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.

  • aesthelete@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    5 minutes ago

    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.

  • Boddhisatva@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    125
    ·
    8 hours ago

    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…”

      • rayyy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        5 hours ago

        “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.

    • Mog_fanatic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Goes double for whether or not he’s serious. The number of times I’ve heard something and have had a legitimately hard time telling if he’s joking, or exaggerating, or just a complete fucking moron is absolutely crazy. Pretty much every sentence he utters becomes this endless game of trying to figure it out. It seems like his base just kind of randomly picks the option that makes the most sense to them and rolls with it.

    • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 hours ago

      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 for the market (where it kind of worked). That’s a totally different world, where half lies and crazy sales talk are the norm.

      • Boddhisatva@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        35
        ·
        8 hours ago

        I get what you’re saying but they really should just be pointing out that he’s not making any sense. Trump’s speeches are being treated like Nostradamus’ prophesies now. He spews a bunch of nonsense and people make up what they think it means. The guy should be in a home, not on the campaign trail and the media should make that clear to voters.

        • snooggums@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          20
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 hours ago

          The worst part is they nitpick any piberal or progressive candidate on their exact phrasing while translating conservative hate speech into something less horrible.

        • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          8 hours ago

          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 water pouring out of snowy mountains into the ocean is a “waste” when it could just be diverted to 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 implied facts 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 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 and political) 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. 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.

          • aesthelete@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            39 seconds ago

            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.

      • floofloof@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        8 hours ago

        The problem is, he has no idea about policy and really no interest in it, except when the decision obviously benefits himself, or benefits those who pretty directly benefit him. So whatever he’s saying at this point is just stuff he thinks sounds good. It bears no relation to what he’ll do, except where there’s obviously something in it for him and his associates. That’s why “I’ll take vengeance on my opponents” or “I’ll increase fossil fuel use and suppress green technologies” are the kinds of statements to take seriously from him, but “I’ll sort out your water problems” is not, unless we can find a benefit for him in it. The question to ask is, “Is he saying this because he thinks it benefits him to say it, or because he thinks it benefits him to do it?” (And for him, making people he dislikes suffer counts as a benefit.)

        • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 hours ago

          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.”

      • Rentlar@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        28
        ·
        8 hours ago

        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.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 hours ago

          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.

        • archonet@lemy.lol
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          7 hours ago

          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.

  • Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    4 hours ago

    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.

  • lady_k@real.lemmy.fan
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 hours ago

    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.

    • Gumby@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 hours ago

      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)

  • TimLovesTech (AuDHD)(he/him)@badatbeing.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    7 hours ago

    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.

  • Maggoty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 hours ago

    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.

  • kescusay@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Oregonian, here. We need that water to flush our absolutely gigantic toilet so California can’t have it!