jryoung
Well-known member
It's sad we can't discuss positions we agree with because we lack the ability to separate candidates from positions. The binary thinking, or maybe lack there of is unfortunate.
Clintons plan for public lands
- Thread starter Oneye
- Start date
- Status
It's sad we can't discuss positions we agree with because we lack the ability to separate candidates from positions. The binary thinking, or maybe lack there of is unfortunate.
jryoung
Well-known member
I sure hope so, he's shown he been both for and against nearly every major issue. He needs to hold true on this, he's consistently inconsistent as Hillary is with the truth.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Theres a lot of "avid hunters" that don't have very much in common with public lands, public wildlife, or the history of same.
Just because Trumps sons hunt, doesnt mean they understand the issues...or really care.
Something tells me that trumps kids are best described as "clients"...
Washington Hunter
Well-known member
Buzz, if you don't think Trump's sons understand the issues, you haven't listened to them talk. Look them up on YouTube.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Last I checked, trumps sons weren't running for President...nor or they going to be the ones making the final decisions. They also aren't going to be the person that the R's try to persuade...and I think the Donald will fold like a cheap lawn chair under any pressure. The guy is a cry-baby.
What I do know is the Donald, and his sons, are all hanging with Don Peay...
Not exactly the kind of company that proponents of public lands, correct management, and public access tend to seek out for advice on issues that impact hunters and wildlife.
Trump is a scam...
What I do know is the Donald, and his sons, are all hanging with Don Peay...
Not exactly the kind of company that proponents of public lands, correct management, and public access tend to seek out for advice on issues that impact hunters and wildlife.
Trump is a scam...
noharleyyet
Well-known member
Scam vs Scum.....no?
Washington Hunter
Well-known member
Well, yeah, I'll take the scam over the scum, if that's what you want to call it. The scum has already been in the White House once and that's more than enough for me.
Nemont
Well-known member
WH,
Truth be told your vote for Trump will be swimming against the Stream in your home state. Hillary will win Washington's Electoral votes in a landslide. My home state's 3 electoral votes might as well be given to Trump now regardless of who I write in. Where you should be focusing your efforts on is down in Florida. Without a Trump win in Florida, there is zero chance of him ever being president. So you can Trumpet his virtue all day long but he isn't going to win Washington State and if he doesn't win Florida you will be saying Madam President after Jan. 20, 2017.
Doesn't mean that Hillary doesn't suck, it means that the Donald has a rather large task ahead of him when it comes to Electoral college math.
Nemont
Truth be told your vote for Trump will be swimming against the Stream in your home state. Hillary will win Washington's Electoral votes in a landslide. My home state's 3 electoral votes might as well be given to Trump now regardless of who I write in. Where you should be focusing your efforts on is down in Florida. Without a Trump win in Florida, there is zero chance of him ever being president. So you can Trumpet his virtue all day long but he isn't going to win Washington State and if he doesn't win Florida you will be saying Madam President after Jan. 20, 2017.
Doesn't mean that Hillary doesn't suck, it means that the Donald has a rather large task ahead of him when it comes to Electoral college math.
Nemont
This will play well in the retirement communities: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/david-duke-trump-judge-224121
Washington Hunter
Well-known member
Nemont, can't argue with that. It's unlikely Trump would win Washington, way too many liberals here.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Saying one candidate is better, because they're only a "scam" is a failed argument and non-starter.
This really does prove, what I've known forever...either party, would gladly cast ballots for the DEVIL depending on the R or D designation.
Like I said earlier, we have all earned this cluster shag through allowing partisan politics to cloud sound policy. All the while only caring if "our" R or D "won"...what a joke.
Lack of accountability and voting the way your daddy did has consequences...we're reaping it.
Some, although too few, have been critical of the 2 party system for a long time...and my choosing to not cast a ballot for either of 2 unqualified jackasses since I could vote, is now what many are choosing to do.
Welcome to the camp...I've been here for a long time.
Nemont
Well-known member
It is beyond "unlikely" it is impossible for him to win Washington State or California, Oregon, New York etc etc. If Texas ever turns blue the Great Blue Wall in the Electoral College would be complete and there would never be another Republican President.
Nemont
MinnesotaHunter
Well-known member
In 2012, ~1.7% of the popular vote didn't go to an R or a D. I am guessing that if voter turnout was improved, this percentage would go up. If more of the frustrated, "why bother" group, showed up and voted for a third option, at least you are letting the parties know you are sick of their BS. I would love to see 10% of the vote go to a third option. Even if one of the R/Ds wins, it is at least a step in the right direction.
jryoung
Well-known member
Exactly, if those in their respective parties that can't support Trump or Hillary....all the Berners, Cruzians, or anyone that supported the "also rans" would still show up in November and write in a name we could continue this shake up. Too many will continue to fall into the disenfranchised category.
Something I've always wondered about and that is this unending bashing of career politicians. You prefer some dimwit who has no understanding or knowledge about how to run a country like Trump or some other moron who sits at the end of the bar 7 days a week pounding his fist on the bar slurring " By God if I were President I'd fix this Country Blah blah blah blah.. Don't know what you do or did for employment but if you're like most I bet you were better at whatever it was you did after several years on the job than you were on your first day on the job, correct? Why should politicians be any different? When you need open heart surgery you going to hire a heart surgeon with an extensive surgical background or some idiot who stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night? Hell, I'll take another Clinton in the Whitehouse cause the first one presided over a pretty damn strong economy as I recall.
noharleyyet
Well-known member
Let's not forget Sham, who yesterday anointed Scum as the most qualified candidate......ever.
I fully agree with part of that statement.
I fully agree with part of that statement.
jryoung
Well-known member
James Riley
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2015
- Messages
- 1,821
There is some logic in there, but, I think, Einstein or someone said something to the effect that if you want to fix something you might want to go to someone who didn't break it. At the very least, you'd want someone who exhibited a history of changing things. Another witticism is that definition of insanity, doing the same S over and over again, expecting a different result. So if I wanted brain surgery I would not go to the guy who's been committing malpractice for years.
Yet you're willing to vote for a guy who has had 4 bankruptcies, countless lawsuits and many, many ethical complaints filed against him.
- Status
