McMorris Rodgers...Thoughts?

[ChrisC]

I came across that article of her cosponsoring that bill, but who really gets the last say? She pushes the agenda of the president. They both agree of resource extraction, and i gave the edge to him in my guess about whether the government keeps ownership. She could push to sell them, but based on what he said (i know, i know) he wouldn't let it happen.

 

[ChrisC]

I just read my last post and it sounds like im defending trump. Make no mistake, i dont like much about the guy. Im just trying to reach for some hope that lands will remain public.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I came across that article of her cosponsoring that bill, but who really gets the last say? She pushes the agenda of the president. They both agree of resource extraction, and i gave the edge to him in my guess about whether the government keeps ownership. She could push to sell them, but based on what he said (i know, i know) he wouldn't let it happen.

Yes & no. Secretaries, and I believe this will be true more so under Trump, have a lot of discretion as to what they can and can't do, which policies to pursue, which legislation to promote or which rules to keep or scrap. If this is his pick, and depending on who he picks for BLM & USFWS, we could be in for an era where the sale or transfer is off the table, but the erosion of public involvement in the process of managing lands is front and center. Essentially, you can privatize public lands without selling them simply by changing the rules to favor industry over the public. That's already coming both from Trump & from congress. It's easy to focus just on the transfer & sale aspect and that's what Bishop, et al want you to do. It's bait and switch in it's purest political form.

Trump isn't the guy who sits down his cabinet and provides concrete and well thought out direction.He's not that focused and based on his desire to retain his TV show, I'm not even sure he's interested in the presidency.

 

[Hunting Wife]

So from what I've read, trump doesnt want to sell public lands. The potential SOI is big into resource exploitation. It seems to me that they plan on holding onto public lands but open them up to oil, natutal gas, timber, possibly coal. Maybe im thinking on the extreme end of things, but it looks like we could either lose our lands by selling to states /private, or keep them public but run into drilling/mining operations all over the place due to federal leasing programs. Seems like a lesser of two evils situation.

Well, are you going to believe his actions or his words?

I'll post this again because people really don't seem to understand what powers the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture have when it comes to public land acquisition and disposal.
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34273.pdf

The Clif's Notes:
They have the primary responsibility for identifying what lands to acquire and what land to dispose of.
For parcels less than 2500 acres, the Secretary has sole authority to approve the sale of federal lands. No presidential or Congressional approval necessary.
The primary means of disposal shall be competitive bid.
The justifications the Secretary may use for the sale of federal lands are extremely broad, and sound very similar to all the justifications that have been given for why the federal lands should be transferred to states.

Sound like powers you want bestowed on someone who has actively supported efforts to transfer and sell federal lands? We will now be able to skip all the messy transfer crap and just cut straight to auctions.

"Drill, baby, drill" is so 2008. How about "Sell the best, and mine the rest"?

 

[JoseCuervo]

I came across that article of her cosponsoring that bill, but who really gets the last say? She pushes the agenda of the president. They both agree of resource extraction, and i gave the edge to him in my guess about whether the government keeps ownership. She could push to sell them, but based on what he said (i know, i know) he wouldn't let it happen.

Based on what he said during his campaign, and what you have seen since, what makes you think ANYTHING he said prior to November 8 means anything to him?

Remember when he blasted Ted Cruz for having a loan from Goldman Sachs? Remember when he blasted Hillary Clinton for giving a speech to Goldman Sachs? Are you aware he has now appointed 3 people from Goldman Sachs to the highest levels of his administration?


I am willing to bet he doesn't remember giving an interview to some guy from Field and Stream, and, I am willing to bet he doesn't care what he told some guy from Field and Stream.

Keep thinking it won't happen...

 

[Oneye]

Based on what he said during his campaign, and what you have seen since, what makes you think ANYTHING he said prior to November 8 means anything to him?

Remember when he blasted Ted Cruz for having a loan from Goldman Sachs? Remember when he blasted Hillary Clinton for giving a speech to Goldman Sachs? Are you aware he has now appointed 3 people from Goldman Sachs to the highest levels of his administration?


I am willing to bet he doesn't remember giving an interview to some guy from Field and Stream, and, I am willing to bet he doesn't care what he told some guy from Field and Stream.

Keep thinking it won't happen...

