Photos of destruction as a result of the incompetent world leader & his party

[Tippaporn]

2 hours ago, WorriedNoodle said:

8 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

It was the policies of a political party which allowed the fires to destroy the homes.  Only rational cavemen understand that.

So politics created hurricane force winds and droughts that flamed the fires across whole towns? You'll be saying next it was the sexual orientation of the fire chief there next that failed to control the flames.

 

Dude, can you understand the English language?  Tell me, how are you able to twist the plain meaning of words and come up with some totally different meaning?  Seriously.  People may not know it but I have a passion for human psychology.  Most fascinating subject, I've found.  You've made yourself a case study on how people can pervert clear and concise meanings to fit their preconceived notions.  That's fascinating.  My noodle is very much worried about yours.

 

Edit:  Apologies for calling you a dude, Sheryl.  Didn't find out you changed your nick 'till just now.

[Jingthing]

9 hours ago, Hawaiian said:

Try convincing the 92,000 petitioners demanding the resignation of LA mayor Karen Bass.  While you at it you might want to notify Newsom's supporters that this is all all ploy by the forces of maga to sabotage his presidential ambitions.

Better hurry before the real story spreads like wildfire.  Pun intended.

That's a hilariously weak argument even considering the source.

92,000 out of world of the internet billions clearly not even vetted as eligible LA voters.

Even if it was only vetted LA voters, really a puny number. 

You could easily get many more signers of such garbage for a petition saying the earth is flat. You know this but you went with it anyway.

As far as Newsom's presidential ambitions, personally I could care less (intentional Americanism).

Yes he's ambitious but maga just won an election.

Give it a rest on presidential politics at least until after the midterms!

It's just mental masturbation now to speculate which people will emerge as contenders in 28 if indeed there is even a fair election to happen in 28 after Trump has done his dirty authoritarian business.

[Tippaporn]

2 hours ago, Jingthing said:

8 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

 

Now that's woke.  He went off on so many different tangents that there didn't seem to be any point or conclusion.  At the end he seems lost in thought and then abruptly ends the video with, "enough."  LOL

Your woke definition meaning beyond your conprehension.

 

Per Wikipedia:

 

Beginning in the 2010s, it came to be used to refer to a broader awareness of social inequalities such as racial injustice, sexism, and denial of LGBTQ rights. Woke has also been used as shorthand for some ideas of the American Left involving identity politics and social justice, such as white privilege and reparations for slavery in the United States.

 

It's plain English and not difficult to comprehend.  Granted, the definition has been stretched over time to include other bizarre leftist ideas.  The definition is actually very inclusive.  Climate change, for instance, has been welcomed to the list of what woke is.  That's good,  no?

 

But if you want to be a purist on the definition then woke is still an appropriate and fitting term as Vlad starts drifting into inclusion and exclusion and evil whiteness.  Now those are most definitely social inequality concepts.

 

Do you agree, Jingthing?  Feel free to make yourself clear about your misunderstandings.

[Jingthing]

5 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

Per Wikipedia:

 

Beginning in the 2010s, it came to be used to refer to a broader awareness of social inequalities such as racial injustice, sexism, and denial of LGBTQ rights. Woke has also been used as shorthand for some ideas of the American Left involving identity politics and social justice, such as white privilege and reparations for slavery in the United States.

 

It's plain English and not difficult to comprehend.  Granted, the definition has been stretched over time to include other bizarre leftist ideas.  The definition is actually very inclusive.  Climate change, for instance, has been welcomed to the list of what woke is.  That's good,  no?

 

But if you want to be a purist on the definition then woke is still an appropriate and fitting term as Vlad starts drifting into inclusion and exclusion and evil whiteness.  Now those are most definitely social inequality concepts.

 

Do you agree, Jingthing?  Feel free to make yourself clear about your misunderstandings.

Welcomed by whom? Morons? 

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

He's a lucky idiot.

 Fighting a fire with a garden hose is lunacy. One needs an independent tank water supply, flame proof clothing, a helmet, glasses, gloves, boots and a fire fighting pump capable of delivering over 400 litres/minute. Been there, done that when I built in a fire-prone zone.

 

What would he have done if the water supply failed to his garden hose?

 

He may be a hero to some. To me, he's a lucky idiot.

