California Wildfires

California Wildfires

The largest & deadliest wildfire in CA history, an entire town burned to the ground (Paradise, CA, pop. 27,000), they don't know how many dead yet, but at least 50 confirmed and 100 or more suspected.

It's kind of shame that no one thinks this national tragedy is worth posting about, but "Trump-the national crisis" is. To quote one of our esteemed HL posters, "you should be ashamed of yourselves."

But that's America 2018: vitriol, hatred, WANTED division, and politics as bloodsport. I think alot of people really need to re-think their priorities, because they have gone down the rabbit hole and gotten lost in "Politics in Wonderland."

God bless those who perished, or who lost everything, as well as those brave souls fighting the fires.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Nov '18

I was thinking about that, yesterday. News was more hung up on what the First Ladies said (or not said) to each other. I was also angry about Trump’s tweets. Blaming the forest ministry for droughts. California is blue...no FEMA money for you!
My thoughts and prayers go out to those impacted by these horrible fires. Mother Nature is p$$sd off!

Guilty-Remnant Guilty-Remnant
Nov '18

Who knows..maybe if they built the fire breaks things would not be so bad

Bug3
Nov '18

JeffersonRepubkic, I certainly hope you have a review before our president, two, who chose this awful time to bash California.

EweIdjits EweIdjits
Nov '18

First, one more time... in english. Please. If you untangle that sentence, I might be able to comment on it in it's entirety.

Second, he didn't bash California... he criticized the liberal policies of forestry, which (according to him) caused fewer pre-emptive fire control measures (fire breaks, controlled burns, etc) to be taken.... IDK if this is true or not. Therefore, I won't comment on it, because what I WON'T do is comment on something I don't have all the facts on... unlike many here do on a daily basis, drawing on party loyalty and emotion to form their opinions on matters.

I'm looking at this event strictly as a tragedy... not as a political football. My post comes from a concern for those involved, not from love or hatred of a political party or figure.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Nov '18

+1, JR

(That might be a first (-; )

ianimal ianimal
Nov '18

"unlike many here do on a daily basis, drawing on party loyalty and emotion to form their opinions on matters"

Yeah, you never do that. lol.


Tell you what, MB... you let me know next time I do, aaaight?

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Nov '18

Man can not control Mother nature. They can sometimes change the course. The planet is a very unstable place. Man is a very unstable when dealing with each other. May God bless all those affected by the inferno. They will need a lot of help for a long time.

Old Gent Old Gent
Nov '18

"Second, he didn't bash California... he criticized the liberal policies of forestry, which (according to him) caused fewer pre-emptive fire control measures (fire breaks, controlled burns, etc) to be taken.... IDK if this is true or not."
Wait, it was Trump, and you don't know if it's true? With 50% odds of a lie, I would start with --- better look elsewhere.

Of course it's a lie. Look to man and technology this time. Looks like, although I am not sure it's confirmed absolute, that it's downed power lines for some of it.

Sorry, this is not where I wanted to go. I apologize to CA and HL accordingly. Very sorry.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Nov '18

It's not Repuke nor Democrap. California is a tinderbox right now. Warm, dry and windy.
Bottom line it is part of the USA and you don't hold back support being Repuke nor Democrap. These are your fellow citizens and they need help and support, not criticism. So do the right thing, send help, finances and resources to help them.

Also, as far as the forestry thing goes, i'm sure no matter what political side they have chosen those folks are doing what they can to prevent/stop forest fires there. \

A red state can burn just as hot as a blue one.

Just send help.

Dodgebaal Dodgebaal
Nov '18

He insulted CA and those fighting the fire, enough so that it appears CA won't get Federally funded. That's his goal---he just wants to fund that Mexican wall w/ billions of billions of ridiculous dollars.

Hackresident Hackresident
Nov '18

" that it's downed power lines for some of it."

...sigh. Reading comprehension 101. Trump isn't talking about STARTED the fires, he's talking about the reasons for them burning out of control.

And I'm not defending him; him turning this political is a mistake, and a dumb one, easily avoided, at that. Just close your mouth.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Nov '18

"Trump insulted those fighting the fire"

Source please.


