Trump wants to cut off FEMA funding to Cali wildlifes because of his impasse with democrats

[Billy000]

You don’t know jack shit about the logistics of wildfires. God its bad enough you people are so willfully ignorant. Don’t pretend that you think you know something about a complex problem in state with a severe drought problem. Just because Trump decides firefighters are incompetent, it doesn’t mean you have to go full retard and assume he knows what he is talking about.

I posted a link on this thread about the problem. If you don't like that one, use "google" and find your own.

I might not know jack about wildfires. but I do know how to do research to figure out what the problem is.

Mark

What does the link say exactly? I missed it.

Self-induced DISASTER: California fires the direct result of shortsighted environmentalist policies that prohibit forest management

Oh god. There is so much bullshit in this article that I don’t even know where to start from. I’ll just have to make a list:

1) The article makes no effort to not sound unbiased. It’s all the liberals fault and Trump was right like always. This article may as well come from Fox News. This bullshit brings me to point #2.

2) This article was written AFTER Trump criticizes the wildfire effort. We know this because it quotes one of his tweets. Please tell me you are more objective than this.

3) Not only does this article make the bullshit, baseless assertion that climate change has nothing to do with the wildfires, but we get this quote from someone in Trump’s administration. He may be the director of interior, but it’s not like that means his dumbass understands climatology. Fucking of course climate change is a huge contributor to the problem.

4) This article just pretends Cali’s unprecedented drought is not at all related to the wildfires. It’s all the liberals fault. It’s always just the fault of liberals! No more. No less.

5) The “deadwood” this article talks about it is of course entirely vague. Okay so who stopped the deadwood clearing? How much was stopped? Why are we sure the wildfire started because of it? We don’t know any of those answers because this claim came from some moron in Trump’s administration.

6) The entire summary of this article is a bullshit narrative about how the fires have started, yet you pretend regardless of why it is happening, we should cut off FEMA funding. I love how the author offers his “prayers”. That’s all he needs to say to make himself sound human. It’s not like he gives a shit if Cali gets the resources it needs to fight these fires.

If my link is wrong, you could show me where California does indeed use good forestry measures in their state.

Mark

Is there evidence that they don’t? That’s what matters. I know your article said something about environmentalists blocking deadwood clearing but without any specific details about this story, I don’t see why I would believe it.

 

[Lakhota]

Can he be any more of a whiny little bitch? I mean I get that his supporters don’t give a shit about Cali - it’s full of liberals! The fact that it as a state is one the largest economies in the world isn’t important I guess. All that matters is screwing over liberals and feeling like Trump has accomplished something of value.

Can you imagine if the wildfires were in Texas instead? Obviously he would want to coddle his cult worship in Texas so the state knows he has their back. What if he ignored the relief of a natural disaster in Florida? Can’t have that! His golf courses are there as well as plenty of red support. If a disaster was going on In DC, he would have fled at the first sight of trouble because he’s a pussy and of course focus on fixing the crisis. It’s all about his own self-interest of course.

Maybe if California was a red state instead he would give a shit about Cali, but we all know it is because it is a big blue state that sided with Hillary in the election. Their lives don’t matter because they are the enemy.

Trump threatens to cut FEMA funding for California wildfires

It's a sad situation.

 

[80zephyr]

I posted a link on this thread about the problem. If you don't like that one, use "google" and find your own.

I might not know jack about wildfires. but I do know how to do research to figure out what the problem is.

Mark

What does the link say exactly? I missed it.

Self-induced DISASTER: California fires the direct result of shortsighted environmentalist policies that prohibit forest management

Oh god. There is so much bullshit in this article that I don’t even know where to start from. I’ll just have to make a list:

1) The article makes no effort to not sound unbiased. It’s all the liberals fault and Trump was right like always. This article may as well come from Fox News. This bullshit brings me to point #2.

2) This article was written AFTER Trump criticizes the wildfire effort. We know this because it quotes one of his tweets. Please tell me you are more objective than this.

