Trump Insults while California Burns

The LA Times reports that people in California, and especially firefighters, are angry at Donald Trump’s stunning display of both stupidity and insensitivity in response to the deadly fires raging through their state.

While a quarter of a million people flee their homes to save their lives, while firefighters risk their lives to protect people and property, while the city of Paradise, California lies in ruins, Putin’s bitch had this to say on twitter:

There is no reason for these massive, deadly and costly forest fires in California except that forest management is so poor. Billions of dollars are given each year, with so many lives lost, all because of gross mismanagement of the forests. Remedy now, or no more Fed payments!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 10, 2018

The Pasadena Firefighters Association said on twitter:

“The fires in So. Cal are urban interface fires and have NOTHING to do with forest management. Come to SoCal and learn the facts & help the victims”

Perhaps the most salient comment was from California Professional Firefighters President Brian Rice:

The president’s message attacking California and threatening to withhold aid to the victims of the cataclysmic fires is ill-informed, ill-timed and demeaning to those who are suffering as well as the men and women on the front lines.

At this moment, thousands of our brother and sister firefighters are putting their lives on the line to protect the lives and property of thousands. Some of them are doing so even as their own homes lay in ruins. In my view, this shameful attack on California is an attack on all our courageous men and women on the front lines.

At least now there’s no denying that the “@realDonaldTrump” is not a worthy President, he’s a pompous ass.


In other news, Trump cancelled a memorial for World War I during his trip to France — because it was raining.

Meanwhile, Canadian prime minister Trudeau not only spoke at a memorial in France, he cast aside his umbrella, noting that for the soldiers who fought that war, it wasn’t rain, it was bullets.

While Trudeau showed how a leader behaves like a class act, Putin’s bitch showed how a pathetic excuse for a leader shows no class at all.


36 responses to “Trump Insults while California Burns

  1. It’s a battle that trump can’t lose because 1. it slams federal government and the Rs hate the federal govt and it’s functions 2. It avoids discussion of global warming and how that is a primary cause in the awful fires and 3. it offends Californians and maybe all leftcoasters, but when is the last time that any electoral votes from the left coast ended up in the Red column? Red meat, baby. as lefties and sensible people react in horror to Trump, his base can stand back and yell “support your damn president” or some other mindless drivel.

    maybe that’s all a little harsh? Be careful if you are living in proximity to dried-out forests these days. That is not working out well these days. Sell if you can and buy something with an ocean view?

    • @SmallBlueMike,

      A (very) recent Five Thirty Eight Politics podcast dissected the midterms and showed that, apparently, whatever their votes for Trump in the last Presidential, people with the luxury of having reflection and sensitivity, namely, the relatively wealthy of suburbs, are overwhelmingly turning against him, no matter their stated political affiliations.

      What’s curious is what is the disposition of the Republican Party after Trump? I mean I hope not, but it will come to an end, and Then What? And if he goes down, after the dissolution of moderates, how do the Republicans have any future at all?

      I ask because I personally think that one party rule, whether Republican or Democratic is a bad thing. Note one of the major lobbyists for Keystone XL is a former major staff of Senator Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign and, reportedly, they remain close.

      • “What’s curious is what is the disposition of the Republican Party after Trump?”

        As I understand it, Trump’s current legal strategy only works if he is “President for Life”.

    • Smallbluemike: There’s going to be oceanfront properties at fire-sale prices after this is done, all along coastal Ventura County. I don’t think your plan is going to have the results you want.

    • David B. Benson

      Malibu has ocean views.

    • Since I’m always adjuring people not to paint the South as entirely red, I suppose for consistency, I should also point out that California is not entirely blue, either. (In fact, the CA governor’s race was ~60-40%, which is the inverse, more or less, of what you typically see here.) There are several House seats in GOP hands–though, to be fair, not the coastal districts!

  2. Not only is <45 a pompous ass, but a prick, and a dangerous Ignorati.

    45 only cares about himself, protecting himself, will throw anyone and overboard to do it, no matter how loyal they have been or what the consequences are.

    I think the U.S. military, including their officers, should take special note of the true purpose of any sacrifices they would be asked to make in a hot conflict while 45 is in office: To protect the United States and its interests? Or to protect him and his public image, or possibly his wealth?

    As for the fires, the extrapolations of the Years episodes featuring Schwarzenegger seem so tame ….

