Public Land Integrity Act

[Mudranger1]

I like the idea

“Public Lands Integrity Act” aims to block quick sale of federal public lands during budget debate

Sen. Michael Bennet introduced legislation designed to protect federal public land from being sold off through fast-track budget deals.

www.kjct8.com

 

[jbell.preach]

Growing up as a conservative, I used to hate the idea of the government owning all that land. But after I got into western big game hunting (especially now that I take my kids hunting all the time), I want the government to hang on to as much of it as they have... as long as I still get to hunt it

 

[Bonasababy]

Hope it gains traction but I doubt it will this year. I look at a lot of things like this as setting up for quick progress in the next congress, when polls today show Dem's will control both houses.

 

[SAJ-99]

Hope it gains traction but I doubt it will this year. I look at a lot of things like this as setting up for quick progress in the next congress, when polls today show Dem's will control both houses.

After all the gerrymandering, I put less faith in any polls. You have to gauge how mad people really are. So far, not mad enough to move toward more moderate candidates.

 

[Bonasababy]

After all the gerrymandering, I put less faith in any polls. You have to gauge how mad people really are. So far, not mad enough to move toward more moderate candidates.

Old adage drilled into me by people deep into politics...people vote their pocket book first.

Unless prices drop dramatically...which means tariffs end, the War ends AND Iran allows the strait to open...within a few months, that alone easily turns elections across the country, IMO.

 

[SAJ-99]

people vote their pocket book first.

That is going to be tested, for sure. The reality is the economy is not that bad except for inflation (remind anyone of 2024?). When you win control of the government by telling people the economy is terrible and the country is falling apart, all you have to do is sell them message the economy is now great and the country is being turned around.

 

[Irrelevant]

that alone easily turns elections across the country, IMO.

I think you are completely delusional. You're living in the past, have blinders on, or watch too much liberal news. Maybe all of the above

This country isn't going to turn, and if it does in a few places, it certainly won't be easy. No one votes for progress or doing the "right thing" they vote because the other team is the enemy. Because the "other" option is always going to be worse. That hasn't changed, and won't change.

Democrats aren't saying anything intelligent, just the same things from a different angle. It's all the republican's fault. What are they actually going to do that makes anything better? Raise taxes but increase spending even more? Make pronoun use mandatory? Raise the minimum wage... so that everything can cost more?

If you aren't going to fight on actual governing ideas, because those have proven ineffective, then you have to fight on emotion, and you don't emotion like the orange emperior emotions. Nobody does.

 

[SAJ-99]

I think you are completely delusional. You're living in the past, have blinders on, or watch too much liberal news. Maybe all of the above

This country isn't going to turn, and if it does in a few places, it certainly won't be easy. No one votes for progress or doing the "right thing" they vote because the other team is the enemy. Because the "other" option is always going to be worse. That hasn't changed, and won't change.

Democrats aren't saying anything intelligent, just the same things from a different angle. It's all the republican's fault. What are they actually going to do that makes anything better? Raise taxes but increase spending even more? Make pronoun use mandatory? Raise the minimum wage... so that everything can cost more?

If you aren't going to fight on actual governing ideas, because those have proven ineffective, then you have to fight on emotion, and you don't emotion like the orange emperior emotions. Nobody does.

Democrats aren't saying anything intelligent because they get blamed for talking down to the voter. Obama just said they should "talk like normal people". OK, good luck with that. Maybe it helps as long as "normal people" aren't those that think the government is run by underground lizard people. The bottom line is no one wants to fix any problem if it costs them a single $1. So you have to promise them things that are free, which limits the topics away from the actual problems.

The funny part is that Trump isn't even on the ballot but he sucks up all the oxygen in the media.

 

[Irrelevant]

Democrats aren't saying anything intelligent because they get blamed for talking down to the voter. Obama just said they should "talk like normal people".

They aren't saying anything intelligent because they don't have anything intelligent to say. No one seems to be able to articulate what is wrong and how to fix it. They continually say and promote things that most people disagree with.
“You can’t earn a billion dollars,”
Illegal immigrants are equal to citizens, and those who legally immigrated to the US
Forgive all student debt
Trans-women get to compete against actual women in sports

I find it completely shocking that given all the actual policy decisions that R's have made over the last decade, they hold any office, let alone majorities. That fact speaks way more to the complete and total disconnect democrats have with reality than it does to the policy decisions of the other side.

If someone would just come out and support things that everyone generally supports (age limits, tax reform, balanced budget...) they would win in a landslide.

