The former President’s plan to bring water to the California desert is, like a lot of his promises, a goofy pipe-dream.
In an apparent effort to address the pressing issue of California water shortages, Trump said the following: “You have millions of gallons of water pouring down from the north with the snow caps and Canada, and all pouring down and they have essentially a very large faucet. You turn the faucet and it takes one day to turn it, and it’s massive, it’s as big as the wall of that building right there behind you. You turn that, and all of that water aimlessly goes into the Pacific (Ocean), and if they turned it back, all of that water would come right down here and right into Los Angeles,” he said.
Amidst his weird, almost poetic rambling, the “very large faucet” Trump seems to have been referring to is the Columbia River. The Columbia runs from a lake in British Columbia, down through Oregon and eventually ends up in the Pacific Ocean. Trump’s apparent plan is to somehow divert water from the Columbia and get it all the way down to Los Angeles. However, scientific experts who have spoken to the press have noted that not only is there currently no way to divert the water from the Oregon River to southern California, but creating such a system would likely be prohibitively expensive and inefficient.
And we can solve the problem of climate change by going to the opposite side of the sun and turning off the Enormous Fan, thereby eliminating the solar wind.
The PNW isn’t immune to the drought pal.
Uhm.
Ok. He should not be in charge of the executive office. We know he’s stupid but, damn.
Can’t wait for the next forest fire in Canada and Trump to suggest a big fan to blow the smoke away from the US.
Just switch all our wind turbines from suck to blow. Easy.
Assuming we could actually create enough air flow to blow smoke out to sea, we’d be creating one hell of a weather phenomenon in the middle states.
I don’t know why this triggered my brain but I can’t stop imagining this in my head and laughing my ass off.
He’s such a fucking embarrassment. Someone needs to stop putting microphones in front of his hamberder hole.
Let him. Why should we do the intellectual work of disassembling his bullshit only so the campaign can come back with what they actually mean. Just let him sound stupid.
Is this faucet from the same company that will sell the takes to sweep up the leaves in the forests to stop forest fires?
I really tried to give the benefit of the doubt in interpreting the dumb shit he said, but there just is no version of his idiot ramblings that actually makes sense.
No, it’s perfectly feasible: the water’s on top of the map, the desert at the bottom. Now, naysayers may interject that there are thousands of miles of distance and elevation and mountains and whatnot in between, but I bet our genius Trump already has the solution: pick up the map, tilt it and draw an arrow with a sharpie so that the water knows where exactly to flow.
Take that, “scientists”!
It’s not impossible as many are thinking. However I would never vote for another Republican lying bastard asshole ever again. But think about how we move oil around the country besides stupid trains. We use pipelines. So now just build one and fill it with water rather than oil. It won’t pay for itself because the price of water is so much lower than oil. But if you all want some water, it’s just a long ass straw.
It’s still a stupid idea. Taking the runoff from a mountain and pumping it thousands of miles is more expensive than getting water from natural aquifers locally. Heck, even building a local desalination plant and turning saltwater from the city’s coast is cheaper than this giant pipeline idea. There’s a reason NYC doesn’t need to build a pipe all the way from Niagara Falls.
Well I will leave it to you to turn the faucet as large as the building behind you in a day. If you fail to do it in a day… Which doesn’t exist, and therefore impossible, come back and let me know how it isnt impossible
They sont have any pipelines running into California because the terrain makes them prohibitedly expensive. If BP and Exxon Mobile say it is cheaper to import Saudi crude to California because it is too expensive to pipe Texas crude, then there is no way. Canada has one pipeline to connect Albertam oil to Vancouver, but it is so expensive to pipe that oil across the Canadian Rockies that the pipe it downhill to Saskatchewan where it can then be pipped downhill all the way to Texas. Pipelines across mountains are just not feasible unless you are trying to move stuff from the top of the mountain to the bottom.
Much like oil it would probably be easier to haul the water via train than make a pipe which can cover that terrain.
