat's hallmark of playing politics.

$50 million appropriated by California Democrats to fight Trump

I'm sure that fellow-travelers of the Democrats in this forum will condemn such a divisive effort in a time where they are criticizing the potential of attaching strings to relief money.

No, it's not. This literally is not relief money. You can tell by how it's not spent on disaster relief. This might shock you, but you can't just declare that 100% of a State's budget is "disaster relief" and thus anything spent on anything other than disaster relief is "appropriating relief money".

That's just lying.

Also, all partisan politics (and thus, all politics in the USA) are "divisive". That's how the system works.

You continue to have no actual point.

After all, this is playing politics in the wake of a disaster.

No, you're lying to try and make it that.

I'm sure that the money can be better spent to help the state's struggling citizens instead of picking fights with an administration that hasn't even taken office yet.

A smarter politician would've canceled the lawfare and political messaging campaign to show the country that they are ready to come together with Congressional Republicans and Trump to discuss aid. Sadly, I think this is the more typical response to tragedy. Full speed ahead on political fighting, and hope that the rest of the country only notices the other sides' efforts.

"Why isn't 100% of the California state budget spent fighting fires?"

That's a clown argument and you know it. No serious person with an actual criticism would talk like that.

[tehdang]

So, you are comparing using state funds to basically not work with federal agents to deport people who may or may not be here illegally as the same as withholding funds to help people rebuild? Because one is based on cruelty and the other is based on not seeing people get hurt. I'll let you figure out which is which.

A state is NOT required to help out the Federal Government do its job.

The most appropriate response is that the Federal Government is NOT required to help a state do its job.

The GOP withholds disaster relief as a standard operating principle. Trump being in charge makes the problem worse.

California must now waste money on fighting the GOP because they know that they’ll be petty and vindictive.

This isn’t hard to understand.

Tell that to Bush and Trump. They both signed billions of dollars in relief during their administrations.

And? Are we back to, "Nobody can walk and chew gum at the same time!"

Were they inadequate in providing what aid and support the state could at the moment? I haven't seen you qualify that, but you're sure heavily implying it now.

It's almost like "Trump-proofing" a state that Donald has made it clear he wants to target is as important as providing what aid and support the state can for the fires in LA, as the state can't fix everything themselves just by having some meetings.

Again, just because Republicans struggle to focus on more than a single topic at a time because they get confused doesn't mean Democrats are incapable of that feat, too.

If you're going to criticize Republican congressmen for hinting at conditions on how the aid is spent, then you should include Democratic governors and legislators appropriating money to conduct lawfare against Republicans.

I'm glad that "Trump-proofing" is a policy goal you agree with, but maybe follow that with "wasteful spending/misallocation proofing" policy goal. I don't think you're engaging in a good faith analysis for political fights. If Democrats can travel from Los Angeles to Sacramento after the fires and approve millions to do combat with their rival, certainly the said rival can seek provisions for the money to be spent well and support real prevention.

Are you seriously comparing "Democrats spent millions campaigning against a Republican" with "Republicans want to make disaster relief conditional"? Seriously? Is that actually your argument, or am I misunderstanding? Because if I'm misunderstanding, you need to be crystal fucking clear as to what your actual point is, because that's fucking monstrous.

"Democrats go to Sacramento to spend tens of millions fighting Trump" and "Democrats are demanding to receive $$ from Trump without conditions relating to forestry management, other problems." I also can phrase things in my own words, just like you.

[Edge-]

If you're going to criticize Republican congressmen for hinting at conditions on how the aid is spent, then you should include Democratic governors and legislators appropriating money to conduct lawfare against Republicans.

That you keep trying to pretend these are remotely the same thing is pretty interesting to me. It's incredibly dishonest and doesn't make a lick of sense, but it's interesting.

Remember all those times that Democrats and Joe Biden and Barak Obama and Nancy Pelosi made disaster aid for Republicans states contingent?