    Note the recent Climate Crocks post.

  3. Bravo. Well said.

  4. “Nicholas Soames, the Conservative MP and grandson of Sir Winston Churchill, tweeted: “They died with their face to the foe and that pathetic inadequate @realDonaldTrump couldn’t even defy the weather to pay his respects to The Fallen #hesnotfittorepresenthisgreatcountry.”

    The US political commentator David Frum tweeted: “It’s incredible that a president would travel to France for this significant anniversary – and then remain in his hotel room watching TV rather than pay in person his respects to the Americans who gave their lives in France for the victory gained 100 years ago tomorrow.””


  5. Photographs showed John Kerry walking around the cemetary in France and it was not raining. Kerry took Trumps place at the memorial.

    • I believe you’re confusing Chief of Staff (and retired Marine Corps General) John Kelly, not former Secretary of State (and Navy Lieutenant) John Kerry.

  6. “At least now there’s no denying that the “@realDonaldTrump” is not a worthy President, he’s a pompous ass.”

    IMO, there’s never been any denying that–for a rational mind. Just another brick in the wall.

  7. For anyone keeping score, this is currently the 4th-worst fire year on record by acreage burned, behind 2015, 2012, and 2017.

    I guess the so-called president thinks CA drives the national statistics. (OK, that was sarcasm; the phrase “Trump thinks” is a well-known oxymoron.)

    • read carefully, y’all! I said “electoral” votes as per Trump’s concerns. He is safe to offend Californians and other solidly blue states because he has no chance of picking any of the 270 important electoral votes he will need in 2020. Offending and slamming solidly blue states may serve him well in the red states and swing states. Getting elected or re-elected POTUS is all about carrying FL, OH and and a few other swing states and playing to partisan form to hold the red and blue states in their current traditional columns.

      For these reasons and closely-associated issues with the Senate dominance by small population red states, I am of the opinion that we can only whittle away (or fiddle ala Nero) at the problem of AGW until the Rs can no longer afford to adopt denialist or lukewarmer positions as national policy planks.

      It’s hard, I know, but we have to talk persuasively with reasonable republicans in red states about AGW. There are more reasonable republicans in red states (at least on AGW) than you would think by looking at the national R party’s stance on the top on AGW.

      I don’t waste much time on the lukewarmers, they are just partisan climateball warriors who enjoy trolling and being ideologically intransigent, they are not the reasonable R people (RRs ?) who can be reached to bring bipartisan action on AGW.

      Anyone who has been slammed now by AGW should be talking with their extended friends and family about the need to do something about AGW. I do not mean the fractious discussion with the crazy uncles at the Thanksgiving table, I mean the RRs that get quiet when this discussion ramps up. The discussion needs to be full of questions about the impacts and costs of AGW rather than full of hard facts and positions. We have to create a safe space for RRs to think out loud about our collective future and we have to be ready to nod and say, “yeah, that’s right” or “yeah, that worries me, too” or something very inclusive and rewarding, the “I told you so” or “not only that, but….” type of response keep us in the Red Blue electoral and senate gridlock that prevents passage of good public policy. We need to be wise and gentle if we really want to see progress on AGW.

      oh, yeah… after we fix AGW with the RRs, we need to move on to gun control…. but you know… one thing at a time

      • @smallbluemike,

        I heartily agree about the talking. I don’t know much about the wildfires, apart from knowing they are horrific and unpredictable, and understanding the recent attribution analyses. I’ve followed the work of Dr Jennifer Francis and her colleagues for quite some time. And the recent report of Dr Mann and colleagues on the question makes an advance.

        I can understand the near term mitigation of fire damage a little likening it to coastal flooding and wind issues, although the wide area fire affects and its unpredictability is, perhaps, a difference. In the case of coastal flooding, per a recent podcast, there won’t be a solution until (a) insurance companies come down hard with rises in affected homes premiums, deny insurance, or similar — as unpopular as that is, even among politicians, and (b) the ratings agencies really do strongly penalize towns and cities having done little or nothing to prepare themselves. That said, I understand why it’s hard for people to up and move, and why towns and cities would rather sit tight and hope for a federal bailout than lose an important chunk of their tax base. The bailouts, while popular are creating moral hazard.

        The upshot of the podcast was, unfortunately, that nothing will happen until the problem is so big that politicians have no choice but to proceed along the politically untenable route. That’s depressing.

