• whoreticulture@lemmy.world
    124·
    2 months ago

    Trump is not entirely correct, but there is actual fire science he is kind of referencing that is correct. Don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater. Trees aren’t necessarily always good, and cutting down trees and removing fuel load (fallen limbs, trees, leaves technically but not as big a factor) … removing fuel load is an extremely important part of preventing huge wildfires. There are ecological reasons to remove trees, including fire prevention, and also including prevention of succession (sometimes trees can take over grasslands/shrublands … grasslands are a much rarer and more threatened ecotype than many forests).

  • DirkMcCallahan@lemmy.world
    82·
    2 months ago

    Trees can explode. Windmills cause cancer. Exercise is bad because the body has a limited supply of energy, like a battery.

    A pity that Trump missed his true calling as a scientist.

  • multifariace@lemmy.world
    18·
    2 months ago

    The ever amazing Republican, Teddy Roosevelt created the USFS as a way to create jobs and have sustainable lumber resources. He also wanted to make sure that nature was conserved so he could go use his guns to kill things. Of course he was so badass he fought bears with his hands instead.

    That is the kind of Republican we need. Make Republicans Great Again!

    • tegs_terry@feddit.ukEnglish
      3·
      2 months ago

      Wasn’t that back when republican meant liberal and democrat was conservative? When did they switch?

      • Belgdore@lemm.ee
        2·
        2 months ago

        Right after Teddy actually. Taft and Harding and Hoover began allowing big business to establish itself. Beginning the whole robber baron era and leading to the dust bowl and Great Depression. Eventually, their fiscally conservative policies attracted socially conservative people because of the red scare and the fallout of the world wars.

  • rustyfish@lemmy.world
    5·
    2 months ago

    Do you think he once heard someone talking about an explosion in a sawmill and his mind turned it into exploding trees like a 5 year old would?

  • collapse_already@lemmy.mlEnglish
    2·
    2 months ago

    I think this means he has seen a video of a dry Christmas tree burning. I have seen parrots that were more articulate.

  • Artyom@lemm.ee
    4·
    2 months ago

    Trees can explode actually, but primarily when they are filled with sap and hit with a sudden, extreme cold snap. They’ll only explode due to heat if they’re already surrounded by fire and are going to burn no matter what.

      • Riskable@programming.devOPEnglish
        3·
        2 months ago

        Trump: “We are going to ban lightning! These electrons… They come across the border and let me tell you folks… They’re not sending their best.”

  • nixx@lemmy.caEnglish
    19·
    2 months ago

    You are all missing the point.

    Trees are not a “problem”, but rather an untapped resource.

    I mean look at them, millions, nah billions of them just sitting there, none of them are generating a penny for our billionaires.

    Imagine what our glorious billionaires can do if we allow them to just chop down all those trees? Think of all the beautiful toiler paper for our collective asses, as well as the billion of bibles (including a copy of the constitution) that they can sell to us for the low low price of $65.

    And as an added benefit, getting rid of all those trees will also eliminate the problem of forest fires. You can’t have those without forests in the first place.

    To be sure, some forests will need to be left alone, specially those close to residential areas, but not for the reasons that you think.

    We need those forests to actually burn down, hopefully taking down those houses next to them. Why? Think about it. If all those houses burn down then we can use those trees we chopped down elsewhere to build new houses, a BOOM for the construction billionaires. And also, it means that houses next to those forest that can accidentally burn down will have to have an increase in their insurance premium, we can even make it so that forests close to houses have a private company to fight forest fires, think of all the benefits for billionaires.

    Once you start thinking money, it all makes sense

      • ResoluteCatnap@lemmy.mlEnglish
        2·
        2 months ago

        I tried asking ChatGPT to roleplay as Trump and repeat it in it’s own words, however it gave me back the same near-verbatim. I think this proves that the original text wasn’t far off

        Listen, folks, you’re totally missing the point here. Trees aren’t a problem; they’re an incredible, untapped resource.

        Look at them—millions, no, billions of trees just sitting there, doing nothing. They’re not making a single cent for our amazing billionaires. Imagine the fantastic things our billionaires could do if we let them chop down all those trees. We’d have an endless supply of beautiful toilet paper for everyone and billions of Bibles, plus a copy of the Constitution, all for the fantastic price of $65.

        And guess what? By getting rid of all these trees, we’d also solve the problem of forest fires. No trees, no forest fires—so simple.

        Now, we’ll keep some forests, especially near homes, but not for the reasons you think. We need those forests to burn down sometimes and take a few houses with them. Why? Because then we can rebuild those homes with the trees we chopped down elsewhere—a huge win for the construction industry. Plus, it means higher insurance premiums for homes near forests, and we can even privatize forest fire services. Think of all the benefits for our billionaires.

        When you start thinking about the money, it all makes perfect sense.

        • nixx@lemmy.ca
          4·
          2 months ago

          I hate that my brain rambling are that close to ChatGPT’s output.