Who do you trust more with public lands/who will you vote for?

[Oneye]

http://utahwildlife.net/forum/12-big-game/155450-big-game-hunting-public-lands-sen-mike-lee.html

Thought this went well here. Mike Lee is terrible, at least these people are getting closer to their actual intentions, and it isn't for the state to manage these lands.

 

[dan.kirkpatrick]

I know im not voting for Hillary cause she wants to abolish the 2nd amendment,,,trump is a gamble,his remarks and general interview b s seem less presidential everyday,,im concerned on the public lands issue and do not want transfer,,,not sure if trump will keep it like it is or go for state transfer,,id like a definite answer on this one important item before I vote.cant trust either of them.

 

[noharleyyet]

The race to the bottom has never been more evident. The parties and these two candidates are as symbiotic as darkness and fungus. It's been hold your nose and pull for most of my voting history but this is the worst.

 

[mplane72]

The answer to the first question is Clinton with out a doubt. The answer to the second is undecided. I'm pretty sure I will not be voting for any of my Republican reps as long as their party platform advocates transferring or disposing of public lands.

 

[elkduds]

You obviously missed those interviews with outdoor writers from several big magazines. I'm also not at all naive about the perilous future of gun rights, hunting, and our public lands. If you don't think every candidate in every election is telling people what they think the people want to hear in each spot they speak, then I suggest you take a hard look at others besides Trump. Please don't attack the messenger in a thread like this since Randy has been very specific on how a thread like this should be discussed and we are to be civil or not post.

Where is the attack? I challenged the opinions you stated because the facts do not support them. What incivility? I did not term anyone an ass clown or call names, as Big Fin has. I disagreed with you. That is neither uncivil nor an attack. When you posted your opinion, you invited disagreement.

I read the same interviews as you, and more. My opinion is that Chump is a carnival barker selling snake oil to dimbulbs who are motivated by fear and have not done their research. And who will continue to flip-flop. Again, feel free to post the interviews you cited as the basis for your opinion. I cited my source so readers know the difference between my opinion and what the GOP has endorsed @ their national convention. My observation is that you switched horses from the topic of public lands to the topic of 2nd Amendment, then suggested I should buy your swamp land. Was that your version of an uncivil attack?

Since you brought up the 2nd Amendment issue, I'll entirely disagree w you on that as well. The NRA has long attacked any consideration that there are limits to 2nd Amendment rights, and any legislator or candidate that proposes such limitations. The sole beneficiaries of that NRA position are those in the gun industry: manufacturers, retailers, private dealers. The 2nd amendment has survived every attack to date. It will survive another Clinton presidency. I prioritize the threat to public lands as a greater risk to my rights than potential restrictions on the 2nd Amendment. The NRA is biggest Kool-Aid vendor in America.

 

[shoots-straight]

Dan, (I really don't know the answer) is doing away with the 2nd Amendment the Party Platform for the Democratic Party? She has zero chance of doing that with a republican house and Senate, BUT, TRump is buddies with Don Peay, and he's for the transfer of lands to the states. The supporters are hoping Peay's influence with help get the signature when Trumps elected.

 

[junior88]

none of the above. vote third party and watch dems and reps scramble. maybe then they will actually work for our vote

 

[Gr8bawana]

I used to love (kinda?) talking politics at break time at work before I retired. I always got po'd when we did and usually wanted to kick the holy chit out of all those who didn't agree with me cause I was positive I was right and they weren't. But Randy is right to try and put a stop to that talk on this Forum cause this thread is slowly heading down the same disgusting path similar political threads have and it frustrates the hell out of me. For my own sanity I refuse to comment further.

How long till this thread gets shut down? Won't be soon enough.

 

[shoots-straight]

How long till this thread gets shut down? Won't be soon enough.

This thread is about our public lands, and how our votes will effect that. If you don't like reading the thread and it's not your thing, then don't join in. There's some good points being made. The political forum use to be a subscribed thread, and it you wanted to discuss politics then you asked to be included. Maybe we should go that route again if it gives people heartburn.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

How long till this thread gets shut down? Won't be soon enough.

Agreed and I never should have made a singe post in a thread that involves politics or religion!

 

[DRAFTSTUD]

I stated this earlier in the year. With the Debt being what it is I really don't see a lock on "If I vote D I get my Public Lands and if I vote R I lose my Public Lands." I am voting Trump and nothing makes me feel like I have betrayed my support for Public Lands. I think with all we have to lose besides Public Lands my vote was determined before the conventions. John

 

[Irrelevant]

Wow, those results have changed a lot from yesterday. Now we have people who do not trust Trump with their public lands, but do plan to vote for him.

BOOM

Foot...shot

 

[MTGomer]

Interesting how partisans a trust their candidate blindly until it comes to guns, in which case they proclaim they are lying about their position and aren't a threat to guns.
Ted Cruz type public land hunters did the same with him on the land topic.

Being honest with ones self is a decent idea, elkdud.
'Shutting down the NRA' 'Australian style gun control' and banning handguns 'assault' weapons etc.. Is exactly what it is-at face value. It's not some veiled doublspeak that means we should handle our guns safer or pass a law that reiterates we should close a non existent loophole.

Trump is so unpredictable, we don't know what's threatened if he's president.
Clinton is a neocon. My friends and a relative have lost enough in the Middle East for me to vote for someone who is chomping at the bit to send the ones that aren't maimed or dead back over there, all so military contractors and the Saudis can see a paycheck.. World peace is threatened under her, as well as gun rights and small businesses in favor of our continued policy of corporate welfare.

I don't know which ones worse in the big picture, or for public lands. I'll abstain from a vote for either.

 

[shoots-straight]

12 less people have responded to who they would vote for compared to how many responded to who would be better for public lands. In denial or what?

 

[WapitiBob]

Trump Jr is an SFW fanboy; not somebody I want anywhere near the next President.

 

[noharleyyet]

12 less people have responded to who they would vote for compared to how many responded to who would be better for public lands. In denial or what?

I'm mystified that the cankled cackler has a stripe of any length.

 

[NoWiser]

12 less people have responded to who they would vote for compared to how many responded to who would be better for public lands. In denial or what?

I know which of the two I trust more with public lands. I don't plan on voting for either of the choices listed.

 

[James Riley]

I'm mystified that the cankled cackler has a stripe of any length.

No mystery. She's a Democrat; Democrats aren't much on giving, or even selling, away public resources to the private sector. Parties suck, but on the TPL issue, there is no question on that point.

 

[noharleyyet]

She and her cadre are consummate capitalists. Do you really believe she's welded to Democratic tenets?

 

[James Riley]

She and her cadre are consummate capitalists. Do you really believe she's welded to Democratic tenets?

If her and her cadre were consummate capitalists then they'd be Republicans, wouldn't they? At the very least, most of the Republican Party would be voting for her if that were true. Don't Republicans lay exclusive claim to capitalism, whereas all Democrats are Communists?

I don't think her and her cadre would slip too far from Democratic tenets, especially when it comes to giving away or selling public resources to the private sector.