Seems like that one's been on the horizon for like the last 10-20 years. Glad it finally happened.

...and (needless to say, I'd hope) belongs in this thread.

Well from what some of fb says the Clinton's will be in deep trouble now!

I say, look at how rich and successful he is! He's a great businessman! Surely we can make an exception here?! The economy needs men of his persuasion if we can hope to keep the USA competitive on the global stage.

Who's with me?

;)

Interesting subplot of the Epstein saga - what happens when arguably bad people do inarguably good things? If Mike Cernovich genuinely deserves a good deal of the credit for Epstein being brought to justice... is it possible in today's polarized climate for people who disagree with his politics and/or past to grant him proper credit? Stay tuned.












Nah, just kidding. Nobody's going to surprise us here, amirite?

You mean some sort of double standard? Nah...

On to the Can a Female Child Molester Ever Be Considered Hot Thread! ;)

heh quik, you almost fell into their trap :)

From a former prosecutor on twitter:


SDNY indictment against Jeffrey Epstein charges him with enticing children to engage in sex acts at his NYC mansion and also uses conspiracy count to charge similar conduct occurring in Florida. Strategic move to bypass the Acosta non-prosecution agreement.

Agents recovered nude photos of girls when they issued a search warrant in Epstein's Manhattan residence

I was just thinking would be great is there was one of Trump with a 14 year old (obviously horrible for the 14 year old), then realized his base wouldn't care and claim it was photoshopped.

Trump’s rant during his big environmental speech about how “cleaning” forests is the solution to wildfires and about how nobody had heard of “forest management” before he started talking about it is like an Idiocracy outtake pic.twitter.com/zE9FUMucmh

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 8, 2019

This Trump monologue on forests is magical.

Sir, we're a forest nation.

Is it bad that I am rooting for a 400K acre fire so this buffoon can be proven wrong? ( I'm really not)

Yep or worse yet would claim there's nothing wrong with being with a naked underage girl.

Wasn't that his MO with the Miss Teen pageants?

Wow Jphiilips, exhibit #infinity on how insane he is.

Please dont make me a Trump apologist for this, but in this case he is right...partially...sort of.

One of the largest causes of "uncontrollable" wild fires we see today is the un-ntaural fixation on old growth forests and the supression of forest fire. The USFS has been advocating for regular control burns to reduce leaf litter layer for decades. Orgs like green peace and the sierra club fight it at all costs.

Indigenous humans slash and burned and otherwise burned forest land to prepare soils for planting, today in pursuit of "wilderness" designations we attempt to remove humans from the ecosystem and it does compound problems.

In college I started as a Forestry major, because it was easy while I was playing ball, and I can still today remember my forest ecology professor saying on the first day of class in shock jock fashion---Smoky Bear is an Idiot. Only YOU can DELAY Forest Fires no one can prevent them....but then as always the Orange man twists the truth and makes himself the hero.

'No one has ever heard of Forest Management before me'...give me a damn break. Gifford Pinchot, John Muir and even Aldo leopold were talking about this 50+ years ago..


The Biltmore gardens and the Cradle of Foresty National park in NC have some fascinating exhibits on the subject...but Im sure Lord Trump invented those too.
He says fire doesnt have to be part of the equation, then mentions cleaning the forests...how does he think he is going to clean and clear CWD? A freakin street sweeper?

The only point I'm going to pick is about the Indigenous people's comment.



That may work for small groups and small population, where the jungle/forest has a chance to grow back as the population moves around, which is does, but it's far from a good example in a heavily populated area, where the population is not transient. In that case you end up with massive deforestation and permanent damage to the ecosystem. It's not exactly a good example.



I remember in '88 when they let Yellowstone burn, but protected the main areas around camps and buildings. It was sad, but it clearly rejuvenated the ground. I think the issue ends up being that there's a population that's impacted on some level, by a lot of these fires, and many of these fires aren't natural in their origination. When you have a fire started by man, shouldn't you put that fire out?

What is fascinating to me is somebody probably communicated these very things, or some iteration of them, directly to El Presidente. But then they go through his mind, his ego and his filter and get communicated to the World, poorly.

So even when I agree with him in principle (yes more fire suppression policy is needed but it is complicated), I'm still left with disdain for his approach and straight up terrible communication skills. Do people really believe he is the inventor of the term "Forest Management"??? Give me a break!

I suppose some people can get over these things... I cant.

Too soon?

