TRCP and sportsman and women for biden.

[BWALKER77]

Swing and a miss.

While my Canadian friend ultimately lost his wife to cancer. She never waited in line for a treatment and managed to hold off breast cancer for 15 years or so. They never had to worry about the financial aspect of her many treatments.

If you look at life expectancy, birth mortality, and a host of other stats,, we do stand out as being best in class,, compared to other advanced countries.

I have had the good fortune to have good health insurance my entire adult life,,, even being fortunate enough to have employer provided insurance in retirement. Even with that,, it is obvious to me our model is badly flawed.

Wouldnt you agree that other factors are involved in healthcare outcomes other than the healthcare itself.
I lived in Canada for 6 years and had Ontario's provincial healthcare. It sucked big time in the area I lived in. In Toronto it might be different. In Manitoba or Alberta it might be different as well as each province is not the same.

 

[Big Fin]

I've been thinking about this for a few days. And I have a couple of questions
1. How is the formation of this group, and open support of sportsmen joining this group any different that simply openly supporting that candidate?

Just in from a week in the Idaho backcountry and thankfully without any wi-fi or cell service.

Since you quoted my post, I'll assume this was in response to that post. To your question raised by my comment, I don't think support of a group such as this is any different than openly supporting the candidate. That is why you don't hear my say, "Vote for (insert here)." Once you do that, you are tying yourself to a candidate, which takes you down the whirlpool of implicitly supporting a party.

You may read or hear me say that "so and so" is terrible on public lands, etc. But, it will be a factual statement, based on their voting record, in the context of the policy position. Just bad outcome for the candidate who is bad on the priority policy in question.

2. If there is none, and the argument is made that politics are personal and shouldn't be shared at all, then I would counter that for people of influence, who would like to use that influence, there are benefits of sharing their politics and the rational behind them. Simple exposure to new ideas, like the importance of wetlands and clean water vs bump stocks and 30-round mags, can force people to think harder about their vote and who's getting it.

I think there is benefit in sharing one's positions and not confusing positions with politics. That can be done.

When one makes it political, I feel I am making the decision that it is somehow binary; that I have to choose one or the other. And, that it only matters at election time.

I can vote for a person I don't have agreement on for every issue, if they have a better net sum on my priorities than their opponent. I can also light them up if they are on the wrong side of an important issue, as I don't feel beholden to someone just because I assessed them to be a better candidate than an opponent.

And sometimes I vote for someone who loses and I am force to try work with the winner who I did not vote for. If I make it about the politics/person and not about the policy/position, I have no chance to work with that person who I did not vote for.

I think too many Americans think that engaging in government is a "one day, every four years" type of endeavor. As such they put all their eggs in the basket of their vote, rather than engagement. I see it by how few people actually engage in issues, compared to how many rant on FB or other places about who won/lost the election. Governance happens year-round, not just the first Tuesday of November on every fourth year.

I think people of influence would be better served using that influence to ask their audience to be more engaged between elections. People of influence should quit worrying about being on the "winning team" and worry about engaging in government such that whoever is in office, the important issues get heard. To me, using my platforms to advocate for a deeper approach to governance and citizen engagement is far more important than using the platforms to stump for a candidate who, at best, might agree with me 2/3 of the time, at worst, disagree with me on one of my top two priorities.

To simply be for the party of hunting and fishing and conservation is a great slogan in the abstract, but when it gets down to brass tacks and individual candidates often the choice isn't as clear, or maybe it is very clear but in completely different ways for different people.

I don't view that as a slogan in the abstract. When it comes down to brass tacks, I compliment and criticize based on the positions/actions said elected official demonstrates on hunting, fishing, and conservation. It is not even slightly abstract, rather real life. I have complimented publicly and personally many people I didn't vote for, as they did the right thing for those issues. And, I have taken to task some I have voted for when they have not done the right thing for those issues. In doing so, it might cause hard feelings and cause me to not be a "trusted team member." Fine.

It is never clear. In this thread it has been pointed out that depending upon your highest priority issues, the best candidate will vary. My issues are usually 1(a), 1(b), 2(a), and 2(b), with hardly any gap between my priority in those four issues. I'll never find a candidate that is perfect on those four. So, I vote the best option and engage on the four issues, no matter if the person receiving my vote wins or loses.

Now I still understand if a person of influence would choose to not use that to promote any politics. That maybe in their eyes more can be done to push individual legislation by staying neutral. But I don't see how it can be argued that seeing someone you look up to take a political stand doesn't push the public opinion in that direction.

A political stand, i.e. a policy stand, doesn't require require a candidate endorsement or joining "Sportsmen for (insert here)." Doing so confuses the difference between a policy stand and a candidate/party stand. At least in my mind, two very different "stands."

