Mob chants "we know where you sleep" outside of Tucker Carlson's home.

[Vic]

Got it. You're reading a great deal more into the statement than I did.
The difference between the Florida, Carolina, and California disasters is that the first two weren't preventable. Controlling wild fires is part of forest management. Clearing brush and dead wood, controlled burns, fire breaks, things like that will mitigate the damage when the fires occur. I'm also assuming that our limited rainfall over the last few years has contributed greatly to the amount fuel available.
The other issue we're having here is that we're conflating Trump being a dick with proper forest management.

California already manages its public forest lands through all those things you mentioned, controlled burns, etc. Where are you getting this idea that they don't?

However, without question, the very worst thing that every happened to the western forests is this misguided notion that wildfires can and should be prevented. Because the biggest reason that our wildfires are so severe now is because most of these forests have not burned for over a century.
There are other issues involved, of course, but overall, you and the President are simply telling lies from ignorance.

 

[Vic]

Where is the condemnation of Maxine Waters, a politician that calls for this kind of thing? Where is the condemnation of antifa and their tactics in general? It is great that you are condemning this and all, but on the other hand the left creates and fosters an environment for this kind of thing to happen.

Why do you believe that you have any right to demand that anyone do something that you won't do? The rank hypocrisy of your post here is beyond the pale.
When have you condemned the President or any Republican politician when they have called for this kind of thing?
When have you condemned right wing groups when they have committed violent acts across the country?
Never, because you can always seem to find some way to apologize for such deplorable acts by "the right" by blaming "the left."
So it's clearly your behavior that creates and fosters the current environment. "The left" condemns the violence, you apologize for it. You believe the violence is necessary, "because the left."

 

[Greenman]

California already manages its public forest lands through all those things you mentioned, controlled burns, etc. Where are you getting this idea that they don't?

However, without question, the very worst thing that every happened to the western forests is this misguided notion that wildfires can and should be prevented. Because the biggest reason that our wildfires are so severe now is because most of these forests have not burned for over a century.
There are other issues involved, of course, but overall, you and the President are simply telling lies from ignorance.

It appears we can't have this discussion, as you can't see past Trump. An entire city just burned to the ground and your stuck on Trump. We can't address the underlying issues because they might in some offhand way lend credence to something Trump said. That's not rational.

 

[fskimospy]

Got it. You're reading a great deal more into the statement than I did.
The difference between the Florida, Carolina, and California disasters is that the first two weren't preventable. Controlling wild fires is part of forest management. Clearing brush and dead wood, controlled burns, fire breaks, things like that will mitigate the damage when the fires occur. I'm also assuming that our limited rainfall over the last few years has contributed greatly to the amount fuel available.
The other issue we're having here is that we're conflating Trump being a dick with proper forest management.

Mitigating hurricane damage is 100% achievable and those states have done very little to do that. How is it different?

 

[Vic]

It appears we can't have this discussion, as you can't see past Trump. An entire city just burned to the ground and your stuck on Trump. We can't address the underlying issues because they might in some offhand way lend credence to something Trump said. That's not rational.

What's not rational is that you can't believe what you see, and instead see what you believe.
I very clearly said that my argument against Trump's tweet was exactly because an entire city just burned to the ground. We can't address the underlying issues because you and all of Trump's ilk are baldfaced lying hypocrites.
Suppose that right after some hurricane, where dozens had died and thousands were homeless, that Obama had tweeted to attack some southern coastal state for allowing coastal development, and that he threatened to withhold FEMA funds to the victims. Would you be just as apologetic as you are now?
Of course not. So fuck off about your phony rationalism, hypocrite.

 

[senseamp]

Why doesn't Tucker Carlson move to one of the Republican states and live with the full consequences of the ideology he promotes?

 

[Greenman]

Mitigating hurricane damage is 100% achievable and those states have done very little to do that. How is it different?

Don't know, as I don't know what building codes they use or what's required in new construction. I'm also not sure what you mean by "mitigating hurricane damage is 100% achievable". Limiting the damage is achievable, having none is possible, though it would require a radical change in how they build.
I build in earthquake country, and we spend buckets of money on seismic preparedness. But if we get a big enough quake, it doesn't matter, those structures will fail. The same applies to hurricanes. What wind speed are we looking at? 200 mph winds create tremendous loads, I'd want a very sharp engineer to look at that one. 200 mph winds and major flooding takes it to a whole new level. Probably driving the cost per square foot beyond what the vast majority would be able to pay. Perhaps we should all move to Iowa.

