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

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

  • Trump with public lands

    Votes: 39 37.5%

  • Clinton with public lands

    Votes: 45 43.3%

  • I will vote Trump

    Votes: 61 58.7%

  • I will vote Clinton

    Votes: 16 15.4%
  • Total voters
    104
James Riley said:
I don't support Hillary but I find your post hypocritical. A business man of 50 years will step on toes. I get it. A politician and lawyer of 50 years will do likewise. So your argument rings hollow. If you are going to come to the defense of Donald, you should find a better nail to hang your hat on.
Click to expand...

Pray do tell where I inferred otherwise about Hillary or anyone else for that matter?

When person says they have had personal dealing with someone and found them to be respectful and honorable. Who are you or anyone else so say their thoughts are invalid?
 
Trial153 said:
Yes his father is correct, the man I am voting for. He has always been honanable and respectful in dealing with my family, I have no problem taking him at his word. If he doesn't live up to his word then it's his dishonor not those who trusted In him. Further more I am happy that Don Jr will have a voice in whitehouse even if it's just in private. By all accounts he is very pro public land and North American model for wildlife and conservation. I will take that over the alternatives both currently and formally in the primary's.
Click to expand...

When Jr's the Keynote speaker at the SFW convention he obviously believes in their program, which by practice is a long way from pro public land and the North American Model. SFW and the UDWR is a blueprint for successful cronyism and corruption. I choose not to support those who believe in it.
 
Trial153 said:
Pray do tell where I inferred otherwise about Hillary or anyone else for that matter?

When person says they have had personal dealing with someone and found them to be respectful and honorable. Who are you or anyone else so say their thoughts are invalid?
Click to expand...

Pray do tell where I inferred your thoughts are invalid? I said you sound like a hypocrite defending Trump and not extending the same accord to Hillary. Your thoughts about the merits of any specific case of character flaw or virtue of either Donald or Hillary IS valid. Your defending Donald against all the specific crap that has been thrown against him here in this thread (with citations, by the way) without extending the same defense to Hillary is the problem. Here, let me make it clear. You: "Donald good because XYZ." Opposition: "Donald bad because ABC." You: "Oh well, ABC doesn't matter because shit happens, and XYZ."

P.S. Who are you or anyone else to say Condon's thoughts are invalid? You said "Are you for real?"
 
Last edited:
4 years of Hillary and the Supreme Court will have moved to the left for our lifetime. Say goodbye to 2nd amendment as we know it. Hillary has been bought by energy before, and could easily again. I don't trust her on this or anything else. She is as crooked a liar as I've ever witnessed, there is zero chance I could vote for her. Just what is KNOWN about her is practically beyond belief!
 
While I agree, I don't think any of the Presidents who have been in office since I was in High school have been the slightest bit different. The only reason Reagan didn't die in prison is because paper shreds and hard drives don't.
Reagan ,CHeney, Rumsfeld, both Bushes, Clintons Obama .. they all belong in jail. They are all the same. If we would stop believing that we need to fear the other guy getting the office then decent people in 3rd. 4th even 10th party candidates would have a chance. Why Ben Carson isn't the Republican nominee is way beyond me..
 
Last edited:
PRM said:
4 years of Hillary and the Supreme Court will have moved to the left for our lifetime. Say goodbye to 2nd amendment as we know it. Hillary has been bought by energy before, and could easily again. I don't trust her on this or anything else. She is as crooked a liar as I've ever witnessed, there is zero chance I could vote for her. Just what is KNOWN about her is practically beyond belief!
Click to expand...
.


https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/

270 vs 30-06 for antelope?
 
Last edited:
Trump is saying very different things in the interview linked above than what he said to field and stream regarding our public lands. Might be time to start researching some third party candidates more in-depth to see where they stand on public lands, conservation, 2nd amendment, etc.
 
This just popped from E&E Daily:

Trump won't denounce Bundys, mum on land disposals

Phil Taylor, E&E reporter
Published: Monday, August 1, 2016

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump on Friday declined to denounce Ammon Bundy for seizing the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge earlier this year or his father Cliven Bundy's armed standoff with the Bureau of Land Management two years earlier.

Trump also declined to say whether the federal government owns too much land in the West, a sign he may be backtracking on his earlier opposition to transferring those lands to states. Instead, Trump told a Colorado news station that he is "going to take a very serious look at that" and is crafting a new policy.

In a wide-ranging interview, KUSA reporter Brandon Rittiman asked Trump for his thoughts on Ammon Bundy's takeover of the 188,000-acre refuge in southeast Oregon. The takeover, a protest of federal land control, lasted 40 days and resulted in dozens of arrests and the fatal police shooting of one refuge occupant, Arizona rancher LaVoy Finicum, during a Jan. 26 traffic stop.

"It was a tough period of time," Trump said near the middle of the 14-minute interview. "It was very tough."

But when asked whether the Bundys had gone too far, Trump simply said there was "a lot of emotion."

"I'm not going to comment on who went too far," he said, "but I will tell you there's a lot of emotion on that issue."

