Just Republican conspiracy theories

[neurosis]

If you're looking for a specific bill or more detailed information, let me know, and I can dive deeper into that.

No need. Incog took care of that for you.

[beej]

It sure does. 



So to put it in simple terms. Trump is full of shit. 





I'd like to look more in to this part.

This is all from your article. 

that is a terrible fact checker. Here's why. In the fact check, it said, that Trump's plan wouldn't have had a meaningful impact on the water supply. that means that it would have had SOME impact, though.

It says that most of the water comes from somewhere OTHER than Central Valley. So, how much comes from Central valley? If most comes from somewhere else. if Most means 70% comes from other sources. well then 30% comes from Central valley, and that indeed does make a difference when the fire hydrants go from spraying to trickling.

I know you didn't post the article, Neuro. But the article was obviously written to make Trump look wrong, not to provide facts. And they try to say they are fact checkers by speaking in generalities.

this is an AI answer to the question how much of LA's water comes from Central Valley. It's still not specific but it sure paints it in a different light than the fact checker article.

A significant portion of Los Angeles' water comes from the Central Valley, specifically through the State Water Project which draws water from the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers, but the majority of their water supply is sourced from the Colorado River via the Colorado River Aqueduct, meaning the Central Valley contributes a substantial but not dominant portion of their water supply.

[mkd]

No need. Incog took care of that for you.

That was chatGPT
I glad we could show you that your TDS is at least somewhat unfounded since you couldn't be bothered to look at actual facts.
.
#changingminds

[neurosis]

that is a terrible fact checker. Here's why. In the fact check it said that Trump's plan wouldn't have had a meaningful impact on the water supply. that means that it would have had SOME impact, though.

It's only terrible if you're looking for a specific argument to be made. The "fact check" was determining the accuracy of Trumps statements.  Which no matter how you break it down, were either inaccurate at best, or complete nonsense at worst.

Trump is pushing a narrative that Newsome didn't sign a declaration which if he had, would have prevented the situation they're in now, which was just nonsense. You could use the memorandum and the lawsuit filed against it as an argument, but then it's up to whoever makes that argument to prove it. What was the outcome of the lawsuit anyway? And where was that water being directed? 

[neurosis]

That was chatGPT
I glad we could show you that your TDS is at least somewhat unfounded since you couldn't be bothered to look at actual facts.
.
#changingminds

I don't think that went the direction you think it did.  lol.

[neurosis]

I know you didn't post the article, Neuro. But the article was obviously written to make Trump look wrong, not to provide facts. And they try to say they are fact checkers by speaking in generalities.

Verify usually does a pretty good job of getting to the bottom of things. I think that you're looking for answers to questions that weren't asked.  I'd like to know some of those answers too.  Like how much of that water would have been directed to LA, if any.

[mkd]

I don't think 

Fixed for accuracy.
Your research skills are garbage too, but we still like you.

[Incogneeto]

All I did was read the article that Incog posted. Something I suspect he didn't bother to do. Or he stopped when he read something that he thought supported Trumps argument.

 

I read the WHOLE thing.

YOU cherry picked it apart , instead of assessing the entire article.

Exactly what Smit was saying others were doing.

[CNCAppsJames]

Again, because it bears repeating;
California's water issues are complicated.

And "Fact Checkers" 100% are full of shit. They have an axe to grind.

[beej]

It's only terrible if you're looking for a specific argument to be made. The "fact check" was determining the accuracy of Trumps statements.  Which no matter how you break it down, were either inaccurate at best, or complete nonsense at worst.

Trump is pushing a narrative that Newsome didn't sign a declaration which if he had, would have prevented the situation they're in now, which was just nonsense. You could use the memorandum and the lawsuit filed against it as an argument, but then it's up to whoever makes that argument to prove it. What was the outcome of the lawsuit anyway? And where was that water being directed? 

https://www.courthousenews.com/trump-signs-order-diverting-more-water-to-california-farmers/

Speaking at an event in Bakersfield, Trump signed a memorandum that will allow the federal government to redirect millions of gallons of water to the Central Valley and Southern California.

"As a candidate for president, I promised to help solve the water crisis that was crippling our farmers due to the chronic mismanagement and misguided policies," Trump said.

California Governor Gavin Newsom immediately responded with threats of litigation.

"We will file legal action in the coming days to challenge the federal biological opinions to protect highly imperiled fish species close to extinction," Newsom said in a statement Wednesday.

The governor said he planned to address California's "water wars" by reaching voluntary agreements between government agencies and water users.

Last year, Newsom axed former Governor Jerry Brown's $17 billion plan for two 30-mile tunnels that would funnel water around the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta to aqueducts that supply farmers and cities farther south. Newsom said he instead favors a less expensive, one-tunnel approach. Many environmental groups remain opposed to even a single tunnel.

The governor has been in talks with the Trump administration over the last several months trying to reach an agreement that would increase water flows to the south while protecting endangered fish.

Newsome stalled the memorandum through litigation, and Biden's administration rescinded it.

[neurosis]

I read the WHOLE thing.

YOU cherry picked it apart , instead of assessing the entire article.

Exactly what Smit was saying others were doing.

I posted the important parts of the article. The entire article say's that Trump lied and explains why.

[neurosis]

https://www.courthousenews.com/trump-signs-order-diverting-more-water-to-california-farmers/


Newsome stalled the memorandum through litigation, and Biden's administration rescinded it.

Did you notice that the memorandum was about agriculture, not resupplying LA? 

[neurosis]

Fixed for accuracy.
Your research skills are garbage too, but we still like you.

Incog posts an article saying that Trump is full of shit and you attack my research skills? 

[Incogneeto]

I posted the important parts of the article. The entire article say's that Trump lied and explains why.

Like I said , "You are stuck on the name."


"Trump Lied!!!!!!"

[CNCAppsJames]

The "fact check" was determining the accuracy of Trumps statements.

That's not how "Fact checks" work when they check Trump/Conservatives;.

Trump = The sky is blue.
"Fact" Checkers = False. The sky is ultramarine.

Yes it IS that blatant. You can either believe it or not but the fat of the matter is they cherry pick to force the statement to be maximally false. If Democrats are even fact checked, at all, the spirit/context is taken into consideration. Neither Trump nor Conservatives get any such consideration.