Make America Rake the forest again

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by scottw

wasn't he a reality tv star?

He think's that is his job as president
I've done reality TV
It's not real

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

He think's that is his job as president
I've done reality TV
It's not real

He think's that is his job as president is being a reality tv star?

[Pete F.]

Simple, just look at Trump's obsession with ratings as a barometer of success (he calls polls ratings and I guarantee he knows what Fox's ratings were for his interview yesterday), his love of pageantry (we need a parade like that), and his failure to observe that there is a difference between rumor and fact.

[scottw]

Pete...you remind me of Tickle from Moonshiners...was that you?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

He would need to act like a man,

That's a very sexist comment. Is it that good old fashioned manhood preference? Are you saying that acting like a women or a gay or a transgender would not get him positive press coverage? Are you inferring that some sort of male gender way of acting is needed to be "presidential"? Maybe it's because he often acts like a "man" that he is looked at so negatively by leftists, including most of the media.

not the reality tv star he thinks he is.

Do you really think he is acting like a reality TV star? Do you really think he doesn't know how actually real and consequential his actions as President are? I haven't watched reality TV for some time and very little when I did. So I don't know what they act like. But he doesn't appear to me to be acting. I do realize that the image of him acting like a Reality TV Star is a biased meme used to make him appear foolish. And that various media promotes and reinforces that meme.

Words have more consequences in his current position than just ratings, one would hope the job of President as a leader is not purely transactional. It's obvious that you would disagree with that.

Transactions are done with words. As well, words are the content of propaganda. Words are the most useful tool to influence voting. The words that the "normal" politicians, or whatever adjective you might use to describe them, speak with in our political arena are mostly shaded toward deceitful meaning, mostly meant to demean opposition, and are mostly empty or erroneous promises to eliminate societies problems--problems which are often manufactured with words to create perceptions of critical problems needing to be solved and solved only by them and their words.

I think the people hunger for what they think are positive transactions. Many are tired of the empty, contentious, antagonistic, accusatory, ultimately phony words. But many welcome and are energized by those words hurled against their political enemies.

Personally, I have stopped listening to the verbal political pablum. There are a few, key, fundamental things I look for or listen for. The other words, to me, are political speak.

And it appears to me, that for most voters, it's the political speak that wins their vote. It's obvious to me, that you would vote based on correct political speak.

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by scottw

Pete...you remind me of Tickle from Moonshiners...was that you?

A+
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnR]

Pete's correct in my opinion (well in this case)

Originally Posted by scottw

Pete...you remind me of Tickle from Moonshiners...was that you?

Nahhh, nothing like Tickle

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Pete's correct in my opinion (well in this case)

don't encourage him!

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by scottw

don't encourage him!

That is the problem, sometimes those on that side are actually correct. Just not all the time (or most of the time) [or half the time]

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

You can rake the forest and encourage clear cutting, but those might be just bandages for a short term fix.

But WRT fires, this has been the proper solution for some time. Why do they do controlled burns from Wareham thru the Cape? Before and independent of Global Warming?

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

I also think that in light of the suffering and losses, that is not the time to be putting the blame on forestry management,

Yes, but blaming Trump is OK ; )

I generally can't stand the guy and didn't vote for him. Still not convinced he is worse than she would have been.

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by JohnR

But WRT fires, this has been the proper solution for some time. Why do they do controlled burns from Wareham thru the Cape? Before and independent of Global Warming?



Yes, but blaming Trump is OK ; )

I generally can't stand the guy and didn't vote for him. Still not convinced he is worse than she would have been.

I'm not arguing that controlled burns should be part of the solution, clearly that is sound management, but I also see the climate change in that part of the country and the terrain severely limiting the affect that will have. Consider the heat, how dry everything is and then put 70 mph winds up the face of a rugged mountainside and your controlled burns better be a mile wide.

As for beating up on Trump, IMHO the amount of empathy that guy has shown could fit in a shot glass. He's great to try to show some after the media calls him out on comments he's made; but he always seem to want to lay blame on something or somebody well ahead of any empathy shown.

[spence]

My understanding is that controlled burns in CA are hard because of the climate as well as proximity to large cities that already have poor air quality much of the time. They have to evaluate all this before a burn permit is issued.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

My understanding is that controlled burns in CA are hard because of the climate as well as proximity to large cities that already have poor air quality much of the time. They have to evaluate all this before a burn permit is issued.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sounds like California is an environmental mess from the git go.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Personally, I have stopped listening to the verbal political pablum. There are a few, key, fundamental things I look for or listen for. The other words, to me, are political speak.

