161 Comments
User's avatar
Brianna Amore's avatar

Thankfully the MSM mostly called out Trump's lies and pointed to all the examples where he utterly failed to provide relief to disaster struck areas. His actions in Puerto Rico, for example, were egregious in their shocking cruelty to a region that he couldn't even acknowledge was part of the USA.

Expand full comment
Joe Schmoe, Troublemaker's avatar

"Oh, possibly even more apples-to-apples: After Hurricane Matthew hit North Carolina in 2017, then-President Donald Trump denied 99 percent — not a typo! — of the state’s emergency funding request."

As with other decisions that lascivious, libelous lunatic's administration made, and repeatedly so: the cruelty IS the point. 🤦🏼‍♂️🙄

Expand full comment
TakingAmes's avatar

I was so pissed about the climate exchange during the debate last night. Vance said that he and Trump “believe in clean air and clean water.” Ok thanks, dickwad. Good to know. What will you do?

Expand full comment
subterrene's avatar

Pretty sure it's the same as saying "thoughts and prayers"

Expand full comment
Brianna Amore's avatar

And to the morons that's all it's about. But it has nothing to do with clean air and clean water and EVERYTHING to do with all the CO2 we're pumping into the atmosphere. And you KNOW Trump will simply make it much, much worse because we saw what happened when he pulled the US out of the Paris Accords.

Expand full comment
Vincent's avatar

So after Trump denied relief aid in 2017 to NC, remind me who NC voted for for POTUS in 2020. Does anything even matter any more?

Expand full comment
Enter Ranting's avatar

Racists and bigots will always vote for the candidate who openly promises to harm the people they hate, even if it means they have to live under a tarp.

Expand full comment
Bagels of Doom's avatar

Just for the sake of argument, even if climate change wasn't real, dealing with excessive rainfall is a thing governments do. All this is part of, wait for it, *infrastructure*.

But flood mitigation and fighting soil erosion isn't as sexy for the bloodthirsty base as yelling lies about immigrants.

Third verse same as the first.

Expand full comment
subterrene's avatar

I wish they'd put PAB in a building with no windows. And then seal up the door.

Expand full comment
Brianna Amore's avatar

What a shockingly absurd statement he made. Literally nobody has ever proposed tearing down all the buildings in Manhattan and replacing them with windowless ones. That doesn't even make a lick of sense! But the media simply treats it as par for the course.

Expand full comment
Ward From Cali's avatar

"...or his constant threats to withhold aid following wildfires in California — a threat he even repeated this year while campaigning for president."

Thanks, Dok. I was starting to wonder if I was the only person who remembered that. And it was only two weeks ago!

This issue just goes to show how bankrupt the Green Party is. To put it bluntly, a fascist government in America is an existential threat to civilization. A core element of fascist governance is corrupt collaboration with the most entrenched legacy capitalists in existence, ESPECIALLY the ones that are on the wrong side of market trends and rely on government support to continue their accustomed obscene profits. And the United States can continue to fuel global warming all by itself, regardless of what the rest of the world does.

Let a fascist government take root here, and global warming will continue to get worse for however long it will take for us to finally overthrow it. Generations, probably. And human civilization cannot survive that.

If that is your issue, and allegedly it is if you're a Green, then preventing that outcome should be your singular and sole goal at this time, overriding anything else. But is it?

Expand full comment
Sherry's avatar

My sister in the panhandle of FL and a bit of a conspiracy person, mentioned that that aside from the storm surge, there wasn't rain in FL during Helene. I mean I am sure that there was so perhaps she means in relation to other areas that got so much.

I learned yesterday that Spruce Pines where our friend lives was hit hard with flooding. She lived on a hill but her apt was surrounded by trees. She checked in when she got an uplink as comms are down there. I am glad that she is okay and I am deeply saddened by the huge devastation and loss of life. It makes me cry.

Expand full comment
Lefty Wright's avatar

But Trump said rising sea levels will produce more ocean front property. Which once again shows how low his general level of knowledge and ability to reason is. For every acre of new waterfront property gained, more than an acre will be lost. Either through being underwater, eroding of riparian soil, and the simple fact that waterfront shrinks as the sea level rises. Simply watch the tide coming in and compare the border between water and sand at low tide compared to high tide. Especially noticeable in little fingers of land like sand bars. On such a tiny finger of land you will see dry sand stretching out several yards at low tide, only to shrink down to just a foot at high tide. Meaning a much shorter interface between land and water at high tide. Or rising sea level.

This will be especially true in Florida and many locations in North Carolina. The Outer Banks are simply constantly shifting sand bars and sand dunes. The huge expanses of less saline sounds are important sources for seafood, and with the Outer Banks, helps protect land to the west. With broad rivers entering the sounds. In some cases towns dozens of miles inland are as little as five feet above sea level at their highest point. So if the Outer Banks are breached or destroyed tens of thousands of acres of dry land will be submerged and small towns will be islands in a broad marsh. Until a hurricane storm surge wipes them out. In addition to the important seafood hatcheries as the sound waters becomes too saline. Hardly the gain in waterfront property Trump dreams of.