 

[Irrelevant]

Just in from a week in the Idaho backcountry and thankfully without any wi-fi or cell service.

Since you quoted my post, I'll assume this was in response to that post. To your question raised by my comment, I don't think support of a group such as this is any different than openly supporting the candidate. That is why you don't hear my say, "Vote for (insert here)." Once you do that, you are tying yourself to a candidate, which takes you down the whirlpool of implicitly supporting a party.

You may read or hear me say that "so and so" is terrible on public lands, etc. But, it will be a factual statement, based on their voting record, in the context of the policy position. Just bad outcome for the candidate who is bad on the priority policy in question.



I think there is benefit in sharing one's positions and not confusing positions with politics. That can be done.

When one makes it political, I feel I am making the decision that it is somehow binary; that I have to choose one or the other. And, that it only matters at election time.

I can vote for a person I don't have agreement on for every issue, if they have a better net sum on my priorities than their opponent. I can also light them up if they are on the wrong side of an important issue, as I don't feel beholden to someone just because I assessed them to be a better candidate than an opponent.

And sometimes I vote for someone who loses and I am force to try work with the winner who I did not vote for. If I make it about the politics/person and not about the policy/position, I have no chance to work with that person who I did not vote for.

I think too many Americans thinks that engaging in government is a "one day, every four years" type of endeavor. As such they put all their eggs in the basket of their vote, rather than engagement. I see it by how feel people actually engage in issues, compared to how many rant on FB or other places about who won/lost the election. Governance happens year-round, not just the first Tuesday of November on every fourth year.

I think people of influence would be better served using that influence to ask their audience to be more engaged between elections. People of influence should quit worrying about being on the "winning team" and worry about engaging in government such that whoever is in office, the important issues get heard. To me, using my platforms to advocate for a deeper approach to governance and citizen engagement is far more important than using the platforms to stump for a candidate who, at best, might agree with me 2/3 of the time, at worst, disagree with me on one of my top two priorities.,



I don't view that as a slogan in the abstract. When it comes down to brass tacks, I compliment and criticize based on the positions/actions said elected official demonstrates on hunting, fishing, and conservation. It is not even slightly abstract, rather real life. I have complimented publicly and personally many people I didn't vote for, as they did the right thing for those issues. And, I have taken to task some I have voted for when they have not done the right thing for those issues. In doing so, it might cause hard feelings and cause me to not be a "trusted team member." Fine.

It is never clear. In this thread it has been pointed out that depending upon your highest priority issues, the best candidate will vary. My issues are usually 1(a), 1(b), 2(a), and 2(b), with hardly any gap between my priority in those four issues. I'll never find a candidate that is perfect on those four. So, I vote the best option and engage on the four issues, no matter if the person receiving my vote wins or loses.



A political stand, i.e. a policy stand, doesn't require require a candidate endorsement or joining "Sportsmen for (insert here)." Doing so confuses the difference between a policy stand and a candidate/party stand. At least in my mind, two very different "stands."

Thanks for taking the time to flesh that out. I think what you are doing is very beneficial, and always hope for more people to care more about hunting and fishing policies. I leave for a week in the ID backcountry next week

 

[406dn]

On the healthcare bit:

Nobody is looking at the "Why am I paying $20 for an aspirin?" problem.


Damnit, back to hunting and fishing.

My late father in law was on a hospital board in his town. He said that the cost of some very expensive tests, procedures, etc were covered in part by raising the costs of less costly items,,,,,,,like an aspirin.

 

[LuketheDog]

Just in from a week in the Idaho backcountry and thankfully without any wi-fi or cell service.

Who cares about the rest of this garbage...how was the hunt Randy???? Got any spoilers for us?

 

[Trial153]

"Side? I am on nobody's side, because nobody is on my side"

J.R.R Tolkien

 

[88man]

On the healthcare bit:

I honestly think that because of the abuse by insurances companies and the health care system this country will be forced into the single payer option. Eventually those costs will be too high for most. The only problem is, when our government passes it, they won't actually look at why medical care is so expensive and just pay the bill and we won't be any better off.

If you ran any other industry the way insurance/healthcare is run, you'd be dead in the water.

I'm not advocating for single payer, it's just how I see us going. Too many people want to bury their heads in the sand and not want to see the issues. To many who want the single payer system want to bury their heads in the sand as if it will fix everything.

Nobody is looking at the "Why am I paying $20 for an aspirin?" problem.


Damnit, back to hunting and fishing.

This guy is working on it.

Trump Signs New Executive Order On Prescription Drug Prices

The order, which would include Medicare parts B and D, replaces a previous order the president signed in July, but the move is unlikely to have any immediate practical impact.

www.npr.org

 

[Big Fin]

Who cares about the rest of this garbage...how was the hunt Randy???? Got any spoilers for us?

