Palisades Fire - Los Angeles

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A city burns with empty fire hydrants while the mayor is on a taxpayer funded trip to an African country.

Honestly, anyone defending this is just not a serious person.

It's the reductionist simpletons like you that will be the death of this country.

It’s pretty simple.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Rick Caruso (who ran against Bass) protected his neighborhood and businesses with private fire companies and his own water tanks. Pacific Village which he owns did not burn down, and everything around it did. That opens up the question of privilege and wealth/entitlement on his part, but it also shows something went wrong here in terms of scope of response, because nothing else can explain that specific area not burning v. surrounding ones burning. Manpower and water were insufficient.

Exactly. Why did the other homes not have access to adequate protection?

And if funds are limited then why is the mayor spending money traveling to Ghana?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s amazing how all our major cities are completely dominated by Democrats, yet when something goes wrong, it’s always Trump and the Republicans that are the problem.

The Chicago schools suck. Crime in NYC. Homelessness in San Francisco. A Minneapolis cop kills a guy. Now fire in LA. Not a Republican leader in sight…not city, not state. But somehow the Democrats are always doing everything right & are indignant about changing.

Life is complicated. When you actually try to govern and legislate you’ll run into challenges. Republicans don’t know this because all they do is whine and obstruct. They can’t and won’t do anything constructive. They just want to tear it all down.

So F off if Ds aren’t flawless. At least they are trying.

How about identifying some of these ways Dems are seriously trying to improve things? DEI? Open borders? Sanctuary cities? Free drugs for addicts? No bail for criminals? Taxpayers paying off college loans? Hiding Joe’s dementia?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Rick Caruso (who ran against Bass) protected his neighborhood and businesses with private fire companies and his own water tanks. Pacific Village which he owns did not burn down, and everything around it did. That opens up the question of privilege and wealth/entitlement on his part, but it also shows something went wrong here in terms of scope of response, because nothing else can explain that specific area not burning v. surrounding ones burning. Manpower and water were insufficient.

To me, it shows that he’s competent. Maybe the people there will vote for the competent person next time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't really get why people insist on making it "but the dems/but GOP". Does anyone who lost their home care which side that was? Ultimately the people in charge of various factors came short in various ways, and Newsom himself said so! It's okay to say that. It doesn't mean you have to vote for Republicans next time either.

The complaint is that the GOP is making rounds all over TV and drafting bills to make aid conditional. That is SICKENING! They’re the ones “insisting” on being partisan.

Not surprising that the party that thinks the way to address drug addiction is to hand out free drugs to addicts also thinks the way to recover from a huge fire is to give billions of dollars to the same people whose policies enabled the fire.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the fire, water, & forestry efforts were underfunded & mismanaged, then the various levels of government are culpable.

If they WEREN’T underfunded or mismanaged, then the various levels of government are inept at employing those adequate resources.

But Newsom & Bass want us to believe nobody did anything wrong & STILL these fires are out of control. Somebody needs to send them one of those “The buck stops here!” signs.

There is a cost for preparedness. They could have made changes that could have mitigated the spread of wildfires with these extreme conditions, but at an extreme cost.

Do you plan for the 50 year flood, the 100 year flood, or the 500 year flood?

It’s about balancing resources while managing risk.

You are very right. And the Republican critics of CA’s preparedness are the same ones who want to lower taxes and decrease federal funding for the exact things the at they claim CA should have done more of. You can’t have it both ways. Who is supposed to fund preparation, fire hydrant and reservoir maintenance, increased fire department resources, etc.? And don’t say individuals without acknowledging that the individuals with the most resources (Bezos, Musk, and so on down from there) are the very ones doing their best to shield their resources from taxation and call for bootstrapping.

I think republicans’ vision is basically a magical rich person who’s not them funding everything, or each individual homeowner standing in their yard with a hose and using zero public resources.

Find me a Republican who is calling for more preparedness AND willing to vote for more taxes to fund it and I’d happily vote for them.

So now it’s a federal responsibility to fix a city’s fire hydrants & equip their fire department?