3) Not only does this article make the bullshit, baseless assertion that climate change has nothing to do with the wildfires, but we get this quote from someone in Trump’s administration. He may be the director of interior, but it’s not like that means his dumbass understands climatology. Fucking of course climate change is a huge contributor to the problem.

4) This article just pretends Cali’s unprecedented drought is not at all related to the wildfires. It’s all the liberals fault. It’s always just the fault of liberals! No more. No less.

5) The “deadwood” this article talks about it is of course entirely vague. Okay so who stopped the deadwood clearing? How much was stopped? Why are we sure the wildfire started because of it? We don’t know any of those answers because this claim came from some moron in Trump’s administration.

6) The entire summary of this article is a bullshit narrative about how the fires have started, yet you pretend regardless of why it is happening, we should cut off FEMA funding. I love how the author offers his “prayers”. That’s all he needs to say to make himself sound human. It’s not like he gives a shit if Cali gets the resources it needs to fight these fires.

If my link is wrong, you could show me where California does indeed use good forestry measures in their state.

Mark

Is there evidence that they don’t? That’s what matters. I know your article said something about environmentalists blocking deadwood clearing but without any specific details about this story, I don’t see why I would believe it.

How Regulations Made California's Fires Worse

After raging through almost all of December, the so-called Thomas fire, California's largest wildfire ever recorded, was finally contained on January 12. While the worst is behind us (for now), the fact that last year's wildfires so violently spun out of control puts the spotlight on the Golden State's government and its lack of fire prevention measures.

The fires across the state caused unprecedented damage and loss of life. Unsurprisingly, California governor Jerry Brown was quick to pin the blame on climate change for the forest fires' ferocity and extraordinary longevity this season. Whatever truth there may be to this, it would be a mistake to gloss over how misguided policies and regulations have hurt California's ability to prevent and respond to fires.

According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), shrubs and live and dead vegetation are the most important factor in forest fires, being an easily ignitable fuel source that helps spread the flames quickly over vast distances. For a dry and warm state prone to fires, regular clearing measures removing this vegetation should be common sense. However, California has enacted several laws that heavily restrict such vital fire-preventing measures as logging, removal of dead trees, and clearing of dry underbrush.

During a congressional hearing in May, California congressman Tom McClintock blasted environmentalists for having fervently opposed such measures since the early 1970s. Instead, they have been advocating that forests be left to their own devices – despite the fact that thousands of years of history shows that forests need to be appropriately maintained in order to reap all their benefits and reduce the risk of fires. This understanding of the environment has too often been trumped by politics in California.

When a 2013 environmental impact report advocated the benefits of large-scale vegetation management in San Diego County, activists violently rejected its conclusions. As in the decades before, concerns over wildlife and environmental impacts were ultimately more important than the safety of fellow citizens, with the result that brush and dead vegetation were allowed to accumulate unimpeded for more than forty years.

Mark

 

[Billy000]

billy how long did you live in California that you know so much about taking care of the forests out there?....just wondering...

Why would me living there make a difference whatsoever? I’m in Colorado which is just about as bad as wildfires get besides California. Even given that, I don’t pretend I understand the logistics of the fighting effort. Just because it may take an extended amount of time for a fire to extinguish, it doesn’t mean it’s because people are incompetent. Obviously other factors are at play like resources available, how close the fire is to a community, or how fast it is spreading because of how dry the wood is compared to in the past.

 

[Billy000]

What does the link say exactly? I missed it.

Self-induced DISASTER: California fires the direct result of shortsighted environmentalist policies that prohibit forest management

Oh god. There is so much bullshit in this article that I don’t even know where to start from. I’ll just have to make a list:

1) The article makes no effort to not sound unbiased. It’s all the liberals fault and Trump was right like always. This article may as well come from Fox News. This bullshit brings me to point #2.

2) This article was written AFTER Trump criticizes the wildfire effort. We know this because it quotes one of his tweets. Please tell me you are more objective than this.