This is what I found (from previous fires):

President Trump stops motorcade to thank firefighters
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9JD3rCwWoM

Trump signs a new law to find out why so many firefighters are getting cancer
https://www.news5cleveland.com/news/president-trump-signs-law-to-find-out-why-firefighters-are-at-a-higher-risk-of-getting-cancer

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Nov '18

Maybe sombody should investigate why the power lines were arcing?...enough to start a fire

Bug3
Nov '18

THIS CA fire: He insulted again. that's all he does most of the time is insult people. (HE deserves the insults with his untapped mouthpiece and the s--t that comes out of it).

Hackresident Hackresident
Nov '18

Here ya go, Jefferson Republic:

https://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/fires/article221486490.html

Hackresident Hackresident
Nov '18

Sigh.....once again jr does a trust Trump, doesn’t verify the lie and becomes a chump (please accept my apology for the name call. It rhymed ;-). Jr—-no need to ever listen to this guy before the translators fact check the truth.

That new law is not only cool, its bipartisan coming out of NY Repub and, wait for it, NJ Dem. Thanks for highlighting. CDC will form registry so we can statistically gain knowledge as to the issues. Now if only the NRA would quit blocking the same legislation over gun deaths.....

Strangerdanger Strangerdanger
Nov '18

For the love of Pete really !

Hundreds dead, countless homes destroyed, infrastructure lost, and the devastation to all those lives in CA, and this is a discussion over politics.

Good grief....


I agree Gman .

htownguy htownguy
Nov '18

Sorry Hackresident, you lose. Trump does not insult or attack the fireFIGHTERS at all. He is attacking the poor management of the forests (in his opinion) resulting in out-of-control wildfires. He never attacks the firefighters. You need to read ONLY what is written instead of reading into things what you BELIEVE them to say.

Not only that, but you seem to disregard the NEXT TWO tweets from the president (in your link), no doubt out of your confirmation bias:

"These California fires are expanding very, very quickly (in some cases 80-100 acres a minute). If people don’t evacuate quickly, they risk being overtaken by the fire. Please listen to evacuation orders from State and local officials!"


"More than 4,000 are fighting the Camp and Woolsey Fires in California that have burned over 170,000 acres. Our hearts are with those fighting the fires, the 52,000 who have evacuated, and the families of the 11 who have died. The destruction is catastrophic. God Bless them all."


You really should consider ALL the available information when forming an opinion, instead of only considering things that appear to agree with your notions and preconceptions.

And yes- gman. I agree. That's exactly why I started this thread. I'm not the one who took it political... my entire point was this is BIGGER than that. But this is HL, after all...

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Nov '18

It's like him patting my dog AND kicking my dog at the same timeframe.

if it wasn't the firefighters he was insulting, it WAS someone, as usual with the bully.

'poor management of the forests' just may get him out of justifying the funding the destruction and the people who lost everything.

didn't he already say something about not Gov't-funding this?

Hackresident Hackresident
Nov '18

Look, I didn’t politicize this, Trump did.

And JR, it was the firemen who said he was insulting. I think they know more about it than you or Trump.

And most of the forest is Federal so even if mismanaged, which we don’t know for these areas, guess who’s at the top and stiffing the forest service?

Get your facts right.

And please folks, donate to one of the orgs I noted above, every bit can help.

Strangerdanger Strangerdanger
Nov '18

As is, sadly, too often the case, I think Trump was right--he just doesn't seem to understand the right time and the right way to say it. When your area has about a 98% chance of burning to a crisp, and you don't seriously do anything to prevent it, and then it burns to a crisp, the only logical conclusion is that you failed.

JerseyWolf JerseyWolf
Nov '18

This article includes a CA professor's point of view on fire prevention. In any case, prevention is clearly key. The death and devastation should not be experienced again.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46183690

maja2 maja2
Nov '18

Five Days ago, our President said: “There is no reason for these massive, deadly and costly forest fires in California except that forest management is so poor. Billions of dollars are given each year, with so many lives lost, all because of gross mismanagement of the forests. Remedy now, or no more Fed payments!” I believe
Trump seems to beechoing Stan Lee and saying “it’s clobbering time!” Or is he really saying, it's logging time?

