|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Jul 20, 2021 14:55:41 GMT -8
I do not blame all of California's major problems on the Democrats. Many diverse factors, over many years, have lead to the creation of those problems. Still, it is a fact that California has had one-party rule for many years. No matter what one thinks of any one political party, it is undeniable that, long term, one-party governance is dangerous. Sooner or later a party in power will become corrupt, or at any rate complacent and lazy. Or maybe it is just that no party can solve the nation's most serious problems. I wish I were more optimistic. AzWm The Democrats were/are chosen by a diverse population of 43 million people to run the state...Republicans have had their chance and the people have found them wanting...Democrats in this state are not restricting the vote of the people...unlike the one-party rule and anti-democracy TX/GA...CA is not coming up with silly laws, rules and regulations to stifle conservatives and the Republican vote...Dems retain power through their acts and issues...which the vast majority of Californians approve...that's why they keep winning and retain power...not by TX-GA voter restrictions and shenanigans...nobody wants lunatics running their state.... You have hit the nail on the head....it is not the politicians fault for doing what they promised their constituents they would do. See Illinois. |
|
|
|
Post by sdsuball on Jul 20, 2021 22:53:08 GMT -8
Yeah, because it's almost like San Diego's homeless crisis happened under...oh, a Republican. Nonsensical. This is like blaming the mayor of Honolulu for the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The Dems have run CA for 12 years…..and not fixed the situation. No doubt, Dems have not fixed the homeless situation in California - or the housing crisis. It's important to note the the two problems are both interrelated and distinct. The homeless situation requires shelling out more money to build temporary housing and increase access to mental healthcare resources. The housing crisis (which does lead to homelessness too) is less of a Democrat/Republican issue, and more of a suburb vs. city type issue. It's a not in my backyard type of issue, it s "I support density over there, not here" type of thing. The criticism at the Democrats for not fixing these issues at a state level is legitimate. The other major issue here is that California has great weather and a strong economy. Other states literally give homeless people and released felons free bus tickets to California. If you are going to be homeless, living in perfect weather near the beach is probably as good as it gets. Likewise, our economy drives up housing prices. California needs real changes. Part of it could be shifting more government jobs to smaller towns (think coastal central California, coastal northern California). Part of it is allowing density to increase in bigger cities by increasing zoning. Part of it is opening up the pocketbook for more homeless shelters. But yeah. State Democrats deserve blame here. As do Democrats and Republicans of local governments. |
|
|
|
Post by azson on Jul 21, 2021 10:49:32 GMT -8
This is like blaming the mayor of Honolulu for the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The Dems have run CA for 12 years…..and not fixed the situation. No doubt, Dems have not fixed the homeless situation in California - or the housing crisis. It's important to note the the two problems are both interrelated and distinct. The homeless situation requires shelling out more money to build temporary housing and increase access to mental healthcare resources. The housing crisis (which does lead to homelessness too) is less of a Democrat/Republican issue, and more of a suburb vs. city type issue. It's a not in my backyard type of issue, it s "I support density over there, not here" type of thing. The criticism at the Democrats for not fixing these issues at a state level is legitimate. The other major issue here is that California has great weather and a strong economy. Other states literally give homeless people and released felons free bus tickets to California. If you are going to be homeless, living in perfect weather near the beach is probably as good as it gets. Likewise, our economy drives up housing prices. California needs real changes. Part of it could be shifting more government jobs to smaller towns (think coastal central California, coastal northern California). Part of it is allowing density to increase in bigger cities by increasing zoning. Part of it is opening up the pocketbook for more homeless shelters. But yeah. State Democrats deserve blame here. As do Democrats and Republicans of local governments. Just like most issues, there's blame to go around for both parties - but let's not forget the origins of CA's mess. www.salon.com/2013/09/29/ronald_reagans_shameful_legacy_violence_the_homeless_mental_illness/ |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jul 21, 2021 12:08:52 GMT -8
