daz28

Is this still about the hydrants, because that's not how they work. They're tanks that need refilling, and they aren't designed to fight wildfires. In preparation for the windstorm LADWP activated its emergency preparation plans and filled all 114 available water reservoirs and storage facilities throughout the city including the three 1 million-gallon tanks in the Palisades area. We also fueled all our generators serving our pump stations to ensure water will flow out through the emergency. We saw four times the demand of water than we've ever seen in the system. We opened every valve available to push as much water into the Palisades area. This fire was different and unprecedented because they didn't have air resources to fight it. So you're fighting a wildfire with a fire hydrant system. Fire hydrants are not made to fight multiple houses, hundreds of houses at a time. They're made to fight one or two houses when they come in. There's about 1,000 hydrants in that Palisades area. About 20% of those were without water so less than 200 hydrants were without water, the rest we were supplying water to. The shortage in the Pacific Palisades happened, Quiñones said at an earlier news conference (time stamp 52:17), because the three, full, million-gallon tanks supplying the area ran dry overnight into Jan. 9. After the tanks were depleted, pressure in some hydrants also fell. However, Quiñones said that water was flowing through the main system in the Pacific Palisades. She later said (time stamp 28:45) that 19 water tankers with a capacity of around 4,000 gallons each were ferrying water to the areas where firefighters needed it. Officials said that normally, emergency teams would rely more on air support like firefighting helicopters, which would lessen the strain on water tanks by using more water from other sources like above-ground reservoirs. However, high winds and a lack of air visibility have meant those firefighting operations have been grounded, Pestrella said. “County and city water reservoirs — open reservoirs — are available and on standby once [aerial firefighting] support becomes available,” he said.

I wasn't discussing the case itself, just trumps ridiculously stupid claim that his less than a slap on the wrist sentencing would cause so much damage to the country if it happened. He just wanted to avoid the stain it puts on HIM. Anyways, now apply your same logic to Hunter Bidens gun/drug charges. I personally am an accessory to many people I know who own guns, but smoked weed. If you're going to hate lawfare, hate ALL lawfare.

He will face sentencing, as the handmaiden once again shows that she might not be a political hack. Judge Cannon could learn a lot from her example.

I just read an article that the fires are the reason. At this point in time, I don't think you're going to get enough of the facts to make an informed opinion on why, because partisanship is more important than facts most of the time. Here's what they said, for what it's worth: Musk and his cronies have since attacked Mayor Karen Bass for supposedly fostering the aforementioned water shortages in the fire hydrants because of poor reservoir management. This is not only untrue, it completely misunderstands how water supply for firefighting works. Water lines that feed those hydrants have been hurt by the fires, while the widespread need for L.A.’s ample water reserves outpaced the rate at which officials could refill the tanks (and their paths were obstructed along the way by the fires). Plus, water pressure has long been lower than ideal on the West Coast, especially for high-altitude neighborhoods, because of the yearslong drought crippling the region.

You do understand that this also has the appearance that you can't educate on it, right? I don't feel like I'm having a mental breakdown, and my thoughts were coherent, especially the ones where I thought you were being political, like the "liberal stupidity" about the fires. You'd think someone so adamant that they know where the shortcoming were, would be eager to explain them. Not just to me, but everyone you stated the claims to. If you do want to claim it's all a matter of lack of precautionary burns, then also add in the issues associated with them. In New Mexico for example, it started the largest wildfire ever there. Right. Everyone, including his supporters, knows trump says all kinds of dumb stuff. Going to be a LOOONG 4 years for the people who have already forgotten this.

It's funny you think wildfires are new and political. LOL. Prop 103, which State Farm is claiming doesn't allow them to increase rates, was voted up in 1988. It limits increases to 7%. The only thing I trust less than government is insurance companies and their lawyers.

You might have been able to stop right after your first sentence. Low humidity, high winds, and 1/4 inch of rain in the last 8 months might be the real cause. As for being out of water, I wouldn't be a fan of creating another disaster to avert a possible disaster elsewhere. That isn't a great solution at all, and blaming it on a fish is weak political BS. As far as I'm concerned, when you build in a high frequency event area, whatever happens is between you and your insurance company. If you can't afford to live somewhere, then you move, like Andy has been explaining. Simple as that. I'll bet the insurance company would love for socialism to intervene to lower their payouts, and increase profits. Could you share a comprehensive list of the measures that the insurance companies suggested, yet California ignored, that were actually feasible, which should have been implemented? Lastly, California is not Florida. It's not apples to oranges, but close.