 

 

 

The man defied your intellect and was successful.  Can't argue with success, can you?  The bottom line is all that matters.  I've told you before, Lacessit, the intellect is not the only problem solver available to us.  It's been said that if the earth's orbit around the sun was strictly dependent on the intellect the orbit wouldn't last a nanosecond.  I understand, there are concepts which form the basis of the statement and make it true of which are entirely foreign to you.  So I don't expect you to understand or agree.  Just mentioning it to make you aware that there's much more in play than simply your intellect.

 

Hey, whatever happened to responding to some of my other posts?  You seemed to drop them and move on.  Too much for you?

[Tippaporn]

6 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Welcomed by whom? Morons? 

 

Jingthing, is there a problem that prevents you from engaging in a civil dialogue?

[Jingthing]

Just now, Tippaporn said:

 

Jingthing, is there a problem that prevents you from engaging in a civil dialogue?

I'm going with Vlad Vexler. It's idiocy to even bother to engage with man made climate change deniers. But he's polite about it. I consider such people total morons. 

[Lacessit]

9 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

 

Disastrous climate change due to man's activities is not my claim.  It's yours.  The burden of proof lies upon you.  Though a great many have taken on the burden of showing that it's a fallacy.

 

 

I have to admit I laughed when I read that.  That's it?  That's the extent of your "evidence?"  I was expecting to see much more.  Maybe some pretty graphs and charts.  At least something, anything, that ties your evidence directly and conclusively to man's activities.  Mr. Scientist, you'll have to do much better than that.  This is beyond weak.

 

 

So the laws of thermodynamics are causing the warming of the earth, and all of the effects caused by that warming.  So you state.  Were the laws of thermodynamics then inoperative during the ice ages?  If those laws cause warming then what laws supercede them to cause cooling?

 

You seem to love to show off with your comprehensive knowledge of thermodynamics and deride others for their ignorance yet you never seem take the important step of explaining its workings to the "uneducated" readers that you seem to scorn so that they might become as enlightened on the subject as you claim to be.

 

If thermal dynamics is such an integral factor in the cause of "climate change" then it's incumbent upon you to explain it such that the average Joe and Jane can understand it and help clear up their misunderstandings.  Try teaching instead of haranguing.

 

 

So your theory is that increased warming leads to increased wind speeds.  I won't argue that since I don't possess the knowledge to do so.  However, your implication is that the wind speed of the Santa Ana winds in question was increased due to "climate change."  Without providing any data to support that contention you can only then speculate.  Now that puts you in the realm of hypothesis.  Not proven science.

 

Good luck finding historical data on wind speeds that stretch back any further than the start of record taking.  I believe that leaves you with a tiny sliver of data which is insufficient in detecting any trends.  Speculation would be your limit, then.

 

 

LOL.  I love the implication you wish to pass off as fact that all meteorologists are in agreement.  A known impossibility.  Another version of the belief in the logical fallacy promoted by climate changers that consensus equates to truth.  "Most scientists agree . . . "  LOL

 

 

Not all of them have gone on to "higher learning centers" after high school but that fact doesn't lead to the conclusion that then they're all dumb as rocks.  That would be another logical fallacy if you were to suggest that.  But they are smart enough to recognise when their lives become intolerable and the dumb azz ideas that made their lives intolerable.  And they're smart enough, and brave enough, to demand a change.  Give them some credit, for crickey's sake.

 

 

Aw, just come out and be blunt about.  Just say it loudly, in caps, "I HATE TRUMP."  And because he was re-elected you then must turn your hate to those you blame for electing him.  ". . . 50% are as dumb as rocks."  To you they're only dumb as rocks because they voted for a guy you HATE.  That's pretty obvious, no?

 

 

And here, too, you don't get it at all.  The creation of an ideal life, or even world, is not dependent solely on intelligence alone.  Intelligence is not the solver of all problems, either.  Get off of your intellectual pedestal.

OK,  You are challenging me to explain thermodynamics in layman terms. Here goes:

 

There are four thermodynamic laws. The ones that apply most to our lives are #1 and #2.

 

Global warming is the Second Law of Thermodynamics in operation. Climate change is an example of the First Law of Thermodynamics.

 

The laws of thermodynamics have no escape clauses. They are as immutable as Muslims believe the Koran is, and as unavoidable as the fact the sun rises in the east, and sets in the west.

 

Yet if I was to ask randomly selected persons to explain their understanding of the laws of thermodynamics without resorting to Google, I guarantee over 99% of the people would look blank.