I do not blame all of California's major problems on the Democrats. Many diverse factors, over many years, have lead to the creation of those problems. Still, it is a fact that California has had one-party rule for many years. No matter what one thinks of any one political party, it is undeniable that, long term, one-party governance is dangerous. Sooner or later a party in power will become corrupt, or at any rate complacent and lazy. Or maybe it is just that no party can solve the nation's most serious problems. I wish I were more optimistic. AzWm The Democrats were/are chosen by a diverse population of 43 million people to run the state...Republicans have had their chance and the people have found them wanting...Democrats in this state are not restricting the vote of the people...unlike the one-party rule and anti-democracy TX/GA...CA is not coming up with silly laws, rules and regulations to stifle conservatives and the Republican vote...Dems retain power through their acts and issues...which the vast majority of Californians approve...that's why they keep winning and retain power...not by TX-GA voter restrictions and shenanigans...nobody wants lunatics running their state.... Oh, my, what a weak response. Totally missing the point of my post. Just to repeat, my point was and is that, sooner or later, a party that stays in power over a long period of time will inevitably will become corrupt. Its actions will more and more be motivated by wanting to stay in power by whatever means rather than doing what is in the best interests of the nation as a whole. The 20th Century tells us that the worst examples of tyranny (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.) are those who outlawed political opposition parties on day one. But it is not just that dishonor role that we should examine. Mexico had one party rule from 1929 to 2000. I do not think it unfair to say that the legacy of the PRI (that was it's 3rd name, by the way) is a nation riddled with corruption. And with corruption has come terrible violence. Any party, given a long enough tenure without viable political opposition, will go bad. Any party. It is a mystery to me why anyone would argue with that concept. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Jul 21, 2021 13:50:28 GMT -8
No doubt, Dems have not fixed the homeless situation in California - or the housing crisis. It's important to note the the two problems are both interrelated and distinct. The homeless situation requires shelling out more money to build temporary housing and increase access to mental healthcare resources. The housing crisis (which does lead to homelessness too) is less of a Democrat/Republican issue, and more of a suburb vs. city type issue. It's a not in my backyard type of issue, it s "I support density over there, not here" type of thing. The criticism at the Democrats for not fixing these issues at a state level is legitimate. The other major issue here is that California has great weather and a strong economy. Other states literally give homeless people and released felons free bus tickets to California. If you are going to be homeless, living in perfect weather near the beach is probably as good as it gets. Likewise, our economy drives up housing prices. California needs real changes. Part of it could be shifting more government jobs to smaller towns (think coastal central California, coastal northern California). Part of it is allowing density to increase in bigger cities by increasing zoning. Part of it is opening up the pocketbook for more homeless shelters. But yeah. State Democrats deserve blame here. As do Democrats and Republicans of local governments. Just like most issues, there's blame to go around for both parties - but let's not forget the origins of CA's mess. www.salon.com/2013/09/29/ronald_reagans_shameful_legacy_violence_the_homeless_mental_illness/"So no, Reagan, didn't close mental hospitals or put anyone on the street. Progressive views on mental health, a misguided ACLU, and politicians who "know better" did it. Then finally (the last year Reagan was governor), O’Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563 (1975), the Supreme Court found a constitutional right to liberty for mental health patients: "There is...no constitutional basis for confining such persons involuntarily if they are dangerous to no one." With this constitutional recognition, the practice of mental health law became a process of limiting and defining the power of the state to detain and treat. The result was a codification of mental health rights that have done away with non-voluntary commitment except in extreme cases. Politics and Mental Health" Would you fund, build, or staff a mental health facility when most of the people who are need of its services had the Constitutional right to simply walk out the front door as they pleased? My brother was a cop then and confirmed that they would encounter a homeless person with clear mental illness symptoms and they could not force a committal. The homeless preferred to be on the street vs institutionalized. Misguided, to be sure, but it was their right as protected by the Constitution, the ACLU and progressive Pols. |
|
|
|
Post by sdsuball on Jul 22, 2021 15:36:34 GMT -8
