Matt Walsh (political commentator) - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Here's your hero's wiki bio - detailing all the times he's been banned, closed down or de monetized.
Los Angeles Is Another DEI Catastrophe
- Thread starter Bucktee
- Start date
en.wikipedia.org
Here's your hero's wiki bio - detailing all the times he's been banned, closed down or de monetized.
28 pages about blaming DEI for the wildfire response?
I see my hopes that the quality of discourse here would improve while I was gone were just wild optimism.
I see my hopes that the quality of discourse here would improve while I was gone were just wild optimism.
Well go back to Bluesky then...28 pages about blaming DEI for the wildfire response?
I see my hopes that the quality of discourse here would improve while I was gone were just wild optimism.
It's 29 pages and we add a new gender identity and a commensurate pronoun for every new page.28 pages about blaming DEI for the wildfire response?
Soon every zee/zir in the nation is going to come stamp out the fires asap.
Following that, we will host the largest DEI celebration the world has ever witnessed.
Illegals will build the stage for the grand star-studded trans vocal performances paid for by Kamala Harris' campaign funds.
The audience will be a sea of husbands with their husbands, and wives with their safe trusty bears.
Seating for BLM in the front row, feminists in the second row, illegals in every other row except the nosebleeds which are allotted for white males only.
Last edited:
Are you saying politicians don't lie and bend the truth to suit their own purpose?
Prove how his info is verifiable just because it's on his own website.
You need to prove that it is a lie.
You are making the claim.
My proof is that if he had invested properly and actually implemented preventative measures the fires would have gone out of control like they did.
There is no better proof than that.
Now where's your proof that he's not lying?
That is not proof.
That is your claim without knowing jack about fighting wildfires.
You claimed the numbers presented were wrong.
Show the right numbers and back up your claim.
Of course that's proof. Just look at the fires. What other proof does anyone need?
If someone claimed they spent a lot of money fire-proofing a building and then that building burns to the ground would you say they invested appropriately and took all the preventative measure they could?
No you wouldn't because obviously the end result was the exact opposite of what they claimed they were trying to prevent.
So you're an expert in fighting wildfires now? Please explain.
"Look at the fires" is not proof.
Fires will always happen.
You claimed the numbers for budgets, fire fighters, equipment etc were wrong as it was presented on Newsom's site.
So present the right numbers.
You are arguing apples and oranges.
I am asking you to provide the right numbers and you are responding with "look at the fires".
What are you not following?
As for the fires themselves, many experts have come back and argued that such fires fueled by 100mph winds cannot be contained.
I take their word over your claims.
Yes the extent of the fires is indeed proof. That's what matters most and is the most obvious proof. Why are you making excuses?
So you either believe his numbers were correct, which implies that he didn't do enough.
Or his numbers were correct but he didn't really spend where necessary.
Or you believe anything on any politician's website...which applies to politicians you don't like.
So?
Which means that every time a fire happens, it is proof that they failed.
See how simple that is?
It's like how Skoob believes all police forces are underfunded because any crime ever is proof that the police failed.
No one spends enough on car safety because car accidents still happen, etc.
All very logical and sound thinking.
You think what's happening in LA is just "a fire"? Or more like a catastrophe that California had warnings about?
btw Where did I say police forces are underfunded? If you're going to put words in my mouth at least cite my specific reference.
Otherwise people may think you're not credible.
The extent of the fires as has been explained by experts who know a thing or two about wildfires is proof that such wildfires fueled by 100mph winds cannot be prevented or contained.
No matter how much you trim trees or rake the floors, or spray them with high pressure water from a reservoir.
It is not proof that Newsome didn't spend enough or do enough for CalFire.
He could have very well spent what was needed, and more, and still had the same disaster happen.
In any case this claim of yours has nothing to do with your original claim.
Establishing the causality between the two is tricky at best.
Your original claim is that the numbers are not believable in the first place. This is what we are discussing.
So all am asking before we digress to a million different places as you bob and weave, is to present the right numbers if you think Newsome is wrong on his website.
You haven't done the bare minimum to help your argument and you are trying to engage in mental gymnastics to move on to other topics.
Tsk Tsk.
I'm not putting words in your mouth.
I'm mocking your logic and critical thinking skills.
Yes, by way of analogy.
