Getting nervous about Trump!

O

ORHunter

New member
Joined
Jul 30, 2015
Messages
29
So Trump was just in my hometown last night for a rally. I know he's came out in support of our public lands but I'm getting more and more nervous. I live in western Oregon where our timber industry is huge. He brought up the fact that it had been in decline for sometime now and said he would change that. And mentioned something about too much federal control (I could be wrong on that statement). Either way what he said seems to align pretty well for our local republican nominees which all support transferring our lands to the states.

So this has got me thinking, and please no one get offended. If a democrat is elected do we stand more of a chance to start taking more hits to our 2nd amendment? Or if Donald is elected do we stand more of a chance of losing our public lands? What are your thoughts?

A part of me wants to believe that if a democrat wins our 2nd amendment would be fairly safe with all the work the NRA is doing. We don't have a huge voice like that for our lands. If only we could get the NRA to speak up about it.

Anyways have a good weekend guys. I was supposed to go bear hunting today to chase a big boar we saw last weekend but I decided slicing my thumb open with a kitchen knife last night sounded better lol😀
 
At this point Hillary is the only viable candidate for the dems. She has publicly stated she would consider a nationwide gun ban and repealing the second amendment.....so ya I would expect her to try and do exactly that if elected. Whether she would be able to do it, I don't know.....but she would try.
 
Remember who ever get elected also has the chance to pock who is on the Supreme Court, there are a few on there now that are about as old as dirt. Do you think Hillary will place people we want on there or people she wants? Same with Donald... No matter who is in office people will be upset, some will even be happy. Either way don't expect it to get better, get worse or even stay the same. One person with a cabinet full of people can not make everyone happy.
 
The left will attack the the second amendment primarily through the courts, especially after they turn SCOTUS, which will give a democrat/socialist executive branch all the cover it needs to do what it wants.
 
I agree the scariest thing about hillary is the fact she would probably get to appoint supreme court justices. Obama has tried and failed to implement liberal based gun control as a whole.
 
I think Clinton will do what she can to mess with the Second Amendment. (The NRA may stop her, but I think the NRA is in bed with the same people who want to transfer public land to the private sector.) That is not why I hate her. I hate her because she is absolutely the single most qualified person to navigate and lead the United States and the world as we know it. That makes her unqualified to be President, in my opinion. She is a party person. An establishment person. A corporate media person. We need a reset to the people, not a continuation of homage to money.

I think Trump is a practical troll. He tells everyone what they want to hear. Those who love him, hear what they want to hear. Those who hate him, love to hate him. Everyone is happy. When it gets down to brass tacks, he's a wheeler and dealer who will do whatever it takes to make himself the best President in history, as defined by ratings. Contrary to what Obama said, this is entertainment and it is reality T.V.. It has been since long before Trump came on the national stage. I like him because he trolls those who need trolling, dupes those who swallow his swill, and, ultimately, is concerned about ratings. While I'm no big fan of the people, I trust them more than the owners of the Parties, the owners of the corporate media and the owners of the American Political Elite. The more guns you see coming out allied against him, the more you begin to rethink your vote for Trump, the more you know I'm right. Don't fall for their S. None of them are wise, considered, thoughtful people. They are hacks and they are afraid, very afraid. And it's about time. Let them eat S.

They all had their chance to do the right thing. They were warned. They knew. They had plenty of time. They had plenty of opportunity. Time to step aside.

I'll still vote for Sanders, but if he quits, it's Trump. I would vote for some other third party candidate but that would aid Clinton. Other than Sanders, Trump is the only one in the field who stands a chance of destroying the system, so I have to roll with him.
 
James Riley said:
I think Clinton will do what she can to mess with the Second Amendment. (The NRA may stop her, but I think the NRA is in bed with the same people who want to transfer public land to the private sector.) That is not why I hate her. I hate her because she is absolutely the single most qualified person to navigate and lead the United States and the world as we know it. That makes her unqualified to be President, in my opinion. She is a party person. An establishment person. A corporate media person. We need a reset to the people, not a continuation of homage to money.