onespeedbikerpolitico.blogspot.com/2011/01/revisionist-history-meantal-health.html"So no, Reagan, didn't close mental hospitals or put anyone on the street. Progressive views on mental health, a misguided ACLU, and politicians who "know better" did it. Then finally (the last year Reagan was governor), O’Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563 (1975), the Supreme Court found a constitutional right to liberty for mental health patients: "There is...no constitutional basis for confining such persons involuntarily if they are dangerous to no one." With this constitutional recognition, the practice of mental health law became a process of limiting and defining the power of the state to detain and treat. The result was a codification of mental health rights that have done away with non-voluntary commitment except in extreme cases. Politics and Mental Health" Would you fund, build, or staff a mental health facility when most of the people who are need of its services had the Constitutional right to simply walk out the front door as they pleased? My brother was a cop then and confirmed that they would encounter a homeless person with clear mental illness symptoms and they could not force a committal. The homeless preferred to be on the street vs institutionalized. Misguided, to be sure, but it was their right as protected by the Constitution, the ACLU and progressive Pols. I think that a lot has changed - 50 years have passed - between when Reagan was governor to today. As such, mental healthcare, treatments, and stigma associated with mental health issues has changed dramatically as well. There is value today in treating homeless people for their mental health issues, in improving those people's welfare, improving the image of California's cities, and rehabilitating people to become functioning members of society. But the treatments today consist of therapy, medication, and drug rehabilitation, and much less institutionalization. To say that this is Reagan's fault is to ignore all of the other California leaders over the last 50 years, as well as the evolution of practice of mental healthcare, and the de-stigmatization of mental health issues that has occurred over a very long stretch of time. |
|
|
|
Post by azson on Jul 23, 2021 8:51:51 GMT -8
onespeedbikerpolitico.blogspot.com/2011/01/revisionist-history-meantal-health.html"So no, Reagan, didn't close mental hospitals or put anyone on the street. Progressive views on mental health, a misguided ACLU, and politicians who "know better" did it. Then finally (the last year Reagan was governor), O’Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563 (1975), the Supreme Court found a constitutional right to liberty for mental health patients: "There is...no constitutional basis for confining such persons involuntarily if they are dangerous to no one." With this constitutional recognition, the practice of mental health law became a process of limiting and defining the power of the state to detain and treat. The result was a codification of mental health rights that have done away with non-voluntary commitment except in extreme cases. Politics and Mental Health" Would you fund, build, or staff a mental health facility when most of the people who are need of its services had the Constitutional right to simply walk out the front door as they pleased? My brother was a cop then and confirmed that they would encounter a homeless person with clear mental illness symptoms and they could not force a committal. The homeless preferred to be on the street vs institutionalized. Misguided, to be sure, but it was their right as protected by the Constitution, the ACLU and progressive Pols. I think that a lot has changed - 50 years have passed - between when Reagan was governor to today. As such, mental healthcare, treatments, and stigma associated with mental health issues has changed dramatically as well. There is value today in treating homeless people for their mental health issues, in improving those people's welfare, improving the image of California's cities, and rehabilitating people to become functioning members of society. But the treatments today consist of therapy, medication, and drug rehabilitation, and much less institutionalization. To say that this is Reagan's fault is to ignore all of the other California leaders over the last 50 years, as well as the evolution of practice of mental healthcare, and the de-stigmatization of mental health issues that has occurred over a very long stretch of time.Which is why I prefaced it with "there's blame to go around for both parties". I'm not saying where we are now should all be laid at Reagan's feet - but blaming where we are now strictly on Dems is asinine. |
|
|
|
Post by bnastyaztecs on Jul 23, 2021 13:56:30 GMT -8
The Democrats were/are chosen by a diverse population of 43 million people to run the state...Republicans have had their chance and the people have found them wanting...Democrats in this state are not restricting the vote of the people...unlike the one-party rule and anti-democracy TX/GA...CA is not coming up with silly laws, rules and regulations to stifle conservatives and the Republican vote...Dems retain power through their acts and issues...which the vast majority of Californians approve...that's why they keep winning and retain power...not by TX-GA voter restrictions and shenanigans...nobody wants lunatics running their state.... Oh, my, what a weak response. Totally missing the point of my post. Just to repeat, my point was and is that, sooner or later, a party that stays in power over a long period of time will inevitably will become corrupt. Its actions will more and more be motivated by wanting to stay in power by whatever means rather than doing what is in the best interests of the nation as a whole. The 20th Century tells us that the worst examples of tyranny (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.) are those who outlawed political opposition parties on day one. But it is not just that dishonor role that we should examine. Mexico had one party rule from 1929 to 2000. I do not think it