 

Similarly, I would be drawing blanks if I asked people what albedo and clathrates are, and how they can affect the rate of climate change.

 

All the facts and evidence point towards global warming resulting from human activity, principally the burning of fossil fuels.

 

I’m annoyed because I trained for 4 years to be a scientist, then worked for almost 50 years in that capacity, and in research. I think I can be deemed to be impartial, as I have never received research funding for anything related to climate science. It’s absurd to think I am part of a global conspiracy.

 

The Second Law of Thermodynamics, in layman terms, states heat cannot pass from a colder body to a hotter body without work. When carbon dioxide and other gases such as methane absorb solar radiation, those molecules re-radiate solar energy as heat. The so-called greenhouse effect.

 

That heat has to go somewhere. It flows into the colder oceans, with a corresponding rise in temperature. Global warming.

 

The First Law of Thermodynamics, in layman terms, states all forms of energy are interchangeable. When we drive cars, we are exchanging the chemical energy in gasoline for heat and kinetic energy.

Similarly, turning on a TV converts electrical energy to light and sound.

 

Any meteorologist will tell you the higher the temperature of a body of water is, the more intense the wind velocity will be. The First Law of Thermodynamics, the conversion of heat energy to kinetic energy. Climate change.

 

What concerns scientists most in this time is the potential for a “butterfly effect”. The term was first used by Friedrich Schiller in a short story of the 18^th century, and refers to an insignificant event giving rise to catastrophic consequences elsewhere. Albedo and clathrates are first in line.

 

When I say no-one can beat the laws of thermodynamics, even AI agrees with me. This is what it has to say:

 

AI cannot beat the laws of thermodynamics. These laws are fundamental principles of physics that govern the behavior of all matter and energy, including the systems that AI operates on.

 

AI relies on physical systems: AI systems are ultimately based on physical hardware like computers and servers. These devices require energy to function and are subject to the laws of thermodynamics.

Energy conservation: The first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted from one form to another. AI systems, like any other system, must adhere to this principle.

 

Entropy and efficiency: The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated system can only increase over time. This means that no process can be perfectly efficient, and there will always be some energy lost as heat. AI systems are not exempt from this limitation.

 

While AI can be used to model and analyze thermodynamic systems, it cannot change the underlying physical laws that govern their behavior.

 

 

I fully expect more ad hominem attacks from you, the most common form of dishonest argument.

 

Have at it.

 

 

[novacova]

34 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I'm going with Vlad Vexler. It's idiocy to even bother to engage with man made climate change deniers. But he's polite about it. I consider such people total morons. 

How can you have confidence that every day humans and their combustible machines are responsible for climate changes? There is absolutely no existing proof of this whatsoever. We have correlations hypothesis and obscure theories, but no concrete observations. Again…the so-called climatologist conveniently skip over the fact that the sun and earth are not linear and static, or by definition of their quackery at its sum: the sun and earth is linear and static. Climate is a system of non-static nonlinear complexities. Non-linearity is an inherent phenomenon of the complexities of climate. Pseudo climate science attempts to explain climate in a linear fashion, yet these linear attempts to explain the complexities of climate are inherently doomed to failure. 

[Jingthing]

Vexler is correct.

It's a waste of time "debating" with man made climate change deniers.

The same as it's a waste of time debating with flat earthers.

[Tippaporn]

32 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I'm going with Vlad Vexler. It's idiocy to even bother to engage with man made climate change deniers. But he's polite about it. I consider such people total morons. 

 

But it's as I explained to Lacessit.  Climate change is not settled science.  Agree or disagree.  Like it or not.  Your personal inclinations on the matter don't change the fact.  Also, to reiterate that true science never stops questioning.  Especially on issues that are not definitively proven.  As long as there is robust disagreement then climate change believers do not have the right to impose their belief in it unto others.  Yet this is what they do.  Of course they're going to get pushback for their impositions.

 

Now I'm being quite polite about it with you.  Can you at least reciprocate and talk civilly without deriding those who believe differently.  Isn't that what you yearn for on the LGBQT+ rights issue?  So why behave in reverse?