The issue is how much water people actually use on a given day. The average American uses 82 gallons of water every day. Los Angeles (not the surrounding cities or suburbs) needs an average of 320 million gallons of water to meet just consumer water requirements every day. Thats 10,617 train cars or 16 LR1 Oil tankers a day for just water, for just the city of Los Angeles. The only feasible solution is discouraging people from living where there isn’t any water.
Oh, I 100% agree. Trains are not feasible. They’re just more feasible than a pipe over that kond of terrain.
Oregonian, here. We need that water to flush our absolutely gigantic toilet so California can’t have it!
That explains Drain, OR. I always wondered what the actual drain looked like!
So you’re saying trump has to decide what is more important, California or being anti low flow toilets. RIP California.
I guess it was gradual, but when did it become the job of journalists to try and guess what politicians mean when they make statements? Shouldn’t the meaning be made clear by the speaker? Right now it seems like its:
Trump: Speaks rambling gibberish saying something about a faucet
Journalists: “It seems like Trump is talking about the Columbia river and here’s why that is significant…”
Goes double for whether or not he’s serious. The number of times I’ve heard something and have had a legitimately hard time telling if he’s joking, or exaggerating, or just a complete fucking moron is absolutely crazy. Pretty much every sentence he utters becomes this endless game of trying to figure it out. It seems like his base just kind of randomly picks the option that makes the most sense to them and rolls with it.
He’s joking if someone calls him on it, but serious if they don’t.
The Krusty the Clown approach to threatening people.
If you haven’t seen it : https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zIu2dGTJlHM
This is what “sanewashing” refers to, if anyone was unclear on that.
This should be the word of the year, by the way. Someone really, really nailed it with that portmanteau. It perfectly describes what the “liberal media” does all the time with RWNJs like dimbulb donnie.
Oh I like that term. Will be applying it in my life. Thank you.
“sanewashing”
The media is rightly concern that MAGA will have a fit if they tell the truth so they go full Onion. We have reached the point of, “Idiocracy”, but here we are.
News Readers in USA have been paraphrasing a long time. Now “paraphrasing” works really hard.
The difference is he could be the next president and try to turn whatever he’s thinking into national policy, so it’s worthwhile to try and dissect what he’s saying.
But those experts are also (somehow, still) not really accustomed to Trump’s bombastic language. He was like this long before he got into national politics, hyping real estate and business for the market (where it kind of worked). That’s a totally different world, where half lies and crazy sales talk are the norm.
The problem is, he has no idea about policy and really no interest in it, except when the decision obviously benefits himself, or benefits those who pretty directly benefit him. So whatever he’s saying at this point is just stuff he thinks sounds good. It bears no relation to what he’ll do, except where there’s obviously something in it for him and his associates. That’s why “I’ll take vengeance on my opponents” or “I’ll increase fossil fuel use and suppress green technologies” are the kinds of statements to take seriously from him, but “I’ll sort out your water problems” is not, unless we can find a benefit for him in it. The question to ask is, “Is he saying this because he thinks it benefits him to say it, or because he thinks it benefits him to do it?” (And for him, making people he dislikes suffer counts as a benefit.)
This does benefit him if it gets him votes. He wants voters to like him, and he’d absolutely build this crazy pipe and slap his name on it if he could.
But like you said, he’d drop it like a rock if it’s inconvenient.
Unlike other politicians, Trump accepted there’s no real consequence for making fantasies up and almost lying, just like he did in business.
“Is he saying this because he thinks it benefits him to say it, or because he thinks it benefits him to do it?”
And anyone who’s on the fence about Trump is not thinking critically like this, they are looking at a few things he’s saying and pondering if its a good thing and benefits them.
And again, fact-based news journalism does not have the luxury of assuming “Here’s what we think he’s saying, and we think he’s making that up because it benefits him, so it’s probably nonsense.”
