Trump's Plan to Save the Forests

a reply to: TruthJava
For me, the issue this addresses is not so much the international vrs domestic expense but rather the tossing of money at flights of fantasy which is how I view Trump's comments at that gathering. Trump tells us what he might have heard that''they'' were saying. Maybe, just maybe, he was hearing the deeply thought forestry and environmental experts that we might hope a president would be paying attention to or it could be just the jabber of clowns he has a habit of surrounding himself with.

This is why I ask the question, who is he listening to when he says ''they say'''. I"ve heard him use that as the reasons for numerous plans of his, many of which have not proven viable at all.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: TruthJava
For me, the issue this addresses is not so much the international vrs domestic expense but rather the tossing of money at flights of fantasy which is how I view Trump's comments at that gathering. Trump tells us what he might have heard that''they'' were saying. Maybe, just maybe, he was hearing the deeply thought forestry and environmental experts that we might hope a president would be paying attention to or it could be just the jabber of clowns he has a habit of surrounding himself with.

This is why I ask the question, who is he listening to when he says ''they say'''. I"ve heard him use that as the reasons for numerous plans of his, many of which have not proven viable at all.

Trump actually did a lot of work towards saving trees/forest lands when he was President. He signed some very important legislations, including the Trillion Trees Act (H.R. 5859). He also got over 60 million trees planted, so he must have worked with some who knew what they were doing.

a reply to: TruthJava

And good on em.

He’s not even the smartest guy in the room when he is alone.

However, how many Trump tears would it take?
A deluge is forthcoming.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Reading through the posts here, I see the usual garble of how "libs will look for anything to criticize him".

I actually see it as the opposite, no matter what stupid idea he comes up with, no matter how blatant of a crime he commits, ect. his followers will make excuse after excuse to defend him.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Reading through the posts here, I see the usual garble of how "libs will look for anything to criticize him".

I actually see it as the opposite, no matter what stupid idea he comes up with, no matter how blatant of a crime he commits, ect. his followers will make excuse after excuse to defend him.

We’ve had 8 years of the usual Liberal garble crying, bitching and moaning about Trump.

What are you gonna do when he gets elected again?

originally posted by: RazorV66
What are you gonna do when he gets elected again?

LOL I don't think anyone would do anything, but there isn't a chance in hell that we'll find out.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Not necessarily. Vast improvement could be realized for the state's water and forest management without displacing any residents, and it could happen very quickly.

There are already extensive canal networks which are not in use at present. Re-opening them would increase rainfall. No one needs to be displaced to make that happen.

Implementing gujarat type improvements could be implemented in areas where no residents would be displaced, and this method utilizes and accentuates the natural ley of the land, so ultimately you're not talking about displacing a lot of earth, it's more like making some minor adjustments. These adjustments could allow forest floors to be dampened in some areas.

Allowing Owen's lake to refill would not displace anyone, though I would imagine it might piss LA county off. They would just have to endure a reduced water flow for a time. The water would still flow down the hill to them at the end of the restoration, they just wouldn't be able to steal it all for a little while. They'd get a few gallons less for a season or two. The horror!

The Sea To Sea project would require securing rights of way, some with Mexico, if it were to be done in the most cost effective manner, but it would certainly be worth the effort, though I don't expect it to happen anytime soon, if ever.

There are of course other projects that I expect would require securing rights of way, but there is plenty that could be done without displacing anyone, it would just hurt LA county's water theft program and the hydroelectric companies.

Of course all of this argument here is really six of one versus half a dozen of the other, because we don't even have Trump's verbatim statements to argue over here. The articles you linked only quoted two sentences or so of Trump's statements, as did the article that was linked in one of the articles. I didn't mind the excuse to talk about water and forest management, but ultimately anyone ridiculing OR defending his statements in this thread so far is doing so ignorantly, because we don't even have an accurate picture of what he actually said.

I'd speculate that what he said was actually not as stupid as what those ridiculing him would like to think, because that is usually the case with these types of Trump bashing festivals that the mainstream media likes to inaugurate, but that is only speculation on my part.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Looks like this is the speech. I assume the statements being discussed are in here somewhere.
www.youtube.com...



Edit to add:
Looks like he starts speaking about water at the 20 minute mark or so, which transitions into speaking about forest management. The parts of the speech that were quoted appear to be at about the 32 minute mark, and by about the 36 minute mark his speech moves on to other issues.

According to his words in the speech, all of the water infrastructure is and was already in place while Trump was president, but was held up by Newsome not signing the agreement. Anyhow, lots more there than was quoted in the articles.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Yep, the segment on dampening forests was almost verbatim what what was reported. The rest of that water comments were familiar but for one part. He mentions a ''big valve'' up there that keeps water from coming south and instead pumps that water into the ocean. I have never heard of this before. Does this valve have a name? If so, where is it?

a reply to: TerryMcGuire
Most of his plan would have water going back to where it naturally went. It is currently doing diverted into the ocean on a mass scale to the point where there is drought and water shortages do your research before talking about something you don’t know anything about.

a reply to: TDDAgain

Thank you for this explanation.

CA has had a horrible drought for years. DId they plan for rainy season while they had an opportunity to do exactly something like this? NO

Did they clear the dead dry tinder from the forest? NO

When we had massive biblical rains, where did the water go???? Down the flood control canals out to the sea.

