Irrelevant
Well-known member
I don't honestly think that Biden or Sanders or any of the current front runners are going to be the nominee. I think the final candidate will look closer to 2008 than 2016. Despite what the media may try to do.
MT residents thoughts on Steve Bullock
- Thread starter Ben Nicholson
- Start date
- Status
BigHornRam
Well-known member
I'm starting to get a whiff of a 2016 repeat.
Establishment Democrats ( the ones with the money) will not allow an out of the box candidate they can't control. When is Tester going to make his endorsement? It was Clinton that Tester endorsed right out of the chute in 2016. Going to be Clinton again in 2020?Yellowstoner
Member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2015
- Messages
- 167
I think you'll find that these issues are not party specific - there are republicans and democrats that go both ways on every one of these issues. The party defining issues are more aligned with budgetary decisions - health care, taxation, government subsidies, and defense spending.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
Most Democrats in Montana vote for most of those very things you asked about. I would only guess on the Montanan's that are Dems that would vote to ban guns and say that number would be very low. When it comes to land access you have no farther to look that what happened last year on the Horse Creek Conservation Easement. R's fought very hard to derail this agreement, as Bullock used Executive order to force it through. Horse Creek Conservation Easement ended up in Supreme Court . When it comes to property rights I get the feeling that the R's are fully behind "Private Propterty Rights" but have no sympathy for "Public property's rights". The place for him is making those things at the national level turn around to be more moderate. I know he's not "Pretending" anything on those issues.
RockyMtnMT
Member
- Joined
- May 29, 2019
- Messages
- 81
If he truly believes these things he is in the wrong party. Switch parties where it could be discussed.
Pelican
Well-known member
Nicely done. In two short sentences you have pinpointed to me why the two-party system isn’t working, albeit inadvertently.
That binary rhetorical question you pose reflects the dilemma facing many self-thinking rural Democrats and many independent-minded urban Republicans. It is seldom that simple as either/or, in/out, with/against, as you have painted the situation, but surely contradictions exist for those not inclined to be a party shill.
At the risk of following the binary framework posed, I think it can be answered, to some degree, by looking at the 2016 election. For Bullock to be elected as a MT Democrat in a 2016 statewide race when Montana was swept overwhelmingly by Trump provides pretty good evidence that the Montana electorate feels he really holds those positions and is not "pretending."
Like most have stated here, and you mention, there is little room for Bullock and other rural Dems in the party run by DNC know-it-alls who are mostly urbanites. The DNC bosses want all the seats they can get, so they support/tolerate whatever candidate they think can get elected in the geographic location said candidate is running.
The Bullock situation compared against the bigger Democratic Party is similar to urban Republicans who have very different positions on gun issues, lower spending, smaller government than most their rural/suburban Republican caucus members. The urban Republican phenomena can cause an observer to wonder if some of the questions you ask hold true, just applied to the supposed values as stated by the Republican party and the RNC brass . The RNC bosses, just like the DNC bosses want all the seats they can get, so they support/tolerate whatever candidate they think can get elected in the geographic location said candidate is running.
I doubt either Bullock or urban Republicans "pretend." I suspect they actually do support positions that can take them outside their party norms and they have to accept they are never going to be the mainstream position of the party they are affiliated with. Coming from a rural state, I tend to ask it in the same context you have, though my travels to DC and interaction with urban R's on issues show me that the conundrum/reality holds true for them also.
Thirty years of being in this advocacy game has puts me in contact with lots of politicians and staffers, making me less reliant on news sources and more comfortable in my first-hand experience and the network of trusted people on the inside that I can talk to on topics I've made my priority. In that process I've encountered plenty urban Republicans that I do not trust to be an advocate for the cause of my guns, hunting, access, and a reasonable approach to natural resources.
I don't provide that as a blanket statement of all one way or the other, or that one side has it all figured out, or one side is all wrong. Rather, it reflects my belief that many of the differences on these topics are less R v. D and more urban v. rural, almost always reflective of the life experiences of the elected person and the opinions the elected person knows are held by their urban/rural electorates.
I hope we never end up where every candidate is a complete Party controlled shill, either R or D, though in my 36 years as a registered voter the power held by DNC/RNC leaders seem to have us headed that way and the pace toward that end seems to be accelerating. It is for that reason I am completely anti-party, or maybe better termed, party-agnostic. The DNC/RNC can stick their parties, their platforms, and their know-it-all attitudes. Being more involved in the processes than I ever cared to be, my distrust for both sides and the two-party system itself is growing higher every year.
