Just wanted to see in a poll what people's opinions an decisions are. Let's not turn this into an argument between the candidates or an all out political brawl. It's a straightforward question, who do you trust more with public lands? And who will you vote for among the two main presidential candidates?
Who do you trust more with public lands/who will you vote for?
- Thread starter Oneye
- Start date
James Riley
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2015
- Messages
- 1,821
I trust Clinton more with public lands but I will not vote for her under any circumstances (she's a Party animal and I hate the two parties and the two party system).
I have not made up my mind on Trump yet. I don't think he's a liar so much as he's a flexable shmoozer and wheeler and dealer who could probably get a lot of good things done. He could compromise public lands though. Worse yet, his choice of running mate has me thinking I might vote for Stein or write myself in. I don't think Pence could get anything done. It would be back to gridlock if he became POTUS.
Thinking out loud.
I have not made up my mind on Trump yet. I don't think he's a liar so much as he's a flexable shmoozer and wheeler and dealer who could probably get a lot of good things done. He could compromise public lands though. Worse yet, his choice of running mate has me thinking I might vote for Stein or write myself in. I don't think Pence could get anything done. It would be back to gridlock if he became POTUS.
Thinking out loud.
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2000
- Messages
- 11,644
It's like having to pick between Osama Bin Laden and Adolf Hitler. You just can't pick one.
Not sure who I'd vote for but it will certainly not be for either Hillary or Trump. When either one of them screws something up in the years to come, I will at least be able to say that I did NOT vote for them.
Vermin Supreme would have at least given me a free pony.
Not sure who I'd vote for but it will certainly not be for either Hillary or Trump. When either one of them screws something up in the years to come, I will at least be able to say that I did NOT vote for them.
Vermin Supreme would have at least given me a free pony.
noharleyyet
Well-known member
Clinton and trust doesn't belong in the same interrogative. I won't notch a chad that has the remotest chance of helping Wasserman-Shultz's boss.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
That is exactly what I would have expected to see after following the conversations on here the last 6 months.
I'm gonna ask this question because I don't know. Just what is the position on public land from the independent candidate?
sbhooper
Well-known member
Oh great. Another thread about one-issue voting. Anybody that votes Clinton is just plain throwing the country under the buss. If she gets in, public land control will be the least of our worries.
Whats illegitimate is the two candidates you mention that have no chance of winning. We will be stuck with Hillary or Trump, and you don't have to like it or vote for either of them. One of them is your next president.
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2000
- Messages
- 11,644
So what you're saying is if Bin Laden and Hitler are looking like the only two that have a chance - you have to pick one? No thanks. Free ponies for all...
airlocksniffer
Member
Another way to ask the question is what do you trust more:
Trump with a GOP congress or Clinton with a GOP congress? 4 years of gridlock doesn't seem so bad now, does it?
Exactly. Just because Trump's punchable son is a hunter doesn't mean Trump won't follow along with Congress in their platform stated goal of transferring federal lands. I'll take my chances with the pant suited one.
James Riley
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2015
- Messages
- 1,821
The fact that they have no chance of winning does NOT make his response, or the candidates, illegitimate. 50% of the voters are NOT illegitimate (assuming the above figures are correct).
I remember one Hillary supporter yelling that Stein people are like the Nader people, possibly throwing the election to Bush (Trump). Problem is, Gore is better than Hillary (She's no Gore), and Trump is better than Bush (he's no Bush). And besides, the real problem is all the people who voted for Gore and not Nader.
Topgun 30-06
Active member
I can't believe the way this country has gone over the last 8 years that anyone would want to further the Lib cause and vote for Hitlery. Trump won't be bad for our public lands with the two older boys of his being staunch hunters and conservationists and don't believe they aren't in his ear giving advice! A vote for neither of the two main parties is a vote for Hitlery, so if anyone wants a definite fat crook and liar in the White House do your thing!
idnative1948
Well-known member
noharleyyet
Well-known member
Another way to ask the question is what do you trust more:
Trump with a GOP congress or Clinton with a GOP congress? 4 years of gridlock doesn't seem so bad now, does it?
Just because 50% are independent voters does not mean they aren't voting for Hillary or Trump. If they were, the two candidates that don't have a chance would have more votes. The harsh reality is it isn't Trump, Hillary, or someone else. You will either get Trump or Hillary as your president. I never said they were the best people out do the 320 million Americans in this country, but they are the two major party candidates and one of them is going to win. We can debate whether or not your vote is too valuable for either of them or neither of them are worthy of the office, but there's really no debate on the fact one out of those two will be in office come January.
While I think Hillary is THE most flawed candidate ever, and Trump is probably #2, I have began to trust Trump less as this has gone on and I do believe he is not trustworthy of what he says. Clinton is bad, but at least what she says it what she means. I could see Trump allowing public lands to be absolutely obliterated by energy development and industry and I DO NOT SUPPORT THAT EITHER. It's time the $646 billion a year outdoor industry has a proportional seat at the table on public lands, energy development on them, and the affects it has on recreation of all kinds. I don't think tapping into every drop of oil and coal on our public lands is good for wildlife, hunting, or public lands either. IMO if you have Trump and a GOP congress, we are in for a scary ride. If you don't believe Trump will be heavily influenced by the Republican Party, if a republican congress decides to sell public lands, you don't understand politics quite enough. IMO if a bill came to Trumps desk to transfer or sale public lands, I do not have full faith he would veto it. This is not a pro Hillary rant because on the other side I don't want a democratic led congress with Hillary as president, or we'll go left and never come back. I'm with Ben, 4 more years of gridlock don't sound so bad anymore. Having Trump as president with a democratic congress, or Hillary as president with a republican congress is probably the best case scenario right now. Yes, our country is in a very sad place.
Recurve62
Member
While I tend to "trust" Hillary more on the public lands that I believe so strongly in, she has also said regarding the abortion issue that "...deeply held religious beliefs have to change...", that in and of itself should scare the pants off of everyone. If I can't even maintain whatever long held beliefs I happen to have if they don't please the government, then what truly is mine that they can't take away from me. Read this post for what it is, it's not a abortion/religion post.
Similar threads
