Trump Promises 'Very Large Faucet' Will Funnel Water from Oregon to Los Angeles
Trump Promises 'Very Large Faucet' Will Funnel Water from Oregon to Los Angeles
Information for Gizmodo:
> MBFC: Left - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
> Wikipedia about this source
In 2016: Maybe it was a funny protest vote “against the system”, for memes or whatever.
In 2020: Maybe voters were tricked into believing what he was doing was good or something. Jan 6 should have been a wakeup call.
In 2024: Just take a look at ANYTHING Trump has said, and what he has actually done about it and you should know that he is the least trustworthy guy you’ll ever meet. At this point it’s delusional. I could have excused it for the past 5 to 8 years but now I can’t.
In 2020? When he got caught trying to kill Democrats by withholding COVID aid?
I know we all have short memories but he got voted out for a reason. About 500 scandals.
It takes a day to turn
He really said that
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…”
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, and that’s a totally different world.
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 wayer is pouring from snowy mountains into the ocean is a “waste” when it could just be diverted to dry 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 impliedfacts 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 he 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) 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. It worked. 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.
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.”
“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.
The Krusty the Clown approach to threatening people.
[For those who haven’t seen it] (m.youtube.com/watch?v=zIu2dGTJlHM)
My favorite type of incoherent gibberish is the type that might be trying to talk about a terrible idea.
Politicians keep talking about building pipelines from places that have water to places that don’t.
Maybe the answer is actually that California isn’t the best place for agriculture once you get past the easy access to migrate labor, and they should price industrial and agricultural water usage accordingly.
I love that Trump has no ability to do any critical thinking, and thinks of everything as very literal now. He believes the planes are actually invisible, the only way to prevent Forrest fires is to actually rake the forest, and now that a literal giant faucet would be used to divert water in what kinda sounds like a Roman aqueduct to Socal.
I also agree that journalists should not be spinning Trump’s word salad, that makes zero sense, by calling them “poetic” and then trying to explain what the hell he is maybe trying to say. He is running to the President of the US, if he can’t explain how he wants to use plumbing to divert water from the Columbia river to Socal he should be asked about that over and over until he can articulate that. Journalists doing the heavy lifting of making real ideas out of Trump’s babble should be looked down upon. Instead they continue to “both sides” anything left of the far-right.
promises
Deranged ramblings
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.
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?