I think Trump is a practical troll. He tells everyone what they want to hear. Those who love him, hear what they want to hear. Those who hate him, love to hate him. Everyone is happy. When it gets down to brass tacks, he's a wheeler and dealer who will do whatever it takes to make himself the best President in history, as defined by ratings. Contrary to what Obama said, this is entertainment and it is reality T.V.. It has been since long before Trump came on the national stage. I like him because he trolls those who need trolling, dupes those who swallow his swill, and, ultimately, is concerned about ratings. While I'm no big fan of the people, I trust them more than the owners of the Parties, the owners of the corporate media and the owners of the American Political Elite. The more guns you see coming out allied against him, the more you begin to rethink your vote for Trump, the more you know I'm right. Don't fall for their S. None of them are wise, considered, thoughtful people. They are hacks and they are afraid, very afraid. And it's about time. Let them eat S.

They all had their chance to do the right thing. They were warned. They knew. They had plenty of time. They had plenty of opportunity. Time to step aside.

I'll still vote for Sanders, but if he quits, it's Trump. I would vote for some other third party candidate but that would aid Clinton. Other than Sanders, Trump is the only one in the field who stands a chance of destroying the system, so I have to roll with him.
Click to expand...

Okay without opening a complete S storm I got a question for you, because you are the first Sanders supporter I have come across that appears to have some common sense. What is it about Sanders that he says, does, supports whatever. that makes you want to vote for him.
 
Trump supports federal lands staying federal but giving states and local communities input on recreation, agriculture, and resources. Sounds like a good position. RMEF has had those positions for decades.

Randy for Interior Secretary
 
Tufrthnails said:
Okay without opening a complete S storm I got a question for you, because you are the first Sanders supporter I have come across that appears to have some common sense. What is it about Sanders that he says, does, supports whatever. that makes you want to vote for him.
Click to expand...

It's an economic argument. Basically, I think he is a reluctant socialist; a reaction to the failure of so-called “capitalists” to actually act in accord with capitalism. If they followed the tenets of Adam Smith and the notion of enlightened self-interest, there would be no Bernie Sanders. They internalize their profits while externalizing (socializing) their costs. With the aid of big government, they make people purchase things they don't agree to purchase in knowing, arm’s-length transactions; they refuse to take personal responsibility for their own actions (incorporate); they think they can defy the laws of physics by pulling themselves up by their own boot-straps; they take credit for advances paid for by the public; they complain about paying for what they use; they whine about oppression just as much as their nemesis; they pay for legislation which hurts competition; they don't pay fair market value for public resources, seeking ownership of that which is free and abundant, reducing it to a point where it can be sold for profit; they champion quantity over quality, including the labor/consumer force; they compound advantage and disadvantage; they reward unearned inheritance while complaining about unearned investment; and they view investment as limited to their own short-term financial interest, eschewing investment in U.S. capital infrastructure, education, etc.

I could go into the weeds on each of these, and more, but I'm afraid we will now be inundated with, and distracted by all the “Yeah, but . . . “ arguments complaining about the commie welfare moms in Chicago who are dragging this country down and how Bernie wants to give everything away for free.

In any event, the Ds are going to anoint Clinton (who, like her husband, is a great champion of the aforementioned “capitalists”) so it's kind of moot. She is, after all, owned by the same folks who own the other clowns who Trump shook off like a dog coming out of the river.
 
Transferring Federal lands to the States is a bad idea. I saw a post that listed all of the state lands that Nevada has sold over the years. Pretty scary stuff. IF we want to continue to have these treasures that belong to all of us accessible to us and that won't be up for sale, we need to keep them as is. When states start feeling $$$ crunch first thing they will do is try and sell some of this property.

The Democrats will certainly take more runs at the 2nd Amendment. We need to stay strong and keep supporting the NRA, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, and other groups that really help fight the fight with us on this issue and the public lands issue.

