President Donald Trump went off the rails when asked about California wildfires during his first full day in office. He claims city officials are diverting "limitless" water to the ocean through a "massive valve."
  • return2ozma@lemmy.worldOP
    114·
    21 hours ago

    He claimed Los Angeles limits residents to just 38 gallons of water a day, and referred to some mythical “valve” that could bring limitless water to L.A., but that officials instead diverted to the ocean.

    “They have a valve, think of a sink but multiply it by many thousands of times the size of it, it’s massive. And you turn it back toward Los Angeles. Why aren’t they doing it? They either have a death wish, they’re stupid or there’s something else going on that we don’t understand,” Trump said.

    • Rhaedas@fedia.io
      129·
      21 hours ago

      or there’s something else going on that we I don’t understand," Trump said.

      He was so close to realization.

    • minnow@lemmy.world
      17·
      19 hours ago

      They either have a death wish, they’re stupid or there’s something else

      You know what they say. Everything that comes out of their mouths is either a confession or projection!

    • Mac@mander.xyzEnglish
      10·
      17 hours ago

      Maybe hes thinking of the fact that ~80% of California’s water goes to irrigation for crops instead of to communities.

      • Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works
        8·
        16 hours ago

        Tbf, the crops come to our communities. We love our fresh California produce. It sparks joy.

        And the Palisades had enough water to drink and fill pools and grow landscape plants, and several people were hosing down their homes (a few died with hose in hand because the fire was way too strong for that and they should have evacuated but a lot of the rest of us made stupid decisions in the moment that just didn’t turn out as deadly.) but the real problem was that wind. They couldn’t do airdrops, the conflagration was too powerful. There was a problem with the hydrants, but honestly even if they’d been fully functioning it’s not clear if much more could have been saved. Altadena had plenty of water too, with working hydrants, but that maelstrom of fire was just crazy, man.

    • HeyJoe@lemmy.world
      9·
      20 hours ago

      Stupid does apply here, just not in the way he thinks it does. Also, who is “they”? Is he just referring to liberals?

      • prole
        1·
        7 hours ago

        Also, who is “they”? Is he just referring to liberals?

        A lot of people are about to have a crash course on how fascism works…

      • ramble81@lemm.ee
        10·
        17 hours ago

        I hate “they”. Whenever someone at work says “they” I immediately ask “who?” and don’t get off of it until they actually name a person. Does wonders for stopping the random boogeyman.

  • Cyrus Draegur@lemm.eeEnglish
    50·
    20 hours ago

    this is America.

    a zombie state that doesn’t realize it’s already dead.

    and nobody is willing to do what must be done to stop it.

      • Sterile_Technique@lemmy.worldEnglish
        12·
        16 hours ago

        Naw, playing it off as that fucker having a limited mental capacity takes away from the culpability of his actions. Hanlon’s razor absolutely does NOT apply to global leaders: the only assumption we can make is that everything he does is calculated and the effects of which are 100% intentional.

        People with mental retardation might do something harmful because their DNA dealt them a shitty hand and their mind isn’t equipped to self-correct in a socially acceptable way.

        When Trump does something harmful, it’s because he wants to cause harm, cuz he’s an evil sack of shit.

        • casmael@lemm.ee
          1·
          1 hour ago

          I will say that although obviously my opinion doesn’t matter (I’m just some guy on the internet, right), I think that it is deeply counter productive to ban the use of a word a) so completely innocuous and b) in all circumstances regardless of context. We must try not to be dogmatists, after all. The useage of the word is very important is it not. One would not ban a person for saying the word ‘nazi’, for example, (and here is the really important bit) in most contexts. If the person were to make a statement that suggests beyond reasonable doubt that they support nazi actions, then we could probably reasonably suggest that they receive a ban. In such a case they have demonstrated opinions that fall beyond the contract in which we engage by using a forum like this one.

          Similarly: consider my useage of the banned word above. Ask yourself not if it was offensive, because offense unless deeply intentional is subjective. Ask yourself instead if the useage was malicious. Ask yourself if it demonstrated an intent to breach the social contract. Consider this. And consider the value of enforcing arbitrary rules in a dogmatic sense, which is to say in a thoughtless sense, without consideration beyond the plain text. Ask yourself how best you can serve your community, and how you can serve those who try to make use of it. Remember that we are all of us here united in our interest in free and authentic (social) media, away from the propaganda and talking points that have become commonplace elsewhere. We make genuine attempts to communicate, and banning any useage of a single word regardless of content is extremely silly.

  • spike4379@lemmy.world
    3·
    13 hours ago

    This guys a massive regard. Sad that I moved to lemmy because mods on reddit were oversensitive but the same thing is here lmao