 

[SAJ-99]

“You can’t earn a billion dollars,”
Illegal immigrants are equal to citizens, and those who legally immigrated to the US
Forgive all student debt
Trans-women get to compete against actual women in sports

Agree that anyone who says that should lose. But to be clear, any Republican that would be described as moderate is labeled "RINO" or not a true republican by their own party. What does that say...other than we are all screwed? I want more third-party candidates.

Age limits - for politicians? didn't know that was a big thing so I have no idea what the limit would be set at. Americans are going for name recognition, so age goes with the territory.
Tax reform - That has turned into "tax everyone but me", plenty of that on both sides.
Balanced Budget- Agree that always sounds good, but look at Libertarians. I guess a candidate can promise it and not deliver if elected.

Again, we are all screwed.

 

[Nick87]

Agree that anyone who says that should lose. But to be clear, any Republican that would be described as moderate is labeled "RINO" or not a true republican by their own party. What does that say...other than we are all screwed? I want more third-party candidates.

Age limits - for politicians? didn't know that was a big thing so I have no idea what the limit would be set at. Americans are going for name recognition, so age goes with the territory.
Tax reform - That has turned into "tax everyone but me", plenty of that on both sides.
Balanced Budget- Agree that always sounds good, but look at Libertarians. I guess a candidate can promise it and not deliver if elected.

Again, we are all screwed.

I'm sure he meant term limits.

 

[Nick87]

If someone would just come out and support things that everyone generally supports (age limits, tax reform, balanced budget...) they would win in a landslide.

Idk if I agree with that entirely. I'm sure you or I would vote for that. But the average voter doesn't think like that. If you need proof check the last 5 or so elections. They want extremes, both sides.

 

[Bonasababy]

Idk if I agree with that entirely. I'm sure you or I would vote for that. But the average voter doesn't think like that. If you need proof check the last 5 or so elections. They want extremes, both sides.

Hard not to get extremes in states where both parties wont let a moderate candidate get any chance. Ways to fix this, but Faux news and mostly right leaning media have convinced people fixes are evil, and enough others don't want to loosen the stranglehold parties have on candidate choice we cant break through.

Say it for the umpteenth time...Dems generally are far more tolerant of moderates. Getting one out of a primary can be tough...but in contrast literally getting in the door as a moderate in most states republican parties is a challenge.

 

[Irrelevant]

I'm sure he meant term limits.

I did mean age limit. I actually don't see an issue with people being politicians as a career. I do take issue with people over 65 thinking they represent 18 yr olds.

 

[Irrelevant]

Agree that anyone who says that should lose. But to be clear, any Republican that would be described as moderate is labeled "RINO" or not a true republican by their own party. What does that say...other than we are all screwed? I want more third-party candidates.

Age limits - for politicians? didn't know that was a big thing so I have no idea what the limit would be set at. Americans are going for name recognition, so age goes with the territory.
Tax reform - That has turned into "tax everyone but me", plenty of that on both sides.
Balanced Budget- Agree that always sounds good, but look at Libertarians. I guess a candidate can promise it and not deliver if elected.

Again, we are all screwed.

I can't worry about both sides. I think there is more potential to provide a moderate candidate on the left, simply based on the trending direction of the republican party. That hasn't always been the case and it won't always be the case.

I've also mostly identified with the left the majority of my adult life, and I think you should work on yourself before you blame others. The fact that the majority of people think their problems are caused by someone else may very well be the reason we're so f'd.

 

[Nick87]

I did mean age limit. I actually don't see an issue with people being politicians as a career. I do take issue with people over 65 thinking they represent 18 yr olds.

A mixed bag of age is alright imo. I dont think I want an 18 year old representing me when I'm 65. With most being closer to middle age being better imo. Career politicians I could do without. Won't matter, won't happen and money talks and bullshit walks anyway.

 

[Irrelevant]

A mixed bag of age is alright imo. I dont think I want an 18 year old representing me when I'm 65. With most being closer to middle age being better imo. Career politicians I could do without. Won't matter, won't happen and money talks and bullshit walks anyway.

42-65. Old enough to know something, young enough to remember it.

I don't want a plumber to install braces on my kids' teeth. There's value in people actually learning how to do a job effectively. If you term limit someone after they learn what they're doing they're just going to become a lobbyist, which is an entire level slimier than politicians.

 

[Nick87]

42-65. Old enough to know something, young enough to remember it.

I don't want a plumber to install braces on my kids' teeth. There's value in people actually learning how to do a job effectively. If you term limit someone after they learn what they're doing they're just going to become a lobbyist, which is an entire level slimier than politicians.

I see your point. Double edged. Doesn't matter anyhow imo.