      • @Mike, Good to see your analysis is as shallow as ever. Because for President Shitstain, it is not just about electoral votes, it’s also about the votes in the House to impeach or not. Even if the still-red Senate decides to stand as a bulwark, the steady drip of scandal over the next two years will make life increasingly uncomfortable for anyone supporting this poor excuse for a human. Even the Representative from Moscow, Dana Rohrbacher lost his seat, and then there is the question of whether Duncan Hunter’s career will survive his likely conviction.

        Beto in 2020?

  8. Even if Trump were correct, is it not hilariously ironic that he is suggesting we should recognise the problem and take costly steps to mitigate against risks ahead of time rather than allowing the worst to happen.

    Though for his future reference that’s something which should really be done before the fact, not after.

  9. @smallbluemike and all,

    I just became aware of a second paper from Profs Mann, Rahmstorf, et al:

    M. E. Mann, S. Rahmstorf, K. Kornhuber, B. A. Steinman, S. K. Miller,
    S. Petri, D. Coumou, “Projected changes in persistent extreme summer weather events: The role of quasi-resonant amplification“, Science Advances, 2018; 4 : eaat3272 31 October 2018.

    and summarized here.

    Looks like Dr Francis’ hunch is turning out correct.

    Also, in my opinion, this is Science at its best. Professor Mann was originally skeptical of Francis and Vavrus. I wonder what Dr Kevin Trenberth thinks now?

  10. As the lack of democracy is so obvious in the USA (a president with fewer votes than his opponent and a Senate controlled by the party with fewer votes), I’m surprised that there are not big frequent protests about representation. I think democracy is a prerequisite for (though does not guarantee) the branches of government addressing reality rather than unreality.

    • …And a judge appointed to the Supreme Court even after it can be shown that he repeatedly lied at his confirmation hearing, and showed a very inappropriate partisanship at that same hearing.

      • MR said: “As the lack of democracy is so obvious in the USA (a president with fewer votes than his opponent and a Senate controlled by the party with fewer votes), I’m surprised that there are not big frequent protests about representation.”

        I think the US Govt system design can produce modest democracy under the best of circumstances, but is hobbled to prevent collapse into single party or branch tyranny. I think the hobbling works and produces government and public policy gridlock as its worst case scenario. This is frustrating for anyone who seeks or thinks they should be entitled to effective, responsive governance. Systems with more powerful parliamentary function and representative selection models that allow for small political parties (think greens) to hold a number of seats consistent with the popular vote for a small political party would probably be more effective by forcing coalitions and producing modest herky-jerky progress on public policies that are have broad support, but can not be picked up by a major party in a two-party system like the one we have in the US.

        per the protests: Occupy? The global antiwar push prior to the Iraq War? Global pushes like and others organize? I think there are, have been and will be protest actions regarding political directions, dissatisfactions, etc. but I think, by and large, the global governance system has evolved control measures that allow for protests, but prevent the protests from producing any but the most modest results. I think of the protests and actions as “demonstractions.” If you want fundamental change, you have to think hard about the design of your project to create that change.

        I do recognize that disgruntled voters need to vent and that demonstractions provide meaningful sociological functions to political groups and I am fine with that if the keep the music loud and the speeches short, but I think it may be naive to think that protest is likely to produce meaningful swings in public policy absent some really effective long and deep term planning at its core. You have to look at the models that have produced results in our lifetime for analysis and ideas: the civil rights movement in US, Solidarity in Poland, the anti-apartheid movement in S Africa.

        Snarkrates: I am just a little curious: what is it that you like so much about insulting, ad hominem attacks. I don’t get it, but maybe it has something to do with erectile dysfunction or something like that where I just have no frame of reference for the behavior.

        I think it’s a good idea to tone down the rhetoric and polish the thinking through patience and consideration, but I know a lot of folks just prefer to shoot from the lip. Do your thing.

        Cheers to all,


  11. Tamino: while Trudeau is good at knowing how to show respect at symbolic occasions, don’t forget he’s also strongly in favour of pipelines to ship Alberta’s tar sands overseas.

  12. I sometimes wonder, if this reckless behaviour is actually part of his strategy. I mean, he is using public dissatisfaction of democratic (and perhaps, moderate republican) voters and is trying to increase their distrust of the politics – e.g. if he is losing one voter, his opponent mihgt lose two in the process and is thus shifting the final percentage to his benefit. Now, he has very devoted voter base (he can do whatever he wants there), and all he has to do is to dissuade the voters of other candidates to vote and support better policy.