Perhaps Trump and the Trumplicans could pass an Enabling Act and then you would get some more of the fundamental things you need without those pesky constraints or naysayers holding him back, the consequences thereof are of little importance.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

My understanding is that controlled burns in CA are hard because of the climate as well as proximity to large cities that already have poor air quality much of the time. They have to evaluate all this before a burn permit is issued.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How about some controlled clear cutting

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Perhaps Trump and the Trumplicans could pass an Enabling Act and then you would get some more of the fundamental things you need without those pesky constraints or naysayers holding him back, the consequences thereof are of little importance.

No, an enabling act would destroy the fundamental things on which the Constitution was written. You are really stuck on the Trump equals Hitler meme.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

No, an enabling act would destroy the fundamental things on which the Constitution was written. You are really stuck on the Trump equals Hitler meme.

But Do you think Trump would have an issue with that approach?
He certainly thinks Congress should fulfill his wishes and that without him all will fail.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

How about some controlled clear cutting

Firefighters immediately pointed out errors in Trump's assertions. The Woolsey Fire started not in a forest but on a hillside near Simi Valley before spreading to suburban communities, while the Camp Fire is burning in an area thinned by fire 10 years ago. Forest management didn't cause these blazes and California is considered a leader in Forest management on private lands.

“Prescribed burns alone will not stop that, but it is a tool that we can use to reduce the effect of those large fires, . again facts dont matter

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

But Do you think Trump would have an issue with that approach?
He certainly thinks Congress should fulfill his wishes and that without him all will fail.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I avoid mind reading. Don't have the psychic powers. Don't know what Trump would think about an enabling act. Nor if he knows what that is. Any halfway decent advisor would tell him not to ask for such a thing. Wouldn't be prudent (as GHWBush would say}, nor possible.

But, I suspect, most Presidents would wish that they could do whatever they wanted. Several have acted that way through various unconstitutional maneuvers that they got away with. Andrew Jackson was a bit of a tyrant. Nixon was considered an imperial President by some. FDR and his administration admired the central planning of the Soviet Union as a Progressive model for government getting things done. His whole New Deal was an effective beginning of our current administrative state, which surplants Congress's duty by enacting rules that govern us. The nearly unimpeded efficiency of our federal administrative bureaucracy is a centralized authority that would be the envy of the old U.S.S.R.

L.B. Johnson was an effective bully. And Obama was fairly effective at bypassing Congress to get what he wanted done. http://thefederalist.com/2017/01/19/...on-presidency/

If Trump can successfully write illegal executive orders (those that are outside of his enumerated executive power), he will have had some solid precedents to guide him.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

How about some controlled clear cutting

A buddy of mine lives out there and it was recommended but the local gov officials down voted for environmental reasons.

Cali is also growing so much with densely packed housing and water fights from neighboring states you cannot run much water.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Firefighters immediately pointed out errors in Trump's assertions. The Woolsey Fire started not in a forest but on a hillside near Simi Valley before spreading to suburban communities, while the Camp Fire is burning in an area thinned by fire 10 years ago. Forest management didn't cause these blazes and California is considered a leader in Forest management on private lands.

“Prescribed burns alone will not stop that, but it is a tool that we can use to reduce the effect of those large fires, . again facts dont matter

So Spence mentions the issues with permitting controlled burns and I make an alternative suggestion about clear cutting and your response is "But Trump" and "Facts"

Today they started selling recreational marijuana in mass, I suggest you partake, it may loosen you up a bit.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Fires can start anywhere but they will flourish in an area where it is illegal to harvest dead wood.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Fires can start anywhere but they will flourish in an area where it is illegal to harvest dead wood.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Do you have any facts to back that up? I have never seen that mentioned as any of the unique reasons Calif. has forest fires.

[Got Stripers]

I suspect there isn't a big demand for cord word where those fires are popping up. Around here I love to scoop up some free firewood after our Northeasters, but in some of those million dollar homes with the panoramic views; I'm pretty sure they aren't looking for wood for heat.

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

I suspect there isn't a big demand for cord word where those fires are popping up. Around here I love to scoop up some free firewood after our Northeasters, but in some of those million dollar homes with the panoramic views; I'm pretty sure they aren't looking for wood for heat.

If you have seen the recent damage then you would realize these are not expensive homes for the most part.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Do you have any facts to back that up? I have never seen that mentioned as any of the unique reasons Calif. has forest fires.

Knowledge is power.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Do you have any facts to back that up? I have never seen that mentioned as any of the unique reasons Calif. has forest fires.

I think TDF said it once so now he thinks he’s all read up on the topic. Only prohibitions I’ve ever heard of are for areas under quarantine because of disease or insect infestation.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

How about some controlled clear cutting

They’ve actually done a lot of this over the last decade.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Knowledge is power.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pls. share - that is why I asked.

I thought it had a lot to do w/the type of wood there, the hills/canyons, the wind they get, the rain in the spring which turns things green and then the veg. dies in the summer/fall due to lack of rain. The forests aren't the same as here or Norway either.

[Sea Dangles]

Google is your friend here.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device