Uhm.
Ok. He should not be in charge of the executive office. We know he's stupid but, damn.
this post was submitted on 30 Sep 2024
511 points (98.3% liked)
politics
19158 readers
2594 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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.
- 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
As an Oregonian, I have no idea what faucet he's talking about.
Bonneville Dam maybe? 🤔
No it's the faucet across from the toilet he has to flush ten, sometimes fifteen times, which is also where he got this idea.
It’s the faucet he read about on truth social, which means it’s real. There was even a picture of the faucet, and we all know those can’t be faked. /s
load more comments
(1 replies)
He’s such a fucking embarrassment. Someone needs to stop putting microphones in front of his hamberder hole.
~~promises~~
Deranged ramblings
Is this faucet from the same company that will sell the takes to sweep up the leaves in the forests to stop forest fires?
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"....
We had this bullshit in Arizona too. The state GOP is convinced that Flagstaff is hoarding water somehow. That if Flagstaff just stopped hoarding water then Sedona wouldn't have any trouble. For the uninitiated, Flagstaff has what rains and that's it. It's as water stressed as the rest of the state because people won't stop moving there.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.