David
 
James Riley said:
It's an economic argument. Basically, I think he is a reluctant socialist; a reaction to the failure of so-called “capitalists” to actually act in accord with capitalism. If they followed the tenets of Adam Smith and the notion of enlightened self-interest, there would be no Bernie Sanders. They internalize their profits while externalizing (socializing) their costs. With the aid of big government, they make people purchase things they don't agree to purchase in knowing, arm’s-length transactions; they refuse to take personal responsibility for their own actions (incorporate); they think they can defy the laws of physics by pulling themselves up by their own boot-straps; they take credit for advances paid for by the public; they complain about paying for what they use; they whine about oppression just as much as their nemesis; they pay for legislation which hurts competition; they don't pay fair market value for public resources, seeking ownership of that which is free and abundant, reducing it to a point where it can be sold for profit; they champion quantity over quality, including the labor/consumer force; they compound advantage and disadvantage; they reward unearned inheritance while complaining about unearned investment; and they view investment as limited to their own short-term financial interest, eschewing investment in U.S. capital infrastructure, education, etc.

I could go into the weeds on each of these, and more, but I'm afraid we will now be inundated with, and distracted by all the “Yeah, but . . . “ arguments complaining about the commie welfare moms in Chicago who are dragging this country down and how Bernie wants to give everything away for free.

In any event, the Ds are going to anoint Clinton (who, like her husband, is a great champion of the aforementioned “capitalists”) so it's kind of moot. She is, after all, owned by the same folks who own the other clowns who Trump shook off like a dog coming out of the river.
Click to expand...

I seriously had to read this 5 times before I caught "Basically, I think he is a reluctant socialist." So you are not for Socialism and you think he is leaning that way to garner votes so he can get in to do his own (super common practice)? So if you take away the socialist side of Bernie (yeah free stuff for everyone). What makes you want to vote for him? And just in case you are wondering there is no trap here if you want to pm me with your answer I am fine with that. This is purely a curiousity killed the cat thing. I am super interested to pick someone's brain that is thinking and possibly voting Sanders. The fact that you understand what socialism is and the effects it has tells me you have thought about more then free stuff.
 
6mm Remington said:
Transferring Federal lands to the States is a bad idea. I saw a post that listed all of the state lands that Nevada has sold over the years. Pretty scary stuff. IF we want to continue to have these treasures that belong to all of us accessible to us and that won't be up for sale, we need to keep them as is. When states start feeling $$$ crunch first thing they will do is try and sell some of this property.

The Democrats will certainly take more runs at the 2nd Amendment. We need to stay strong and keep supporting the NRA, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, and other groups that really help fight the fight with us on this issue and the public lands issue.

David
Click to expand...

I don't have a horse in this race, but the thought of the fed retaining the deeds and the states managing the lands has enough merit to ponder the thought. Here in FL I know the state manages MOST of the hunting properties which is quite a bit of WMA's and State parks. And quite frankly if our current gov could have figured out how to strip them and sell them I think that I would have no where to hunt, but FWC is doing a great job managing in my opinion especially with the 3 pts on one side or a 10" main beam they instated last year. so educate me or point me where I can educate myself on this topic why states managing public land that the feds own isn't worth considering.


Side note: I wanted to check my data, 2014-2015 season sportsman alone made $26.2 billion for the state here in FL. http://www.dep.state.fl.us/lands/ARC/2015_LMUAC_Annual_Report-102615.pdf Page 51 If I am understanding the report correctly.
 
Last edited:
Tufrthnails said:
I seriously had to read this 5 times before I caught "Basically, I think he is a reluctant socialist." So you are not for Socialism and you think he is leaning that way to garner votes so he can get in to do his own (super common practice)? So if you take away the socialist side of Bernie (yeah free stuff for everyone). What makes you want to vote for him? And just in case you are wondering there is no trap here if you want to pm me with your answer I am fine with that. This is purely a curiousity killed the cat thing. I am super interested to pick someone's brain that is thinking and possibly voting Sanders. The fact that you understand what socialism is and the effects it has tells me you have thought about more then free stuff.
Click to expand...

Some folks equate socialism with communism. Not only is that not true, but socialism itself has many different flavors and nuances. For instance, as stated above, our so-called "capitalists" actually socialize a great deal of their costs (pollution, condemnation, etc.). Our States (i.e. "the people") own the wildlife. The federal government (i.e. the people) own the public lands. We own the airwaves, public water ways, air space, etc. We have public education, military, highways, etc. We fund the hell out of university research, etc. Much of Europe is "socialist" and yet they are democratic and allow for free-market capitalism, etc. To the extent "we" own this stuff, it smacks of socialism. All of them could be sold to, owned by and resold/rented to us by the private sector (or kept to themselves).