Last edited:
RockyMtnMT
Member
- Joined
- May 29, 2019
- Messages
- 81
I agree other than I think the two party system works best for the sake that if there were multiple parties there would be continuous run offs and no consensus to move issues forward. The party platform for each party should be looked at closely. Of The two parties as they sit today, the Republican party is the only one that allows descent within the party. Candidates are only as good as their party and the party must be moved from within. The socialist movement in the dems is stronger than ever before. Which does not bold well for anything that we as sportsmen value most. Freedom vs government control. Nothing good comes from a governmental system that carries the power to make life decisions for its population. No socialist country in the world has succeeded. They all end up with people throwing rocks at the armed gov officials. Venezuela, the glittering jewel of the left in our country, is the most recent example. The only hunting people there are worried about Is the neighbors pets for food.
The work should be done to change the party platform. Pick a party.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Your question and conclusion are not really a question and factual assertion, but an opinion based on your perception and experience with the two party system and the stances on hunting, gun rights, natural resources, and public land access. Unfortunately we all are suffering from the perpetuation through the media, through the pundits, and from those purporting to "know" the party line. It seems both parties would have you believe they are for those aspects of the issues surrounding hunting, gun rights, natural resources, and public land access which will motivate you to vote for their candidate(s). The tricky part is to sort out what is your own opinion (such as the question - assertion) you made above regarding Bullock from what is real and true with respect to each candidate. My opinion regarding what is posed as a question - assertion quoted above is completely different from that ... and is not so rigidly stuck on such overly simplistic questions as, "Pro hunting ... yes or no?"
Agree.
If he was still alive, I suspect Senator John McCain (R-AZ) could give some insight to how those dissenting votes endeared him to his party bosses. Ask Senator Richard Burr (R-NC) how his dissent vote worked when he voted to cut other places in the temporary spending resolution, rather than gut conservation programs. Both got taken to the woodshed. Ask any of the R's who got targeted in primaries for not following the party line.
Dissent is not tolerated in either party when the chips are on the line. Behind the curtain vote counting will allow some to vote against the party if the vote margin is safe. Both sides do it and allow it. Yet, to take a different path when the party bosses (Mitch, Chuck, Nancy, Kevin) put you in the headlock and demand you change your vote, comes with serious consequences in both parties. I could fill pages of examples from both parties punishing dissenters.
Agree, at least as advocated by their most vocal and high profile newcomers and one gray-haired fart from Vermont looking for an audience to buy him ice cream.
Given the spending habits of the last two years while under full Republican control of every branch of government, the Republicans are making a great case that the socialist principles of spending other people's money works for them, also.
In the true sense of socialist movements, borrowing money and shifting the repayment burden to those unborn/non-voters who have no say in the debts racked up by officials elected by their parents/grandparents is probably considered even more socialist than elected officials taxing the current voters and annually reallocating the financial burden among those who were eligible to vote for the officials enacting such plan.
Both the R and D party have highly socialist tendencies when it comes to fiscal policy/irresponsibility. Just a matter of how much the blend settles between "borrow and spend" and "tax and spend." So long as neither side has interest in controlling spending, pick your poison and call the other side's path "socialism."
The US has tons of social programs and tendencies. We have had socialized medicine ever since we decided we will not turn away anyone at the door due to lack of ability to pay. We may not look at it that way, but such a policy is a completely socialist position in the true context of socialism.
The largest retirement system in the world, though not intended to become a retirement program, is in the US; Social Security. That is a completely socialist program, even though it has folks paying into it by varying degrees. Wanna see a self-proclaimed anti-socialist Republican squirm, send him/her to an open house of AARP members to talk about the reality we face with SS. He/she quickly becomes a convert to socialism.
The most expensive socialized health care system in the world is in the US; Medicare. And, likely to expand or increase. The last huge increase in this socialist program came when Bush-Cheney administration signed on for Medicare Part D (prescription drug benefit), encumbering children and grandchildren with trillions of dollars in future liability for those who had not saved or were not willing to pay for their prescriptions from their savings.
We have a system that mostly taxes the labor pool for infrastructure and institutions that disproportionately benefit the capital pool. Capital and markets are hugely subsidized, via tax policy, provided institutions, financial infrastructure, socializing costs while retaining private profits, etc. We have done so by borrowing against labor of future generations that will be taxed. Our tax policy has given huge preference to capital over labor, causing one primary economic pool to pay for the majority of costs that benefit the other primary economic pool. By all accounts I am familiar with, that is a socialist model just viewed through the lens of capital v. labor rather than R v. D or one generation v. the next.
We have promised, as of last count, over $122 Trillion in future promises that have benefited current or past generations, yet will have to be paid/repaid by future generations. That Federal liability for future promises is $122 TRILLION of socialism redistributed between generations. Let any country/generation borrow $100Trillion+ from future citizens and they should have one hell of a booming economy and lifestyle, socialism concerns be damned.
