Sportsmen for Trump & the selling out of the American Sportsman

[ImBillT]

I am neither a democrat nor a republican, but it isn't the democrats that have have a plank in the their platform that is anti-gun ( they do have one for increased background checks) or anti hunting. In fact, I went wolf hunting a few times this winter because our Senator, a democrat, along with another senator, a republican, codified in a bill their delisting in the west. So anti hunting of him.

The republicans have established themselves as anti public lands through a proclamation in their own platform.

Yet, even the codified priorities of the club they themselves have chosen to join don't tell the tale. There are Republicans who support public lands, and there are democrats who support hunting and the 2nd. Some of the most anti-huntinest/anti-fishinest bills I've ever seen have spawned from GOP peabrains in the Montana legislature.

Party priorities can change, and maybe they are. Good people come from both sides of the isle, as do chitheads, and I believe that is the best attitude to have. Largely because of insight shared on this forum over the course of a decade.

I know about state transfer plank, but which plank in the Republican platform is anit-gun?

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Reagan fails to use the term “assault weapon” in the video you posted. The issue at the time revolved around fully automatic weapons and Reagan said “machine gun”.

No. I think you can argue that Reagan was pretty on par with say the policies of Gov Hickenlooper when it came to gun control.

I'm just pointing out a fact, not making a political statement one way or another.

 

[Sytes]

And the survey says? I like elkdud's comment though every 4 posts (edit: oops he said five) would detract from the popcorn buttered fingers reading and posting.

I imagine every 30 post I might message off to an organization as a member, or shoot off an email to my Senators, etc.
Meh, maybe every 40.
Besides, more often than not we're here for this purpose:

 

[Irrelevant]

Not sure if you caught this radiolab episode, but it gives some interesting background on the 2A and how the political discourse has evolved over time. (I'm not posting to refute your statement... it's just an interesting listen)

https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/radiolab-presents-more-perfect-gun-show

That's a great listen. I highly recommend everyone give that one a listen.

 

[ImBillT]

No. I think you can argue that Reagan was pretty on par with say the policies of Gov Hickenlooper when it came to gun control.

I'm just pointing out a fact, not making a political statement one way or another.
View attachment 105899

Well there it is.

 

[BWALKER77]

I think most sportsman are at least somewhat informed of history, and probably even more informed as voters. There are a few things Clinton did that I agree with and plenty that Reagan did that I think he was way off on. From a guy who has to go thru a background check to buy a box of dove loads in California because a bunch of Democrats to a guy in Montana who is worried about republicans selling/leasing public lands, the parties and priorities are obviously different.
Let’s be real, everyday Americans probably have more in common with AOC than Hillary or Donald or Don jr.

As far as the OP, I don’t see it likely or plausible that any president could permanently destroy a significant amount of public land in 8 years any more so than one could seize 393 million guns from the American people.

I don’t like either party. I didn’t vote for trump, I voted for the Supreme Court justices he would appoint. Honestly I like trump more so now than I did when he was elected. For an abundant number of reasons, none of which happen to be that Jr is a hunter and most of which are more significant to me than public lands. Passing on our heritage is more than just the land, the land is useless without the ideas of freedom, independence and economic prosperity.

Good post, except for the AOC part.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Good post, except for the AOC part.

Her bank account balance is a lot closer to mine than either Hillary or Trumps is...and I make a decent cocktail when the occasion warrants.

 

[Doublecluck]

I've worked in the conservation & political field for 17 years. I can, without a doubt, say this isn't the case. Sportsmen are just as apathetic to issues as anyone else, perhaps more-so in many instances. I do agree that most Americans have more in common with AOC than the elites who seek to rule us. That's why her message resonates, we can identify with her. Same with Crenshaw out of Texas (although he seems to be getting co-opted by the party pretty quickly rather than standing for himself).

As far as one president impacting public lands or the wildlife that live there, I point to the Wyoming Range Mule Deer herd. The decisions made by one president resulted in the crash of the largest mule deer herd in the United States. That collapse continues. One could argue that Clinton's reintroduction of wolves to the west has had similar outcomes on the scale of changing land use and management, especially at the local level where state agencies are now working on ways to mitigate the impacts of wolves to livestock, etc.