But we're still in the boat of defending a system that's obviously failed. I'm assuming that it's just because Trump mentioned it, or that it implies that a blue state failed at something. It's painfully obvious that what we were doing isn't working, so we need to do something else. That something else will be reevaluating forest management, and revised building codes. The bulk of the changes will be in revised codes as that puts the cost on the home owner instead of the state. The unfortunate consequence of that is that it won't be applied rationally, a house sitting on a granite cliff surrounded by a mile of sand will have to be built to the same codes as one in the forest. It will drive up construction costs across the board.

 

[fskimospy]

Don't know, as I don't know what building codes they use or what's required in new construction. I'm also not sure what you mean by "mitigating hurricane damage is 100% achievable". Limiting the damage is achievable, having none is possible, though it would require a radical change in how they build.

I’m relating it to Vic’s post. Similar natural disaster mitigation issues exist in red states but the president isn’t issuing threats to them. This is because he is unable to separate his governance duties from his own personal interest.

I build in earthquake country, and we spend buckets of money on seismic preparedness. But if we get a big enough quake, it doesn't matter, those structures will fail. The same applies to hurricanes. What wind speed are we looking at? 200 mph winds create tremendous loads, I'd want a very sharp engineer to look at that one. 200 mph winds and major flooding takes it to a whole new level. Probably driving the cost per square foot beyond what the vast majority would be able to pay. Perhaps we should all move to Iowa.

It’s more a case of they don’t even bother to try. Whatever arguments you want to apply against California apply every bit as much if not more against the coastal southeast.

But we're still in the boat of defending a system that's obviously failed. I'm assuming that it's just because Trump mentioned it, or that it implies that a blue state failed at something. It's painfully obvious that what we were doing isn't working, so we need to do something else. That something else will be reevaluating forest management, and revised building codes. The bulk of the changes will be in revised codes as that puts the cost on the home owner instead of the state. The unfortunate consequence of that is that it won't be applied rationally, a house sitting on a granite cliff surrounded by a mile of sand will have to be built to the same codes as one in the forest. It will drive up construction costs across the board.

We really aren’t in the boat of defending a failed system and if you have constructive criticism I’m all about it.

There’s no need to be defensive just because Trump is involved, it’s obvious that he has no idea what he’s talking about.

 

[Jhhnn]

There’s no need to be defensive just because Trump is involved, it’s obvious that he has no idea what he’s talking about.

He's talking about how California Libruhls can't do anything right. Don't be like them!

 

[zinfamous]

It is very telling that you think a thread showing how crazy the left has gotten is a troll thread.

Indeed. One of us is capable of rational thought, the other is a fucking moron. I'm glad that you are taking the time to remind everyone.

 

[NesuD]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mob-chants-threats-outside-tucker-carlsons-dc-home

More tolerant liberals doing tolerant liberal things.

When a Pokemon Raid goes Bad

 

[sdifox]

Take a knee at a football game = disrespect the troop

Protest outside right wing media personality's house = antifa and fascist

Vegas mass shooting = second hand smoke kills more people

That is all you need to know about Slowy

 

[UglyCasanova]

Take a knee at a football game = disrespect the troop

Protest outside right wing media personality's house = antifa and fascist

If you can’t see the difference in these two I’m not sure what to say. I don’t personally care one iota if a player kneels but what happened outside Tucker’s house was not protest, it was intimidation and even the most progressive left leaning judges in the country would see it as such.

 

[sdifox]

If you can’t see the difference in these two I’m not sure what to say. I don’t personally care one iota if a player kneels but what happened outside Tucker’s house was not protest, it was intimidation and even the most progressive left leaning judges in the country would see it as such.

You mean freedom of assembly and freedom of expression should be limited? Charge them with noise law and or restraining order if you want.

Btw, I am against unrestricted freedom of expression. But until you change your laws...

 

[ch33zw1z]

It appears we can't have this discussion, as you can't see past Trump. An entire city just burned to the ground and your stuck on Trump. We can't address the underlying issues because they might in some offhand way lend credence to something Trump said. That's not rational.