3) Not only does this article make the bullshit, baseless assertion that climate change has nothing to do with the wildfires, but we get this quote from someone in Trump’s administration. He may be the director of interior, but it’s not like that means his dumbass understands climatology. Fucking of course climate change is a huge contributor to the problem.

4) This article just pretends Cali’s unprecedented drought is not at all related to the wildfires. It’s all the liberals fault. It’s always just the fault of liberals! No more. No less.

5) The “deadwood” this article talks about it is of course entirely vague. Okay so who stopped the deadwood clearing? How much was stopped? Why are we sure the wildfire started because of it? We don’t know any of those answers because this claim came from some moron in Trump’s administration.

6) The entire summary of this article is a bullshit narrative about how the fires have started, yet you pretend regardless of why it is happening, we should cut off FEMA funding. I love how the author offers his “prayers”. That’s all he needs to say to make himself sound human. It’s not like he gives a shit if Cali gets the resources it needs to fight these fires.

If my link is wrong, you could show me where California does indeed use good forestry measures in their state.

Mark

Is there evidence that they don’t? That’s what matters. I know your article said something about environmentalists blocking deadwood clearing but without any specific details about this story, I don’t see why I would believe it.

How Regulations Made California's Fires Worse

After raging through almost all of December, the so-called Thomas fire, California's largest wildfire ever recorded, was finally contained on January 12. While the worst is behind us (for now), the fact that last year's wildfires so violently spun out of control puts the spotlight on the Golden State's government and its lack of fire prevention measures.

The fires across the state caused unprecedented damage and loss of life. Unsurprisingly, California governor Jerry Brown was quick to pin the blame on climate change for the forest fires' ferocity and extraordinary longevity this season. Whatever truth there may be to this, it would be a mistake to gloss over how misguided policies and regulations have hurt California's ability to prevent and respond to fires.

According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), shrubs and live and dead vegetation are the most important factor in forest fires, being an easily ignitable fuel source that helps spread the flames quickly over vast distances. For a dry and warm state prone to fires, regular clearing measures removing this vegetation should be common sense. However, California has enacted several laws that heavily restrict such vital fire-preventing measures as logging, removal of dead trees, and clearing of dry underbrush.

During a congressional hearing in May, California congressman Tom McClintock blasted environmentalists for having fervently opposed such measures since the early 1970s. Instead, they have been advocating that forests be left to their own devices – despite the fact that thousands of years of history shows that forests need to be appropriately maintained in order to reap all their benefits and reduce the risk of fires. This understanding of the environment has too often been trumped by politics in California.

When a 2013 environmental impact report advocated the benefits of large-scale vegetation management in San Diego County, activists violently rejected its conclusions. As in the decades before, concerns over wildlife and environmental impacts were ultimately more important than the safety of fellow citizens, with the result that brush and dead vegetation were allowed to accumulate unimpeded for more than forty years.

Mark

Okay again you just post a biased article that pretends climate change is irrelevant and it’s all the hippies’ fault. Christ dude. This doesn’t give any specific facts about how much this work has been impeded by environmentalists and if it is in fact related to the current wildfire situation.

 

[80zephyr]

Self-induced DISASTER: California fires the direct result of shortsighted environmentalist policies that prohibit forest management

Oh god. There is so much bullshit in this article that I don’t even know where to start from. I’ll just have to make a list:

1) The article makes no effort to not sound unbiased. It’s all the liberals fault and Trump was right like always. This article may as well come from Fox News. This bullshit brings me to point #2.

2) This article was written AFTER Trump criticizes the wildfire effort. We know this because it quotes one of his tweets. Please tell me you are more objective than this.

3) Not only does this article make the bullshit, baseless assertion that climate change has nothing to do with the wildfires, but we get this quote from someone in Trump’s administration. He may be the director of interior, but it’s not like that means his dumbass understands climatology. Fucking of course climate change is a huge contributor to the problem.

4) This article just pretends Cali’s unprecedented drought is not at all related to the wildfires. It’s all the liberals fault. It’s always just the fault of liberals! No more. No less.

