What's new

Jon Stewart returning to host the Daily Show

One Californian’s opinion….


The blaze that turned Altadena to ash burned through the Angeles National Forest, managed by the U.S. Forest Service, which is part of the United States (you again!) Department of Agriculture.

Let’s be clear: Our firelands are actually your firelands. And you’ve managed your California land so poorly for so long — suppressing fire instead of managing it, letting fuels accumulate, providing insufficient personnel to handle our national parks, forests, wilderness, and recreation areas — that you’ve helped turn California into a tinderbox.

When you and your leadership — President Trump, House Speaker Mike Johnson, members of Congress — blame California’s land management for our fires, you aren’t just lying or playing dirty politics. You’re trying to shift blame.

And we can see through you and your bad faith.

Now, if you had any honor — which you don’t, but let’s just say you did for the sake of argument — you wouldn’t just provide us with all the disaster aid we need, right now. You’d announce that you were going to make major new investments in federal land management in California and across the country. After all, you own more than a quarter of all the land in the United States.

Instead, you are shamelessly working to make your land management even worse.

Project 2025, the governing blueprint devised by the leaders of the new administration, outlines deep cuts to the already-diminished number of federal workers, which would exacerbate understaffing and poor management on federal lands. The cuts are now beginning, with a federal hiring and funding freeze preventing the U.S. Department of Agriculture and other federal agencies from filling positions, including wildland firefighting roles, and putting public lands projects in jeopardy. Project 2025 also calls for boosting the number of gas and mining leases, reducing prescribed burning, and increasing logging — all measures which will make public lands more fire-prone and less resilient.

You propose to do all this, while your administration, run by climate deniers, rolls back green energy infrastructure and investment, and encourages more climate-altering burning of fossil fuels.

You and your current regime better hope hell isn’t hotter than our mega-fires.
So it’s the fault of the federal government that has been run by democrats 12 of the last 16 years?
 
  • Like
Reactions: PJF

There is no chance the Dems have learned anything. Right now, today, they are upset that non-citizen terrorists are being removed from the country. Tren De Aragua are notorious killers and human traffickers. There is literally video of Tren De Aragua members taking over buildings in Colorado and extorting money from American residents under threat of violence. Democrats are making clear to everyone who will listen that they stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Tren De Aragua, and are seeking to have them returned to the United States.

Seriously, Democrats! WTF????
 
  • Like
Reactions: PJF
There is no chance the Dems have learned anything. Right now, today, they are upset that non-citizen terrorists are being removed from the country.
Yes, now is the time that tries men’s souls, and that’s when I always expect Democrats to be found agonizing, and doing nothing.

But in this instance, your reason is off, no doubt to imply Democrats love blood thirsty terrorists and only wish there were 10’s of thousands more in our country.

I don’t think so. The concern was over does a president have to follow the orders of a federal judge? And Trump’s attack on the judge, calls for his impeachment was wrong. As was Musk saying the same: impeach him.

So, here you clearly are both right and wrong. Democrats are floundering. That much is very true. And does not surprise me in the least. But what is happening is a developing constitutional crisis, and not at all a case of Democrats have the attitude “the more terrorists, the better!”.

Also under debate was using the 1798 Enemies Alien Act.

This was not about Democrats hoping for more terrorists. It was about federal court orders and using the Enemies Alien Act. If you think your comment sheds genuine light on the incident, well, you didn’t that I can see.

Plenty of articles describing this developing constitutional crisis, Chief Justice Robert’s take, etc., the 1798 Act, etc., so I will just add these articles instead. Sympathy from affected families is to be expected, of course, but without a real breakdown of who was who on the flight to El Salvador, it would not surprise me if they do have a case…




Having watched coverage of their arrival, their treatment, and the conditions, while it’s no real skin off my hide, I hate thinking any innocent men were included in the flight.
 
Last edited:
in this instance, your reason is off, no doubt to imply Democrats love blood thirsty terrorists and only wish there were 10’s of thousands more in our country.

I don’t think so. The concern was over does a president have to follow the orders of a federal judge?
If the judge does not enter the directive into the court order, then no it does not have to be followed. The law is obsessive over dotted 'I's and crossed 'T's. I have no doubt this judge is not happy to have his incompetence put on full display in front of the entire country, but the reality is the court order did not require the planes be turned around.