[Lacessit]

7 minutes ago, novacova said:

How can you have confidence that every day humans and their combustible machines are responsible for climate changes? There is absolutely no existing proof of this whatsoever. We have correlations hypothesis and obscure theories, but no concrete observations. Again…the so-called climatologist conveniently skip over the fact that the sun and earth are not linear and static, or by definition of their quackery at its sum: the sun and earth is linear and static. Climate is a system of non-static nonlinear complexities. Non-linearity is an inherent phenomenon of the complexities of climate. Pseudo climate science attempts to explain climate in a linear fashion, yet these linear attempts to explain the complexities of climate are inherently doomed to failure. 

Prior to the Industrial Revolution, CO2 levels were 280 ppm for 10,000 years.

 

Is this linear enough for you?

 

 

[Captain Flack]

I have removed a number of bickering, baiting and personal attack posts. Discuss the topic, not other posters.

 

Reminders of forum rules:

 

9. You will not post disruptive or inflammatory messages. You will respect other members and post in a civil manner. Personal attacks, insults or hate speech posted on the  forum or sent by private message are not allowed.

 

15. You will not discriminate or post slurs, degrading or overly negative comments on the basis of race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, nationality, disability, medical history, marriage, civil partnership, pregnancy, maternity, paternity, gender identity, sexual orientation or any other irrelevant factor.

[riclag]

The Senator brings up a good question!

Would you vote to send federal money to California under these circumstances!

 No Senator ,not until there is a real independent investigation! Not a investigation by a commission , whose body is appointed by guess who ,GN.

 

 

[novacova]

21 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Prior to the Industrial Revolution, CO2 levels were 280 ppm for 10,000 years.

 

Is this linear enough for you?

 

 

No, absolutely not good enough. You went digging for something and came up with a computer model graph. Have you any idea how many computer models used for research in climate model projections of historical data that are in contradiction and easily manipulated? You won’t, not until you go out and do actual objective research and analysis. Until then it’s easy to assume that the human caused climate warriors will continue to grasp at the low hanging fruit that has been cultivated on the internet for the easily duped, and bring it here and pose it as a done deal. If anyone seriously believes that human caused climate change is responsible for these fires, then they most certainly have no understanding of what nature can do, whether if these fires were natural or intentional arson.

[TedG]

12 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Political hit piece chock full of LIES.

It's truly disgusting how the divisive forces of maga care 100 times more about the how they can smear their "enemies" with disinformation as opposed to dealing with an ongoing crisis in Southern Cali. 

Also truly disgusting. it's quite clear the "red" America under convicted felon Trump is going to help with the aftermath of this as weakly as possible only because it happened in a very blue state.

The foreign enemies of the USA rejoice! 

Pot meet kettle.

[Lacessit]

12 minutes ago, novacova said:

No, absolutely not good enough. You went digging for something and came up with a computer model graph. Have you any idea how many computer models used for research in climate model projections of historical data that are in contradiction and easily manipulated? You won’t, not until you go out and do actual objective research and analysis. Until then it’s easy to assume that the human caused climate warriors will continue to grasp at the low hanging fruit that has been cultivated on the internet for the easily duped, and bring it here and pose it as a done deal. If anyone seriously believes that human caused climate change is responsible for these fires, then they most certainly have no understanding of what nature can do, whether if these fires were natural or intentional arson.

It's not a model, it's data derived from measurement. Scientists can measure CO2 levels 10,000 years ago, from ice cores.

 

You obviously have a closed mind on the topic, end of discussion.

[novacova]

12 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

It's not a model, it's data derived from measurement. Scientists can measure CO2 levels 10,000 years ago, from ice cores.

 

You obviously have a closed mind on the topic, end of discussion.

I’ve read many of these graphs and data, none have ever proven that humans caused climate change, and many of these studies have broad variabilities, including core samples, which are a minor ancillary. As far as having a closed mind, highly doubt it, I’m not the one here buying into something that hasn’t been proven. This subject is about the cali fires, please prove to me that human caused climate change is responsible for these fires, please, just show us.

[Jingthing]

To be clear I am not saying this fire disaster is a matter of one factor. It's a matter of many complex factors including climate change, population increases in high risk area, and all kinds of efforts successful and not successful of mitigation attempts by policies and actions.

What I do know for a fact that the current maga effort to blame this on some officials being black, some officials being lesbian, and a government being dominated by democrats in a region dominated by democratic voters, and calls for cutting off federal DISASTER aid unless politically motivated "conditions" are met is incredibly stupid and incredibly wrong. 

Trump talks about annexing Canada.

