Palisades Fire - Los Angeles

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
·
in 2019, California contributed approximately $472B in federal taxes, about 14.1% of the total US Tax revenue.

So if you're talking about withholding funds because of the fires, maybe we should withhold federal income tax payments.

Californian here. If the Republican politicians are able to be reasoned and compassionate (a big if), they have a real chance of making electoral gains they’ve never had before in California, because there is indeed a great deal is frustration with the Democrats. But so far they seem to be going down the route of viciously victim-blaming people who have lost their homes in California while simultaneously demanding money for victims of red state disasters, and that is going to just solidify support for Democrats.

Their mean heartedness was about the worst political strategy they could have taken. But they only know mean heartedness. They’re not good people

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp here. I’m also in deep fear of what happens under dry CA conditions over the next 4 years if federal aid is withheld, as Trump promised on the campaign trail.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/03/helene-trump-politics-natural-disaster-00182419

In 2020 Trump signed a bill that would have diverted excess water from Northern California to LA specifically to boost the reservoirs for fire fighting purposes. The state and advocacy groups, including Newsom, battled him using the pretext that it'd hurt the salmon among others. That is the origin of the disagreement of Trump and Newsom. Unfortunately, it is true, so for all of his childish petulant screeds in a manner that only Trump can muster, Trump actually does have a point here. Right now California is not really governed to serve the safety and wellbeing of its people. Its programs and policies are bled by a thousand cuts through demands by so many advocacy groups wanting to protect/preserve/champion equity for this and that.

Wildfires are a fact of life in California and the dangers of a massive wildfire promising this level and even greater destructions has always been there, yet what we saw was a strange lack of advance preparation despite plenty of warnings that the conditions were ripe. Serious questions have to be asked about it. And I would not be upset if the Trump administration demanded LA and the California state governments to explain why they weren't better prepared or to outline new policies and laws that guaranteed a basic level of preparedness for worst case situations before releasing any new federal aid to the state. Americans cannot be called to pour more money (billions and billions) after bad if no basic changes are being made at the ground level. To use as one small but critical example, so many wildfires (fortunately mostly doused in time) are started by homeless people yet California has seemingly done little to address the homeless problem or is, at least, very slow to do anything meaningful.

Legitimate questions need to be asked about the competence of California governing class.

I’m OP worried about Trump. I agree questions need to be asked re the response to the current fire. That said, the videos of Santa Ana winds and the idea that entire neighborhoods in Southern California should all be able to hose their houses while fire fighters are using hydrants and having enough water for it all seems very hard - if not impossible - to be prepared for. Also, I don’t know that water should be diverted from Northern CA to southern CA and / or farmlands. This is not a problem unique to CA - red states have plenty of wildfires (Alaska, Idaho etc) and also have cities that are likely to face severe water problems regardless of whether a fire ever whips through neighborhoods (eg Phoenix, Las Vegas).

My understanding is that Trump didn’t sign a water diversion bill (ie no such bill existed) but that there have been other water fights. By all means there should be investigations into what happened - Newsom has said as much - but we also need federal aid to continue in January. Calling for an investigation to occur and be concluded as a condition of aid is a dangerous president. For instance, I suspect many more people would have died had a completed investigation into the Texas powergrid failure been a condition for federal aid then, as is true of other emergency responses (hurricanes, forest fires etc). The precedent is that Trump has wanted to withhold disaster funding to CA - and he repeated this on the campaign trail - as a stick, but other states (to my Knowledge) haven’t had similar sticks as conditional requirements in their emergencies.

The whole debate reminds me of the gun reform arguments - after a mass shouting there are a lot of statements that it’s not the right time for policy and help is needed now, but then it never is the right time for policy because help is always needed by that standard given the number of shootings in this country. Balancing emergency response and care with policy reform is needed, but there does have to be some triage.

Agreed. The partisan targeting of California when red states have been equally or even more unprepared is really vile and frankly immoral.

This a thousand times. It’s vile and evil

+1 Yes, and there are many DCUM threads in which posters bash red states. Vile and evil no matter who does it.

The difference is that this time it is red state politicians targeting Californians who have lost their homes. That is not something blue politicians have done.

Well, yes... they talk about "climate denial" every time a storm hits a Red State.