And people wouldn’t be so critical if LA’s fire dept had gone all in on preparing to fight fires. But the only thing they went all in on was diversity.

The LAFD asked for more mechanics, more firefighters. Don't fault them. The fault lies with people deciding budget.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't really get why people insist on making it "but the dems/but GOP". Does anyone who lost their home care which side that was? Ultimately the people in charge of various factors came short in various ways, and Newsom himself said so! It's okay to say that. It doesn't mean you have to vote for Republicans next time either.

The complaint is that the GOP is making rounds all over TV and drafting bills to make aid conditional. That is SICKENING! They’re the ones “insisting” on being partisan.

Not surprising that the party that thinks the way to address drug addiction is to hand out free drugs to addicts also thinks the way to recover from a huge fire is to give billions of dollars to the same people whose policies enabled the fire.

Next time a hurricane smashes Texas, Louisiana, Florida, Alabama, etc. I assume you'll give the same analogy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A city burns with empty fire hydrants while the mayor is on a taxpayer funded trip to an African country.

Honestly, anyone defending this is just not a serious person.

It's the reductionist simpletons like you that will be the death of this country.

Actually, its pompous fools like you that try to ignore or BS their way around the indefensible.

"Pompous" = using 8th grade english

Its idiots like you that make me joyous that soon to be President Trump won.
And I split my ticket voting for Kaine in Virginia.
Enjoy your bitterness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A city burns with empty fire hydrants while the mayor is on a taxpayer funded trip to an African country.

Honestly, anyone defending this is just not a serious person.

It's the reductionist simpletons like you that will be the death of this country.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't really get why people insist on making it "but the dems/but GOP". Does anyone who lost their home care which side that was? Ultimately the people in charge of various factors came short in various ways, and Newsom himself said so! It's okay to say that. It doesn't mean you have to vote for Republicans next time either.

The complaint is that the GOP is making rounds all over TV and drafting bills to make aid conditional. That is SICKENING! They’re the ones “insisting” on being partisan.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A city burns with empty fire hydrants while the mayor is on a taxpayer funded trip to an African country.

Honestly, anyone defending this is just not a serious person.

It's the reductionist simpletons like you that will be the death of this country.

Actually, its pompous fools like you that try to ignore or BS their way around the indefensible.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rick Caruso (who ran against Bass) protected his neighborhood and businesses with private fire companies and his own water tanks. Pacific Village which he owns did not burn down, and everything around it did. That opens up the question of privilege and wealth/entitlement on his part, but it also shows something went wrong here in terms of scope of response, because nothing else can explain that specific area not burning v. surrounding ones burning. Manpower and water were insufficient.

To me, it shows that he’s competent. Maybe the people there will vote for the competent person next time.

I might have but his behavior during this disaster turned me off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rick Caruso (who ran against Bass) protected his neighborhood and businesses with private fire companies and his own water tanks. Pacific Village which he owns did not burn down, and everything around it did. That opens up the question of privilege and wealth/entitlement on his part, but it also shows something went wrong here in terms of scope of response, because nothing else can explain that specific area not burning v. surrounding ones burning. Manpower and water were insufficient.

Exactly. Why did the other homes not have access to adequate protection?

And if funds are limited then why is the mayor spending money traveling to Ghana?

Bass was invited to Ghana by President Biden as part of a foreign delegation. Paid for with federal dollars.

Ghana is a client state of the U.S. and this is part of efforts to keep China out of Africa.

So I guess you want to let China take over Africa?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rick Caruso (who ran against Bass) protected his neighborhood and businesses with private fire companies and his own water tanks. Pacific Village which he owns did not burn down, and everything around it did. That opens up the question of privilege and wealth/entitlement on his part, but it also shows something went wrong here in terms of scope of response, because nothing else can explain that specific area not burning v. surrounding ones burning. Manpower and water were insufficient.

To me, it shows that he’s competent. Maybe the people there will vote for the competent person next time.

Uh, no. He had his private firefighters sit on their hands while the nearby houses burned down.

[Anonymous]

Republicans could have won California if they behaved like heroes. Alas it's not in their blood.