I wouldn't blame Californians after these outrageous insults and threats from federal maga and zero compassion while so many Californians are actively fighting for their homes and their lives (but lets do the BLAME GAME instead) to start to look into joining Canada (ideally including Oregon and Washington to make it geographically coherent). 

 

[Jingthing]

Unfortunately can't post it here. but for an entertaining commentary on the outrageousness (and total HYPOPRICY) of the maga response to this fire disaster, I do suggest watching the latest Jon Stewart Daily Show item about the issue.

[Jingthing]

Imagine if the BIG ONE (great California earthquake) happens under the Trump regime. Their sickening divisive cruel bigotted unpatriotic response to these fires is a dark foreshadowing. 

[TedG]

3 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Unfortunately can't post it here. but for an entertaining commentary on the outrageousness (and total HYPOPRICY) of the maga response to this fire disaster, I do suggest watching the latest Jon Stewart Daily Show item about the issue.

Yes, it’s aways best to get your news from a comedy show. 

[impulse]

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

OK,  You are challenging me to explain thermodynamics in layman terms. Here goes:

 

There are four thermodynamic laws. The ones that apply most to our lives are #1 and #2.

 

Global warming is the Second Law of Thermodynamics in operation. Climate change is an example of the First Law of Thermodynamics.

 

The laws of thermodynamics have no escape clauses. They are as immutable as Muslims believe the Koran is, and as unavoidable as the fact the sun rises in the east, and sets in the west.

 

Yet if I was to ask randomly selected persons to explain their understanding of the laws of thermodynamics without resorting to Google, I guarantee over 99% of the people would look blank.

 

Similarly, I would be drawing blanks if I asked people what albedo and clathrates are, and how they can affect the rate of climate change.

 

All the facts and evidence point towards global warming resulting from human activity, principally the burning of fossil fuels.

 

I’m annoyed because I trained for 4 years to be a scientist, then worked for almost 50 years in that capacity, and in research. I think I can be deemed to be impartial, as I have never received research funding for anything related to climate science. It’s absurd to think I am part of a global conspiracy.

 

The Second Law of Thermodynamics, in layman terms, states heat cannot pass from a colder body to a hotter body without work. When carbon dioxide and other gases such as methane absorb solar radiation, those molecules re-radiate solar energy as heat. The so-called greenhouse effect.

 

That heat has to go somewhere. It flows into the colder oceans, with a corresponding rise in temperature. Global warming.

 

The First Law of Thermodynamics, in layman terms, states all forms of energy are interchangeable. When we drive cars, we are exchanging the chemical energy in gasoline for heat and kinetic energy.

Similarly, turning on a TV converts electrical energy to light and sound.

 

Any meteorologist will tell you the higher the temperature of a body of water is, the more intense the wind velocity will be. The First Law of Thermodynamics, the conversion of heat energy to kinetic energy. Climate change.

 

What concerns scientists most in this time is the potential for a “butterfly effect”. The term was first used by Friedrich Schiller in a short story of the 18^th century, and refers to an insignificant event giving rise to catastrophic consequences elsewhere. Albedo and clathrates are first in line.

 

When I say no-one can beat the laws of thermodynamics, even AI agrees with me. This is what it has to say:

 

AI cannot beat the laws of thermodynamics. These laws are fundamental principles of physics that govern the behavior of all matter and energy, including the systems that AI operates on.

 

AI relies on physical systems: AI systems are ultimately based on physical hardware like computers and servers. These devices require energy to function and are subject to the laws of thermodynamics.

Energy conservation: The first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted from one form to another. AI systems, like any other system, must adhere to this principle.

 

Entropy and efficiency: The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated system can only increase over time. This means that no process can be perfectly efficient, and there will always be some energy lost as heat. AI systems are not exempt from this limitation.

 

While AI can be used to model and analyze thermodynamic systems, it cannot change the underlying physical laws that govern their behavior.

 

 

I fully expect more ad hominem attacks from you, the most common form of dishonest argument.

 

Have at it.

 

What a bunch of mumbo jumbo, that doesn't explain at all the climate catastrophes that preceded industrialization.  Like the Little Ice Age, the climate change following Krakatoa, the Biblical plagues, and dozens of others just since they started recording history.  Then there's the climate changes that preceded recorded human history.  The climate is always changing.  Dispute that...