unfair to say that the legacy of the PRI (that was it's 3rd name, by the way) is a nation riddled with corruption. And with corruption has come terrible violence. Any party, given a long enough tenure without viable political opposition, will go bad. Any party. It is a mystery to me why anyone would argue with that concept. AzWm Weak is expecting change for change's sake...no merit necessary...if your point is that time and monopoly corrupts...then it's among one of your many fallacies...Trump is proof that as soon as some get their hands on the lever of power...the corruption and violence begins...how long did it take for him and his cohorts to corrupt every democratic system...even though he tried...sans the military?...how many of his people...including him are either indicted, convicted or under federal/state investigation?...too many to count...that's how many...with this said...I have to agree with you on one point...one-party rule is corrupt...and that one-party is the Republican...just look at TX...the state that has now gone the longest without electing a Democrat statewide...It has been since 1994 that a Democrat has been elected in Texas...like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc...Republican have outlawed political opposition...not through merit, legit competition, ideas and actions...but through voter suppression and draconian laws...TX is a white-power religious-sect authoritarian government that pits citizen against citizen...Texas promises $10 000 for people who enforce the state’s new limit on abortions...so much for your government has no significant role in people's lives...so no it doesn't take a long tenure to go bad, but there is definitely an example of Republican doing just that...feel free to show the CA Democratic party doing the same.... |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jul 24, 2021 12:49:40 GMT -8
Oh, my, what a weak response. Totally missing the point of my post. Just to repeat, my point was and is that, sooner or later, a party that stays in power over a long period of time will inevitably will become corrupt. Its actions will more and more be motivated by wanting to stay in power by whatever means rather than doing what is in the best interests of the nation as a whole. The 20th Century tells us that the worst examples of tyranny (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.) are those who outlawed political opposition parties on day one. But it is not just that dishonor role that we should examine. Mexico had one party rule from 1929 to 2000. I do not think it unfair to say that the legacy of the PRI (that was it's 3rd name, by the way) is a nation riddled with corruption. And with corruption has come terrible violence. Any party, given a long enough tenure without viable political opposition, will go bad. Any party. It is a mystery to me why anyone would argue with that concept. AzWm Weak is expecting change for change's sake...no merit necessary...if your point is that time and monopoly corrupts...then it's among one of your many fallacies...Trump is proof that as soon as some get their hands on the lever of power...the corruption and violence begins...how long did it take for him and his cohorts to corrupt every democratic system...even though he tried...sans the military?...how many of his people...including him are either indicted, convicted or under federal/state investigation?...too many to count...that's how many...with this said...I have to agree with you on one point...one-party rule is corrupt...and that one-party is the Republican...just look at TX...the state that has now gone the longest without electing a Democrat statewide...It has been since 1994 that a Democrat has been elected in Texas...like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc...Republican have outlawed political opposition...not through merit, legit competition, ideas and actions...but through voter suppression and draconian laws...TX is a white-power religious-sect authoritarian government that pits citizen against citizen...Texas promises $10 000 for people who enforce the state’s new limit on abortions...so much for your government has no significant role in people's lives...so no it doesn't take a long tenure to go bad, but there is definitely an example of Republican doing just that...feel free to show the CA Democratic party doing the same.... Let me get this straight. If long-term control of a government is exercised by a party of the right, that's bad. But if the long-term control of a government is exercised by a party of the left, not to worry. Seriously? It matters not what party has control over time (e.g., the PRI for 71 years in Mexico), sooner or later that party's unchallenged power will lead to bad governance. Maybe not in 8 years, or 12 years, but eventually. You are familiar with Lord Acton's famous comment in this regard, are you not? Perhaps it would be useful to remember his exact words: “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you superadd the tendency of the certainty of corruption by authority.”“Despotic power is always accompanied by corruption of morality.”“Authority that does not exist for Liberty is not authority but force.”“Everybody likes to get as much power as circumstances allow, and nobody will vote for a self-denying ordinance.”“Absolute power demoralizes.” Seems to me that Lord Acton had significant libertarian beliefs. As for me, I distrust politicians a general rule.