Presidents control the agencies that manage our lands. If their priority is not the wise use thereof, the impacts can last for generations. This administration's policies do increase the likelihood of denuded public lands, less wildlife and less opportunity for hunters. Clinton's record on Natural Gas development was marginally better than Bush II. Both parties do bad things, absolutely, but nobody has done the damage on the scale that this crew is currently enacting.

That’s your perception of reality based on your interpretation of the facts and I respect that. Trump may be to you on public lands what the Clintons were to me on American trade and manufacturing jobs. And I respect that. But what effects every American more? Does a sportsman who use to assemble trucks in Detroit or who is 2nd generation coal miner from West Virginia care more about mule deer in Wyoming or feeding their family and putting their kids thru college?

This notion that sportsman who support trump are eroding our public lands is insulting to our intelligence and counterproductive to our common interests.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

That’s your perception of reality based on your interpretation of the facts and I respect that. Trump may be to you on public lands what the Clintons were to me on American trade and manufacturing jobs. And I respect that. But what effects every American more? Does a guy who use to assemble trucks in Detroit or a 2nd generation coal miner from West Virginia care more about mule deer in Wyoming or feeding their family and putting their kids thru college?

This notion that sportsman who support trump are eroding our public lands is insulting to our intelligence and counterproductive to our common interests.

I’ve worked my entire career in the Oil and Gas industry. Trump is eroding our public lands, as have others, and yet he is far better for my industry than Clinton would have been. I don’t find it insulting to be confronted by that fact nor do I find it counterproductive to engage in discussions about what the administration could do better.

I face an inner struggle when I vote, as I have to decide what is most important to me. The conversation relevant to this forum is not whether x or y candidate is best for you personally but whether that candidate is best for you as a sportsman, fully acknowledging that you are many things; parent, spouse, worker, Christian, etc. and that your vote in the end might represent the worker or Christian or whatever in you more than the sportsman.

Having discussions about various politicians stances their effects on sportsman is important, if only to provide you data to use in your own internal calculus.

 

[BuzzH]

That’s your perception of reality based on your interpretation of the facts and I respect that. Trump may be to you on public lands what the Clintons were to me on American trade and manufacturing jobs. And I respect that. But what effects every American more? Does a guy who use to assemble trucks in Detroit or a 2nd generation coal miner from West Virginia care more about mule deer in Wyoming or feeding their family and putting their kids thru college?

This notion that sportsman who support trump are eroding our public lands is insulting to our intelligence and counterproductive to our common interests.

Yeah, because an intelligent person simply can not demand more of our elected officials, you know, to form policy that doesn't have to choose winners and losers between caring about families on a truck assembly line, a West Virginian Coal miner, and our public lands and mule deer.

What good reason can you give, that leads anyone to believe we cant have all of that?

Because the bottom line is, the folk we elect to represent us, have been telling us for decades we cant have both. It has to be one or the other.

I call bullchit on that line of thinking and IMO, if the best our representatives can do is force us to pick winners and losers, they need to find a new line of work. I'll oblige them at the ballot box every chance I get...and I do.

 

[BWALKER77]

That’s your perception of reality based on your interpretation of the facts and I respect that. Trump may be to you on public lands what the Clintons were to me on American trade and manufacturing jobs. And I respect that. But what effects every American more? Does a guy who use to assemble trucks in Detroit or a 2nd generation coal miner from West Virginia care more about mule deer in Wyoming or feeding their family and putting their kids thru college?

This notion that sportsman who support trump are eroding our public lands is insulting to our intelligence and counterproductive to our common interests.