 

The Laws of Thermodynamics deal with isolated systems.  The Earth isn't an isolated system.

 

And you're forgetting the 5th law of thermodynamics.  Sometimes, stuff just happens.  (Sorry I had to misquote that one.  The real quote keeps getting censored)  Like the massive cooling event when that volcano off the Northeast USA erupts in 2025 like they're predicting.  Cold kills a lot more humans than heat.  Always has.

 

[Jingthing]

Just now, TedG said:

Yes, it’s aways best to get your news from a comedy show. 

Not saying it's news. It's comedic commentary that quite often is spot on. 

[Will B Good]

8 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

 

Here:

 

 

And since Newsom is fully on board with DEI, and it certainly played a role in this disaster, here:

 

 

 

So where did I defend him?

 

Oh i get it now. By asking a question you’re too dumb to answer…..sorry.

[riclag]

Yo cant hide from the facts of Dem incompetent leadership!

 

LAFD documentary from a previous post:

Experts back in 1962 never mentioned 

Climate Change but they did mention 

Santa Ana winds . It is this period of late fall where Firefighters fear the most.

Classed by experts then as the fastest burning ground cover in The Western Hemisphere.

Fast Fast forward today

 

Dems cut the fire budget .

 A Water storage facility was  empty

Fire hydrants run out of  water.

Dems make excuses blaming CC

for the same things that happened 

Years ago.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tylerroush/2025/01/11/did-budget-cuts-affect-emergency-response-to-la-wildfires-what-to-know-about-funding-to-citys-fire-department/

 

 

[novacova]

56 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Imagine if the BIG ONE (great California earthquake) happens under the Trump regime.

If such an unfortunate event happens during the next administration the blame will most certainly be directed towards Trump. In any case, administrative failure blaming is always awarded to those in charge.

 

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

To be clear I am not saying this fire disaster is a matter of one factor. It's a matter of many complex factors including climate change, population increases in high risk area, and all kinds of efforts successful and not successful of mitigation attempts by policies and actions.

Agreeable for the most part.
Though, personally the dissemination human caused climate change without proof is one of those things that really ticks me off, a scam that only benefits a small few and imposes oppression upon the masses, if the scam didn’t have the propensity to rip off people and bring more wealth and power to a small few, then it wouldn’t even be a blip on the scale.

[riclag]

On 1/10/2025 at 8:03 PM, riclag said:

Everything the dems touch they destroy . Progressives visions of control are radical , destructive and the proof is in the pictures in the OP.

 

2021 article explaining:
“How Democrats Ruin Everything: The New York Times”

 

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/how-democrats-ruin-everything-the-new-york-times/

Make California Great Again , the last decade of dem leadership is a criminal 

soapopera.

 

Disturbing LA case of homeless man with blowtorch sparks fresh debate over city’s out-of-control vagrant crisis

 

Juan Manuel Sierra-Leyva, an illegal migrant from Mexico, was nabbed Thursday by LA residents who allegedly saw him torching old Christmas trees and debris with what one local described as a “flamethrower” soon after a massive wildfire began in the region. Cops arrested him, but he has not been charged, at least yet.

It is unknown if he may have started one of the recent devastating, deadly, widespread wildfires.

 

https://nypost.com/2025/01/13/us-news/la-case-of-blow-torch-homeless-man-sparks-new-debate-over-vagrant-crisis/

 

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, novacova said:

If such an unfortunate event happens during the next administration the blame will most certainly be directed towards Trump. In any case, administrative failure blaming is always awarded to those in charge.

 

Agreeable for the most part.
Though, personally the dissemination human caused climate change without proof is one of those things that really ticks me off, a scam that only benefits a small few and imposes oppression upon the masses, if the scam didn’t have the propensity to rip off people and bring more wealth and power to a small few, then it wouldn’t even be a blip on the scale.

You're forgetting who we're dealing with here with Donald Trump. Projecting normal predictable responses to him our adjudicated rapist twice impeached convicted multiple felon insurrectionist prez elect doesn't wash.

 

To me, that climate change as a scam narrative is completely insane. 

[mogandave]

13 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

You're forgetting who we're dealing with here with Donald Trump. Projecting normal predictable responses to him our convicated felon insurrectionist prez elect doesn't wash.

 

To me, that scam narrative is completely insane. 

You forgot MAGA fascist. 

 

What do you think about Vance in ‘28?