2 ms·
>Unless you think they should just let the fires burn, which would be catastrophic. Why? I think it's probably the best thing to do. If the USG doesn't want
by shiroiushi 2y ago
>Unless you think they should just let the fires burn, which would be catastrophic.
Why? I think it's probably the best thing to do. If the USG doesn't want to allocate enough money to properly manage forests, then why not just let it burn? If that results in some towns burned down, that's fine: voters in those towns can complain to their elected representatives and maybe vote for someone else.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- shiroiushi 2y agoUpdate: the voters in these towns have voted now, and they voted overwhelmingly for the party that wants to cut federal spending, so I think "let it burn" is absolutely the right thing to do now, and is likely what's going to happen.