Oh, yes, there is one more thing. Why do some posters keep trying to throw Donald Trump in my face? As I have stated on NUMEROUS occasions, I never supported the man and consider him the worst qualified POTUS in at least the last 100 years. His actions since the 2020 election have only strengthened my negative opinion of the man. As for my basic point in this discussion, I consider one-party rule, whether it be in a country that outlaws opposition parties or a party that wins all elections, to be a very bad thing. Nowhere did I suggest that only a party in power long-term might be a problem. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jul 24, 2021 13:01:32 GMT -8
Here is another thought on politics. I believe that we are the only nation that entrusts political power to popularly elected men and women that has only two national parties of significance. I think, and perhaps I am wrong on this, that it would be of value to have at least a third viable party nationally.
Such a party would have to be able to win at least 10 or 12 seats in the House and perhaps 2 or 3 in the Senate. In some years, the strongest party might well win an absolute majority despite having to face 2 opposing parties. But in other years no one party might win an absolute majority. That would require the creation of a coalition government. Such governments might better moderate policy. As things stand now, the two major parties are so far apart that creation of national policy that is not anathema to one side or another is almost impossible.
As I said, this is just a thought. How a third viable party might be created is a question I cannot answer.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jul 24, 2021 16:09:22 GMT -8
bnastyaztecs posted:
Weak is expecting change for change's sake...no merit necessary...if your point is that time and monopoly corrupts...then it's among one of your many fallacies...Trump is proof that as soon as some get their hands on the lever of power...the corruption and violence begins...how long did it take for him and his cohorts to corrupt every democratic system...even though he tried...sans the military?...how many of his people...including him are either indicted, convicted or under federal/state investigation?...too many to count...that's how many...with this said...I have to agree with you on one point...one-party rule is corrupt...and that one-party is the Republican...just look at TX...the state that has now gone the longest without electing a Democrat statewide...It has been since 1994 that a Democrat has been elected in Texas...like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc...Republican have outlawed political opposition...not through merit, legit competition, ideas and actions...but through voter suppression and draconian laws...TX is a white-power religious-sect authoritarian government that pits citizen against citizen...Texas promises $10 000 for people who enforce the state’s new limit on abortions...so much for your government has no significant role in people's lives...so no it doesn't take a long tenure to go bad, but there is definitely an example of Republican doing just that...feel free to show the CA Democratic party doing the same....
Just reread this post of yours. I must be simply stupid not to have understood your position the first time I read it. YOU REALLY, REALLY HATE DONALD TRUMP!!!! Now I get it.
I wonder if it's possible, for the moment at least, to imagine that Donald Trump had never been born. What I was trying to do was to discuss some basic political issues rather than focus on current right vs left battles. I guess that was a mistake, since it appears that few are interested in such discussions.
I cannot end without commenting on one statement from the post I quoted above. You wrote: so much for your government has no significant role in people's lives. Beyond the fact that I never posted anything close to this, the statement makes no sense on its face. Every government, whether for good or evil, has a significant role in people's lives. To deny that would be like denying that the Earth is round. Perhaps you would like to restate that thought.
In any event, you are obviously intent on airing your partisan views. I get that, too. The Republicans are just plain nasty bad. Your condemnation of the GOP in Texas deserves a point by point rebuttal, but right now I will leave that to someone else.
Here are a couple of questions to satisfy my curiosity. In your opinion, has there EVER been a Republican administration that you approve of? Also, would it trouble you in any way if you were granted the ability to see the future and learned that the Democrats would control all branches of national power for the next half century?
Let me answer that question in reverse. Has there EVER been a Democrat administration that I approve of? Yes. Here they are:
Grover Cleveland
FDR (Well, I must limit that approval to his role as Commander in Chief, but that's saying a lot.)
Harry Truman (This is an interesting case for me. I was old enough in 1952 to recognize that Harry was largely thought of as a joke. But history has taught us that his judgement in some monumentally important situations was excellent.)