;)

Speaking specifically of the western US with my indigenous people comment.
And it doesnt cause deforestation, that is precisely the point that I made poorly. Regular fires burn small and fast. They burn up the needles and the leaf litter and release the nutrients back to the soil for continued growth stimulation without damaging the trees. Evolution is precisely the reason that Redwoods, Sequoias and the Western Cedar and some of Spruces have some of the highest levels of bark heat tolerance/resistance anywhere.


Because of the repeat burning (caused by man and lightening strikes among other causes in otherwise frequently dry areas) other species were destroyed and died off where these adapted species thrived and grew (hence the Giant Sequoia Forest(s) )...but when you un-naturaly delay these fires and let the duff layer build up you get so much fuel that nature and evolution cant overcome it - it burns hot enough and long to burn right through resistant protective structure.




This is a great example and a separate point I want to come back to later. Unfortunately duty calls for now....

I guess. Just saying Nike doesn't hold a stance other than selling shoes. They'd put the Nazi emblem on them if they thought it would move the share price.

I don't think it has anything to do with "playing ball". It just shows that the principled conservative we were told about for decades didn't really exist. Trump showed what those people really cared about.

Rand is a coward who talks a big game and then backs down when it is time to put the cards on the table. He stands for nothing.

Please do come back and explain, this is the most interesting this thread has been in weeks, and I mean that sincerely.

Yeah it doesn't show that at all. The principled conservative had largely vanished from Congress even by the time of Dubya's administration, a fact which largely fueled the Tea Party's rise. That doesn't mean they were never there. It certainly does show that there aren't many of them left, but that's an entirely differently animal.

The Tea Party folks aren't really conservatives either. They're the same folks supporting Trump.

Principled conservatives actually agreed that there needed to be a balance between helping the people and helping businesses. They broke up monopolies and provided assistance to level the playing field for small businesses and for low income families. I think it's the principled part that's gone and what we have left is the profit motive, and if you don't have dollars to play, it doesn't concern you.

I agree with Brian again (shocking), except I'll go back and say that it all died with Bush 1. He understood that some things simply had to be done. The congress that came after with Clinton (and showed Bush the door) decided that Bush failed because of his convictions, and they were never letting that happen again.

Your last sentence there is a fundamental basis of the two far opposed sides of the ecological based environmental opposition camps.
In short (and I'm trying to summarize two positions without bias towards either one because I dont really fall in either group) you have the "environmentalists" that typically get most of the publicity. These come in a few different flavors and do lots of great things. Sierra Club and Green Peace ..these types of organizations fall into one bucket. Their basic stance is humans are bad and nature is good. Any impact humans have on nature should be avoided at almost any cost. (Of course this is an over simplification of a more complex viewpoint)

In the opposite corner of the ring you have the "ecologist" and "foresters". And this is even a lumping of two additional groups - as foresters are primarily interested in maximizing human benefit from forests with minimal impact such as sustainable harvest logging and mixed use recreation - where ecologists are more about minimizing impact while accepting some "profitable use" - The reason I combine these two is they both see the human as a vital p[art of the ecosystem. They see human impact as natural. To be certain human impact is more impactful in some ways, than most other animals but they do not consider the fact that a humans impact is greater to necessarily mean it is less allowable. The same way that a deer causes more ground impact than a turtle the human causes more impact than either. You get into the weeds because humans domesticate animals. So if a human rides a horse through the forest this causes environmental impact. If a bunch of humans ride a bunch of horses this causes a very significant impact. Humans also build machines so if a human rides a car or tractor or atv across an environment then that impact is caused by humans but not animal impact. Etc.

Forest ecologists accept this impact as humans being an important part of the ecosystem as a whole. So they see the cutting of trees for home construction or paper production as a normal and not only permissible but necessary component of the forest habitat. The more staunch conservatives see this as humans destroying the native animals habitats.

As humans are so inclined to do they maximize and make their impact more efficient so instead of building a bunch of houses amongst the trees they clear small areas totally of trees and build their houses there. Instead of cutting a few trees here and there for lumber they plant specialized forests and cut all the trees from this area and replant.

This creates the totally un-natural condition that exists no where else in nature.

What I find most fascinating about all this is the impact that we as society at large find acceptable and unacceptable and the Yellowstone example is a great one to illustrate. They dont want the fire to impact areas deemed important - buildings, camps, etc- they deem those areas worthy of preserving at the expense of "nature". It's important to understand that no scientist will ever suggest that an "old growth" forest is a healthy forest. A natural mature evolutionary forest will be a mixture of young and old trees. To suggest that an entire forest of old growth is the healthiest example of a forest because its is the oldest is equivalent to claiming that a nursing home full of elderly people is the healthiest population of humans. Much like any human (or animals) old plants as they reach the end of their natural life cycle are less healthy and more prone to disaster (fire) disease, infestation etc.

