It is also the case that a lot of underbrush was not routinely removed… This is somewhat understandable when we are talking about forest fires in more remote parts of California.

The big issue is that underbrush in various parts near Los Angeles suburbs and throughout the area had not been dealt with.

The Getty Mansion and museum grounds were fully within the line of the fire that was coming, but they privately maintained their own grounds and insured that the underbrush that works as kindling for these fires was handled, and even have their own means of fighting fires that would start there… And they were completely fine even though many places all around them burnt down.

At some point, you have to even wonder why they wear the mask of legitimate concern at all. Enough has been leaked that everybody understands that their real objective is the ethnic cleansing of Gaza and repopulating it with Jewish settlers.

Nothing these people say can even be particularly interesting because it’s just a facade erected to disguise their Jewish supremacist ideology & Zionism.

I think this is something that a lot of conservatives and liberals could both potentially get behind…

Which is one of the reasons I am on lemmy - I am not a conventional conservative. I belive some things that are fundamentally liberal in nature and no, not in some “Classical liberalism is duh REAAALLLL librulism” way, but in a way that is fiscally progressive…

I think we should work on forging a post-conservative, post-liberal consensus… Not even because we can develop a common vision, but because we can create a new paradigm in which everyone’s itnerests are served and we are not bogged down in the normal left/right divisions.

Because the UK is famous for arresting transgender people, right…?

I honestly think so, yes, as the older contingent that still tunes in to a lot of TV is often quite conservative.

Right, it would make sense to have a restricted form, if by that it was meant that the non-citizens giving birth have to have a proper, legal status like permanent residency or some other form of long-term residency.

The oft-repeated false idea that “the free market” will automatically find the most efficient solutions for everything has been proven wrong again and again, and here is yet another example.

To be completely fair to Reaganites, I think they are not concerned with homelessness being fixed.

There is nothing wrong with immigrants. They are not ‘bringing in crime’ or ‘abusing social services’. They are responsible for less crime per capita than US citizens and contribute far more to social programs than they take out. Not that either of those would justify their forced removal.

There is nothing wrong with legal immigrants, definitely.

However, illegal immigrants are all 100% guilty of a crime when they enter the country. Of course, it would be rather remarkable if we completely ignored that one crime and it turned out that, on average, they committed less crimes per capita than white Americans, which area good baseline since they are the majority and historic population of the country…

It would be absolutely brilliant if, excluding their illegal status, they committed less crimes than Asian Americans…

But as the legal hispanic popualtion is usually several times more likely than non-Hispanic white Americans to commit crime, it seems doubtful that their illegal counterparts are somehow outperforming them. I am also sure there are statistics which give us some idea of illegal immigrant crime rates, and there’s a reason you are not posting any of those.

But it’s not actually ethnic cleansing since they are arriving in a place that they have no actual claim on…?

We are not taking a part of their rightfully held land and removing them from it so Anglos can go settle there.

This kind of reminds me of when anti-deportation activists took (staged?) pictures of wives/children greeting their fathers across the border fence, and someone had pointed out that the policy never actually broke up families…

What broke up families is people deciding for themselves that living in the USA was worth more than living with their father.

I would also point out: they have every right to return when they are 18, which is a hell of a massive right that is completely unearned - most nations do not have any form of birth right citizenship, and I think they are all generally ones in which nobody is particularly eager to obtain their rights of citizenship.

Conservatives talked a lot about the decriminalization of certain types of crime in California - it was a big theme in like 2022-2023 and still comes up. I think we also do tend to have these conversations whenever there is an event like what happened with George Floyd.

But I think it might be less talked about overall because many conservatives do live in places like Utah, Wyoming, etc., where crime isn’t a big issue, and it doesn’t seem like a national issue. When they imagine crime coming to them or getting worse, they think of it in terms of criminals making up a greater proportion of the population and moving into new places, which goes pretty well with a fear of an unsecure border.

Where does it say she is transphobic?

That is interesting. I am actually a teetotaler who regularly rails about the dangers of alcohol - I think that it is worse than marijuana. However, I still somewhat oppose marijuana, though less enthusiastically, and am surprised by the antiquated views that many people have of alcohol being perfectly acceptable as a vice but marijuana not being so.

Weed is better for you than booze, though just like booze, it is bad in excess, though not as bad in as great of excess. If that makes sense.

The younger ones, the ones okay with cannabis, seem like they don’t have as much issues. But it might just be lack of being worn down who knows.

Haha are you saying that psychiatrists escape mental issues by smoking pot?

The conservative position is quite simple: nearly every murder that is done by an illegal is potentially preventable if the borders are properly secured and we are actively deporting illegals when the opportunity presents itself. There would be very few exceptions to this - the very occasional overstayed visa murder, for instance.

Of course we have to put up with the insane levels of crime in the US from local citizens, but illegal immigrant crime is also substantial, and thus it is completely valid to go after it… It’s really a two birds, one stone situation.

I take every news outlet seriously - even the ones who I think sometimes publish bold faced lies - because they all tell us something.

Even their silence is communicative.

Notice, though, this is about minors receiving life altering surgical procedures for a condition that is highly debatable… It can be said to be an attempt to prevent the mutilation of the healthy bodies of minors, and taking a stand to be good stewards of them.

I’d also point out that the very first successful transgender surgery was in 1952, and even the language around transgenderism was not even beginning to be fixed in the 1970s, not even among activists (immortalized in the name of the group ‘STAR’).

Trans people only existed in a very broad, big tent sense of the definition.

Perhaps a few of them were even members of the SA, that was famously purged due to its homosexuality. Nazism did embrace paganism and at different points even hinted at the future practice of polygamy. They even had ‘breeding’ programs. It is not hard to imagine a scenario where they would have been more pagan and receptive to ideas about homosexuality, though I suppose what ultimately prevents this is not Christianity, but the evolutionary view of homosexuality as a sign of social unfitness.

A Justice’s highly questionable comparison between interracial marriage and transitioning the genders of minors through permanent medical procedures is worth discussing.

What has been helpful to me is to ignore the idea that there even is an “objective” position to be sought.

Nothing is objective.

Read both right wing and left wing sources - that is the best way to stay informed.

To be completely fair, there are issues with this happening in Australia. It has become something of a joke to look at the recipients of aboriginal scholarships or even seats at Universities designated for aboriginal scholars and you wind up seeing visibly white people. This is to not doubt the veracity of their claims or even to necessarily “demote” them as aboriginals, but it becomes potentially harmful to the aboriginals themselves who consistently see visibly white, minimally aboriginal people beating them out for these rewards or obtaining them because there’s so little competition.

It would be like making a list of the top 10 Latino scholars in Latin studies and 9 out of 10 of them are light-skinned castizos… Particularly for people from places like Mexico, where discrimination based on coloring thrives, it is unhelpful…

So, I am not saying that the people who remove them are absolutely right… In some cases they are denying people where such a problem may not exist, but I understand some degree of vigilance and gatekeeping.