President Donald Trump's Final Days...

[Arturo2nd]

Originally Posted by LadyLuck

Wildfires are a part of nature. They are part of the ecosystem. The vast structure loss is on the property owner. Using more fireproof or fire retardant materials and maintaining buffers around your property will lessen the impact.

Florida and the Gulf coast are hurricane zones. If you live there you are going to have to endure an occasional hurricane. The Midwest and Southeast are tornado alleys. If you live there you are going to have to endure an occasional tornado. California has earthquakes and wildfires. If you build your house on the San Andreas fault of next to a forest, you're on your own. Anyone who doesn't like it can move to Nevada.

You are correct that the fire problem has multiple vectors. Problem # 1 increased population has expanded into the forest zones. New construction has required fire retardant materials for some time, but older construction is at risk and the temperatures generated by the fires are too great. Problem #2 Many of these residents are retirees who are lax about clearing firebreaks around their properties. We have the same problem in the Oakland hills where we get huge fires every three or four decades because people forget what happens over time. Problem #3 the forestry service does not clear out the undergrowth and dead trees that feed the major fires. This is not helped by federal budget cuts in the name of austerity. Millions of trees that died in the 2015 drought had not been removed. Problem # 4 California's oscillating drought & El Nino weather patterns causes a lot of fire fuel to grow in wetter years like this past winter. Problem #5 in Northern California, we have a public utility in P.G.&E. which has shown a reckless disregard for public safety. Two of the major NorCal fires this year appear to have been started by P.G.&E. equipment. Problem #6 Increased population has brought more arsonists. Arson was responsible for at least one of the major Southern California fires this year. And now we have Santa Ana wind conditions to feed the fires in the southland.

Human beings appear to be quite stupid. A great percentage of our population lives in the flood plains of river valleys. Another large group either lives in areas subject to storm surges from hurricanes or that are actively being eroded by rising sea levels.Then we have the sizable group living in the areas of the South and Midwest who have chosen to inhabit "Tornado Alley" and continually rebuild after being flattened by tornadoes or washed away by the flooding rivers.

So the residents of the fire zones do bear some responsibility and have been punished accordingly. Fire insurance will never make whole their losses. But the facts remains that the U.S. Forest Service does not manage the forests in the best way to contain and control fires. I was mistaken about the departmental responsibility, The Forest Service is managed by the Department of Agriculture. Its budget was cut by $1.7 billion in FY 2017 and an additional $938 million for FY 2018 as part of Republican party's plan to sell a large portion of our national forest land to private developers.

So my original assertion remains true. The federal government bears much of the responsibility for the fires. Furthermore, Mr. Trump is pressuring the state to transfer more water from Northern California to the southern San Joaquin Valley and Southern California cities. We in the north are resisting because we do not wish to degrade our forests, fisheries, river systems, Sacramento Valley farms, and the S.F. Bay estuary any further. Moreover, the northern cities have adopted more stringent water rationing than the south and many of us feel that it makes little sense to use scarce water resources to grow thirsty crops like cotton and almonds in the semi arid regions of the San Joaquin Valley.

P.S. Bill Clinton, not Hillary, and Republicans in Congress passed the omnibus crime bill. It was a mistake. Three strikes sentencing and the cuts to rehabilitation programs in California were driven by Republican tough on crime measures. Both state and federal programs intended to remove violent felons from the streets, but wound up with long sentences for minor drug crimes. We were a lot safer in California when we gave convicts education and job training and incentives not to return to prison. A side effect is that we removed fathers from black neighborhoods and the teenage males have run wild. High testosterone levels combined with immature brains is a bad social recipe.

[movieman88]

Originally Posted by ShutUpLutz!

Exactly what expertise and inside knowledge does he have about globalism and the Deep State? Lay out all the evidence you have. And spare us the whole, "Well I have a job/school/life so I can't possibly do the actual research and searching you just have to take my word for it, just like i take Trumps word as ABSOLUTE TRUTH.

I don't take Trunp's word as absolute truth and I don't know the intricate details of Bannon's knowledge because #1 I don't read Breitbart because like you said it's a invalid source and #2 it was never discussed with the public. Pehaps Bannon lied or exaggerated what he knew to get a position and when Trunp figured out he was full of shit, maybe that is when their falling out happened.

You know what, fuck it.

You are a liar.

Let me repeat that.

You.

Are.

A.

Liar.

I'm not lying, I'm throwing out potential alternate explanations that don't instantly jump to the worst possible scenario.

Trump was NOT describing the general population of the town. Let's see a cite where he specifically does that. Link to it. Oh, it had to be a legitimate news cite like CNN or MSNBC. Breitbart/Infowars/Foxnews aren't legitimate.

Here is a video of the exact quote - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltQlfhcoUa4
Your right he was not describing the full town or making any kind of generalization he was laser focus pinpointing the specific good people who were there on both sides of the protest. The people who genuinely showed up just to protest the statue removal for example.

But here's the thing, even if there were people there who weren't affiliated with the Nazis/KKK and they chose to march along with them; they are still scum.

ANYONE who marches with Nazis is garbage.

Maybe they believe protesting censorship is more important.
Maybe they showed up but didn't actually march with the tiki torchers.
Maybe they don't think their fellow townspeople qualify as actual nazis. (You can have paranoia about jews without actually wanting to genocide them)
Maybe they were scared to leave once they realized what the protest had become.