I also don't think my reason is off even the tiniest bit. The democrats will support anything, ANYTHING that appears to be a setback for the Trump administration even if the end result would be for 10’s of thousands more Tren De Aragua terrorists in our country. The democrats have gone full retard. They went from the party led by Bill Clinton playing a saxophone on Arsenio Hall, to the party that claims math is racist and they don't know what a woman is. The democrats went so full retard that America looked at them, and looked at Trump, and concluded Trump was the sane choice. Even now, CNN polling has democrats at 29% approval. Then NBC came on two days later to say "no", democrats are down to 27% approval. That point was even mentioned by Jon Stewart.

At a certain point, I'd hope the democrats would rediscover the wisdom of when finding themselves in a hole to stop digging. I would have thought that just maybe demanding Tren De Aragua terrorists be brought back to the United States would have been so far beyond the mark that maybe we'd see a glimmer of sanity return to democrats, but nope. Democrats are full onboard with backing the idea the district judge meant to put an instruction in a court order and so even though it wasn't so ordered officially, the Trump administration should bring back the Tren De Aragua terrorists. WTF? Really???

Is there any bridge that is too far for lefties?
 
Is there any bridge that is too far for lefties?
The problem I would have answering such a question/observation is that I, personally, have never really asked myself: “which am I? Am I a conservative, or am I liberal? Am I one of “the lefties”?” Now, you may think surely I am BSing in saying I don’t know if I’m left or right. But, here’s the thing. I am extremely reserved, and very conservative in my mores. For someone who was a “somewhat of a hippie” during the Vietnam War era, I am very prudish, to put it mildly.

Aside from mores and life style, politically, where terms like lefty and far right come into play, I’ve always just listened to my heart when deciding where I should fall on particular issues.

You may, or may not, recall, and I personally forget which Native American historical personage said this: “the white man thinks with his head, the Indian thinks with his heart”. One’s head might say “I have liberal values politically, and tend to vote Democratic”.

But the heart does not think in terms of political affiliation. And, personally, that’s where I try to start. In the heart is where my decisions take place. And, from that point of view, I’ve never really HAD to be concerned with what my decision indicated in terms of political philosophy. I just try to make sure I understand, to the best of my ability, where “right and wrong” lies in decisions. Not what’s conservative or liberal, left or right. Where is the “right and wrong” in this decision before me? As my father taught me.

The decision I make has to match what my heart says is the right thing to do. In the heart, not the head, is where issues that require knowing what is right and what is wrong, is decided. I have never sat down and created a left/right check list to see if I am left or right. My head can certainly see I align mostly with positions and interpretations(The Big Lie is just that: a Big Lie) that match liberals and Democrats, but everything has to be run through the heart first. Speaking for myself, you asking that question about “lefties” might assume that I speak for “lefties” everywhere, or because I am a spokesman for “the Left”. Wrong, I’m likely not really the one to ask what is a bridge to far for “lefties”. I’m just me.
 
The problem I would have answering such a question/observation is that I, personally, have never really asked myself: “which am I? Am I a conservative, or am I liberal?
I can answer your question. You are a liberal. You are neither left nor right and a bit of both at the same time. You are the product of a bygone era who has drifted with the meandering stream to a place that is not like where you started. The lefty of today is better termed a 'progressive'. It is not a 'liberal'. The leftie of today is in opposition to liberal ideals, as progressives have always been. If you are looking for a new rabbit hole to explore, the history of liberalism versus progressivism is a deep one.

My biggest problem with progressivism is that it is inherently bigoted. Teddy Roosevelt being a proponent of eugenics and setting up concentration camps in the Philippians is consistent with progressive ideals. Woodrow Wilson showing Birth of a Nation in the White House while the KKK were at their peak is also consistent with progressive ideals. Progressives talk up ideals of liberty, and those ideals mesh well with liberalism if you ignore the other part of progressivism that separates progressives from liberals. Progressives only want liberty for their group, and believe different groups should have lesser degrees of liberty. Progressivism is inseparable from social collectivism and group bias while Liberalism wants those things for everyone.

The foundational work of progressivism is usually credited to On Liberty by John Stuart Mill. It is filled with liberal society this and liberty that, but it makes clear "despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with barbarians, provided their end be improvement, and the means justified by effecting that end".

You are a liberal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PJF
Back
Top