Jump to content
Simon

Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

Recommended Posts

Which would mean fewer elected Democrats giving him a hard time, which might very well appeal to him.

 

But this is S.O.P. for Trump to this point: portray everyone who opposes him as incompetent, weak, evil, or otherwise "an enemy of the people," and threaten them to try to sound like a Strong Leader! Never mind that cutting federal funding for California's forestry management would just increase the suffering for victims of wildfires.

 

Oh, and blaming state mismanagement for increasing fire frequency sidesteps that inconvenient "global warming" issue...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On Trump's fire tweet....

 

My god, what world does he live in?

 

And man, I could just wish this happened LAST week.  This might've cost his buffoons a few seats.  But it'll be forgotten by New Years, like most of the inanities he's uttered.  

PLEASE NOTE that I am NOT!!! advocating this......but this feels like the kind of line to incite someone to try to take Trump out.  It's not hate speech but it's hateful, and if you'll pardon the pun, inflammatory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite the fact that they are occasionally inconvenient and even deadly for us humans, forest fires are part of the natural cycle. We have to have them every so often for the forests to remain healthy.

 

You will know this, of course. I think everybody knows it, except possibly our prisoners President.

 

Edit: Frelling autocorrect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And if you know something about climate, southern California's inherently fire-prone.  Winter wet season;  rain's almost non-existent from late spring through much of fall, IIRC.  DRY, too.  So there's nice growth early, and everything dries out big time by now.  Santa Ana winds do NOT help;  they suck moisture like a swarm of mosquitoes.  The terrain is also TRICKY!  VERY hilly/mountainous, tons of folds, hills, canyons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

11 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

And if you know something about climate, southern California's inherently fire-prone.  Winter wet season;  rain's almost non-existent from late spring through much of fall, IIRC.  DRY, too.  So there's nice growth early, and everything dries out big time by now.  Santa Ana winds do NOT help;  they suck moisture like a swarm of mosquitoes.  The terrain is also TRICKY!  VERY hilly/mountainous, tons of folds, hills, canyons.

 

http://www.capradio.org/articles/2018/07/09/feds-want-to-remove-millions-of-dead-and-dying-trees-from-californias-forests/

 

"The federal Bureau of Land Management wants to remove dead and dying trees from 35 California counties, from Siskiyou to Santa Barbara... BLM says there are 127 million dead and dying trees in California forests. Agencies working through California's Tree Mortality Task Force have removed 1.2 million since February 2015."

 

 

One of my favorite authors lived in the hills above Hollywood and his property was in constant fire danger. He talked about the problem at length multiple times on his blog, pointing out that both property owners and the local authorities were prevented by laws from going in and removing the standing and fallen dead wood which creates the environment that fuels the wild fires.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps those laws are there to prevent logging federal land for profit.  I suspect the real problem is that hoomans have stupidly constructed dwellings in fire hazard areas.  But it's a complex problem--weighing sprawl against skyrocketing real estate prices and homelessness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Red Flag Laws mean that people can be flagged as dangerous and the police will take away the persons guns until a hearing can determine yes or no this person is a threat to themselves or others.

 

In Maryland cops tried to that and the guy shot back and they killed him.

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/maryland-officers-serving-red-flag-gun-removal-order-fatally-shoot-armed-man/

 

A: I guess he was a danger after all. He did shoot first.

B: Did they really need to serve the order at 5 in the morning? I know I'm not at my most reasonable at 5. Maybe not "shoot at cops unreasonable", but still, it seems like asking for someone's guns when they are lucid is a better way to make things go peaceably.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Sociotard said:

Federal laws or State?

 

A combination of federal regulations and state laws from what I remember of his blog but it's been a couple of years since I read what he had to say about it.

 

Sounds like from the article that the Bureau of Land Management is wanting to continue the federal change away from the decades-long "leave everything completely alone and let whatever happens, happen" policies, a change which started in a small way during the Obama administration, and go more toward "minimize the fire danger while having the least possible human impact on the living forests".