Probably one of my most frustrating hunts. Grouse everywhere, but due to the "no open fire" restrictions of my film permit (which I agree with given how dry it is), I had no way to cook them. So all the grouse were granted a pass, as none of them appeared the last day when I could have skinned and brought them home.

 

[LuketheDog]

So all the grouse were granted a pass, as none of them appeared the last day when I could have skinned and brought them home.

Ha, I just had the same experience a couple days ago, grouse all over before the elk is down and then they never show up when they're supposed to...

 

[Mike Tomano]

Whoa! This one took a quick turn! So, to refresh...

Animal Rights Legislation/Anti-Hunting & Gun Control = Dems

Public Land Sell Off = GOP

...but I see health care has found it's way into this.

Free-Markets might help quell the insanity of Big Pharma stranglehold. Going to a hospital or receiving medical treatment are the only services you buy without having any idea of the cost. Something seriously wrong there.

 

[Irrelevant]

add dirty air, contaminated water, and drained wetlands... to the GOP equation.

 

[BuzzH]

Whoa! This one took a quick turn! So, to refresh...

Animal Rights Legislation/Anti-Hunting & Gun Control = Dems

Public Land Sell Off = GOP

...but I see health care has found it's way into this.

Free-Markets might help quell the insanity of Big Pharma stranglehold. Going to a hospital or receiving medical treatment are the only services you buy without having any idea of the cost. Something seriously wrong there.

Really?

 

[rwc101]

Probably one of my most frustrating hunts. Grouse everywhere, but due to the "no open fire" restrictions of my film permit (which I agree with given how dry it is), I had no way to cook them. So all the grouse were granted a pass, as none of them appeared the last day when I could have skinned and brought them home.

Need to get a little fry pan for your jetboil. Backcountry grouse schnitzel. Also need to hound Marcus and Michael for all the grouse they passed up in Idaho.

 

[Sytes]

Bah... shit show tribal politics...

 

[mdhunter61]

"Side? I am on nobody's side, because nobody is on my side"

J.R.R Tolkien

Actually, Treebeard said it...

 

[Europe]

Post number 102 should be taught in high schools and colleges .

O'Neill and Reagan did not like each other but they managed to get some things done together. Pelosi and Trump will not even meet with each other. That has to change. They dont have to like each other, as they were not sent to D.C. to "like" each other, nor do they need to like each other to act like adults and work for all Americans.

Just a short note to expand on Randy's post. As he said when you vote you need to vote for the person you think will best represent your beliefs. I wanted to add-- not just at the federal level, but the State, County, and City as well. And dont forget "Judicial". More and more things are headed to the "Courts" -- State, Appeals, Supreme . When you vote that is something else you might want to keep in mind. Will the person you vote for nominate judges that will represent your position, if it should end up there..

Also, Randy's point about working with the person who wins, even if it is not the person you voted for. This is IMHO how we got to where we are today, in part. Very old saying but I have used it more than once recently. "Dont throw out the baby with the bath water" None of us get everything we want every time we want something.

In conclusion I am not minimizing what is happening today in the country I love. Riots, virus, unemployment because of the virus, people losing their life savings because their business closed because of the virus or in some cases were destroyed by rioters, plus the increase in --murder, assault, theft, looting --and--then the wildfires and hurricanes destroying forests, homes and even towns. It is real. But we can prevail and we can get through this, AND we will ! We just need to find a way to look for ways to work together not ways to work against each other. And we need to insist that the people we put in office--work together !

Some here on the forum are in the towns and states that are in the path of the wildfires, hurricanes and riots.

I will continue to hope and pray that you and your families remain out of harms way.

 

[BuzzH]

Judges shouldn't be representing positions, they should be interpreting the law based on facts.

 

[Randi]

Actually, Big Fins post was printed out and discussed among a group of young people. It was a great post!

Judicial positions: They should be interpreted to align with whatever the law is at that time. . No argument .

However have you noticed that not all rulings by appellant courts and the Supreme court are unanimous in their rulings. Judges "interpret" the law and "rule" in different ways. and by looking at how they ruled on prior cases will give you some idea of how they might rule on future cases. Roberts is certainly an exception, in my opinion. What some thought he would do on some cases, did not turn out to be how he ruled.

 

[noharleyyet]

Judges shouldn't be representing positions, they should be interpreting the law based on facts.

Agree...

From balls and strikes arbiter to: "on July 14, 2016, Ginsburg apologized for her (Trump POTUS campaign) remarks, saying they were "ill-advised."

 

[88man]

Judges shouldn't be representing positions, they should be interpreting the law based on facts.

Utopian