Good post Maja and BBC has a left bias but high factual reporting; I have little doubts that the facts are right. However, it did seem one sided, so I went a lookin. And, the bottom line one MIGHT draw from the BBC is Trump lied, most of the issue is Federal, not state, and punishment is certainly not the solution. That said, the indicates that much dead wood and brush in the forest.

Except more of these fires are not in the woods, but in wildland-urban interface, more of a grassland.

Plus, only 3% of the forests are owned by the State of CA.

Some other views: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/12/us/politics/fact-check-trump-california-fire-tweet.html Note the environmental change effect which Trump believes is God’s will.

And the next one is a little more pointed:

“President Trump claimed in a tweet "there is no reason" for California’s deadly fires other than poor "forest management."”

Trump has been making statements since before election about using our national parks and lands for private enterprise, especially mining and logging; could that be what’s behind his current rash of lies?

“In August, McClatchy reported the Trump administration "proposed slashing tens of millions of dollars" for tree clearing.”

Point is that it seems that Trump could be lying to promote logging interests which is so stupid to the issue. IF you log, you don't remove brush. The current fires started in lands just like that, no trees, brush. And the problem is Federal so why bash CA and punish them budget-wise for his problem? Again, that's no solution and hurtful to so many still in the tragedy unfolding.

https://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2018/nov/12/donald-trump/trumps-overly-simplistic-and-false-claim-californi/

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Nov '18

While some of the fires involve federal land and land management, the state IS to blame for its own poor management in protecting human life and property. It is the state which decides where people can build homes, where streets are placed, building codes, and many other factors. For example, the state could easily have forced the implementation of large fire breaks, between those open tracts of federal land and towns--but it didn't. The state could have forced the installation of huge fire-fighting water towers in key areas--but it didn't. The state could have changed building codes (brick houses don't burn as easily as wood houses); required multiple, extra-wide evacuation routes; and even required communities to better plan for disasters--but it didn't.

And because California did not properly prepare for these EXPECTED disasters, the rest of the nation is going to be stuck footing some of the bill. And THAT is what, I think, Trump was trying to say, in his usual poorly worded rhetoric.

JerseyWolf JerseyWolf
Nov '18

"Get your facts right. "


This, coming from strangerdanger!! LOL, OK

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Nov '18

You were saying, SD?


https://dailycaller.com/2018/11/13/california-jerry-brown-wildfire/


Go ahead and ridicule the source all you want... it quotes a senator. Ridicule the DATA if you want to be taken seriously.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Nov '18

I am sorry JR; are you Trump whispering that this is what Don meant? Really?

Ridicule? You are your own best critic.

Strangerdanger Strangerdanger
Nov '18

Hook, line, and sinker SD...

Metsman Metsman
Nov '18

What's True
In September 2016, Governor Brown vetoed SB 1463, a bill in the California legislature which would have required the California Public Utilities Commission to prioritize areas at increased risk from overhead wires in their management of wildfires.

What's False
There is no evidence that Brown's veto contributed to or exacerbated the risk or prevalence of wildfires in California, and the California Public Utilities Commission provided details showing that it had already been engaged in work similar to the proposals contained in SB 1463.

4catmom 4catmom
Nov '18

Hook, line, and sunk.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Nov '18

"evidence"??? Who needs "evidence" since Kavanaugh??? lol

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Nov '18

Investigation, who needs investigation since Trump?

Strangerdanger Strangerdanger
Nov '18

There is no question that extreme environmentalists have prevented California from implementing many good and time tested responsible forestry management techniques that help to minimize and retard the quick growth and spread of forest fires. Gov. Brown was on board with them and needs to be held accountable for his personal malfeasance on this issue.

That's the truth. Give me a break already with the ideological spin.

You libs are out of your minds with the convenient self-serving spin on every issue that comes up. It's time for some self-reflection and a little more intellectual honesty on something like this that is science based and time tested.

Trump was right in what he said. Period. I don't like the way he said it, and I certainly don't agree with his timing in choosing to say it, but he is more right than you are about this.

GreyHawk GreyHawk
Nov '18

"but he is more right than you are about this."

