US Elections 2020 (geopolitics, informed debate, no ad hominems)

Biden

14 (66.7%)

Trump

7 (33.3%)

Total Members Voted: 21

Voting closed: November 02, 2020, 06:25:59 pm

[Robert Roaldi]

An anti-Trump Republican campaign strategist insider speaks about his newly released book on the subject, https://www.npr.org/2020/08/11/901274491/veteran-gop-strategist-takes-on-trump-and-his-party-in-it-was-all-a-lie. It's about 40 min long. Some interesting historical perspectives are presented. His comments about the differences between the stated policy sound bites and actual outcomes are almost funny to listen to. E.g., Republicans invariably increase deficits after always campaigning against them, is one example.

[PeterAit]

You guys are still going at it? 1000+ replies?

The science is settled:

Crikey, we already know his IQ.

[JoeKitchen]

Forgive me for asking the obvious. I know it seems self-evident but do we know for a fact that cleaning underbrush would avoid wildfires or is everyone just assuming it to be the case?

No, but it would stop fires from becoming too big and killing the crowns of the trees, which kills the forests.  Forests naturally burn every 20 years or so, which burns up the dried up fuel.  Also, after only 20 years, the amount of fuel is not enough to produce a crown fire, so the forest will survive the fire. 

But now after 100+ years of stopping forest fires, so much fuel has built up, when a fire starts, it will become a crown fire.  It also will burn so hot it becomes impossible to stop. 

Unfortunately, Alan's idea of cleaning up the forest floor has a few of issues with it.  First, there is just way too much land to clean.  Second, no one really knows how much fuel needs to be removed.  Thomas Swetnam, a scientist in AZ who studies this, cleaned up a forest near him and they thought it was cleaned up enough to not produce a crown fire.  A fire came through shortly afterwards and it became a crown fire and killed the forest.  So really no one knows how to solve this issue. 

More than likely we will have to deal with severe forest fires for many years to come until all of the forests are cleared and begin growing again.  The downside to this is it takes about 100 years for a forest to even start to develop, and by that I mean for trees to re-enter the land. 

[DP]

who killed hundreds of American troops throughout the Middle East. 

and what those troops were doing in the middle east in the first place ?

[Alan Klein]

No, but it would stop fires from becoming too big and killing the crowns of the trees, which kills the forests.  Forests naturally burn every 20 years or so, which burns up the dried up fuel.  Also, after only 20 years, the amount of fuel is not enough to produce a crown fire, so the forest will survive the fire. 

But now after 100+ years of stopping forest fires, so much fuel has built up, when a fire starts, it will become a crown fire.  It also will burn so hot it becomes impossible to stop. 

Unfortunately, Alan's idea of cleaning up the forest floor has a few of issues with it.  First, there is just way too much land to clean.  Second, no one really knows how much fuel needs to be removed.  Thomas Swetnam, a scientist in AZ who studies this, cleaned up a forest near him and they thought it was cleaned up enough to not produce a crown fire.  A fire came through shortly afterwards and it became a crown fire and killed the forest.  So really no one knows how to solve this issue. 

More than likely we will have to deal with severe forest fires for many years to come until all of the forests are cleared and begin growing again.  The downside to this is it takes about 100 years for a forest to even start to develop, and by that I mean for trees to re-enter the land. 

Maybe we can clean out the homes instead. 

[Alan Klein]

and what those troops were doing in the middle east in the first place ?

Trying to prevent the General and other miscreants from taking over the place and hurting our friends and allies there. Did he expect soldiers he attacked would sit around forever and not respond? Why aren't you asking why an Iranian General was in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and other Middle East countries stirring up trouble?  By the way,  what country are you from?

[Alan Klein]

You guys are still going at it? 1000+ replies?

The science is settled:

Nice to see you back.  Want to double your money?

Fold it.

[TechTalk]

unfortunately there's no water in California.   If it wasn't for the Colorado River,  it would be like the Sahara.

This may be the most ridiculous and asinine thing that I have read in this forum.

* If it helps, here's a map.  https://geology.com/lakes-rivers-water/california.shtml

[PeterAit]

This may be the most ridiculous and asinine thing that I have read in this forum.

Alan will fix that, I am sure.

[JoeKitchen]

Maybe we can clean out the homes instead. 

Michael Shellenberger, who is an environmentalist that started out on the far left and is now right of center on a lot of environmental issues, talks about this point too.  The second biggest contributor to forest fires today, with the Smokey Bear Effect being number one, is more people living too close to or within forests.  We are a fire/energy loving species, so to get less forest fires, we need less people living in forests.

This will also make it politically viable to let forests burn naturally when they spark up, decreasing the extent of the Smokey Bear Effect.  No politician could survive a campaign of saying "just let it burn, it's better for the forest" when people's houses and businesses would burn with it.

[Alan Klein]

This may be the most ridiculous and asinine thing that I have read in this forum.

* If it helps, here's a map.  https://geology.com/lakes-rivers-water/california.shtml

Southern California is mainly desert including LA. They've had 100+ degree temps the last few days.  Their water supply is mainly from the Colorado River that feeds aqueducts.

[TechTalk]

California stopped or cut back controlled burns because of the covid-19 virus.  Another associate casualty of shuting everything down.