But Trump is the stupid one.

ANd for you chuckleheads still laughing about 'drinking bleach'.... he said disenfectant. Like ultraviolet light, like the Isreali's were researching 'injecting into the body' via fiber optics.

And for you clowns still laughing about Sarah Palin, seeing Russia from her house.... Tina Fey said that on Sat. Night Live playing Sarah. But everyone on the left stills laughs and says how stupid Palin is.

Pact of laughing hyenas.

What, the generic “experts say” isn’t good enough? “They say” is ok for CNN, not trump? How interesting.

What is bidens plan for stopping forest fires? Seems like he had. A problem with that.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

a reply to: CoyoteAngels
Always happy to provide information and different viewpoints

I think the pitfall here is that often people get triggered by what he said so his solutions can not be and can not be allowed to have any merit or truth behind. "Just because".


He just triggered them too often with things like sharpies and what you described, because deep down he knows the art of trolling and how to trigger these people. I can not hold it against him lol although it is not productive.

We say here "Once your reputation is ruined, life becomes much easier to live". Many things Trump said that was criticized and taken out of context, the media ran with it and made it "fact".

I still remember, in an office job I had, how everyone was so gleeful about the next "Did you hear what Trump said"? And I, fresh here on the boards and getting the direct sources from elsewhere, always shook my head. It really showed the uglyness of heart a lot of people carry around. Making jokes on other's costs that are based on pure disinformation. The media says so? Must be true. But for their own prejudices, they then question the media. But not for Trump, because then they could not make fun of him.

Trump often expresses things very simple, if he would have put a bit more thoughts into what he said, he would not have delivered the Dems and others so much ammunition to use against him. Or the media would have just made up more lies, who knows.

If he had not twittered so much controversial stuff, I think the rage would not have been that high. He took that saying I quoted above literally and that didn't help him. He was already polarizing but that just made it even worse. And since the Dems and their minions love to play hypocrite and unfair, what we saw was the result.

Not everything he did was good for the US people but at least he didn't start new wars, tried to keep his promises more than any other higher up politician I saw yet. That he is a douchebag IMHO is another topic but I go by the saying "Acknowledgement, where acknowledgement is due". He did not deserve how he and his presidency was treated.

Add: And many military people liked him, that often consist of working class in the lower ranks. He wasn't the one calling the people that protect your country "dog faced pony soldiers", insulting them etc.

a reply to: TDDAgain

I love that expression! I lived that philosophy since HS and didnt even know it. Sorta came natural to me. Maybe I will make a cross stitch. Like the duck joke with the Genie, I want to memorize and it translates!

I mentioned Sarah Palin, because, she didn't even say anything other than Alaska being the closest state to Russia.

Tina Fey said it. But everyone hee-haws about Sarah Palin. Even conservatives I know remember HER saying it and dismiss her as stupid. Because she had a pregnant teen daughter, her family was white trash. Look at Hunter!

And Dubya Bush was just a dumb hick. With large ears. They called him 'Chimpy'. But Obama has big ears too. Chimpy would have been racist.

Trump is the best troll ever, but the cost to him has been high.

In general, the American media and their hangers on are what is embarrassing about America.

a reply to: CoyoteAngels
The saying goes "Ist der Ruf erst ruiniert, dann lebt es sich ganz ungeniert!" It actually rhymes

I lived that too for a long time. Eventually I/we moved somewhere else and started over. Which is great, because for the first time it felt like the majority of people accept me for who I am, through my acts and mindset, not because of what they heard about me.

A stark contrast. And sometimes I still surprise people in a positive manner, like for example when I brought my now ex GF to a dinner gala and nobody knew I am into women. Because I never rubbed it under their noses and left them alone with it. These kind of things.

Leading by example.


But before we get too offtopic, I want to comment on the thinning out part. Nature does that by itself and forest fires were completely natural and are also cleansing. It's just we populate many areas and so the thinning is needed to protect us humans. Not every where that is needed. In a real healthy forest that is self regulating, cleaning and thinning is counter productive to the animals habitat.

That is, in a healthy environment mostly untouched by humans before. I am not against it though, because I see it as necessary. Just like hunters, because we do not have natural predators for hogs and deer, foxes and badgers. So once we humans eliminated all the wolfes, we found out there is another problem arising.

And so we keep fiddling with nature on and on, just like I described with our rivers. First we straighten them because it is more convenient also for farmers, then we found out what damage that did and try to reverse it.

a reply to: TDDAgain

I had Alexa read that for the rhyme!

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Road to hell paved with good intentions.

Our prolem is the naturalists built towns in the forest and yet want the nearby forest to be natural and they didn't think about the natural way that the forest is cleaned of dead wood.

Duh.

At any rate, I plan on living up to my rep as best I can today! Soon as my coffee is finished!

Hope you do same.

a reply to: CoyoteAngels

A right it's morning on the other side of the globe, I sometimes keep forgetting that.

Have a great start into your day!

a reply to: TDDAgain

Enjoy your evening!

It makes sense to dump water on forrests to prevent a fire spreding but surely there's no water volume in the US to conduct regular waterings of forrests (using back of a fag packet maths).

The cost would be enormous but would be incredibly effective in preventing fires - on the downside it's completely unsustainable and impracticle and would wreak havoc on the water table or any ecosystem in place (I don't believe in ecosytems)