That's a softer tone than Trump took in early January, just days after the refuge occupation began. According to The New York Times, Trump told the paper's editorial board he would have called Bundy to cut a deal to end it but would have taken action against the militants if they refused to budge, because "you cannot let people take over federal property."

While Trump has said little about the refuge takeover, a key ally of his campaign -- 61-year-old Jerry DeLemus of New Hampshire, who a year ago was named co-chairman of Trump's "Veterans for Trump" coalition -- traveled to Malheur in January to speak with the occupants and months later was arrested over his 2014 role in Cliven Bundy's standoff.

While at the refuge, DeLemus told Greenwire that he was not a part of the occupation but that its leaders "have a plan so things don't go bad" and "they stand a good chance at success."
According to federal prosecutors, DeLemus in 2014 brought firearms and ammunition to Cliven Bundy's ranch and harbored a "desire and willingness to kill cops." DeLemus in April pleaded not guilty to nearly a dozen counts in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. His case is pending.

Trump has previously expressed sympathy for Cliven Bundy, telling Fox News in April 2014 that "I like his spirit, his spunk."

"He ought to go and cut a good deal [with the federal government] right now," Trump said. "What's he going to do? Are they going to start shooting each other over grazing fees? ... He's in a great position, I think, to cut a great deal."
Rittiman on Friday also asked Trump whether the federal government's ownership of 47 percent of Western lands was too much. Trump demurred.

"It's a question I get asked an awful lot out here," Trump said. "I have some pretty strong opinions, but I won't talk about it right now."

Trump has previously denounced Republican calls to transfer federal lands to states. In January, Trump told the outdoor sporting magazine Field & Stream he opposed federal land transfers "because I want to keep the lands great."
"You don't know what the state is going to do," he said at the time. "I mean, are they going to sell if they get into a little bit of trouble?"

He and his son Donald Trump Jr. have touted that position as the campaign seeks the support of hook-and-bullet voters who are concerned that land transfers will diminish opportunities to hunt and fish.
Yet Trump the candidate has waffled on the message a bit over the past several months.

In a January op-ed in the Reno Gazette-Journal, for example, the candidate slammed the "draconian rule of the BLM" in a piece clearly aimed at courting Nevada voters who bristle at the federal government's 85 percent ownership of the Silver State.

Trump's latest comments come weeks after Republican Party leaders approved a 2016 policy platform strengthening calls for the federal government to dispose of its lands (Greenwire, July 19).
"It is absurd to think that all that acreage must remain under the absentee ownership or management of official Washington," the Republican platform reads. "Congress shall immediately pass universal legislation providing for a timely and orderly mechanism requiring the federal government to convey certain federally controlled public lands to states."

The Trump campaign has parted from the Republican mainstream on other issues affecting land management and energy development.

In June, Donald Trump Jr. said BLM regulations to keep drilling on federal lands farther from national parks and wildlife habitat were "reasonable," a stark contrast from the views of industry officials and most Western Republicans.

In Friday's interview, the elder Trump expressed sympathy for Colorado voters' rights to choose whether hydraulic fracturing should be allowed within municipalities or the state, a position that put him at odds with the state's pro-drilling camp as well as its Democratic governor, who support state regulation of the drilling technique and believe access to mineral rights must be protected
Click to expand...
 
As much as I'm a supporter of keeping public lands public, this issue isn't even close to being at the top of the list of reasons to support or not support a presidential candidate. To me the biggest issues are the economy and national security. Without a great economy and a safe country, none of the other things really matter. A strong economy is very important in maintaining the wildlife habitat and the public lands that we now have. With Clinton, this country will continue to go downhill economically AND environmentally. We will also continue to be at great risk due to the lack of any kind of border control and the fact that she wants to increase the number of of Syrian refugees coming in, over the ridiculously high numbers that Obama is currently allowing into our country.
 
Washington Hunter said:
As much as I'm a supporter of keeping public lands public, this issue isn't even close to being at the top of the list of reasons to support or not support a presidential candidate. To me the biggest issues are the economy and national security. Without a great economy and a safe country, none of the other things really matter. A strong economy is very important in maintaining the wildlife habitat and the public lands that we now have. With Clinton, this country will continue to go downhill economically AND environmentally. We will also continue to be at great risk due to the lack of any kind of border control and the fact that she wants to increase the number of of Syrian refugees coming in, over the ridiculously high numbers that Obama is currently allowing into our country.
Click to expand...

Ahhhh... I see. But that is not what this thread is actually about. It is about public lands. Not the economy and Xenophibia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

O
Utah CD2 special election (Chris Stewart’s district)
Replies
2
Views
487
Aperventure
A
A
Montana Public Trust Coalition
Replies
4
Views
978
Andrew Posewitz
A
Nameless Range
The Fallacy of “Spreading Out The Use” in Land Management
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
bayoublaster7527
B
Pucky Freak
Historically-representative ecosystem management
Replies
12
Views
946
Pucky Freak
Pucky Freak
davinski
Access idea re: landlocked public, PILT, and property taxes
2
Replies
20
Views
2K
Deleted member 20812
D
GOHUNT Insider

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
111,239
Messages
1,952,088
Members
35,098
Latest member
Trapper330

Share this page

Back
Top