    • @Patrice, I think the “Trump is actually devilishly clever behind the scenes” idea has been repeatedly discredited in the books and reports written about him during the last year. He’s a thirteen-year-old rich brat, completely self-absorbed, will destroy anything he thinks he can get away with to advance what he wants, and is an expert at concocting stories to deflect blame which rightly should be visited upon him.

      • I think there’s some middle ground here. Teens can be pretty darn good at deflection sometimes, impulsive and short-sighted though they may also be. And Trump’s self-absorption can sometimes act as a weird sort of focus, pathological though it also is.

    • I think it is the strategy of Putin, not Putin’s Pal.

  13. rhymeswithgoalie

    I’m past the point of hoping that any of his bad behavior will change any minds about him.

  14. As a Canadian, it should be noted that the video going around the internet of Trudeau was from last year’s ceremony, not this one. Which IMO actually makes it have a bigger impact, as it wasn’t a response to Trump, just how a real leader should act.

  15. The ironic thing here is that the Republican house had already passed what they hail as a ‘responsible, bipartisan’ solution to the ills of forest management in the ‘Resilient Forests’ act. (Perhaps the so-called President was playing golf when it passed.) However, it was not taken up by the (also, as we know, Republican) Senate.

    Nevertheless, the House did issue an online puff piece about how wonderful this piece of legislation is:

    However, others have, er, differing views about the impact that this legislation would have:

    One can assess these two views in a a variety of ways, of course. A simple one would be to start with just how “bipartisan” support for the Act really was; from the link given at the top of this comment, it’s just another click to find out that in this instance, “bi-partisan” meant passage with 222 Republican votes and 10 Democratic ones. (While the ‘nays’ split 179 Democrat to 9 Republican, with 12 members not voting.)

    Personally, in such an instance I would call the tag “bi-partisan” a lie–95% support from one side is clearly a near-Party line vote. And if they are going to gratuitously lie about that–there was no obvious need to insert that adjective into the text of their puff piece, after all–then there is every reason to think that there could be more substantive lies about the legislation itself.

    One may also think about some of the provisions in the Act–for instance, what management purpose is served by literally giving away public land to private owners? What management purpose is served by implementing arbitrary time limitations on environmental assessments, or by waiving them completely for all cuts under 10,000 acres? And what management purpose–this one’s pretty incredible!–could possibly be served by imposing high minimum harvest quotas?

    Personally, I conclude that this indeed a “wish list for the timber industry”, and feel glad that the Senate never bothered with it. There may well be–hell, there are–problems with the status quo: I don’t think anyone would or could argue that “fire borrowing” (using management funds for emergency fire suppression costs) is a good way to ‘run the railroad.’ (By the way, Trump had proposed cutting the management budget further!)

    But neither would stepping away from a science-based, environmentally-focused approach to forest lands.

    • A mis-statement on my part: I suggested that the Senate ‘didn’t bother’ with HR 2936. The fact is, they only received it on the 2nd of this month, so it really remains to be seen whether they bother or not. I expect that if they do take the matter up, they will be unlikely to adopt the bill wholesale (just because that rarely ever happens), and hence would have to reconcile it with a Democratic House that would almost certainly not approve of it. So I’m hoping that this puppy is dead, dead, dead.

      But maybe someone knows US Congressional legislative procedure better than I do?

      • …and correcting myself once again, I was actually off by a whole year–the Senate got the legislation on November 1 *of 2017*. Sorry, I’ll try to keep up better…

        But I do suspect that someone is fixing to push this legislation before the new Congress takes over, and is feeding Trump the line about ‘forest management.’ That’s the intended cover for increased industrial plunder of public forest lands, I think.

  16. Methane madness

    I was watching a government funded comedy hypothetical programme where the premise was that Australia runs out of water, there was no mention of climate change, which about sums it up.

  17. Small correction: The video of Trudeau was from last year in Dieppe.

    That actually makes the comparison even more stark to my mind as Trudeau was acting completely independently of Trump 2018.

    • I noticed the Dieppe reference, and wondered about it. The Dieppe raid, after all, despite its epic place in Canadian military history, was an incident in WW II, and so mention of it would have been quite out of place at the commemoration of what used to be called The Great War.