[Anonymous]

The strong winds fanned the fires, the downed cables started them (for the most part).

Regardless of water supplies and lack of firefighters, this was a force of nature.

We evacuated on Weds and are still about 100 miles from home. We'll wait til next weekend to return home, after the surprises of this week die down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Even WSJ is making videos to explain how full of crap repubs have been about these fires.

https://youtu.be/OsuBmAVqR7I

When you’ve lost the WSJ as a Republican, you know you are in the wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp here. I’m also in deep fear of what happens under dry CA conditions over the next 4 years if federal aid is withheld, as Trump promised on the campaign trail.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/03/helene-trump-politics-natural-disaster-00182419

In 2020 Trump signed a bill that would have diverted excess water from Northern California to LA specifically to boost the reservoirs for fire fighting purposes. The state and advocacy groups, including Newsom, battled him using the pretext that it'd hurt the salmon among others. That is the origin of the disagreement of Trump and Newsom. Unfortunately, it is true, so for all of his childish petulant screeds in a manner that only Trump can muster, Trump actually does have a point here. Right now California is not really governed to serve the safety and wellbeing of its people. Its programs and policies are bled by a thousand cuts through demands by so many advocacy groups wanting to protect/preserve/champion equity for this and that.

Wildfires are a fact of life in California and the dangers of a massive wildfire promising this level and even greater destructions has always been there, yet what we saw was a strange lack of advance preparation despite plenty of warnings that the conditions were ripe. Serious questions have to be asked about it. And I would not be upset if the Trump administration demanded LA and the California state governments to explain why they weren't better prepared or to outline new policies and laws that guaranteed a basic level of preparedness for worst case situations before releasing any new federal aid to the state. Americans cannot be called to pour more money (billions and billions) after bad if no basic changes are being made at the ground level. To use as one small but critical example, so many wildfires (fortunately mostly doused in time) are started by homeless people yet California has seemingly done little to address the homeless problem or is, at least, very slow to do anything meaningful.

Legitimate questions need to be asked about the competence of California governing class.

I’m OP worried about Trump. I agree questions need to be asked re the response to the current fire. That said, the videos of Santa Ana winds and the idea that entire neighborhoods in Southern California should all be able to hose their houses while fire fighters are using hydrants and having enough water for it all seems very hard - if not impossible - to be prepared for. Also, I don’t know that water should be diverted from Northern CA to southern CA and / or farmlands. This is not a problem unique to CA - red states have plenty of wildfires (Alaska, Idaho etc) and also have cities that are likely to face severe water problems regardless of whether a fire ever whips through neighborhoods (eg Phoenix, Las Vegas).

My understanding is that Trump didn’t sign a water diversion bill (ie no such bill existed) but that there have been other water fights. By all means there should be investigations into what happened - Newsom has said as much - but we also need federal aid to continue in January. Calling for an investigation to occur and be concluded as a condition of aid is a dangerous president. For instance, I suspect many more people would have died had a completed investigation into the Texas powergrid failure been a condition for federal aid then, as is true of other emergency responses (hurricanes, forest fires etc). The precedent is that Trump has wanted to withhold disaster funding to CA - and he repeated this on the campaign trail - as a stick, but other states (to my Knowledge) haven’t had similar sticks as conditional requirements in their emergencies.

The whole debate reminds me of the gun reform arguments - after a mass shouting there are a lot of statements that it’s not the right time for policy and help is needed now, but then it never is the right time for policy because help is always needed by that standard given the number of shootings in this country. Balancing emergency response and care with policy reform is needed, but there does have to be some triage.

Agreed. The partisan targeting of California when red states have been equally or even more unprepared is really vile and frankly immoral.

This a thousand times. It’s vile and evil

+1 Yes, and there are many DCUM threads in which posters bash red states. Vile and evil no matter who does it.

The difference is that this time it is red state politicians targeting Californians who have lost their homes. That is not something blue politicians have done.

Well, yes... they talk about "climate denial" every time a storm hits a Red State.

But they have never held federal aid to victims hostage, like the Republicans are talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Person from Malibu here. Some of the tips for evacuating here are just laughable? Packing boxes of Christmas ornaments? Really?