The Trump administration has halted controlled burns in California due to the pandemic. The majority of California forest land is owned and managed by the federal government (57%). Industrial timber companies own another 14%. About 26% is on private land owned by individuals with nearly 90% of these owners having less than 50 acres of forest. That adds up to 97% of California forest land controlled by either the federal government or private individuals and industry.

State and local agencies own and control just 3% of California forests. The State of California is continuing their efforts to control those thru the pandemic and disagrees with the Trump administration decision to halt control efforts.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa-wildfires/trump-administration-halts-wildfire-prevention-tool-in-california-over-coronavirus

https://ucanr.edu/sites/forestry/California_forests/

[John Camp]

Southern California is mainly desert including LA. They've had 100+ degree temps the last few days.  Their water supply is mainly from the Colorado River that feeds aqueducts.

California used about 42 million acre-feet of water in 2010, the latest year I could find for totaling statistics. That's according to the USGS. California gets 4.4 million acre-feet from the Colorado River, or about 10% to the total.

[Alan Klein]

The Trump administration has halted controlled burns in California due to the pandemic. The majority of California forest land is owned and managed by the federal government (57%). Industrial timber companies own another 14%. About 26% is on private land owned by individuals with nearly 90% of these owners having less than 50 acres of forest. That adds up to 97% of California forest land controlled by either the federal government or private individuals and industry.

State and local agencies own and control just 3% of California forests. The State of California is continuing their efforts to control those thru the pandemic and disagrees with the Trump administration decision to halt control efforts.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa-wildfires/trump-administration-halts-wildfire-prevention-tool-in-california-over-coronavirus

https://ucanr.edu/sites/forestry/California_forests/

Trump can't win.  Whatever he does he's wrong.  He gets blamed for not shutting things down due to the coronavirus. Now you blame him for shutting things down.  He shut it down to protect the firefighters and to stop smoke from hurting people's lungs who may have the virus.  If he didn't do this, you'd be complaining he's hurting the very same people by letting fire burns continue.

The article also says that it was left open to each Federal district manager to decide what they needed to do for their district and to continue burns as needed.  That sounds reasonable to me.

In any case, the whole program became another side-casualty of the virus, like the economy in general.

[Alan Klein]

California used about 42 million acre-feet of water in 2010, the latest year I could find for totaling statistics. That's according to the USGS. California gets 4.4 million acre-feet from the Colorado River, or about 10% to the total.

None of that has anything to do with my original point.  Someone posted that they can build little ponds next to each home to stop the spread of the fire.  There's no room in California for that nor is there water for that.  The green crazies would object anyway tying it up in the courts for twenty years.

A  real solution would be to cut the brush between houses more as a way to reduce fire damage to homes in heavily occupied areas in the hills.  I agree with others that in major forests, these are too big to reduce brush easily. 

[Peter McLennan]

Southern California is mainly desert including LA. They've had 100+ degree temps the last few days.  Their water supply is mainly from the Colorado River that feeds aqueducts.

Even though that's not remotely connected to what you actually said.

[Alan Klein]

Even though that's not remotely connected to what you actually said.

My original statement was cherry picked and abbreviated. And you're playing word games with me as you do with Trump.   Anyone who reads the news currently knows I was referring to southern California as that's where the 100 degree heat is occurring the last few days.  Also, the Colorado water basin serves southern California which is extremely dry most of the year.  Apparently you didn't know that either.  Next time I'll try to be more informative.

Here's the full original statement I made: "unfortunately there's no water in California.   If it wasn't for the Colorado River,  it would be like the Sahara.   Right now they have a drought on tp of that with 100 plus degrees.  Another problem is people build on the hills.   So when there's a fire,  it reaches up the sides to the top where everyone wants their house to be."

[Peter McLennan]

My original statement was cherry picked and abbreviated. And you're playing word games with me as you do with Trump.

Alan, nobody's playing word games with you.  Like Trump, we have to base our reactions to what he says based on what he says., and not on what his supporters say he "meant".

The same goes for you.  We only understand what you write.  Own it.

[Alan Klein]

Alan, nobody's playing word games with you.  Like Trump, we have to base our reactions to what he says based on what he says., and not on what his supporters say he "meant".

The same goes for you.  We only understand what you write.  Own it.

Alan, nobody's playing word games with you.  Like Trump, we have to base our reactions to what he says based on what he says., and not on what his supporters say he "meant".

The same goes for you.  We only understand what you write.  Own it.

People speak and write informally in a colloquial and idiomatic way.  They don't spell out every detail. We're not submitting a term paper or legal brief. I understand Trump gets lambasted for his Queens NYC lingo. Well, that's political. But doing it here is just a cheap shot. 

[Peter McLennan]

unfortunately there's no water in California.   If it wasn't for the Colorado River,  it would be like the Sahara.

Colloquial or not, it's a silly, irresponsible and incorrect statement.  It's based on absolutely nothing except empty rhetoric and earns nothing but disrespect for the maker.  Somebody else pointed out that some 4% of California's water comes from the Colorado River.

The Sahara Desert is one of the earth's most desolate, hostile climates.  California is not and never could be anything like the Sahara.

If you insist on making stuff up (like Trump) and making wild-ass, easily-disproven statements (like Trump), expect to be called on it.