Then why does everyone have to continually remind you this is NOT A FOREST FIRE, and that your proposed "culling" would have been ineffective. I'll admit I know next to nothing about fire prevention/management, but you've not provided one ounce of information to make one believe you know any more than they do.

Social media is doing exactly what it is designed to do then. Unfortunately, people can't break the hold it has over them. EVERYTHING is politicized, and the near perfect 50/50 split shows that it's working perfectly as designed.

I'd prefer that when I'm told I'm in way over my head that it be by a person that understands why, and can explain it.

I'd be willing to bet they spent WAYYY more on fire prevention than other state. Were the measures enough? That's a question I'm not prepared to answer. My point was simply pointing out that you're talking out your ass. You don't know what caused the fire, what could have prevented it, or if California faces conditions that are different from other states. The few people with functioning brain cells here can answer the last question quite easily. Again, I don't live in Cali, don't pay taxes in Cali, or worry about forest fires, so it means nothing to me. People talking like they know things, because they're political hacks, DOES bother me though.

No, you will be informed of the facts. Then you get to decide if they were effective or not. It's clear to even a casual browser of this site that you're a bored troll.

It's a tax write off, but yes I don't have that specific example. I was just pointing out that subsidizing risk for millionaires to live in high risk areas is dumb. You'd think most people would agree on that. If they can afford their own repairs, they shouldn't be getting a cent.

I provided measures California has taken, which are verifiable. You claimed they were negligent, and only had forest fires, because of that. I was hoping you'd provide evidence of the culling done in other states, which makes California so negligent. Apparently, resilience is removal of vegetation, but I'm no expert and am not claiming to be. Define research? I had assumed it was looking up facts. Again, it doesn't matter where it's from or who said it if it's a verifiable fact. Personally, I'm not happy they spent all that money on protecting homes built in suspect areas, but I'm not a Cali resident, so not my money.

Because what "he said" can be accounted for in the California budget spending. There's literally receipts. Why do I have to repeat myself?

For the last 30 year period, FEMA alone has spent about $12 billion/year. There's literally a federal insurance program that subsidizes beach front properties, and that costs you and I $1.4B/year. Not only do they receive FEMA funds, but they also get massive tax relief as well. The tax relief can also be included on top of insurance claims. The last trump farmer bailout sent checks to millionaires, who weren't even farmers. There's MASSIVE grift in disaster relief: Trump USDA farmer bailout funds flowed to Mar-a-Lago neighbor instead | Environmental Working Group Look up disaster tax relief. It used to be that it had to effect 10% of your AGI income before you could apply. Biden just removed that, and now it only requires a $500 minimum loss to apply. The tax code in itself is a joke.

What I posted can be verified by looking at the budget. The money was spent on these things. They're actual, verifiable things. You're trying to tell me that even though I can show you what I got and the receipts for it, I'm still lying. Now you're trying to flip it to me "defending" California, when all I was doing was proving you had no clue what you were talking about. I've given you confirmable facts, and you're STILL here squirming. Just take the loss, and admit you know little to nothing about the situation, except that you ARE trying to undermine California. I don't live there, and I don't support socialism for millionaires, so I have no 'dog in the fight'.

You have to admit that there MUST be an underlying problem with the conundrum that is broke farmers, and consumers that can't afford their products, right? Shouldn't the farmers just raise their prices until they make a profit? Isn't that how business is supposed to work? Big AG has done a great job putting themselves into the 'too big to fail' government socialism program, which is astounding, because people WILL spend their money on food before any other good.

Glad someone gets it. If you can't afford to live in an area, without impacting the environment, then you shouldn't live there. If you can't afford the necessary insurance to protect your property, then you shouldn't live there. It's obscene to me that the average taxpayer should be rebuilding millionaire properties in Florida and California on the regular. This may seem insensitive, but America is founded on taking risks. If our broke government rebuilds someone's multimillion dollar home, and leaves them with $30M in their bank account, then that's ABSURD to me. What about the guy who couldn't afford insurance on his $100k home, who lost EVERYTHING? For him it's just bad luck and poor planning by him, right?