5) The “deadwood” this article talks about it is of course entirely vague. Okay so who stopped the deadwood clearing? How much was stopped? Why are we sure the wildfire started because of it? We don’t know any of those answers because this claim came from some moron in Trump’s administration.

6) The entire summary of this article is a bullshit narrative about how the fires have started, yet you pretend regardless of why it is happening, we should cut off FEMA funding. I love how the author offers his “prayers”. That’s all he needs to say to make himself sound human. It’s not like he gives a shit if Cali gets the resources it needs to fight these fires.

If my link is wrong, you could show me where California does indeed use good forestry measures in their state.

Mark

Is there evidence that they don’t? That’s what matters. I know your article said something about environmentalists blocking deadwood clearing but without any specific details about this story, I don’t see why I would believe it.

How Regulations Made California's Fires Worse

After raging through almost all of December, the so-called Thomas fire, California's largest wildfire ever recorded, was finally contained on January 12. While the worst is behind us (for now), the fact that last year's wildfires so violently spun out of control puts the spotlight on the Golden State's government and its lack of fire prevention measures.

The fires across the state caused unprecedented damage and loss of life. Unsurprisingly, California governor Jerry Brown was quick to pin the blame on climate change for the forest fires' ferocity and extraordinary longevity this season. Whatever truth there may be to this, it would be a mistake to gloss over how misguided policies and regulations have hurt California's ability to prevent and respond to fires.

According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), shrubs and live and dead vegetation are the most important factor in forest fires, being an easily ignitable fuel source that helps spread the flames quickly over vast distances. For a dry and warm state prone to fires, regular clearing measures removing this vegetation should be common sense. However, California has enacted several laws that heavily restrict such vital fire-preventing measures as logging, removal of dead trees, and clearing of dry underbrush.

During a congressional hearing in May, California congressman Tom McClintock blasted environmentalists for having fervently opposed such measures since the early 1970s. Instead, they have been advocating that forests be left to their own devices – despite the fact that thousands of years of history shows that forests need to be appropriately maintained in order to reap all their benefits and reduce the risk of fires. This understanding of the environment has too often been trumped by politics in California.

When a 2013 environmental impact report advocated the benefits of large-scale vegetation management in San Diego County, activists violently rejected its conclusions. As in the decades before, concerns over wildlife and environmental impacts were ultimately more important than the safety of fellow citizens, with the result that brush and dead vegetation were allowed to accumulate unimpeded for more than forty years.

Mark

Okay again you just post a biased article that pretends climate change is irrelevant and it’s all the hippies’ fault. Christ dude. This doesn’t give any specific facts about how much this work has been impeded by environmentalists and if it is in fact related to the current wildfire situation.

Then I suggest you find your own answers. The article cites specific instances. If thats not enough, then you'll have to find your own answers.

Mark

 

[Billy000]

Oh god. There is so much bullshit in this article that I don’t even know where to start from. I’ll just have to make a list:

1) The article makes no effort to not sound unbiased. It’s all the liberals fault and Trump was right like always. This article may as well come from Fox News. This bullshit brings me to point #2.

2) This article was written AFTER Trump criticizes the wildfire effort. We know this because it quotes one of his tweets. Please tell me you are more objective than this.

3) Not only does this article make the bullshit, baseless assertion that climate change has nothing to do with the wildfires, but we get this quote from someone in Trump’s administration. He may be the director of interior, but it’s not like that means his dumbass understands climatology. Fucking of course climate change is a huge contributor to the problem.

4) This article just pretends Cali’s unprecedented drought is not at all related to the wildfires. It’s all the liberals fault. It’s always just the fault of liberals! No more. No less.

5) The “deadwood” this article talks about it is of course entirely vague. Okay so who stopped the deadwood clearing? How much was stopped? Why are we sure the wildfire started because of it? We don’t know any of those answers because this claim came from some moron in Trump’s administration.