 

Federal mismanagement of land is a big concern in most western states and significantly affects the political landscape there. Trust Trump tweet in such a way as to spin a rational policy initiative into something which sounds completely demented but which at the same time appeals to his political base. However, that's what you get when you let him close to his phone. Either that or an irrational policy tweeted in such a way as to sound completely demented. :(

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/6/2018 at 3:06 PM, Lord Liaden said:

Since we're nitpicking, no I didn't. :nya:  Britain, more properly "Great Britain," is the island containing England, Scotland, and Wales, which together with Northern Ireland, many smaller neighboring islands, and some overseas territories form the United Kingdom. Those four named areas are usually designated as "countries" of their own, with Scotland, Northern Island, and to a lesser extent Wales, having their own distinct political and cultural identities, including Parliaments with considerable powers devolved from the English parliament in London, which governs that country directly. While "Britain" has been used in the past to refer to the whole union, and often still is, "United Kingdom" has been its official title since Great Britain unified with Ireland in 1801.

 

Since I was referring to Queen Elizabeth II as official head of state of a number of the Commonwealth of Nations (a loose association of independent nations formerly part of the British Empire), I thought it simpler to just call her the reigning monarch of England, the dominant partner in the UK. Clearly I thought wrong. ;)

 

EDIT: Someone with William Wallace as his avatar should probably brush up on details like those. :snicker:

 

 

Well, I realise I have come back to this late, but I have been busy the last week and not really on the boards much and while I thought about just letting it go, that tongue stuck out emoji really got to me...  ?

 

As you might imagine (from the Avatar), I would rather the reigning Monarch was not that of Scotland.  However, since the unification of the Crowns with James I (V of Scotland), the Monarch in the UK has been a British rather than an English, Scottish or Irish Monarch (Wales was conquered by Edward I and never unified by Treaty).  Ireland was rudely separated from the Nation and the Crown in 1922 so any chance of being an Irish Monarch rests with the six counties in the North which have never really be a nation state. 

 

I actually work in the British House of Commons in Westminster, not, to the chagrin of many English nationalists, part of an English Parliament but of a British one.  There are indeed devolved institutions but all of their authority derive from Westminster and may be unilaterally removed by Westminster (political ramifications might dictate against it but it is absolutely possible).  The Overseas Territories are not officially part of the United Kingdom but, as their title suggests, are Overseas Territories (an evolution from their previous title of protectorates...).  

 

As such, I stand by my assertion that Elizabeth is a British monarch (even if she should be Elizabeth I (II of England) rather than Elizabeth II).  Her position, especially with regard to the Commonwealth, is a complex one. You are correct that her true title is the monarch of the United Kingdom but the common usage is British Monarchy.  She is Head of the Commonwealth but that is not an inherited position and it may be interesting to see what the commonwealth does when the current Monarch dies.

 

I hold true to my avatar - Doc Democracy....

 

?

 

Doc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your clarification, Doc. And while I also stand by my position, I apologize for any injury my extruded tongue may have caused you. :hush:

 

BTW one of my points was not that Elizabeth is head of the Commonwealth, but that she's official head of state of sixteen member nations of the Commonwealth, including my own. And I'd rather she not be my monarch either, but there you go. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Sociotard said:

Red Flag Laws mean that people can be flagged as dangerous and the police will take away the persons guns until a hearing can determine yes or no this person is a threat to themselves or others.

 

In Maryland cops tried to that and the guy shot back and they killed him.

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/maryland-officers-serving-red-flag-gun-removal-order-fatally-shoot-armed-man/

 

A: I guess he was a danger after all. He did shoot first.

B: Did they really need to serve the order at 5 in the morning? I know I'm not at my most reasonable at 5. Maybe not "shoot at cops unreasonable", but still, it seems like asking for someone's guns when they are lucid is a better way to make things go peaceably.

 

Not sure this is a good idea.  Gives fuel to the militia and other similar types arguments about their guns being taken away.

 

Note: Of course, 5 am is my 10-11 pm.  Of course, when my mother was still working, a cop did show up for questioning in 9am waking me up.  That was fun.  Apparently over some complaint that my phone was the source of threatening phone calls, turned out later, the last 4 numbers were the same, but it was in a different area.(not cop's fault, the complaint filer's fault)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

Thank you for your clarification, Doc. And while I also stand by my position, I apologize for any injury my extruded tongue may have caused you. :hush:

 

BTW one of my points was not that Elizabeth is head of the Commonwealth, but that she's official head of state of sixteen member nations of the Commonwealth, including my own. And I'd rather she not be my monarch either, but there you go. ;)

 

That head of state position is also dodgy as to whether those nations will retain a British Monarch in that role when the present incumbent dies.  I have read of a number of countries who would not seek to cause any distress to a lady who has held the role for such a long time are considering their position when she dies and either Charles or William take the 'reigns'.  Did you see what I did there?? ?

 

Doc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...