In bad wildfires, you want to be out as soon as possible after the evacuation call. It's not just traffic you are worried about in this situation-- You do not want to get stuck when the fire reaches the road or get trapped when visibility becomes so poor from smoke you can't drive safely, or when the high winds knock trees into the road. Look at the people trying to flee the Camp Fire who were killed in Paradise, CA. This is particularly critical in these fire zones because many neighborhoods that are in the hills of CA are one-way-in/one-way-out due to the geography so waiting too long can result in being trapped.

If you have time to do one thing, shut off the gas to your house before you flee. This could prevent some damage to your home by reducing the risk of an explosion, or from a gas line that continues to burn. You should also shut off electricity, but a lot of times the electricity is already turned off due to high winds.

The part about Christmas ornaments was far and away the dumbest thing in this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
·
in 2019, California contributed approximately $472B in federal taxes, about 14.1% of the total US Tax revenue.

So if you're talking about withholding funds because of the fires, maybe we should withhold federal income tax payments.

Californian here. If the Republican politicians are able to be reasoned and compassionate (a big if), they have a real chance of making electoral gains they’ve never had before in California, because there is indeed a great deal is frustration with the Democrats. But so far they seem to be going down the route of viciously victim-blaming people who have lost their homes in California while simultaneously demanding money for victims of red state disasters, and that is going to just solidify support for Democrats.

They don’t know what reasoned and compassionate are. Their first reaction is usually to recommend denying emergency funding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Even WSJ is making videos to explain how full of crap repubs have been about these fires.

https://youtu.be/OsuBmAVqR7I

Wow. That is shocking they are admitting that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Person from Malibu here. Some of the tips for evacuating here are just laughable? Packing boxes of Christmas ornaments? Really?

In bad wildfires, you want to be out as soon as possible after the evacuation call. It's not just traffic you are worried about in this situation-- You do not want to get stuck when the fire reaches the road or get trapped when visibility becomes so poor from smoke you can't drive safely, or when the high winds knock trees into the road. Look at the people trying to flee the Camp Fire who were killed in Paradise, CA. This is particularly critical in these fire zones because many neighborhoods that are in the hills of CA are one-way-in/one-way-out due to the geography so waiting too long can result in being trapped.

If you have time to do one thing, shut off the gas to your house before you flee. This could prevent some damage to your home by reducing the risk of an explosion, or from a gas line that continues to burn. You should also shut off electricity, but a lot of times the electricity is already turned off due to high winds.

I thought that was so ridiculous too (person from Ventura who didn't have much time to evacuate before Thomas fire came over the hill into our neighborhood within minutes). Along with - call friend with a trailer. How f'd up is that as people are frantically trying to evacuate an area, your friend is going to be driving into the neighborhood with a big *ss trailer. We were too busy running around at midnight banging on neighbors doors to make sure everyone was awake so they could evacuate.

How many times do I have to explain this? After our first evacuation with no plans and in total panic I reorganized and rearranged some things in my home. I am not telling people to pack whatever their precious items are during evacuation. I have a prioritized list of pre packed items and depending on time we could walk out with nothing, our 2 minute box, or some additional things. I don’t call my friend with a trailer. I explained that too. I have prepacked a FEW Christmas ornaments. I have prepacked a few pieces of family china and crystal that are 200 years old. I have a way to quickly pack clothes, studies. The whole plan exists to remove having to think and make decisions so you can get out quickly, hopefully with some of your family’s things, before the order, and the only thing you have to think about is the fire or other disaster that’s causing you to evacuate. I also posted about coordinating and planning with neighbors.

I have and am supporting my friends who lost literally everything and the level of trauma is extremely high. For the kids it’s almost unbearable.

I’ve basically reached the conclusion that it is impossible to have constructive conversations on DCUM because inevitably people start attacking you after failing to actually read the post and just make crap up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp here. I’m also in deep fear of what happens under dry CA conditions over the next 4 years if federal aid is withheld, as Trump promised on the campaign trail.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/03/helene-trump-politics-natural-disaster-00182419

In 2020 Trump signed a bill that would have diverted excess water from Northern California to LA specifically to boost the reservoirs for fire fighting purposes. The state and advocacy groups, including Newsom, battled him using the pretext that it'd hurt the salmon among others. That is the origin of the disagreement of Trump and Newsom. Unfortunately, it is true, so for all of his childish petulant screeds in a manner that only Trump can muster, Trump actually does have a point here. Right now California is not really governed to serve the safety and wellbeing of its people. Its programs and policies are bled by a thousand cuts through demands by so many advocacy groups wanting to protect/preserve/champion equity for this and that.