6) The entire summary of this article is a bullshit narrative about how the fires have started, yet you pretend regardless of why it is happening, we should cut off FEMA funding. I love how the author offers his “prayers”. That’s all he needs to say to make himself sound human. It’s not like he gives a shit if Cali gets the resources it needs to fight these fires.

If my link is wrong, you could show me where California does indeed use good forestry measures in their state.

Mark

Is there evidence that they don’t? That’s what matters. I know your article said something about environmentalists blocking deadwood clearing but without any specific details about this story, I don’t see why I would believe it.

How Regulations Made California's Fires Worse

After raging through almost all of December, the so-called Thomas fire, California's largest wildfire ever recorded, was finally contained on January 12. While the worst is behind us (for now), the fact that last year's wildfires so violently spun out of control puts the spotlight on the Golden State's government and its lack of fire prevention measures.

The fires across the state caused unprecedented damage and loss of life. Unsurprisingly, California governor Jerry Brown was quick to pin the blame on climate change for the forest fires' ferocity and extraordinary longevity this season. Whatever truth there may be to this, it would be a mistake to gloss over how misguided policies and regulations have hurt California's ability to prevent and respond to fires.

According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), shrubs and live and dead vegetation are the most important factor in forest fires, being an easily ignitable fuel source that helps spread the flames quickly over vast distances. For a dry and warm state prone to fires, regular clearing measures removing this vegetation should be common sense. However, California has enacted several laws that heavily restrict such vital fire-preventing measures as logging, removal of dead trees, and clearing of dry underbrush.

During a congressional hearing in May, California congressman Tom McClintock blasted environmentalists for having fervently opposed such measures since the early 1970s. Instead, they have been advocating that forests be left to their own devices – despite the fact that thousands of years of history shows that forests need to be appropriately maintained in order to reap all their benefits and reduce the risk of fires. This understanding of the environment has too often been trumped by politics in California.

When a 2013 environmental impact report advocated the benefits of large-scale vegetation management in San Diego County, activists violently rejected its conclusions. As in the decades before, concerns over wildlife and environmental impacts were ultimately more important than the safety of fellow citizens, with the result that brush and dead vegetation were allowed to accumulate unimpeded for more than forty years.

Mark

Okay again you just post a biased article that pretends climate change is irrelevant and it’s all the hippies’ fault. Christ dude. This doesn’t give any specific facts about how much this work has been impeded by environmentalists and if it is in fact related to the current wildfire situation.

Then I suggest you find your own answers. The article cites specific instances. If thats not enough, then you'll have to find your own answers.

Mark

You’re just quoting rightwing sources that don’t elaborate on the specific facts. Of course I would look elsewhere.

 

[80zephyr]

If my link is wrong, you could show me where California does indeed use good forestry measures in their state.

Mark

Is there evidence that they don’t? That’s what matters. I know your article said something about environmentalists blocking deadwood clearing but without any specific details about this story, I don’t see why I would believe it.

How Regulations Made California's Fires Worse

After raging through almost all of December, the so-called Thomas fire, California's largest wildfire ever recorded, was finally contained on January 12. While the worst is behind us (for now), the fact that last year's wildfires so violently spun out of control puts the spotlight on the Golden State's government and its lack of fire prevention measures.

The fires across the state caused unprecedented damage and loss of life. Unsurprisingly, California governor Jerry Brown was quick to pin the blame on climate change for the forest fires' ferocity and extraordinary longevity this season. Whatever truth there may be to this, it would be a mistake to gloss over how misguided policies and regulations have hurt California's ability to prevent and respond to fires.

According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), shrubs and live and dead vegetation are the most important factor in forest fires, being an easily ignitable fuel source that helps spread the flames quickly over vast distances. For a dry and warm state prone to fires, regular clearing measures removing this vegetation should be common sense. However, California has enacted several laws that heavily restrict such vital fire-preventing measures as logging, removal of dead trees, and clearing of dry underbrush.