What fascinated me about Pilotman's post was this line
This very statement insinuates if not out right states than man is somehow artificial. That the actions of man arent "natural"...whether those actions are intentional or not.
Again I dont have nor claim to have the right answer there. I dont know how you say (for example) if boy scouts start a fire by rubbing sticks together and it "gets out" that is a natural fire but if the fire starts because a camper generator doesnt have a spark arrestor that isnt natural. Or if a man is a pyro and dumps gas on the ground and strikes a match. Is that a "natural" fire.



And as I re-read this please, Pilotman, dont think Im attacking your post. When I say it fascinates me it doesnt elicit shock or outrage it literally spurs thought. It makes me contemplate how I really feel there. I dont have a conclusion just a lot of questions.

Isn't part of the problem the weather? With the changing climate out there, they dealt with incredibly dry conditions and huge wind gusts. I believe they were dealing with 60 MPH winds during the last big fire.

Also isn't part of the problem that we are building homes near these areas? That we've reduced that buffer space which leads to either more man-made fires or homes in the line of these fires.

Regardless, if the federal government has a plan, they should implement it. Trump's complaining to himself as he controls that agency.

The winning never ends


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/11/u...mid=tw-nytimes

Seeing the contrast between his ideas and what those around him talk him down to is always interesting.

The only people who are not proud to be citizens are the ones who are fighting us all the way about the word ‘citizen,’” he added.


---


{Trump Youth enter; Stage right}

ALL: You're a citizen, but are you proud enough?

The data is collected by the Census Bureau in the American Community Survey. Just tell him they'll collect it there for him next year and he can declare victory.

Acosta resigns over Epstein case

Millett asks (a few times) if, under Consovoy's legal theory, that means the House Oversight Committee lacks any power of oversight over the office of the president. Consovoy says yes, but adds they don't need to go that far to win here re: the subpoena

— Zoe Tillman (@ZoeTillman) July 12, 2019

Seems like we should care that Trump's position is that the President is above the law. The executive branch can't indict him and the legislative branch can't investigate him.

edit: and this later,

Mueller's testimony delayed a week until the 24th

Every Trump lover on my facebook timeline sure is worked up over the US Womens soccer team, yet the same people are super quick to call any liberal they see a snowflake.

One of my FB friends (who shall remain nameless) went on a rant about how Megan Rapinoe is a disgrace and an embarassment to their hometown.

I thought about letting them have it with both barrels and a couple reloads, but realized that it wouldn't be good for my blood pressure.

I just hit the unfriend button.

probably for the best Fozzie. Sadly can't quite do the same when it comes to family members supporting Trump :)

I just mute people for 30 days or unfollow. Unless it’s some pizza shop rapefactory basement nonsense.

I'm still not sure why people expect that this is going to be some new line of information regarding the outcome of the investigation. Mueller has already said that any testimony will only be related to the report itself and that anything outside of that will not be answered. Now, the presser he gave was pretty telling, but I just don't feel like there's really anything new or earth shattering that is going to come from it. He's not hard to read, and he will let the the president dump all over him, just to stay above the fray.

Yeah I said the same thing more or less earlier in this thread. There's a lot of people out there, as well as Republican congressmen, who have not read it, so for them this will be new info. Maybe it will get people to put more pressure on Pelosi to begin impeachment hearings?

With the number of advisors and cabinet members that have left, been fired, or withdrawn, this presidency is run just like the Apprentice. I'm pretty sure someone brought this up when he was running. I think it continues to show the nature of the man.

From NBC:


Glad we all got so worked up.

Every day im blown away.
I never thought I'd hear the president tell elected congressmen, not even women, literally anyone, to go back from where you came. This is truly a new level and will allow more racism to spread in this county. This is racism at its purest form.

Or owning the libs depending on how you look at things.

Daily reminder that anyone still actively supporting trump is complicit in supporting and buying into this version of American leadership. This goes for every republican in congress but one who was ostracized for it, and for millions of Americans. No matter what you choose to do to justify your vote for Donald Trump, by doing so you are saying that you are willing to compromise your own morals and values to this level of open, public personal racism, sexism, and countless other forms of hatred that our President has empowered and emboldened for whatever personal gain you feel you're getting out of the deal.

You may argue that you yourself are not personally racist, but supporting this behavior is truly horrific and damaging to millions of Americans on a personal level.

Treading into George Wallace territory.

*yawn*

Or even worse, indifference.

Or even douchiness.