Expand full comment
Opalescent Riddles's avatar

"They wanted to rip down all the buildings in Manhattan, those gorgeous buildings..."

Subtext translator: hey, they're muscling in on my territory!

Expand full comment
Frank Talk, Action Pundit!'s avatar

"One party does science. The other not so much."

The other not at all.

Expand full comment
Mike Huber's avatar

One party is openly hostile to science, because science doesn't care about your feelings or what works best for your politics, no matter how Grand the Old Party you hijacked is.

Expand full comment
Frank Talk, Action Pundit!'s avatar

"How does 'science' benefit me, here and now?"

Expand full comment
VwllssWndr's avatar

They have a ninth grade understanding of science I'd say: they blame climate change on solar flares and believe sex is the XX/XY binary, but anything else is just some liberal conspiracy.

Expand full comment
TerseNurse's avatar

It's almost as if one party is reality-based, and the other party is hysterical temper tantrum-based.

Expand full comment
PhoenixDogLover's avatar

JD Vance said during the debate that the best way to address climate change is to claw back manufacturing from other countries to the US, because the US is more efficient.

I thought that was disingenuous claptrap, and that it came out of some tech/finance douchebro discussion in the middle of an Ayn Rand worship session.

Expand full comment
Frank Talk, Action Pundit!'s avatar

GOP bullshit is still bullshit.

Expand full comment
JustPixelz's avatar

The best way is to stop acting like Americans. Drive or fly everywhere, AC on max, single-use items, food waste....

Or, buy goods made in Europe which is far ahead of us in use of renewables for electricity.

Expand full comment
algore lactating's avatar

but if the factories move back here, who will pay the tariffs?

& if no tariffs, & no taxes either -- since the clawback will be incentives with foxconn wisconsin style tax free status -- who will fund the government's huge growth in childcare subsidy?

Expand full comment
Mike Huber's avatar

The thing is, a successful tariff is not paid.

Tariffs are about control, not revenue.

You apply a tariff to protect your internal market from foreign competition. If the tariff works, the foreigners stop (or at least slow down) selling their wares in your country, so the locals can raise their prices or reduce their costs (quality) or at least sell in higher volume.

Winning a trade war looks like this: local producers of goods are selling more goods at higher profit.

The last time tfg was at the wheel, the government that made those tariffs ended up having to subsidize our own farmers in order to keep them from going bankrupt because they couldn't sell as much product. That's what losing a trade war looks like.

Expand full comment
goCatgo's avatar

He means the children will work in the factories. Pay for themselves! Brilliant!

Expand full comment
Satanic Pancake's avatar

Didn't you listen to Vance? By increasing the number of childcare providers, overall childcare costs will go down. I am not sure exactly how to square this with the argument that childcare providers are currently underpaid and we need to increase their wages as well, but maybe we make up for it in volume somehow?

Expand full comment
Lefty Wright's avatar

Thirty one and two year olds in one room with one adult. Automation is the answer. Robots, diaper changing conveyor lines, and feeding troughs will solve the problem.

Expand full comment
Free beach's avatar

Grandma and grandpa need to do more you lazy, working- longer bums!

-VD Vance

Expand full comment
goCatgo's avatar

Back when he said it, some haircut in a suit said the numbers would not even be close.

Childcare and tariffs. Didn't see any numbers. Probably won't.

Expand full comment
Lucius's avatar

Climate change deniers shouldn't be allowed to manage a fast food joint, much less a country.

Expand full comment
Free beach's avatar

Agree. Oh and add election deniers too!

Expand full comment
Old Man Shadow's avatar

You'd think it be obvious that we can't rebuild four or five states from the ground up every year or every other year or every third year without running out of money.

You'd think it would be obvious that when it happens and we can't afford it, that we can't abandon millions of people and leave them homeless and expect them to just accept it.

You think it would be obvious that we can't close our eyes and stop up our ears and ignore the underlying problem and expect it to get better.

You'd think that after living with the Noah's ark story for centuries, we might think about listening to the smart guy building the boat when we feel rain.

But there's money to be made now, so fuck it all, I guess is the GOP answer.

Expand full comment
Hamilton & The Crew 👉NO👑S👈's avatar

People who are told what to think don't necessarily find the same things obvious as those who learned how to think.

Expand full comment
Lucius's avatar

Always has been.

Expand full comment
Mavenmaven's avatar

Trumpists certainly favor a green economy but by "green" they mean "dollar bills"

Expand full comment
algore lactating's avatar

"politicians... are sounding like strippers to me".

https://youtu.be/I_uDcCZDrxg?si=tJmDzmFs9YXimpVW

Expand full comment
Free beach's avatar

Stripper libelz!

Expand full comment