Jose, jose, jose. This man ran his campaign duping people into believing he was not part of the elite that screwed and continues to screw over the middle class. Ignoring the fact he is a billionaire who has donated to and used the very system he now promotes by appointing political insiders and the same people who broke the middle classes back to his top positions in his cabinet. Yet you who support him will willfully ignore it because you like the guy. Trump is entertaining, he is a fun side show, and he says the right things, that doesn't mean he does the right things. He tells you to "believe me" and apparently some will believe him even if he tells them one thing and his actions prove the exact opposite. Its time people stop being so ridiculous about this guy and just be honest about him. He is a liar, a cheat, a fraud, and a coward in many ways who attacks people on twitter. He has a loud voice, but he is not a strong man. He broke peoples backs who worked for him, attacks anyone who criticizes him indirectly, uses his position to screw people over he doesn't agree with, and lies his ass off just like the Carrier union leader said. Is he dumb no....... because he knows how to use the shit out of people even when he's continually lying to them and stabbing them in the back. We now have a guy who will get everything done, and will cut deals with congress to get non-conservative issues he wants pushed through. Public lands are in a shittier place every day with this guy, and I don't give two shits what he posted on Facebook, I care what he actually does. What he has done so far, SUCKS. Also, I would love to hear how great Trump is for appointing Goldman and Sachs to his appointments, but how bad Hillary was for taking money from them. The hypocrisy and double standards among so many of these issues is mind boggling.

 

[Ben Lamb]

It's all fine. Monster burgers & wrestling for everyone!

 

[Southern Elk]

Yes & no. Secretaries, and I believe this will be true more so under Trump, have a lot of discretion as to what they can and can't do, which policies to pursue, which legislation to promote or which rules to keep or scrap. If this is his pick, and depending on who he picks for BLM & USFWS, we could be in for an era where the sale or transfer is off the table, but the erosion of public involvement in the process of managing lands is front and center. Essentially, you can privatize public lands without selling them simply by changing the rules to favor industry over the public. That's already coming both from Trump & from congress. It's easy to focus just on the transfer & sale aspect and that's what Bishop, et al want you to do. It's bait and switch in it's purest political form.

Trump isn't the guy who sits down his cabinet and provides concrete and well thought out direction.He's not that focused and based on his desire to retain his TV show, I'm not even sure he's interested in the presidency.

I think this is a more likely scenario than sale or transfer. The end goal is making money off the land from mineral extraction.

 

[RobG]

Yes & no. Secretaries, and I believe this will be true more so under Trump, have a lot of discretion as to what they can and can't do, which policies to pursue, which legislation to promote or which rules to keep or scrap. If this is his pick, and depending on who he picks for BLM & USFWS, we could be in for an era where the sale or transfer is off the table, but the erosion of public involvement in the process of managing lands is front and center. Essentially, you can privatize public lands without selling them simply by changing the rules to favor industry over the public. That's already coming both from Trump & from congress. It's easy to focus just on the transfer & sale aspect and that's what Bishop, et al want you to do. It's bait and switch in it's purest political form.

It's already being slapped onto the table. http://swanforestinitiative.org/

 

[jabber]

It's already being slapped onto the table. http://swanforestinitiative.org/

You do realize that started about 4 years ago according to the link.

 

[RobG]

You do realize that started about 4 years ago according to the link.

It's new news to most. As far as I know, it wasn't even on the radar when Fielder and White got munched up in Seeley in September.

 

[u1299]

Yes & no. Secretaries, and I believe this will be true more so under Trump, have a lot of discretion as to what they can and can't do, which policies to pursue, which legislation to promote or which rules to keep or scrap. If this is his pick, and depending on who he picks for BLM & USFWS, we could be in for an era where the sale or transfer is off the table, but the erosion of public involvement in the process of managing lands is front and center. Essentially, you can privatize public lands without selling them simply by changing the rules to favor industry over the public. That's already coming both from Trump & from congress. It's easy to focus just on the transfer & sale aspect and that's what Bishop, et al want you to do. It's bait and switch in it's purest political form.

Trump isn't the guy who sits down his cabinet and provides concrete and well thought out direction.He's not that focused and based on his desire to retain his TV show, I'm not even sure he's interested in the presidency.

In Trump I see a man who as you said really doesn't care about being President, don't think he ever did, which is why you see the types of people who is picking for his cabinet.. It's almost as if he's saying: "I don't having a flipping clue what I'm doing or what I'm supposed to be doing so go out and run the country for me, make shit up as you go and please don't bore or bother me with the details" Make America Great again. He's providing no direction because he has no direction.

As public land advocates we need not worry, Trumps kids are hunters! I saw that post somewhere.

 

[Brittany Chukarman]

I'll write my politicians about my concerns but right now I'm more concerned about what to do with my remaining $136.00 of my Social Security check after paying my monthly insurance premium.