That's really the crux of it; these things aren't black & white, right & wrong, and shouldn't be spun to be to support one's personal opinion. All these issues are shades of grey, where "more right" and "less right" are much more truthful and factual than spun absolutes based on party or hatred.

Great post, GH.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Nov '18

Trump is only right if you insert your ideas in place of his words. His words on this were outright lies about the wrong subject re: this CA wildfire.

How do you get from that to he’s right, or mostly right?

How is Brown at fault for forest management on federal lands?

This fire wasn’t even in the forests, so wth is Trump even lying about the forests anyway.

Plus, are you really agreeing with him that CA needs to be punished? About forests? For fires that did not start in the forests.

Besides that, I think you are spot on. You got your monikers correct ;-)

Strangerdanger Strangerdanger
Nov '18

I don't think it's a matter of "punishing" California. I do, however, feel that poor management should not be repeatedly "rewarded" by forcing others to pay for those mistakes. And when faced with the pure, unemotional logic and practicality of it, I think most people would agree.

If you build a castle in a swamp, and it sinks into the swamp, then you shouldn't expect others to pay for it. If you build a house on the side of an active volcano, and the volcano erupts and destroys the house, then you shouldn't expect others to pay for it. If you build a house along the banks of a river that floods every few years, and your house gets washed away, then you shouldn't expect others to pay for it. If you build a simple wood house in an area in a high risk of being struck by a hurricane, and a hurricane flattens the house, then you shouldn't expect others to pay for it.

And if you build a house in an area with a history of increasingly devastating wildfires, and you don't take sufficient steps to (A) prevent those wildfires, (B) be prepared to detect and combat wildfires quickly, and (C) deal with the fires effectively, and your house is burned down by a wildfire, then you shouldn't expect others to pay for it. Ultimately, there were many things that California could have done and should have, to prevent and or limit the damage caused by fires, and they didn't do enough. And, personally, I don't want to have to pay for it, though my taxes or insurance payments. And as a taxpayer, citizen, and voter, I don't feel that it is fair to make the rest of America pay for it.

And in his own typical, poorly worded manner, I think (but cannot be certain) that that is the message Trump was trying to get across. And even if he has many people up in arms about it, at least they are finally talking about it. And perhaps that talk will one day lead to better solutions, rather than continuing to "reward" poor management that leads to such disasters.

JerseyWolf JerseyWolf
Nov '18

well isn't this interesting...

https://www.dailywire.com/news/38520/gov-jerry-brown-quietly-admits-trump-was-right-emily-zanotti?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=102516-podcast&utm_campaign=beingconservative&fbclid=IwAR0kOR_SWmkVHicnMAzOP5kJL-Ep_riMrtGGyfoCCJdU9L1caEcpTmYq60A

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Nov '18

The Daily Wire
Extreme Ring Wing Bias
Mixed Factual Reporting

One of JRs favorite rags when searching for HIS truth.

Meanwhile, Trump says Finland, a woodland country, said we rake the woods to manage against forest fire. Finland says; “what? We didn’t say that, we don’t do that.”

And the beat goes on.

Strangerdanger Strangerdanger
Nov '18

This guy has a response to everything... So what are CNN and MSNBC? They're hardly moderate... LOL...

Metsman Metsman
Nov '18

And you don’t?

You can look them up; you have the power. But I am guessing lean left, vs. far left, and factual reporting. Give it a try. Or bloviate on, waxing unpoetic, as is your fashion.

Strangerdanger Strangerdanger
Nov '18

SD, as I told you before: ridicule the source all you want. But try ridiculing the DATA.

Unless the source is lying. If CA did NOT loosen the forestry regulations because of these fires.... If they are lying, you be sure and let us know, mmm-kay? And you'll ned more than one of your cute nursery rhymes/song lyrics that rhyme with "Trump lies".

Perhaps only the "unreliable" sources are willing to report CERTAIN things... you know, ones that might make the left look bad?

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Nov '18

Im not chasing your extreme right wing sources of a dubious factual nature. Second source if you want that.

Strangerdanger Strangerdanger
Nov '18

Oh, so you'll build your "informed" opinion on even less than I've built mine on?