Surely you can share all those examples of Democrats establishing this precedent, no?

[Polgara]

That you keep trying to pretend these are remotely the same thing is pretty interesting to me. It's incredibly dishonest and doesn't make a lick of sense, but it's interesting.

Remember all those times that Democrats and Joe Biden and Barak Obama and Nancy Pelosi made disaster aid for Republicans states contingent?

Surely you can share all those examples of Democrats establishing this precedent, no?

Again, this is reinforcement that the GQP and their ilk aren't interested in discussing reality, it's pointless point-scoring where their team always has opponent's score*2 modifier. If you criticize or admonish their party, you need to be perfect yourselves otherwise your complaint is invalid, and it does not require parity; Republicans can be as evil and capricious as they like, but because the other team is the "opposite" they have to be the embodiment of perfection. Which is why they feel no moral quandary in supporting a rapist felon, but oh no Biden Crime Family™!

What's that saying republicunts use unwittingly ironically? "If they didn't have double standards, they'd have none".

[Endus]

Again, this is reinforcement that the GQP and their ilk aren't interested in discussing reality, it's pointless point-scoring where their team always has opponent's score*2 modifier. If you criticize or admonish their party, you need to be perfect yourselves otherwise your complaint is invalid, and it does not require parity; Republicans can be as evil and capricious as they like, but because the other team is the "opposite" they have to be the embodiment of perfection. Which is why they feel no moral quandary in supporting a rapist felon, but oh no Biden Crime Family™!

What's that saying republicunts use unwittingly ironically? "If they didn't have double standards, they'd have none".

Again, the core issue is that conservatives, broadly speaking, do not have or abide by principles. They operate from a hierarchical view; rules and standards exist to protect their in-group and constrain/attack out-groups. It's not a "double standard" because they legitimately believe the rules apply differently based on whether you're on their side or not; that's the point of rules, to them. That's why it was great that Al Franken was pushed to resign over a no-touching honk-honk photo with a colleague during a USO tour, but Trump can literally rape women and pay for porn star escorts and that's not a problem for them at all. The rules exist to be applied to their enemies to tear them down, there is no shared standard of conduct, and they find the very idea of shared standards to be deeply offensive.

[Trumpwonumad]

Trump says he’ll create ‘External Revenue Service’ to collect tariffs, foreign revenue

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/01/14/trum...-tariffs-.html

[Edge-]

Trump says he’ll create ‘External Revenue Service’ to collect tariffs, foreign revenue

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/01/14/trum...-tariffs-.html

The External Revenue Service to collect tariffs and other revenues

That's not what a tariff is and good luck rofl. So much for "small government" lol.

[gondrin]

The most appropriate response is that the Federal Government is NOT required to help a state do its job.

Tell that to Bush and Trump. They both signed billions of dollars in relief during their administrations.

If you're going to criticize Republican congressmen for hinting at conditions on how the aid is spent, then you should include Democratic governors and legislators appropriating money to conduct lawfare against Republicans.

I'm glad that "Trump-proofing" is a policy goal you agree with, but maybe follow that with "wasteful spending/misallocation proofing" policy goal. I don't think you're engaging in a good faith analysis for political fights. If Democrats can travel from Los Angeles to Sacramento after the fires and approve millions to do combat with their rival, certainly the said rival can seek provisions for the money to be spent well and support real prevention.

"Democrats go to Sacramento to spend tens of millions fighting Trump" and "Democrats are demanding to receive $$ from Trump without conditions relating to forestry management, other problems." I also can phrase things in my own words, just like you.

No, I stand by my statement. You seem to forget that the actual States themselves are actual sovereign entities. They are not bound to help out the federal government nor any other state do its job. If the feds want to go into a state and try and deport people, they can do it with their own personnel and their own resources. Otherwise, all it is, is force conscription. And the last time I checked, there is no such thing as force conscription that deals with matters of domestic policy.