John Kennedy (Too bad that he would have no chance to be nominated by the Dems today if his policies were the same as in 1960)
Bill Clinton (This is a somewhat tepid approval, base partly on how far Left his party has drifted recently.)
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jul 24, 2021 16:22:52 GMT -8
Another thought related to the philosophy of government just came to mind. If I were to name one really big problem with the current state of the U.S. government, I would mention the excessive power that the POTUS has accrued during the past 100 years. I doubt the Founders intended the President to become so powerful.
Their concept, as I understand it, was for the Congress to set policy, not the President. The job of the latter was to see to it that the policies (waging war, etc.) of the Congress be carried out faithfully and efficiently. Today, the President has too much power, especially in declaring executive orders. Note that I said "too much power".
I must point out that Barrack Obama, by means of executive orders, did a lot of things that, if one respects the Constitution, he had no business doing. I'm not playing favorites here. Republican Chief Executives have been guilty of going the same.
It's not called The Imperial Presidency for nothing.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Jul 27, 2021 5:30:13 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jul 28, 2021 17:55:10 GMT -8
I certainly hope that Senator Boxer is okay. This kind of thing is terrible, no matter who the victim is.
Crime is a serious problem in America, one that has to be dealt with. I believe that many people on the Left simply cannot admit that fact. At least not publicly.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 5, 2021 10:11:38 GMT -8
I do not blame all of California's major problems on the Democrats. Many diverse factors, over many years, have lead to the creation of those problems. Still, it is a fact that California has had one-party rule for many years. No matter what one thinks of any one political party, it is undeniable that, long term, one-party governance is dangerous. Sooner or later a party in power will become corrupt, or at any rate complacent and lazy. Or maybe it is just that no party can solve the nation's most serious problems. I wish I were more optimistic. AzWm The Democrats were/are chosen by a diverse population of 43 million people to run the state...Republicans have had their chance and the people have found them wanting...Democrats in this state are not restricting the vote of the people...unlike the one-party rule and anti-democracy TX/GA...CA is not coming up with silly laws, rules and regulations to stifle conservatives and the Republican vote...Dems retain power through their acts and issues...which the vast majority of Californians approve...that's why they keep winning and retain power...not by TX-GA voter restrictions and shenanigans...nobody wants lunatics running their state.... I think you have missed my point. I'm not saying that the Democrats have stolen elections in this state. What I said, and I think very clearly, is that one-party rule sooner or later becomes corrupt. It tends to cater to the most radical voices. Let me point to the wild fire problem. I believe that it has been suggested that removing dead trees from our forests would make fires less terrible. But the radical environmentalists have such influence in Sacramento that nothing along those lines has been done. I'm sure that if the GOP had a two decade plus grip on state political power you would find many things to complain about. That's just the point. If there are two parties, neither of which is in power decade after decade, compromise would be inevitable. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by uwphoto on Aug 5, 2021 12:54:28 GMT -8
The Democrats were/are chosen by a diverse population of 43 million people to run the state...Republicans have had their chance and the people have found them wanting...Democrats in this state are not restricting the vote of the people...unlike the one-party rule and anti-democracy TX/GA...CA is not coming up with silly laws, rules and regulations to stifle conservatives and the Republican vote...Dems retain power through their acts and issues...which the vast majority of Californians approve...that's why they keep winning and retain power...not by TX-GA voter restrictions and shenanigans...nobody wants lunatics running their state.... I think you have missed my point. I'm not saying that the Democrats have stolen elections in this state. What I said, and I think very clearly, is that one-party rule sooner or later becomes corrupt. It tends to cater to the most radical voices. Let me point to the wild fire problem. I believe that it has been suggested that removing dead trees from our forests would make fires less terrible. But the radical environmentalists have such influence in Sacramento that nothing along those lines has been done. I'm sure that if the GOP had a two decade plus grip on state political power you would find many things to complain about. That's just the point. If there are two parties, neither of which is in power decade after decade, compromise would be inevitable. AzWm William, I wish you'd stay in your lane to make your points. Seriously, you know absolutely nothing about forests. I know