Sounds about right.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Nov '18

JR boldly says: “SD, as I told you before: ridicule the source all you want. But try ridiculing the DATA.” So, once again, you are asking the reader either to believe more crap from frequent crappers or to roll up their sleeves and dig through crap that you wantonly hurl at the HL wall in order to see what sticks, asking your reader themselves to look for kernels of truth like proverbial pieces of corn in the xxx-pile because you are either too lazy or too incompetent to do so.

I mean there’s been no lies here about the caravan, have there? It was not a political stunt. The threat was not fabricated. And the great news is Trump is finally bringing our soldiers home: https://thehill.com/policy/defense/417503-pentagon-to-begin-drawdown-of-troops-at-border-report Oh wait, these folks are already home……. We’re sending our homies, home. Got it. Why’d they go in the first place? And why do we tell our “enemy” our plans? Especially given all those caravan criminals, drug smugglers, rapists, murderers, pedophiles, middle east terrorists, and space aliens? What happened? Did the bad guys go away? It's OK caravan, just wait till December and you can cross without fear of military intervention. Trump out. Mic drop.

Your “true story” is based on a Kirstjen Nielsen tweet. Neilson is a known liar, but you know that. Sshe lies often and always to protect the President’s rhetoric: “The Homeland Security secretary’s cavalcade of lies has helped fuel interest in a national day of resistance to Trump’s family-separation policy.” https://www.thenation.com/article/kirstjen-nielsen-enough-lies/

She is about to be Trump fired for not doing what she did in this tweet, being aggressive. Do you think this tweet might, just might have something to do with that?. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-security/trump-could-soon-fire-homeland-security-secretary-nielsen-washington-post-idUSKCN1NI1N8

Do you really think she tells the truth? Do you really think this is the truth after all these lies? Come on big guy: tell us again what was true about her statements? Do you believe any of it or are you just flinging feces again?

This is what Snopes said the last time she “divined” who made up the caravan: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/convicts-migrant-caravan/

I will say this: the entire right-wing blogosphere has now picked up the tweet story. You got that going for you. And now you have your kernels; I can take off my rubber gloves needed to read your ……stuff.

But you could have researched this, asked yourself – is she a reliable source – has she ever lied before – has she ever lied about this before - is there something going on to help her want to lie, how do they know whose in the caravan, how could they tell – and perhaps saved us all the effort of pointing out your lies. Because, if I asked you politely to check, and I did, and if you refused -- what's up with that? Because if you refuse, you sure sound like you must be a believer in the information that you posted. In which case, you are a liar too. We’ll give you a mulligan and say it’s a lie of omission. Omission to do decent, competent, research that is.

Busted……again. Hoisted….again.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Nov '18

Fact: Jerry Brown Eased California Logging Rules Back In August

Looks like President Trump was right. Too bad the deaf , dumb and blind ideologues can't see or acknowledge simple truths for what they are.

It's laughable the nonsense they keep spewing to make themselves feel important.

GreyHawk GreyHawk
Nov '18

If anyone wants to consider donating to those impacted by the wildfires:

https://www.desertsun.com/story/news/environment/2018/11/19/how-help-california-fire-victims/2059353002/

Smilingbecs Smilingbecs
Nov '18

So he says the fires started because people didn't RAKE?

Hackresident Hackresident
Nov '18

Light haze in this area due to the fires, wow!


Right SD because no one on the Left lies right.... Pelosi said Trump called immigrants animals which was a lie. He was referring to MS-13. So if you think the fools on the left don't lie, you're tone deaf.

Metsman Metsman
Nov '18

"But you could have researched this, "


You mean like you didn't? LOL you still never addressed the data, only the source. She might indeed be making it up, but you STILL don't know that, only assume it to be so because it fits your narrative. As I have told you before, your normalcy bias is Out. Of. Control.


[begin news story] - and this was back in August, BEFORE things got catastrophic...

Faced with the worst summer fire season in 10 years, Gov. Jerry Brown is proposing broad new changes to California’s logging rules that would allow landowners to cut larger trees and build temporary roads without obtaining a permit as a way to thin more forests across the state.