During a congressional hearing in May, California congressman Tom McClintock blasted environmentalists for having fervently opposed such measures since the early 1970s. Instead, they have been advocating that forests be left to their own devices – despite the fact that thousands of years of history shows that forests need to be appropriately maintained in order to reap all their benefits and reduce the risk of fires. This understanding of the environment has too often been trumped by politics in California.

When a 2013 environmental impact report advocated the benefits of large-scale vegetation management in San Diego County, activists violently rejected its conclusions. As in the decades before, concerns over wildlife and environmental impacts were ultimately more important than the safety of fellow citizens, with the result that brush and dead vegetation were allowed to accumulate unimpeded for more than forty years.

Mark

Okay again you just post a biased article that pretends climate change is irrelevant and it’s all the hippies’ fault. Christ dude. This doesn’t give any specific facts about how much this work has been impeded by environmentalists and if it is in fact related to the current wildfire situation.

Then I suggest you find your own answers. The article cites specific instances. If thats not enough, then you'll have to find your own answers.

Mark

You’re just quoting rightwing sources that don’t elaborate on the specific facts. Of course I would look elsewhere.

The highlighted areas in the article take you to other sources of information. Check them out.

Mark

 

[Aldo Raine]

I think President Trump wants California to become proactive in preventing these fires! You would support that right?

You do realize that a good portion of that is federal land. Therefore the responsibility of the federal government, ie him! But you knew that right?

 

[Billy000]

I think President Trump wants California to become proactive in preventing these fires! You would support that right?

You do realize that a good portion of that is federal land. Therefore the responsibility of the federal government, ie him! But you knew that right?

Aldo, they can only handle so many facts that don’t coddle their tender sensibilities. Be gentle.

 

[Aldo Raine]

I think President Trump wants California to become proactive in preventing these fires! You would support that right?

You do realize that a good portion of that is federal land. Therefore the responsibility of the federal government, ie him! But you knew that right?

Aldo, they can only handle so many facts that don’t coddle their tender sensibilities. Be gentle.

I was, didn't even call him a nitwit, oops!

 

[Billy000]

I think President Trump wants California to become proactive in preventing these fires! You would support that right?

You do realize that a good portion of that is federal land. Therefore the responsibility of the federal government, ie him! But you knew that right?

Aldo, they can only handle so many facts that don’t coddle their tender sensibilities. Be gentle.

I was, didn't even call him a nitwit, oops!

Deep down he knows. That’s why we must be sensitive until he realizes it on a conscious level.

 

[william104]

Can he be any more of a whiny little bitch? I mean I get that his supporters don’t give a shit about Cali - it’s full of liberals! The fact that it as a state is one the largest economies in the world isn’t important I guess. All that matters is screwing over liberals and feeling like Trump has accomplished something of value.

Can you imagine if the wildfires were in Texas instead? Obviously he would want to coddle his cult worship in Texas so the state knows he has their back. What if he ignored the relief of a natural disaster in Florida? Can’t have that! His golf courses are there as well as plenty of red support. If a disaster was going on In DC, he would have fled at the first sight of trouble because he’s a pussy and of course focus on fixing the crisis. It’s all about his own self-interest of course.

Maybe if California was a red state instead he would give a shit about Cali, but we all know it is because it is a big blue state that sided with Hillary in the election. Their lives don’t matter because they are the enemy.

Trump threatens to cut FEMA funding for California wildfires

Its time to consider defunding and giving this imposter of a so-called president 45 the boot! This includes his fellow anti government conspiring cronies too.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Quit pretending that you or Trump knows jack shit about wildfires. God sometimes I get so nauseated seeing posts like this on USMB.

So leave. You can't run around this board policing other people's opinions.

If I were as hotheaded as you are, I wouldn't dare walk into a forest.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Can he be any more of a whiny little bitch? I mean I get that his supporters don’t give a shit about Cali - it’s full of liberals! The fact that it as a state is one the largest economies in the world isn’t important I guess. All that matters is screwing over liberals and feeling like Trump has accomplished something of value.