Once these fifty shades of grey are recognized, it contextualizes my point about "reluctant." Bernie is a socialist but he would not be a socialist, and there would be no need for him, IF capitalists did not act like socialists when it's suits them and capitalists when it does not.

Socialism is NOT free stuff. Socialism is investing *our* money (taxes) in us. And yes, taxes ARE our money; they are the dues we charge ourselves to have all the "free" S we have, like a Marine Corps, cops, public lands, clean air, clean water, etc. And, we should charge higher dues to those who benefit more and give back less. So, I'm not saying Sanders is not a socialist and I'm not saying he is a socialist only to pander for votes from people who want free S. I'm saying he is a logical response to a failure of capitalists to act like capitalists when it doesn't suit them (corporate welfare free-riders).

If you are really curious about Sanders and how none of his spiel has anything to do with "free" S, then you should go to his site and delve into the weeds. You could also read some of the writings of Elizabeth Warren. But better than each, follow up on their citations. Read Adam Smith, the father of capitalism.

Finally, remember the business of America is *not* (or should not be) business. The business of America is (or should be) protecting the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and civil liberties enshrined therein. Business is merely corollary to, and not superior to that.
 
Last edited:
Thanks. Bernie's problem (the left's problem in general) is in their failure to "bullet" their case in an articulate, yet simple fashion. For instance, he was once beaten up because he said he'd leave it up to the banks on how they wanted to break themselves up. That sounds pretty bad to anyone not versed in divestiture. When he said it, I raised an eyebrow too. But really, all he was saying is that banks can decide which assets or subsidiaries they wanted to sell in order to bring themselves into line with a not-to-big-to fail environment. It would be like Teddy Roosevelt's trust busting. It's not a government take over, just a "Hey, sell something! So we don't have to bail you out or look the other way when you or your decision makers commit crimes!"

Or, like Obama saying "You didn't build that." All he had to do was add the word "alone."

It's easy to say "Bernie wants to give away free stuff." No, he doesn't. He wants us to pay for it. He wants us to invest in ourselves.
 
Pretty interesting take on the topic! The father of Capitalism is actually on my list to read, but there are several hunting books ahead of it that I got a bit ago (just got a bunch of Dr James Knoll books). I will say Bernie does a poor job of portraying what you describe. I watched a few primary debates and he came off as a babbling fool that wants me to pay for every piece of S that won't pay his/her own way, but I doubt he would have gotten as far as he had against Hillary without that. At that I'll say thanks for the explaination of your opinion.
 
Those who know something intuitively, and sometimes even cognitively, often come across as babbling fools when trying to explain complex matters to T.V. talking heads who want, and are used to, simple, easy-to-digest sound bites. Those who are intellectually curious, such as yourself, are depended upon to delve deeper and impose upon themselves their own Socratic Method. It's unfortunate that many teachers don't fill that roll; and our educational system is almost anti-intellectual and geared more toward the creation of good little worker bees and consumers, all at the expense of critical and analytical thinking required by the Liberal Arts. I'm glad you are reading and asking and thinking, even if you don't agree. The harder the stone upon which Sanders might whet his ideas, the better. That's how debate is supposed to work. Good luck in your research.
 
Well said JR.
He, never said free stuff. And the cost would be by us...with those who have NOT PAID in and hide profits , paying in.
Like they did when WE were prosperous. Like make us great again...lol
 
Pretty easy choice for president if you enjoy your guns and hunting public land with them
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

44hunter45
So you want the US Government to transfer our lands to State ownership?
Replies
11
Views
731
WapitiBob
W
Big Fin
Federal Land Sales for Affordable Housing?
5 6 7
Replies
137
Views
6K
Meteetse Trail
M
Khunter
NEPA in the Trump crosshairs
Replies
15
Views
1K
SAJ-99
S
Lostinthewoods
New Elk Talk Podcast - Episode 139 - Elk Hunting in 2025
Replies
0
Views
223
Lostinthewoods
Lostinthewoods
Big Fin
Oh, the irony!
15 16 17
Replies
331
Views
17K
OverlordBear
OverlordBear

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
115,532
Messages
2,100,395
Members
37,169
Latest member
pietr

Share this page

Back
Top