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.

-3 points
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 source

Search topics on Ground.News

https://gizmodo.com/trump-promises-very-large-faucet-will-funnel-water-from-oregon-to-los-angeles-2000504652

Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

permalink
report
reply
0 points

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.

permalink
report
reply
4 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Much like oil it would probably be easier to haul the water via train than make a pipe which can cover that terrain.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

It’s definitely an intriguing idea, but it seems like this “faucet” plan might be more complicated in practice than it sounds in theory. Getting water from the Columbia River down to Los Angeles involves not just massive infrastructure but also overcoming significant ecological and legal challenges. Plus, as the experts pointed out, it’s pretty costly and inefficient. While addressing water shortages is crucial, perhaps more feasible and sustainable solutions like improving water-use efficiency and investing in desalination plants would be better routes to explore.

permalink
report
reply
5 points

Yeah but it’s all going down from Oregon to California. That’s down on the map, which means it’s all downhill, so it should really be quite simple. (/s obviously)

permalink
report
parent
reply
52 points
*

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.

The fucking sane-washing continues. He’s not being poetic. He’s not laying out an “apparent plan” that we need to vet with “scientific experts”. He thinks there’s literally a fucking big faucet up there already as big as a building that “takes a day to turn” and he’s the only person smart enough to think of “turning the faucet” or the only one strong-willed enough to kill the smelt for the good of the forests or whatever.

People keep grafting actual concepts onto this absolute moron’s imbecilic utterances and giving him a leg to stand on…just fucking quote the asshole and move on with your day.

permalink
report
reply
7 points

I mean, I was vomiting in stanzas when I read this…

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

Iamblech pentameter

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Yeah, but does he have concepts of a plan?

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

The ag lobby told him there’s an ocean of fresh water, and the only thing stopping it is all the evil librul greens demanding they protect the mosquitos or something.

The farmers in the central valley believe the same thing, they get 80% of California’s water and still fervently believe we’re all holding out on them and there’s a lake superior we’ve been hiding behind our backs all along out of spite.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

The ag lobby told him there’s an ocean of fresh water

I’d say that he just says whatever. If it’ll get him more popular and/or more money then there’s no need to figure out if he actually believes something or not. It usually is self serving in some way, truth doesn’t matter.

permalink
report
parent
reply
116 points

If you support Turmp at this point, you’re a fucking dunce.

permalink
report
reply
5 points

We are long, long, long past that point.

permalink
report
parent
reply
34 points

If someone ever supported Trump, they’re a fucking dunce.

permalink
report
parent
reply
33 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points
*

I stopped giving conservatives the benefit of the doubt around the point where the Republican party had every chance, every opportunity to go with any other nominee this year, claw back some sense of decorum… and then they chose the Oompa Loompa again. In 2020, at least it made sense for them to hold on to the incumbency advantage, and in 2016, Hillary was a horrible candidate and it’s no wonder she lost.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Yeah what the fuck Zachary Levi? You played a action hero Nerd on TV. Why are you stupid?

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Aww, Chuck Bartowski is a Trumper? That’s a shame, I liked him.

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 13K

    Monthly active users

  • 7.7K

    Posts

  • 136K

    Comments