Katy Perry, Rod Stewart and Neil Young attack Donald Trump over his “heartless” tweet about Californian wildfires

by Patrick Clarke

 

Donald Trump, Neil Young, Katy Perry and Rod Stewart Credit: Getty

 

A host of celebrities have been affected in the disaster

 

Katy Perry, Rod Stewart and Neil Young are among those to have criticised Donald Trump for the US President’s tweet in response to the wildfires currently affecting California.

 

With many blaming the fires, which have currently claimed at least 11 lives, on climate change, Trump tweeted to say that there was “no reason” for the fires other than “forest mismanagement”.

 

He also implied that he would take funding away from those dealing with the fires, unless they “remedy” the situation.
Read more at https://www.nme.com/news/music/katy-perry-neil-young-attack-donald-trump-tweet-californian-wildfires-2401236#tZr1dGyZ31Zv4OjB.99

Well what else would you expect from this motor-mouthed mindless orange muppet?

1 hour ago, xylophone said:

Well what else would you expect from this motor-mouthed mindless orange muppet?

Nothing.....apart from blaming  Obama, Clinton, Canada, France, Mexicans or little green aliens.

Edited November 12, 20187 yr by Blue Muton

Oh my, The president said anything at all. Everybody do the funky chicken!

 

I see the left's top intellectuals have leveled in on this one.

How dare the president say that the forests are mismanaged. That is so treeist, GRRRR!

2 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

With many blaming the fires, which have currently claimed at least 11 lives, on climate change, Trump tweeted to say that there was “no reason” for the fires other than “forest mismanagement”.

I can remember California wildfires being news items in the 1960s.

It isn't anything new or different or to do with climate change.

There's probably a few more now because more people are living there, and building in unsuitable areas.

 

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-fire-perspectives-20171022-story.html

"on Oct. 8, 1542 — 475 years to the day before the wildfires began ravaging Northern California — the Spanish explorer Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo saw smoke in the sky above Southern California. Cabrillo's pilot, Bartolomé Ferrelo, dutifully recorded the phenomena in the ship's log, as the explorer christened the San Pedro roadstead "Bahía de los Fumos o Fuegos.""

The area where these homes are built is a fire trap. Maybe they shouldnt allow them to rebuild.

No need for them to attack this moron.

We all know what what he is.

It's these barstewards that are doin it. Bears are the scourge of the forest especially when it comes to the theft of picnic baskets.

 

Trump needs to build a wall to keep them out.

I would not worry all that much for the property and relocation of either Katy Perry, Rod Stewart et al.....I'm sure their comfortable bank accounts will enable them to get into new properties before the blaze is extinct....

1 hour ago, canuckamuck said:

Oh my, The president said anything at all. Everybody do the funky chicken!

 

I see the left's top intellectuals have leveled in on this one.

How dare the president say that the forests are mismanaged. That is so treeist, GRRRR!

 

Of course, what the ignoramus either didn't know or chose not to mention (probably didn't know or care) is that his own federal government (Forest Service under the Dept of Ag.) is responsible for managing a lot of the forest land in California.

 

1 hour ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

Of course, what the ignoramus either didn't know or chose not to mention (probably didn't know or care) is that his own federal government (Forest Service under the Dept of Ag.) is responsible for managing a lot of the forest land in California.

 

Yes thats correct, but I think (am not sure) a lot of the burning area is State Land, I think thats President Trumps inarticulate bitch. Some land is BLM land too I believe. 

 

Regardless, the issue arises as to whether there should be that type of development in that area. Its like building in a flood plain.

3 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

Yes thats correct, but I think (am not sure) a lot of the burning area is State Land, I think thats President Trumps inarticulate bitch. Some land is BLM land too I believe. 

 

Regardless, the issue arises as to whether there should be that type of development in that area. Its like building in a flood plain.

 

From the NYT the other day:

 

Quote

Nearly 60 percent of California’s 33 million acres of forestland are owned by the federal government, according to a 2018 report by the California Legislative Analyst’s Office. An additional 25 percent of the state’s forests are privately owned, and about 14 percent are owned by industrial owners like timber companies. State and local governments own just 3 percent of the state’s forests.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/10/us/california-wildfires-paradise-malibu.html

 

Not much state and local jurisdiction among the formal forest lands in California.

 

As best as I can tell, the Camp Fire involved here started on the edge of the (federal) Plumas National Forest, and then burned in different directions from there. So it's right in/near an area of federal jurisdiction, although the fire has spread beyond there as well.

 

From the Chico Enterprise Record:

 

https://www.chicoer.com/2018/11/10/our-town-has-burned-most-of-paradise-is-lost-after-camp-fire-ravages-the-area/

 

 

 

Edited November 12, 20187 yr by TallGuyJohninBKK

14 hours ago, xylophone said:

Well what else would you expect from this motor-mouthed mindless orange muppet?

Still thinks he is on The Apprentice

On 11/12/2018 at 3:49 PM, Nyezhov said:

Yes thats correct, but I think (am not sure) a lot of the burning area is State Land, I think thats President Trumps inarticulate bitch. Some land is BLM land too I believe. 

 

Regardless, the issue arises as to whether there should be that type of development in that area. Its like building in a flood plain.

If you are saying there should be either trees OR buildings in a notoriously volatile area who would disagree ?

1 hour ago, Kevbo said:

If you are saying there should be either trees OR buildings in a notoriously volatile area who would disagree ?

Well development of subdivisions in a fire prone area would increase the probability of fires due to land use policy, and increase the economic loss when a fire does occur.

 

Every summer, Alaska burns. But there isnt anyhting out there to lose other than trees