And thats just it. Public lands, while important dont mean much to me if I dont have the means to enjoy them. IE a good paying job.
I was born and raised in Flint, MI. At one time Flint had the highest standard of living in the world. Mostly due to tens of thousands of GM jobs. I graduated college with a degree in environmental science in 2000. I intended to move out west and work in my field. The problem was the economy was poor at that time and there where very few jobs to be had. What was available paid very poorly. So, I did as most of my family did and I went to work in the auto industry. Had a good job for a company that was a tier one supplier to GM. After two years our production started to fall and the plant we did business with was eventually shuttered. Production went. Mostly to Mexico and to a lesser extent Brazil and China. Thank you Bill Clinton for signing NAFTA and to George Bush the first for allowing it to get to that point. Next, I went into business for my self and owned and operated a Canadian Fishing Lodge. This went well for 4 years until the US currency began to collapse in regards to the dollar. Sold that business and went to work in Iron ore mining, first as a laborer and then after a few months as a supervisor. This was in the spring of 2008. Things where booming for several months, then the stock market collapsed due primarily to Democrat policy on home ownership. IE everyone should get a mortgage. After three years of constant worry about losing my job I applied for and got a job as a supervisor at a coal fired power plant. The Obama years hit and it was announced the plant would be closed. After scrambling for a job I eventually found one in Montana that paid relocation and paid well. Working at a coal mine outside of Harden. This went well for a few months until the company I was working for went bankrupt due to lack of sales from plant closures. Again, thank you Obama. I then quickly applied for and got a job at an oil refinery where I am working now. I fully expect that this job will be in jeopardy in the next decade or so due to Democrat environmental policy.
Given this history it doesnt take a genius to figure out I have some rather serious problems with the Democratic party and there ability to destroy good paying jobs..

 

[BrentD]

stock market collapsed due to Democrat policy in 2008? That's an interesting interpretation of the facts.

 

[shoots-straight]

Strange how some people see history. Then the blame game is one directional when in fact one can find fault easily on both sides of the isle.

I see Obama's blamed for the recession that started in 2008, the year he took office. Then Clinton got sacked for the NAFTA agreement, when he was only a small time player. It started with Reagan, and then George H. Bush played a major roll. NAFTA history. Attack on our public lands comes from a clear cut direction and that's apparent not fuzzy history. BTW, voted Reagan, Bush, and Perot and even Paul, so I'm hardily a liberal.

 

[JLS]

Some light readin’ on the recession

 

[BWALKER77]

Strange how some people see history. Then the blame game is one directional when in fact one can find fault easily on both sides of the isle.

I see Obama's blamed for the recession that started in 2008, the year he took office. Then Clinton got sacked for the NAFTA agreement, when he was only a small time player. It started with Reagan, and then George H. Bush played a major roll. NAFTA history. Attack on our public lands comes from a clear cut direction and that's apparent not fuzzy history. BTW, voted Reagan, Bush, and Perot and even Paul, so I'm hardily a liberal.

I never blamed Obama for 2008 FWIW. Much of the blame for the financial collapse of 2008 can be blamed on the policies of Bill Clinton in the 90's.
Bush 1 and and Clinton both can be blamed for NAFTA and had HRC been elected the TPP.

 

[BWALKER77]

stock market collapsed due to Democrat policy in 2008? That's an interesting interpretation of the facts.

Actually it's exactly what happened. Clinton's policies in the 90's encouraged/rewarded banks to give loans to people in credit deprived areas which intern created a bubble.

 

[BWALKER77]

Back to public lands. It's very true that some republicans and the party as a whole have a poor record on public lands. However, the Democrats have a terrible record on Gun Control, are totally in bed with the animal rights lobby, etc. Pick your poison.
Personally I think the Republican stance on public lands can and has been largely blunted. The Democrats stand on gun control have also been blunted, but only due to a conservative supreme court. The Democrat stand in regards to the animal rights lobby hasnt been blunted very often at all, and when it has only in conservative states.

 

[Trial153]

Actually it's exactly what happened. Clinton's policies in the 90's encouraged/rewarded banks to give loans to people in credit deprived areas which intern created a bubble.

Isn’t the internet Great. Where else can we distill a complex multifaceted issue down too two sentences of partisan induced drivel.

 

[shoots-straight]

Back to public lands. It's very true that some republicans and the party as a whole have a poor record on public lands. However, the Democrats have a terrible record on Gun Control, are totally in bed with the animal rights lobby, etc. Pick your poison.
Personally I think the Republican stance on public lands can and has been largely blunted. The Democrats stand on gun control have also been blunted, but only due to a conservative supreme court. The Democrat stand in regards to the animal rights lobby hasnt been blunted very often at all, and when it has only in conservative states.

You see we have the 2nd Amendment that protects our gun rights, so they are safe. We have nothing to protect our public lands. If you think the attack from the right on our public lands has been blunted you're not paying very close attention to what's going on there.

 

[Handlebar]

Isn’t the internet Great. Where else can we distill a complex multifaceted issue down too two sentences of partisan induced drivel.

Not trying to be a smart ass but: Clinton repealed Glass-Steagall, Bush the younger fueled the home mortages