Wildfires are a fact of life in California and the dangers of a massive wildfire promising this level and even greater destructions has always been there, yet what we saw was a strange lack of advance preparation despite plenty of warnings that the conditions were ripe. Serious questions have to be asked about it. And I would not be upset if the Trump administration demanded LA and the California state governments to explain why they weren't better prepared or to outline new policies and laws that guaranteed a basic level of preparedness for worst case situations before releasing any new federal aid to the state. Americans cannot be called to pour more money (billions and billions) after bad if no basic changes are being made at the ground level. To use as one small but critical example, so many wildfires (fortunately mostly doused in time) are started by homeless people yet California has seemingly done little to address the homeless problem or is, at least, very slow to do anything meaningful.

Legitimate questions need to be asked about the competence of California governing class.

I’m OP worried about Trump. I agree questions need to be asked re the response to the current fire. That said, the videos of Santa Ana winds and the idea that entire neighborhoods in Southern California should all be able to hose their houses while fire fighters are using hydrants and having enough water for it all seems very hard - if not impossible - to be prepared for. Also, I don’t know that water should be diverted from Northern CA to southern CA and / or farmlands. This is not a problem unique to CA - red states have plenty of wildfires (Alaska, Idaho etc) and also have cities that are likely to face severe water problems regardless of whether a fire ever whips through neighborhoods (eg Phoenix, Las Vegas).

My understanding is that Trump didn’t sign a water diversion bill (ie no such bill existed) but that there have been other water fights. By all means there should be investigations into what happened - Newsom has said as much - but we also need federal aid to continue in January. Calling for an investigation to occur and be concluded as a condition of aid is a dangerous president. For instance, I suspect many more people would have died had a completed investigation into the Texas powergrid failure been a condition for federal aid then, as is true of other emergency responses (hurricanes, forest fires etc). The precedent is that Trump has wanted to withhold disaster funding to CA - and he repeated this on the campaign trail - as a stick, but other states (to my Knowledge) haven’t had similar sticks as conditional requirements in their emergencies.

The whole debate reminds me of the gun reform arguments - after a mass shouting there are a lot of statements that it’s not the right time for policy and help is needed now, but then it never is the right time for policy because help is always needed by that standard given the number of shootings in this country. Balancing emergency response and care with policy reform is needed, but there does have to be some triage.

Agreed. The partisan targeting of California when red states have been equally or even more unprepared is really vile and frankly immoral.

This a thousand times. It’s vile and evil

+1 Yes, and there are many DCUM threads in which posters bash red states. Vile and evil no matter who does it.

The difference is that this time it is red state politicians targeting Californians who have lost their homes. That is not something blue politicians have done.

Think what you want, but blue politicians are not above reproach either.

I have not seen a specific example of blue state politicians holding (or pushing publicly to hold) aid hostage like red state politicians are currently doing.

Example:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jan/11/warren-davidson-republican-disaster-relief-california-wildfires

And I am no partisan Democrat. I’m a moderate independent. But honesty is important here. I have never seen that behavior from Democrat politicians towards the victims of disasters.

This is one moron and not a movement.

The point remains that this not something I have ever seen Democratic politicians, even the most unhinged and crazy of them, ever do. They simply do not target the victims of natural disasters. I have only ever seen that behavior from Republican politicians, and it is appalling.

North Carolina anyone?

[Anonymous]

We all know that Republicans are dckheads about just about everything possible.

We also all know that they will gaslight TF out of everything. bOtH sIdEs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp here. I’m also in deep fear of what happens under dry CA conditions over the next 4 years if federal aid is withheld, as Trump promised on the campaign trail.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/03/helene-trump-politics-natural-disaster-00182419

In 2020 Trump signed a bill that would have diverted excess water from Northern California to LA specifically to boost the reservoirs for fire fighting purposes. The state and advocacy groups, including Newsom, battled him using the pretext that it'd hurt the salmon among others. That is the origin of the disagreement of Trump and Newsom. Unfortunately, it is true, so for all of his childish petulant screeds in a manner that only Trump can muster, Trump actually does have a point here. Right now California is not really governed to serve the safety and wellbeing of its people. Its programs and policies are bled by a thousand cuts through demands by so many advocacy groups wanting to protect/preserve/champion equity for this and that.