its the low information , low hanging fruit, to blame California's fires on failure to remove dead trees (raking the forest) because of "radical environmentalists". So you will be able to easily explain the unprecedented fires currently burning in British Columbia, Montana, Nevada, Russia..and even Hawaii?? The most effective way to manage forests and undergrowth is contolled burns. Some of these are successfully done in San Diego County. However, if not performed, and managed, correctly, they can get out of hand. Like one did in New Mexico a few years ago, and an entire town was burned down accidentally. So there is liability there. Just as there is with all the in holdings in forests. Like 1 or 2 houses on 80 acres. Lots of liability, and resistance to any kind of management there. There are many "forests" such as the pinyon pines on pinyon mountain in Anza-Borrego that are dead and disappearing. That particular forest has been there for 2,000 years. I know you are highly educated, but posts like this make me think you are on a dumbed down feed like Breitbart all day...or science for dummies. |
|
|
|
Post by bnastyaztecs on Aug 9, 2021 10:18:31 GMT -8
The Democrats were/are chosen by a diverse population of 43 million people to run the state...Republicans have had their chance and the people have found them wanting...Democrats in this state are not restricting the vote of the people...unlike the one-party rule and anti-democracy TX/GA...CA is not coming up with silly laws, rules and regulations to stifle conservatives and the Republican vote...Dems retain power through their acts and issues...which the vast majority of Californians approve...that's why they keep winning and retain power...not by TX-GA voter restrictions and shenanigans...nobody wants lunatics running their state.... I think you have missed my point. I'm not saying that the Democrats have stolen elections in this state. What I said, and I think very clearly, is that one-party rule sooner or later becomes corrupt. It tends to cater to the most radical voices. Let me point to the wild fire problem. I believe that it has been suggested that removing dead trees from our forests would make fires less terrible. But the radical environmentalists have such influence in Sacramento that nothing along those lines has been done. I'm sure that if the GOP had a two decade plus grip on state political power you would find many things to complain about. That's just the point. If there are two parties, neither of which is in power decade after decade, compromise would be inevitable. AzWm I got your point...it just wasn't valid...if the people are free to vote their best interest...then the system is not corrupt...conversely...if the people are not free to vote their best interest because party officials deny them the right...or pass laws that can overturn their will...then that's undemocratic and corrupt...CA is the former and TX is the latter...as far as forest management...your point once again is not informed or valid: US West Coast Fires: Is Trump right to blame forest management?" Firstly, most forest in California, Oregon and Washington isn't the responsibility of the state authorities - in fact, their share of forest land is small. In California state, the federal government owns nearly 58% of the 33 million acres of forest, according to the state governor's office. The state itself owns just three per cent, with the rest owned by private individuals or companies or Native American groups." www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46183690CA is responsible for three percent of the forest...that three is not on fire...Trump had four years to clean up his forest...and what did he do?...he cut funding for its upkeep...this brings me to my last point...those on the right, conservative or libertarian (redundant)...are driven by rhetoric not facts or concrete accomplishments...you guys love a good lie...none of you guys bother with or want to hear/see the facts...why?...because the facts don't jive with your skewed internal beliefs...therefore your ilk is easily misguided on any number of issues...all that you want to hear is a good-sounding lie...that's sad...and truly no way to live..... |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 9, 2021 14:51:36 GMT -8
Fine. You think that one party in control of a state, or worse, of a country, for 60, 70, 80, or more years straight is okay. I think that such long-term political power by one party will inevitably lead to authoritarian governance. Or worse.
In any case, your argument is not with me, but with Lord Action. “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by uwphoto on Aug 9, 2021 17:08:59 GMT -8
Fine. You think that one party in control of a state, or worse, of a country, for 60, 70, 80, or more years straight is okay. I think that such long-term political power by one party will inevitably lead to authoritarian governance. Or worse. In any case, your argument is not with me, but with Lord Action. “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely."AzWm Much of the blow back towards you was about forests and fire. With this response you admit you had nothing. |
|
|
|
Post by sdsustoner on Aug 20, 2021 4:30:34 GMT -8
😆😆 😆 Yes, because neo-feudalism is left-wing. 😆 😆 😆 If CA we're an actual Leftist Utopia, it wouldn't have landlords. |
|