The list of social examples expressed in core institutions of this country is a mile long. Some from Rs, some from Ds, some when they joined hands to milk the benefits and passed the bill to future Americans.
To your point of socialism and successes, whether or not we will succeed in this socialist model of fiscal irresponsibility is yet to be determined. To date, many would say the US has succeeded better than most, though when measured by standard of living, life expectancy, happiness, the smaller-population socialist countries of Europe are supposedly succeeding more.
Both sides love socialist principles. Just a matter of which side's methodology one prefers.
Agreed.
Go for it. I would take a bullet before I would subrogate my liberties and freedoms to a party boss.
Now, how 'bout we get back to the topic of Bullock having a chance in the Democratic primary field.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Governor Steve Bullock as a real person not only walks the talk, but also runs. This morning he spoke to the crowd in Helena just before the Governor's Cup 5k race and he emphasized outdoor recreation, family oriented fun, exercise and good health. He had just finished third in his senior division of the half marathon race ... and then ran the 5k with his daughter and son, finishing right behind them. Bullock is the real deal!
375H&H
Well-known member
Whoopie ding. Trump makes the White House executive chefs cook him chili dogs and is in great health.
Personally I’m more concerned with actions and statements more relevant to my life then if someone supports personal health, as I believe that is up to me, not a politician.
Last edited:
Agree. Butt out of my personal life. This applies to all politicians and the two party Bosses that operate the mechanical interests of their own Party agendas vs the representation of the people.
With respect to Bullock, he's entering the big pond (outside the borders of Montana) of Boss Party politics and stepping in line with such.
Where Steve Bullock Stands on the Issues (Published 2019)
Mr. Bullock, the latest Democrat to announce his presidential campaign, was twice elected governor of deep-red Montana. But his policies aren’t all centrist.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Bullock's crusade against "dark money" is not scoring him any points with the establishment.
kpax.com
Gov. Bullock challenging IRS over “dark money” in campaigns
Gov. Bullock is touting his fight of dark money on the presidential campaign trail while again taking his fight to court and suing the IRS.
kpax.com
RockyMtnMT
Member
- Joined
- May 29, 2019
- Messages
- 81
I agree that these are social programs that have been set in motion on the backs of future generations. What we currently lack is gov ownership of private enterprise. This seems to be the answer that the Dems are promoting for fixing the problem that we are currently sitting in. As a civilized country we made the decision to take care of our fellow countrymen when needed. The natural progression of this is for politicians without merit to purchase votes by promising to pay for things with others money. "If you vote for me I'll give you free stuff by taking money from people that earned it" Ooops, I meant to say rich people. So the dems appear to be selling the solution for our current spending problems as a full take over of commerce. True socialism where to gov actually owns the property.
The final stage of every governmental system is communism. Then governmental collapse. The only diff between socialism and communism is when the gov runs out of others money and uses a gun to force the people to work. Since the gov is the only ones with guns. Safer for everybody right?
I personally value nothing more than my ability to hunt, fish, and recreate. I make my living in the hunting shooting industry. It is not the right that wants to regulate my industry for the "greater good".
I have said my piece and will bow out. Thanks guys.
Nameless Range
Well-known member
I found this article to be interesting.
The fact is, this whole system of choosing who gets to climb into the political octagon is corrupt, divisive, and unnecessary.
Montana Articles
Montana history articles about montana Indians, montana mountain men, and montana dinosaurs. The history of Montana from the dawn of time to today.
www.bigskywords.com
The fact is, this whole system of choosing who gets to climb into the political octagon is corrupt, divisive, and unnecessary.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Good. About time.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Perhaps our acceptance and even gratefulness for the socialistic programs such as Medicare, Social Security, the VA, and others is due to the mixed governance with representative democracy being at the core. IMO, to point to the tragic state of Venezuela as evolving because of socialism is not accurate. I see Venezuela as a military oligarchy, with the wealth focused on benefiting those elitists, in particular President Maduro.
That is why I think it important to consider a candidate for our Presidency such as Steve Bullock, someone who has grown up as a middle class "hometown boy", was educated through the public school system, and who, by all indicators, is a politician by the people and, more importantly, for the people. It has been emphasized widely that those who rise to the leadership in each of the two primary political parties are born into, or at least evolve into oligarchists, with a level of elitism far beyond that of any of us Hunttalkers.
Case in point; our current President would find it difficult to relate to walking to and from school, plodding through the snow or sleet in frigid winter temperatures, and having to work a paper route to buy that first bicycle ... especially in view of the debilitating bone spur condition.
(Bias of cynical comment based on two-tour Vietnam veteran status, for full disclosure.)
- Status
Similar threads