Wildfires are a fact of life in California and the dangers of a massive wildfire promising this level and even greater destructions has always been there, yet what we saw was a strange lack of advance preparation despite plenty of warnings that the conditions were ripe. Serious questions have to be asked about it. And I would not be upset if the Trump administration demanded LA and the California state governments to explain why they weren't better prepared or to outline new policies and laws that guaranteed a basic level of preparedness for worst case situations before releasing any new federal aid to the state. Americans cannot be called to pour more money (billions and billions) after bad if no basic changes are being made at the ground level. To use as one small but critical example, so many wildfires (fortunately mostly doused in time) are started by homeless people yet California has seemingly done little to address the homeless problem or is, at least, very slow to do anything meaningful.

Legitimate questions need to be asked about the competence of California governing class.

I’m OP worried about Trump. I agree questions need to be asked re the response to the current fire. That said, the videos of Santa Ana winds and the idea that entire neighborhoods in Southern California should all be able to hose their houses while fire fighters are using hydrants and having enough water for it all seems very hard - if not impossible - to be prepared for. Also, I don’t know that water should be diverted from Northern CA to southern CA and / or farmlands. This is not a problem unique to CA - red states have plenty of wildfires (Alaska, Idaho etc) and also have cities that are likely to face severe water problems regardless of whether a fire ever whips through neighborhoods (eg Phoenix, Las Vegas).

My understanding is that Trump didn’t sign a water diversion bill (ie no such bill existed) but that there have been other water fights. By all means there should be investigations into what happened - Newsom has said as much - but we also need federal aid to continue in January. Calling for an investigation to occur and be concluded as a condition of aid is a dangerous president. For instance, I suspect many more people would have died had a completed investigation into the Texas powergrid failure been a condition for federal aid then, as is true of other emergency responses (hurricanes, forest fires etc). The precedent is that Trump has wanted to withhold disaster funding to CA - and he repeated this on the campaign trail - as a stick, but other states (to my Knowledge) haven’t had similar sticks as conditional requirements in their emergencies.

The whole debate reminds me of the gun reform arguments - after a mass shouting there are a lot of statements that it’s not the right time for policy and help is needed now, but then it never is the right time for policy because help is always needed by that standard given the number of shootings in this country. Balancing emergency response and care with policy reform is needed, but there does have to be some triage.

Agreed. The partisan targeting of California when red states have been equally or even more unprepared is really vile and frankly immoral.

This a thousand times. It’s vile and evil

+1 Yes, and there are many DCUM threads in which posters bash red states. Vile and evil no matter who does it.

The difference is that this time it is red state politicians targeting Californians who have lost their homes. That is not something blue politicians have done.

Think what you want, but blue politicians are not above reproach either.

I have not seen a specific example of blue state politicians holding (or pushing publicly to hold) aid hostage like red state politicians are currently doing.

Example:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jan/11/warren-davidson-republican-disaster-relief-california-wildfires

And I am no partisan Democrat. I’m a moderate independent. But honesty is important here. I have never seen that behavior from Democrat politicians towards the victims of disasters.

This is one moron and not a movement.

The point remains that this not something I have ever seen Democratic politicians, even the most unhinged and crazy of them, ever do. They simply do not target the victims of natural disasters. I have only ever seen that behavior from Republican politicians, and it is appalling.

North Carolina anyone?

Democrats withheld emergency relief from NC flood victims? I don't recall this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp here. I’m also in deep fear of what happens under dry CA conditions over the next 4 years if federal aid is withheld, as Trump promised on the campaign trail.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/03/helene-trump-politics-natural-disaster-00182419

In 2020 Trump signed a bill that would have diverted excess water from Northern California to LA specifically to boost the reservoirs for fire fighting purposes. The state and advocacy groups, including Newsom, battled him using the pretext that it'd hurt the salmon among others. That is the origin of the disagreement of Trump and Newsom. Unfortunately, it is true, so for all of his childish petulant screeds in a manner that only Trump can muster, Trump actually does have a point here. Right now California is not really governed to serve the safety and wellbeing of its people. Its programs and policies are bled by a thousand cuts through demands by so many advocacy groups wanting to protect/preserve/champion equity for this and that.