Can you imagine if the wildfires were in Texas instead? Obviously he would want to coddle his cult worship in Texas so the state knows he has their back. What if he ignored the relief of a natural disaster in Florida? Can’t have that! His golf courses are there as well as plenty of red support. If a disaster was going on In DC, he would have fled at the first sight of trouble because he’s a pussy and of course focus on fixing the crisis. It’s all about his own self-interest of course.

Maybe if California was a red state instead he would give a shit about Cali, but we all know it is because it is a big blue state that sided with Hillary in the election. Their lives don’t matter because they are the enemy.

Trump threatens to cut FEMA funding for California wildfires

Hmmm...I must have missed the part about Trump cutting funds because of Hillary.

Hmm well, why did he cut the funding? And don’t pretend your dumbass and Trump are experts on the effectiveness of fighting wildfires especially considering the state has a drought crisis.

As long as the Delta Smelt are doing well....dumbass.

Your devotion to Trump would be sad if it weren’t so pathetic.

Your devotion to being wrong and totally partisan is actually quite admirable. Stop acting like you know everything. You are not superior to anyone.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It sounds harsh but Trump is right...but the hands off the forests agenda in California is killing people...they need fire breaks and roads and they need to clear cut where development exists....
But whenever a wise preventive project is asked for by the CDF (California department of forestry) to prevent fires from spreading the law suits from tree hugger organizations begin to fly....if they can't stop the forest fire prevention agencies they slow them down with litigation....

Quit pretending that you or Trump knows jack shit about wildfires. God sometimes I get so nauseated seeing posts like this on USMB.

FFS, an idiot like you could find a way to kill yourself with a stick if you were put in charge of it. WTF do you think creates a wildfire? Let’s hear this rambling retarded reply.

I’m sorry do you not know what creates a fire? I say just fire instead of wildfire because that’s all you would need before it turned into a wildfire.

I feel like I am taking crazy pills reading this thread.

It takes fuel. What were you thinking?

Um no it doesn’t need fuel to happen. It’s a matter as simple as setting off a firework in a densely wooded area. That’s it. That’s all it would take.

The trees and foliage in that wooded acts as fuel. You only need a lightning strike, an errant cigarette, or an arsonist. Fire doesn't set itself.

 

[xband]

Once Trump finishes The Wall on our southern border he should continue the wall to encompass California. After doing that he should continue the wall on our northern border.

 

[Aldo Raine]

I think President Trump wants California to become proactive in preventing these fires! You would support that right?

You do realize that a good portion of that is federal land. Therefore the responsibility of the federal government, ie him! But you knew that right?

Aldo, they can only handle so many facts that don’t coddle their tender sensibilities. Be gentle.

I was, didn't even call him a nitwit, oops!

Deep down he knows. That’s why we must be sensitive until he realizes it on a conscious level.

Nah!

 

[Billy000]

Quit pretending that you or Trump knows jack shit about wildfires. God sometimes I get so nauseated seeing posts like this on USMB.

FFS, an idiot like you could find a way to kill yourself with a stick if you were put in charge of it. WTF do you think creates a wildfire? Let’s hear this rambling retarded reply.

I’m sorry do you not know what creates a fire? I say just fire instead of wildfire because that’s all you would need before it turned into a wildfire.

I feel like I am taking crazy pills reading this thread.

It takes fuel. What were you thinking?

Um no it doesn’t need fuel to happen. It’s a matter as simple as setting off a firework in a densely wooded area. That’s it. That’s all it would take.

The trees and foliage in that wooded acts as fuel. You only need a lightning strike, an errant cigarette, or an arsonist. Fire doesn't set itself.

Yeah, TK, that’s my exact point. You don’t need gasoline to start a fire. Foliage acts as fuel but obviously it is not fuel. That is the basic physics lesson I am trying to tell Mike.

You just come out of nowhere don’t you? This board is your on and off girlfriend for the last 8 years and you show up at inconvenient times on her doorstep.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Foliage acts as fuel but obviously it is not fuel.

Are you serious?

This was the best you could come up with?