I get what you’re saying but they really should just be pointing out that he’s not making any sense. Trump’s speeches are being treated like Nostradamus’ prophesies now. He spews a bunch of nonsense and people make up what they think it means. The guy should be in a home, not on the campaign trail and the media should make that clear to voters.
The worst part is they nitpick any piberal or progressive candidate on their exact phrasing while translating conservative hate speech into something less horrible.
It’s not totally incoherent though, its vague and almost poetic.
This is kind of Trump’s talent. He makes these grand statements that aren’t quite lies. The crowd gets exactly what he’s trying to say: all this water pouring out of snowy mountains into the ocean is a “waste” when it could just be diverted to LA, so let’s fix that. It’s worded almost like a dream. It’s an attractive fantasy. But it’s also vague, not quite enough to be a lie even if the implied facts are straight up wrong.
What can the news do? If they dig into it, he didn’t really make any hard claims to roast. They can veer into opinion talk and say that sounds unpresedential and that his speech should be more clear, but making fun of his speech style at a rally is not supposed to be their job. So they do what they can, guess what he’s saying and refute that.
Again, this was his talent before he got into politics. The Motley Fool did this great podcast on Trump (before Trump was big and political) where he sold massively overvalued real-estate from his private company to his public one, effectively “duping” the market, and it worked because he sold it as a vague fantasy just like this. He got plenty of criticism and it didn’t matter, because he threaded the needle and what he’s claiming is not hard enough to stick. This is what he does.
What can the news do? If they dig into it, he didn’t really make any hard claims to roast.
They can quote him as saying there’s “a large faucet as big as perhaps this building and it takes a day to turn” and say there is no such faucet and move on with their day. That would be a much better thing than what they’ve been doing since 2015 which is this bullshit: trying to find a real life thing to attach his utterances to and then asking him if that was what he was referring to when he clearly wasn’t.
His talent is getting other people to fill in the blanks with his absolutely moronic speeches. For a time, people were arguing that “injecting disinfectant” was a great idea, actually, and trying to find science to back that up. Then he walked it back as a joke because he realized everyone except the brain washed lunatics in the country thought he was an absolute idiot for saying that shit.
(Detailed with a large amount of humor here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkO4QAP5wPo)
It’s not the news media’s job to make a blathering imbecile make sense, and they are doing great harm to the country by treating him this way.
It takes a day to turn
He really said that
What a fucking idiot. The only dumber people are those that believe him.
Gizmodo - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Gizmodo:
MBFC: Left - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
The Columbia runs from a lake in British Columbia, down through Oregon and eventually ends up in the Pacific Ocean.
The Columbia does not run through Oregon, it is the northern border of it from just south of Kennewick, Washington to the Pacific Ocean. The only US state that the Columbia actually flows through is Washington, which makes sense since the river starts in Canada, which is north of Washington, which is north of Oregon. Odd choice of verbiage.
The Columbia is the border between Washington and Oregon. Cross a bridge between the two states and you will see a welcome to Oregon/welcome to Washington sign in the middle of the bridge.
Yes, I know. As I said, it’s the northern border of the state between the Pacific and just south of Kennewick, Washington. But it does not flow through Oregon, as only the south bank is ever on Oregon land.
The Columbia enters Washington from the north and then becomes its southern border all the way to the ocean. Being entirely surrounded by Washington for part of its course, it is accurate to say that the Columbia flows through Washington. Since the Columbia only interacts with Oregon as its northern border, beginning and ending its interaction on the same side of the state, it can not be said to flow through Oregon.
But wait! What about Sauvie Island and the Columbia slough? Are those not examples of the Columbia flowing through Oregon? Yeah, but not on the same scale and there’s nothing on Sauvie Island except for corn mazes and naked people.
But it does not flow through Oregon, as only the south bank is ever on Oregon land.
We’re just arguing semantics, then.
So it would seem.
When you take a shower does the shower flow through you or along your edges?
I’m not sure I would say that my body really has “edges”…