Hah, an entire city just burned to the ground and Trump can't get past Trump.

 

[Viper1j]

Why do you believe that you have any right to demand that anyone do something that you won't do? The rank hypocrisy of your post here is beyond the pale.
When have you condemned the President or any Republican politician when they have called for this kind of thing?
When have you condemned right wing groups when they have committed violent acts across the country?
Never, because you can always seem to find some way to apologize for such deplorable acts by "the right" by blaming "the left."
So it's clearly your behavior that creates and fosters the current environment. "The left" condemns the violence, you apologize for it. You believe the violence is necessary, "because the left."

The crickets sound very nice tonight.

 

[UglyCasanova]

You mean freedom of assembly and freedom of expression should be limited? Charge them with noise law and or restraining order if you want.

Btw, I am against unrestricted freedom of expression. But until you change your laws...

The laws already cover this. Threatening someone isn’t covered under freedom of expression. I know you think you’ve got me but a direct threat to a person (which this can only be construed as, this isn’t a generalized I don’t like conservatives chant this is a direct threat to Carlson and his family) isn’t protected. Threaten to kill someone and see what happens.

 

[sdifox]

The laws already cover this. Threatening someone isn’t covered under freedom of expression. I know you think you’ve got me but a direct threat to a person (which this can only be construed as, this isn’t a generalized I don’t like conservatives chant this is a direct threat to Carlson and his family) isn’t protected. Threaten to kill someone and see what happens.

Ah, Charlottesville killing people is fine, but sranding outside someone's house chanting is not.

 

[Jaskalas]

Ah, Charlottesville killing people is fine, but sranding outside someone's house chanting is not.

Charlottesville? Whataboutism.txt

There are ways to change our government peacefully, targeting people's homes and families doesn't lead to them.

Two things will happen if you promote this harassment.

1. More groups will join in to target more people.
2. Someone is going to defend themselves.

 

[thraashman]

The protesters brought along impartial observers to guarantee no rights were violated. You don't bring observers if you plan to make threats. One person did commit an act of vandalism as the group was leaving with others expressing dismay that he would do that. No one made threats. Nobody ever "crack the door" of Tucker, not even the police report mentions that.
https://thinkprogress.org/i-was-at-...se-heres-what-actually-happened-665c2dc0cb67/

 

[Meghan54]

The protesters brought along impartial observers to guarantee no rights were violated. You don't bring observers if you plan to make threats. One person did commit an act of vandalism as the group was leaving with others expressing dismay that he would do that. No one made threats. Nobody ever "crack the door" of Tucker, not even the police report mentions that.
https://thinkprogress.org/i-was-at-...se-heres-what-actually-happened-665c2dc0cb67/

As if the conservacucks around here will actually read anything that disagrees with their preconceived beliefs and feels. Keep trying, tho...I gave up long ago, mostly.

 

[thraashman]

As if the conservacucks around here will actually read anything that disagrees with their preconceived beliefs and feels. Keep trying, tho...I gave up long ago, mostly.

Oh, don't worry, I'm not trying to convince the alt-righties of anything. Logic left them a long time ago. I just want to make sure that the Tucker Carlson disinformation about what happened doesn't sway the actually reasonable people.

 

[brandonbull]

In what world when you tell someone "that I/we know where you sleep", it is not considered an attempt at a threat or intimidation? Was that group giving Tucker a fun fact? Hey Tucker, in case you were wondering, large groups of people know where you sleep. Don't forget about both sides having fine people.

 

[Vic]

In what world when you tell someone "that I/we know where you sleep", it is not considered an attempt at a threat or intimidation? Was that group giving Tucker a fun fact? Hey Tucker, in case you were wondering, large groups of people know where you sleep. Don't forget about both sides having fine people.

Perhaps they should have mailed bombs to him so that you could call it a false flag?

 

[nickqt]

In what world when you tell someone "that I/we know where you sleep", it is not considered an attempt at a threat or intimidation? Was that group giving Tucker a fun fact? Hey Tucker, in case you were wondering, large groups of people know where you sleep. Don't forget about both sides having fine people.

Guess ol' Tucker might need to find himself a safe space, is what you're saying?