 

[JoseCuervo]

I'll write my politicians about my concerns but right now I'm more concerned about what to do with my remaining $136.00 of my Social Security check after paying my monthly insurance premium.

I am guessing you will need the extra $136 to add to your Paul Ryan Vouchercare insurance so that you don't ever have to worry about that old Medicare.

 

[belly-deep]

I am guessing you will need the extra $136 to add to your Paul Ryan Vouchercare insurance so that you don't ever have to worry about that old Medicare.

I'm glad you're happy with your insurance hoser. My premiums are going up $180/month.

And that, right there folks, is why Trump won. So as you sit and sob with a box of kleenex over our lands being transferred, think about all of those who now have Obamacare and get that warm feeling deep down inside.

 

[Northwoods Labs]

Not sure how obamacare got brought up in this thread as it has nothing to do with public lands.

This nomination is truly unfortunate, but not unexpected. I will be contacting my Republican Senator. Not sure if it will do a ton of good. Keeping public lands public is a priority. Trump stated he would keep these lands public, but I wouldn't take his word on anything. Even if they do remain public, it doesn't do us much good if they become environmental sacrifice zones for energy development.

 

[Oneye]

I'm glad you're happy with your insurance hoser. My premiums are going up $180/month.

And that, right there folks, is why Trump won. So as you sit and sob with a box of kleenex over our lands being transferred, think about all of those who now have Obamacare and get that warm feeling deep down inside.

Belly deep, I think you're sitting aside the fact Obama has a 60% approval rating and no Trump won because he ran against one of the most despicable candidates in history. The majority of Americans still see him as unfavorable and if you think Obama was bad wait until the republicans overplay there hand and lose it all in 4 years. Whether you like it or not and whether the votes came from cookey California or nutty New York the majority of Americans still voted for Hillary Clinton, by the tune of over 2.6 million people. Trump was elected because of a perfect storm and would have been defeated easily had the democrats not ran the worst candidate in history with more baggage than any politician to ever run....and she still got the popular vote. I get sick of this Trump got elected because America embraced him, NO. Trump got elected because of the disgraceful position America was in.

 

[belly-deep]

Belly deep, I think you're sitting aside the fact Obama has a 60% approval rating and no Trump won because he ran against one of the most despicable candidates in history. The majority of Americans still see him as unfavorable and if you think Obama was bad wait until the republicans overplay there hand and lose it all in 4 years. Whether you like it or not and whether the votes came from cookey California or nutty New York the majority of Americans still voted for Hillary Clinton, by the tune of over 2.6 million people. Trump was elected because of a perfect storm and would have been defeated easily had the democrats not ran the worst candidate in history with more baggage than any politician to ever run....and she still got the popular vote. I get sick of this Trump got elected because America embraced him, NO. Trump got elected because of the disgraceful position America was in.

Obama has a high approval rating but his policies, when polled individually, did not, and a majority of Americans were not happy with the direction he was taking the country.

Now, back to the thread topic.

 

[Oneye]

Obama has a high approval rating but his policies, when polled individually, did not, and a majority of Americans were not happy with the direction he was taking the country.

Now, back to the thread topic.

My point is, had it been Bernie Sandars who actually paid attention to the "blue wall" during his campaign, and who was way off in left field compared to Obama, as someone who disagrees with much of what he believes he would have swept Trump off the map, so let's get over this why Trump was elected thing. It's not true. The truth is Hillary Clinton sucked worse than any politicians in history and that's why he won, and as I said still substantially lost the popular vote. As someone who voted for neither of them, I could have voted Sanders without a second thought. I'll take honesty I can oppose, over bold face lying any day. Like you said moving on.....

 

[belly-deep]

My point is, had it been Bernie Sandars who actually paid attention to the "blue wall" during his campaign, and who was way off in left field compared to Obama, as someone who disagrees with much of what he believes he would have swept Trump off the map, so let's get over this why Trump was elected thing. It's not true. The truth is Hillary Clinton sucked worse than any politicians in history and that's why he won, and as I said still substantially lost the popular vote. As someone who voted for neither of them, I could have voted Sanders without a second thought. I'll take honesty I can oppose, over bold face lying any day. Like you said moving on.....

Oneye,

You could say the very same thing about Trump, that had a different Republican been nominated, they would have swept the floor with Hillary and she would have lost the popular vote in addition to the electoral vote. We can do all sorts of HT forum debating, but at the end of the day Trump will be moving into the White House shortly.