Mike Johnson just penned a CR with over a hundred thirty thousand dollars of "aid" to farmers and FEMA. If farmers are broke, yet people can't afford groceries, then the problem is MUCH MUCH larger than throwing billions in subsidies to big AG is going to fix. FEMA is historically bad, and it's really just socialism, with the money going to "rebuild" the areas likely going to campaign donors and contractors, that congress members are heavily invested in. Really not much different than destroying Iraq and rebuilding it(money laundering). I'm not a conspiracy guy, but it seems disasters have become big business in America. Tracking where the funds are going, and who donated what to who's campaign seems like a no-brainer to me. Fox is opinion, and they don't hide that fact. The facts I supplied are verifiable, and can be tracked by "gubernment sites" that are mandatory for reporting the spending on these items. If you'd like to provide actual EVIDENCE that anyone "swallowed propaganda", then I'm all ears, but just calling it propaganda, because you don't want to believe it, is unacceptable.

It would appear to me that you're the one with little knowledge, who's actually throwing random numbers around. Could you expand on your forest fire prevention background, and cite some of the sources you base your information on(not the Fox sound bites they want you to repeat)? Is it possible California faces conditions other states do not? Here are some things I've found that California, specifically, is doing to reduce them: Governor Newsom has dramatically ramped up state work to increase willdland and forest resilience, as well as adding unprecedented resources to support wildfire response. California officials treated more than 700,000 acres of land for wildfire resilience in 2023, and prescribed fires more than doubled between 2021 and 2023. Other steps the state has taken to protect Californians from wildfires include: Investing in wildfire resilience. The Governor’s Budget reflects a total of $4 billion which maintains $2.5 billion in prior investments and commits another $1.5 billion over the next several years. In addition, the state is investing $200 million annually through 2028-29 for healthy forest and fire prevention programs, including prescribed fire and other fuel reduction projects. Tracking wildfire prevention. California recently unveiled newly updated, first-of-their-kind dashboards that will help Californians track the state’s wildfire prevention work. More boots on the ground than ever before. The administration is implementing shorter workweeks for state firefighters to prioritize firefighter wellbeing, while adding 2,000 additional state firefighters to CAL FIRE’s ranks over the next five years. Expanding the world’s largest aerial firefighting fleet. Governor Newsom has overseen the expansion of California’s aerial firefighting fleet, including the addition of more than 16 helicopters with several equipped for night operations, expanded five helitack bases, and assumed ownership of seven C-130 air tankers, making it the largest fleet of its kind globally. The state also adds to its world-leading air attack capacity through recent new funding to contract 24 additional non-state owned firefighting aircraft. Cutting-edge drone technology. CAL FIRE has doubled its use of drones for critical tasks like aerial ignition during prescribed burns, wildfire containment, and real-time assessments. Artificial intelligence and real-time data tools. The state is leveraging AI-powered tools to spot fires quicker and the Fire Integrated Real-Time Intelligence System (FIRIS) to provide real-time mapping of wildfires. Advanced mapping and satellite technology. California has partnered with the U.S. Department of Defense to use satellites for wildfire detection and invested in LiDAR technology to create detailed 3D maps of high-risk areas, helping firefighters better understand and navigate complex terrains. Greater capabilities for incident reporting. CAL FIRE has expanded its capabilities for incident reporting at fire.ca.gov, updating the incident map with near real time information about firefighting aircraft activity, 3-D maps with evacuation orders, local shelter information, road closures, and more.

It is a grift. The GQP needs a scapegoat for why they're cutting things that are helping Americans, and helping billionaires, while refusing to even consider the bloated military industrial complex. I'm STILL waiting for any evidence that supply side economics was worth $36 trillion in debt it gave us, instead of just blaming the spending side of the equation. Don't get me wrong, there's plenty of grift and waste in government, and I'm hopeful they can identify, and correct some of it.

It's all over the news today. Google: one big beautiful bill. I'd also urge some research on how both parties have historically abused the crap out of reconciliation, which is basically just a way to circumvent the filibuster, and pass partisan legislation.

The plan is to throw everything into one big bill, and ram it through with reconciliation. Let's see where all the "single issue bill" people stand on this idea. I'm guessing they'll love it, but only if they're hypocrite right wingers. This was supposedly a process that would help reduce deficit spending, but is badly abused. My favorite part is threatening the "UNELECTED" parliamentarian with firing, which I believe they did in 2001 to push Bush tax cuts if I'm not mistaken.

Now if only there was a way to cross reference campaign donations to this list.