REGARDLESS I AGREE Trump should have done a more direct job of calling out the specific bad people in the protest.
He could have explained that not everyone there was bad while still being vicious to the trash.

That being said the condemnation he did give was strong enough to result in this - https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5...b08a2472764798
So he must have said something right.

[crinolynne]

Originally Posted by movieman88

So he must have said something right.

Actually yes and no. Considering the T-twit is on record as saying black is white and white is black within 2 hours of each other, he will of course, occasionally say something "right". But it's not what he actually believes and has no counterpart in contemporary reality. The man lies for a living, truth and fact are simply not a meaningful metric when describing his statements.

If he says something right, it's not because it's factual, but because it serves his self-centred purpose. He'll say the opposite within 5 minutes if he thinks it advantageous.

[LadyLuck]

Originally Posted by Brian249x

So my original assertion remains true.

No, it does not. Fires happen. It's part of nature. Most of my reading this week in the wake of the Malibu fires indicates that one thing that forestry experts agree on is that the type of management people are calling for has little effect on the frequency or location of wildfires. It might offset one aspect but exacerbates another. You end up breaking even.

The federal government bears much of the responsibility for the fires.

No, they do not. See item 1. People blame the Sierra Club, too. Those folks are just as wrong.

You are correct that development has encroached too closely to wooded areas. That's human error.

[charliels531]

Originally Posted by LadyLuck

No, it does not. Fires happen. It's part of nature. Most of my reading this week in the wake of the Malibu fires indicates that one thing that forestry experts agree on is that the type of management people are calling for has little effect on the frequency or location of wildfires. It might offset one aspect but exacerbates another. You end up breaking even.

No, they do not. See item 1. People blame the Sierra Club, too. Those folks are just as wrong.

You are correct that development has encroached too closely to wooded areas. That's human error.

Your insistence on willful ignorance undercuts your credibility. Just as hurricanes are longer and more intense because of global climate change, so are wildfires. In the West we used to have fire seasons. Now the entire year is a fire season.

[laberbacke]

Originally Posted by charliels531

Your insistence on willful ignorance undercuts your credibility. Just as hurricanes are longer and more intense because of global climate change, so are wildfires. In the West we used to have fire seasons. Now the entire year is a fire season.

I would invite anyone who still denies anthropogenic (man-made) climate change - most often with the argument that the global climate has warmed and cooled many times before - to take a look at this classic XKCD cartoon:


https://xkcd.com/1732/


Please do not stop until you've scrolled to the end of the timeline.


Now, personally I've come to the conclusion that climate change denial should be punishable by law - just like denial of the Holocaust is here in Germany and a number of other countries.

Climate change has already caused millions of deaths and will cause hundreds of millions of deaths until the end of this century, if we continue on our current course of denialism and procrastination. Melting ice caps will flood many coastal areas, while already hot and arid regions around the globel will become unsuitable for human habitation. This means that the billion plus people who currently live in these regions will either die or move northwards - mainly towards the United States and Europe.



This inaction is a generational crime - committed by the old and powerful against the young and innocent, and against future generations yet unborn. They will look back with horror and disgust at the current generation of 50+ year olds who run the planet like we look back at the likes of Hitler and Stalin.

[cicciobuki]

Originally Posted by laberbacke

I would invite anyone who still denies anthropogenic (man-made) climate change - most often with the argument that the global climate has warmed and cooled many times before - to take a look at this classic XKCD cartoon:


https://xkcd.com/1732/


Please do not stop until you've scrolled to the end of the timeline.


(...)eneration of 50+ year olds who run the planet like we look back at the likes of Hitler and Stalin.

I think many deniers are scared they'll be personally held responsible and therefore get in a defensive cramp.

[IC Hunt]

There's a show on PBS called Sinking Cities that deals with major cities and their plans to deal with rising oceans; so far London, New York and Tokyo; next up episode: Miami.

Amazing the planning that has been going on already; barriers surrounding New York to keep it from flooding (planning stages) in fact barriers are the main defense in all cities. In New York one new ultra luxury condo skyscraper chose to put their generators and utilities on a top floor where they would normally charge the highest price for Condo's because it was far more important in the future to have these generators and utilities free from flooding.

I think it's sad that rich developers are planning for climate change on one hand and denying it on the other; electing another rich developer to be president.

Also:
Forbes: "Trump's Economy: GDP Growth Could Be Slipping Away"

"GDP growth did respond to the combination of the tax cut bill and increased government spending. Growth increased from 2.2% in the March quarter to 4.2% in the June quarter. However, the first estimate for the September quarter from the Bureau of Economic Analysis was 3.5% and the current GDPNow projection from the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta is 2.8%."

I will be quite happy if this Reagan theory is proven to be BS: tax cuts for rich create economic growth and trickle down to the poor.

So what have Trump's debts and deficits given us????? They have given him and his climate denying two faces a lot!

[Arturo2nd]

Some of us pee-ons know exactly what "trickle down economics" means.

[cicciobuki]

Originally Posted by Brian249x

Some of us pee-ons know exactly what "trickle down economics" means.

"Tinkle down economics"