Wildfires are a fact of life in California and the dangers of a massive wildfire promising this level and even greater destructions has always been there, yet what we saw was a strange lack of advance preparation despite plenty of warnings that the conditions were ripe. Serious questions have to be asked about it. And I would not be upset if the Trump administration demanded LA and the California state governments to explain why they weren't better prepared or to outline new policies and laws that guaranteed a basic level of preparedness for worst case situations before releasing any new federal aid to the state. Americans cannot be called to pour more money (billions and billions) after bad if no basic changes are being made at the ground level. To use as one small but critical example, so many wildfires (fortunately mostly doused in time) are started by homeless people yet California has seemingly done little to address the homeless problem or is, at least, very slow to do anything meaningful.

Legitimate questions need to be asked about the competence of California governing class.

I’m OP worried about Trump. I agree questions need to be asked re the response to the current fire. That said, the videos of Santa Ana winds and the idea that entire neighborhoods in Southern California should all be able to hose their houses while fire fighters are using hydrants and having enough water for it all seems very hard - if not impossible - to be prepared for. Also, I don’t know that water should be diverted from Northern CA to southern CA and / or farmlands. This is not a problem unique to CA - red states have plenty of wildfires (Alaska, Idaho etc) and also have cities that are likely to face severe water problems regardless of whether a fire ever whips through neighborhoods (eg Phoenix, Las Vegas).

My understanding is that Trump didn’t sign a water diversion bill (ie no such bill existed) but that there have been other water fights. By all means there should be investigations into what happened - Newsom has said as much - but we also need federal aid to continue in January. Calling for an investigation to occur and be concluded as a condition of aid is a dangerous president. For instance, I suspect many more people would have died had a completed investigation into the Texas powergrid failure been a condition for federal aid then, as is true of other emergency responses (hurricanes, forest fires etc). The precedent is that Trump has wanted to withhold disaster funding to CA - and he repeated this on the campaign trail - as a stick, but other states (to my Knowledge) haven’t had similar sticks as conditional requirements in their emergencies.

The whole debate reminds me of the gun reform arguments - after a mass shouting there are a lot of statements that it’s not the right time for policy and help is needed now, but then it never is the right time for policy because help is always needed by that standard given the number of shootings in this country. Balancing emergency response and care with policy reform is needed, but there does have to be some triage.

Agreed. The partisan targeting of California when red states have been equally or even more unprepared is really vile and frankly immoral.

This a thousand times. It’s vile and evil

+1 Yes, and there are many DCUM threads in which posters bash red states. Vile and evil no matter who does it.

The difference is that this time it is red state politicians targeting Californians who have lost their homes. That is not something blue politicians have done.

Think what you want, but blue politicians are not above reproach either.

I have not seen a specific example of blue state politicians holding (or pushing publicly to hold) aid hostage like red state politicians are currently doing.

Example:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jan/11/warren-davidson-republican-disaster-relief-california-wildfires

And I am no partisan Democrat. I’m a moderate independent. But honesty is important here. I have never seen that behavior from Democrat politicians towards the victims of disasters.

This is one moron and not a movement.

The point remains that this not something I have ever seen Democratic politicians, even the most unhinged and crazy of them, ever do. They simply do not target the victims of natural disasters. I have only ever seen that behavior from Republican politicians, and it is appalling.

Really? Some people in North Carolina would like a word with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the Santa Ana winds and drought. It’s next to impossible to fight fires with winds that strong. The sustained winds carry embers for miles so traditional breaks aren’t as effective.

What people outside of CA don’t understand is the Santa Ana winds, Sundown winds, and Diablo winds push hot air up and are extremely dry. The extreme low humidity makes them deadly and difficult to put out.

explaining this won't help the GOP secure the the presidency in four years however by grabbing California's electoral college votes.

What is wrong with you? People are dead and the threat is continuing. No one gives a st about any election right now. JFC.

[Anonymous]