You are all missing the point.
Trees are not a “problem”, but rather an untapped resource.
I mean look at them, millions, nah billions of them just sitting there, none of them are generating a penny for our billionaires.
Imagine what our glorious billionaires can do if we allow them to just chop down all those trees? Think of all the beautiful toiler paper for our collective asses, as well as the billion of bibles (including a copy of the constitution) that they can sell to us for the low low price of $65.
And as an added benefit, getting rid of all those trees will also eliminate the problem of forest fires. You can’t have those without forests in the first place.
To be sure, some forests will need to be left alone, specially those close to residential areas, but not for the reasons that you think.
We need those forests to actually burn down, hopefully taking down those houses next to them. Why? Think about it. If all those houses burn down then we can use those trees we chopped down elsewhere to build new houses, a BOOM for the construction billionaires. And also, it means that houses next to those forest that can accidentally burn down will have to have an increase in their insurance premium, we can even make it so that forests close to houses have a private company to fight forest fires, think of all the benefits for billionaires.
Once you start thinking money, it all makes sense
I need this in the style of Trump.
I tried asking ChatGPT to roleplay as Trump and repeat it in it’s own words, however it gave me back the same near-verbatim. I think this proves that the original text wasn’t far off
Listen, folks, you’re totally missing the point here. Trees aren’t a problem; they’re an incredible, untapped resource.
Look at them—millions, no, billions of trees just sitting there, doing nothing. They’re not making a single cent for our amazing billionaires. Imagine the fantastic things our billionaires could do if we let them chop down all those trees. We’d have an endless supply of beautiful toilet paper for everyone and billions of Bibles, plus a copy of the Constitution, all for the fantastic price of $65.
And guess what? By getting rid of all these trees, we’d also solve the problem of forest fires. No trees, no forest fires—so simple.
Now, we’ll keep some forests, especially near homes, but not for the reasons you think. We need those forests to burn down sometimes and take a few houses with them. Why? Because then we can rebuild those homes with the trees we chopped down elsewhere—a huge win for the construction industry. Plus, it means higher insurance premiums for homes near forests, and we can even privatize forest fire services. Think of all the benefits for our billionaires.
When you start thinking about the money, it all makes perfect sense.
I hate that my brain rambling are that close to ChatGPT’s output.
I mean, I know trump is just an idiot repeating things he’s been told or has heard somewhere on repeat but there is something credible to that idea.
It’s the one downside in my opinion to protected areas and parks. No one is allowed to do anything in them that is seen as unnatural. I wouldn’t suggest logging a park but selectively removing and cleaning up debris / dead trees should definitely be a thing.
They are a giant fire hazard.
A natural forest has regular fires to clear out the underbrush and dead debris. Parks never allow fires to occur and that dead debris builds up to a point that if a fire did happen, absolutely nothing would survive the heat whereas smaller more regular fires would allow for some of the older and stronger trees to survive and repopulate, depending on the forest ecosystem.
This is nonsense. Parks do prescribed burning all the damned time. That’s the entire point of the USFS. They make sure fire clearings are all in the correct places and do their best to prevent large fires from breaking out.
Clearing out “debris” is an impossibility. Where would you put it? There’s far, far too much land for that to be realistic. You’d need teams of millions of people and the logistics of such a thing would be insane.
Not only that but it would be an ecological disaster. All sorts of plants and animals rely on that debris to live. “The forest” isn’t just the trees.
Trees can explode actually 😅 Eucalyptus and Aspen trees are know to explode during bush fires.
They don’t explode unbidden like you might assume given Trump’s comment. He seems to do this a lot; he talks about something real, in a way that demonstrates he’s garbage at communicating anything even remotely technical.
The real solutions is of course tending our forests to ensure there’s not enough combustible material to cause dangerous fires. More resources for the forest service is essential. It makes me wonder if these gaffs are far more effective at directing our attention away from the substance of the problem with Trump
white house to be replaced with large black tower
civil servants will all be based off of Ivanka’s stem cells
the white hand of trump is … trying to get up from the couch
Trees can explode actually, but primarily when they are filled with sap and hit with a sudden, extreme cold snap. They’ll only explode due to heat if they’re already surrounded by fire and are going to burn no matter what.
Trump rambles like an insane asylum resident literally every day and nobody bats an eye
Biden forgets a couple names and has a bad throat and everyone loses their minds
Trump rambles like an insane asylum resident literally every day and nobody bats an eye
You’re posting under a meme literally mocking Trump for rambling like an insane asylum resident. He’s been ordered by courts to pay $83.3 million for shit he has said and is actively being procecuted for other things. You don’t notice it anymore because Trump has been criticized daily for the last decade, whereas calls for Biden to step down are new, because he only recently started acting senile.
I think it was more an exasperated call to the fact one candidate is flubbing and it’s front page news covered by every tv news station 24/7 and the other is incoherent 24/7, leading in polls, and if you weren’t on social media you’d miss it.
Seems pretty reasonable to be frustrated.
Here’s the thing. For trump, the insane ramblings are a feature, not a bug. For Biden, we need people to turn up and vote for him, and normal sane people don’t want someone who seems checked out.
Comparing them is not even reasonable at this point, and Trump’s supports are not reasonable
I full agree on not wanting someone who’s checked out but it’s literally we eat the shit sandwich or we lose democracy.
I don’t understand why this is the only shit sandwich who can win. There is no indication that someone who can’t even string together a coherent speech is our only hope. Replace him with someone who is, at least, coherent.
Because we need a primary to vet candidates. The bad shit comes out in the primary. We weed out the people who seemed great on the surface yet ended up having issues. Just ask leading Republican Presidential candidate Rhonda Santis.
This late in the game there are also a number of non-political things that would go very badly if we switched candidates. It’s too late from an administrative perspective. A replacement candidate can’t create and launch a whole new Presidential campaign in a matter of days.
Then there’s funding. Biden can’t just give all his campaign funds to some other candidate. People donated that money to Biden’s campaign; there are rules on how that money can be spent.
These are just a few examples of many issues.
It would be an absolute mess in ways that most people have not fully considered.
Then the Republicans would spin the scramble for a new candidate as incompetence of the party as a whole - a rare instance of them making a good point. No way voter confidence increases once all factors have come into play.
