Current Affairs General US politics (ie, not POTUS related)

[SerenityNigh]

It is irrelevant what has happened in Florida or Texas. Californian's will be blaming those in charge of California. They will not be having some policy debate about the pros & cons of policies enacted in other parts of the US. Then again most posters on here couldn't spot an 'angry electorate' if that electorate turned up en masse to their homes with pitchforks in hand.

You are correct that CA residents will blame their own elected officials if there's any blame to go around. But that's not the same as blaming their lackluster efforts in response to something that happens, checks notes, 8,000 times a year, every year, for the past 25 years... We may be stupid here in Lousiana, but at least we're bright enough to know that hurricanes happen every year, and sometimes more often than that. Most people just hope it's not bad this year and plan to rebuild better than before if it affects them. I can't speak for Californians, but I presume they're also not entirely dumb.

 

[SerenityNigh]

Prescient? California has averaged more than 8,000 wildfires a year since 2000. Total loss averages just under 1 million acres. They’ve had deadly wildfires on the news every year for as long as I can remember. I don’t think I’d call this prescience.

I misstated above and it would be appropriate to revise: CA wildfires claim a total loss average just under 1 million acres every year. At about 100 million acres total, that's roughly 1% of CA burns every year in wildfires.

 

[JimmyJeffers]

like watching a slow motion car crash this

 

[dylsexicbleu]

I misstated above and it would be appropriate to revise: CA wildfires claim a total loss average just under 1 million acres every year. At about 100 million acres total, that's roughly 1% of CA burns every year in wildfires.

But this time it's the economic & social elite who are victims of these fires. That's why this time it's different. As a rule Ocean front property destroyed by wildfires has far more political consequences than, say, Oakland burning to the ground.

 

[JimmyJeffers]

Lol

 

[summerisle]

But this time it's the economic & social elite who are victims of these fires. That's why this time it's different. As a rule Ocean front property destroyed by wildfires has far more political consequences than, say, Oakland burning to the ground.

So, Beto, keep or sell ?

 

[carolinablue232]

Ok the fires are bad and Godspeed to all those involved, but lol at morons like this

The only why he could do that is with government subsidies for people that his party is always very opposed to. It’s tough to regulate risk…

 

[dylsexicbleu]

Tragic mismanagement.

 

[datblygu]

Tragic mismanagement.

What are your views on the Dyche sacking?

 

[dylsexicbleu]

Hahaha it's like an episode of Veep.

 

[verreauxi]

Every single one of these claims is typically either wrong or tangential or far more complicated than some dumb tweet from a right-wing do-nothing sideliner. More needless distractions from rightwing clowns who actually don't want the fire to be put out, which will lead to more death and destruction, so they can hope to achieve some political gain. Party of family values, fiscal responsibility, something something.

 

[verreauxi]

No amount of controlled burns or even water from 10 tanks, much less 3, or even double the firefighters could stop this fire at its maximum. The high winds literally fanned the flames and also prevented using airplanes/helicopters from fighting fires from the air, which led to quicker depletion of the tanks than would if lower winds. And ocean water isn't usually used to fight fires, as anyone who has ever swam in a saltwater pool can tell you: it corrodes your equipment leading to expensive replacements/repairs. Though it appears to be now used as a last resort.




The storm water that is diverted from the Sac-San Joaquin delta is for inland cities and especially for agricultural purposes so that fat idiot rightwing do-nothing rhymes-with-runts can eat their produce while tweeting out brain-dead directives and "what ifs" with a typical lack of knowledge about the situation. A small amount of fresh water is diverted to the San Francisco estuary from the Sac-San Joaquin delta to protect the ecosystem and is used to monitor drinking water salinity. If this tiny amount of water wasn't diverted to the estuary (where the smelt fish reside--a noted indicator species of ecosystem health, which is a concept way too complex for simple-minded right-wing rhymes-with-runts who are more content to think in reality-TV soundbytes than engage with real world complexity) then the tiny amount of water, by law, would be diverted to agricultural farms east of San Francisco, and not to LA.

All of this info can be found on the internet (which is exactly what I did) but it takes a bit of compiling and this small effort runs contrary to the loafing ethos of rightwing clowns who would much prefer to let LA burn, let people die, let buildings be destroyed, so they can continue to tweet out catchy-disinformation for "likes" in the hopes that one is retweeted by man-tits billionaire himself.


.

 

[efcste97]

Will they stop building houses out of wood now? These expensive multi-million-dollar homes are essentially just wooden boxes with a facade.

 

[dylsexicbleu]

Astonishing.

 

[dylsexicbleu]

No amount of controlled burns or even water from 10 tanks, much less 3, or even double the firefighters could stop this fire at its maximum. The high winds literally fanned the flames and also prevented using airplanes/helicopters from fighting fires from the air, which led to quicker depletion of the tanks than would if lower winds. And ocean water isn't usually used to fight fires, as anyone who has ever swam in a saltwater pool can tell you: it corrodes your equipment leading to expensive replacements/repairs. Though it appears to be now used as a last resort.

View attachment 290024


The storm water that is diverted from the Sac-San Joaquin delta is for inland cities and especially for agricultural purposes so that fat idiot rightwing do-nothing rhymes-with-runts can eat their produce while tweeting out brain-dead directives and "what ifs" with a typical lack of knowledge about the situation. A small amount of fresh water is diverted to the San Francisco estuary from the Sac-San Joaquin delta to protect the ecosystem and is used to monitor drinking water salinity. If this tiny amount of water wasn't diverted to the estuary (where the smelt fish reside--a noted indicator species of ecosystem health, which is a concept way too complex for simple-minded right-wing rhymes-with-runts who are more content to think in reality-TV soundbytes than engage with real world complexity) then the tiny amount of water, by law, would be diverted to agricultural farms east of San Francisco, and not to LA.

All of this info can be found on the internet (which is exactly what I did) but it takes a bit of compiling and this small effort runs contrary to the loafing ethos of rightwing clowns who would much prefer to let LA burn, let people die, let buildings be destroyed, so they can continue to tweet out catchy-disinformation for "likes" in the hopes that one is retweeted by man-tits billionaire himself.


.

It's all about minimising risk though, not that there are any failsafe guarantees when it comes to natural(and arsonist made) disasters such as these. Risk management should be fairly standard practice for local and state officials in California. Weed out the overgrown brush, firebreaks all over, employ competent fire chiefs and ensure the water supply is flowing as much as possible. It's not rocket science.