The proposal — which has the support of the timber industry but is being opposed by more than a dozen environmental groups — would represent one of the most significant changes to the state’s timber harvesting rules in the past 45 years.

The legislative session ends for the year next Friday. On Thursday, the details were still being negotiated by legislative leaders and the governor’s office behind the scenes and had not yet been formally introduced in a bill or put up for a vote.

“They are trying to get to some kind of a deal,” said Rich Gordon, the president of the California Forestry Association, a timber industry group. “They are looking at what can get done politically.”

Under Brown’s proposal, private landowners would be able to cut trees up to 36 inches in diameter — up from the current 26 inches — on property of 300 acres or less without getting a timber harvest permit from the state, as long as their purpose was to thin forests to reduce fire risk. They also would be able to build roads of up to 600 feet long without getting a permit, as long as they repaired and replanted them.

Timber industry officials say the changes are needed to cut red tape and increase incentives for landowners, particularly in the Sierra Nevada, to thin pine and fir forests that have become dangerously overgrown after 100 years of fire fighting.

Environmentalists say they support some relaxation of the logging rules to make thinning overgrown forests easier to limit fire risk. But they worry that Brown’s proposed changes, which are expected to be introduced into a bill by a legislative deadline Tuesday, would allow loggers to cut large redwoods on the coast in wetter forests that don’t burn often, and other trees — some over 100 years old — without enough oversight.

“We acknowledge there is a problem,” said Kim Delfino, California program director for Defenders of Wildlife, an environmental group. “The idea of trying to get a handle on it is a good thing. But this is an over reach. You don’t need to be putting such large trees on the chopping block.”

[end news story]

It would be interesting to hear if they did anything back in august, before the legislative session ended. I'll bet they didn't. But are being FORCED to re-examine the issue now... Sort of a "told you so" moment....

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Nov '18

I am sorry JR, she lied on the subject before, she is lying now, she will be fired soon. And beyond her tweet, you have no other information.

"Right SD because no one on the Left lies right" In what world does this make lying OK, METs. Is this how you raise your kids --- if Bobby does it, it's oK? "Pelosi said Trump called immigrants animals which was a lie. He was referring to MS-13." That's not what happened, JR.... And, to use your thought process -- Trump lied first, Trump lied last, Trump lied more..... So we win, right? The real story... https://www.factcheck.org/2018/05/trumps-and-pelosis-immigration-spat/

JR, interesting but useless. The current fire was not a forest fire...… Logging not only wouldn't have mattered, but logging generally does NOT clear the forest floor. Quite the opposite, it creates litter and undergrowth. But good diversion, as is your way. Besides that, you have an excellent piece. Here's an update, maybe Skippy can pull it, I do not subscribe: https://www.wsj.com/articles/facing-deadlier-fires-california-tries-something-new-more-logging-1542390642

PS --- by the time Trump is done, he will convince you that his soldiers have built your wall. Mission Accomplished.

"Light haze in this area due to the fires, wow!" +1 ijay, very funny.

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Nov '18

StrangerAlternateReality.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Nov '18

Really..... so in your reality, if they just logged and raked the forest, the fires in the suburban buffers would not have started?

In your reality, when log, they clean up the forest floor and spray round up to stop the undergrowth from growing now that the canopy is gone?

Really?

strangerdanger strangerdanger
Nov '18

" fires in the suburban buffers would not have started?"


Haha. That's not what anyone said or is saying. What is being said is that had CA practiced less strict environmentalist forestry policies, the fires would not have had as much fuel available to turn into the catastrophe that they did, and would have been easier to fight as a result. But that's what happens when you live in an alternate reality: you read alternate meanings into things.

Just like Trump "called all immigrants 'animals' " LOL

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Nov '18

Fact: Forests, particularly in northern California, California lawmakers admitted, have become dangerously overgrown.

Dangerously overgrown according to California lawmakers.

Looks like President Trump was right. (again)

GreyHawk GreyHawk
Nov '18

SD I watched the news conference when this came out. Trump was clearly talking about MS-13 and Pelosi twisted his words.

Metsman Metsman
Nov '18

Back to the Top | View all Forum Topics
This topic has not been commented on in 3 years.
Commenting is no longer available.