Walkathon
Well-known member
And......flip flop......
Trump on Public Lands-Maybe Not the Ally You Thought Edition
- Thread starter airlocksniffer
- Start date
airlocksniffer
Member
Vermin Supreme would be a good choice as well.
http://theslot.jezebel.com/meet-vermin-supreme-pro-pony-presidential-candidate-an-1757538671
Agree on international & economic front. Disagree on socialism wave. We'll see the senate in all likelihood flip to Blue this year, along with the WH unless there is a brokered convention and someone like Paul Ryan steps up (who has also proposed selling off public land). trump then, in most scenarios, mounts a 3rd party run and splits the conservative vote, creating a plurality for the Democratic nominee.
Trump & Cruz both cost R's seats in the senate and fire up the democratic base.Ryan has already run as VP and lost.
But even with all of that in play, it's not enough to pass policies that would foster true socialism. The House will remain republican, and the House is the appropriator, and passes the initial budget. We'll have gridlock at worst, and if Ryan stays as Speaker, we'll have the opportunity to have true compromise and honest efforts to get the country back on track.
airlocksniffer
Member
Folks, this is how you destroy a dog whistle. Thanks for the logic and reason Ben.
old man
Active member
No one is worse then Hillery ,are you kidding me!
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
Free ponies for everyone!
Walkathon
Well-known member
Not me. I've decided. Voting for Deez Nuts for sure now.
RobG
Well-known member
He is the obvious choice between a dick and an a$$hole.
jryoung
Well-known member
OMG pure unadulterated socalism!!!!!
With respect to the Bern and his international/economic the international community/OECD is already taking a Bernie-esque approach with BEPS (Base erosion and profit sharing). Every company here in Silicon Valley as well as those throughout the country are determining the best way to address this risk to cash as it could provide an avenue to repatriation of off-shore cash if reasonable restrictions are put on said cash reinvestment unlike in 2004.
beginnerhunter
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2016
- Messages
- 1,320
Yeah I pretty much agree with most of that. In my scenario where Bernie beats Cruz/Trump/etc., my concern would be a disastrous Sanders presidency leading to a complete GOP takeover in 2020 and federal land sell-off. That is unless there is a total socialist revolution like Bernie advocates should Democrats somehow take the house and Senate this year. Either way, a scenario where Bernie becomes a successful negotiator with the GOP is unlikely.
I think Cruz will win the GOP nom outright or via contested convention, and I just don't like him. There is a real chance he could beat Sanders/Clinton although he polls poorly against them.
My point is that I think a Clinton presidency would be more likely to lead to compromise and the potential for prosperity without giving up federal land, etc. Unless she is in prison, of course. Now guns?? Who knows, I think that is just her playing to the base.
Thank you for engaging me in discussion.
James Riley
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2015
- Messages
- 1,821
I agree with that 99%. And that is exactly why I like him. I'm voting Sanders, but if he's not in the race, I'm voting Trump. I will never vote for Cruz, Clinton or their ilk.
While Trump may be one of the greatest Trolls the world has ever seen, he's still not good enough. He won round one but the establishment is now bringing their A game and starting to land some blows. But remember people, the establishment is NEVER the underdog and you should NEVER feel sorry for them and, as they currently exist, you should NEVER root for them, no matter how much you hate their target. The harder they come, the more scared they are and the more blows they land on Trump the more I like him. Because he's the ONLY one in the ring with them. In this case, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. My enemy is backing Cruz and Clinton and they own the media and the parties.
Is there risk involved? Yes. But I'm willing to take that risk. You may not be so willing. Fine. Expect more of the same. Some say that is not so bad. And, to be honest, I've thrived under Obama and like a lot about him and what he'd done and not done. But he's part of the machine too, and the whole machine is rotten and un-democratic and Trump and Sanders are the only two who threaten some modicum of real change.
Edited to add: The real suckers are those who, when watching the blows landing on Trump, actually start to think Cruz or Clinton, and the establishment media, look reasonable and right. Does Trump bring any of this on himself? Yes, but he's in a knife fight with the absolute masters of the United States. These people are devious schemers with time, money and an endless stream of the most brilliant interns and "players" in the world. They became the dominant paradigm playing everyone for the suckers they are. So what if Trump utilizes those same tactics? It's like Crazy Horse using a Winchester made by white men back east. But alas, I see the tide starting to turn and the suckers are indeed starting to line up behind Cruz and Clinton. To me, that just proves my point. The establishment is the greatest troll the world has ever seen, and is playing millions of overly-credulous suckers like a fiddle. Watch the tide turn toward Cruz and Clinton. Just watch. It's not turning because it should, because the establishment is winning on the merits, because truth and goodness are rising to the top. No, it's turning because evil is qualified and experienced and insidious.
Last edited:
bmack
Member
I decided to send this link to Don Jr. to see what he had to say.
I frankly didn't expect any response but to my surprise he responded twice. Once to say he'd look into this as he had not seen or read the article and a second time with his response shown below.
Hopefully this is a good indication that his father's campaign still is in support of public land access. Hard to know until we get closer to the election.
I frankly didn't expect any response but to my surprise he responded twice. Once to say he'd look into this as he had not seen or read the article and a second time with his response shown below.
Hopefully this is a good indication that his father's campaign still is in support of public land access. Hard to know until we get closer to the election.
beginnerhunter
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2016
- Messages
- 1,320
Wow, interesting response. Guy seems pretty grounded.
Not sure it was strictly about buildings since he talked about drilling and timber and things that would imply they were talking about actual wild lands.
People are going to keep clamoring for a way to utilize resources on federal lands. Hunters need to come up with a backup plan to mitigate the damage should those ideas come to fruition.
Not sure it was strictly about buildings since he talked about drilling and timber and things that would imply they were talking about actual wild lands.
People are going to keep clamoring for a way to utilize resources on federal lands. Hunters need to come up with a backup plan to mitigate the damage should those ideas come to fruition.
I think the quote above about trump was one of advisors actually? Trump didn't say this, correct? The only direct quote I've heard from trump is he indicated he wasn't in favor of transferring federal land to states. But who knows what any of them will do if elected!
This is more of a thought stemming from southernElks #6 post (this thread) last April.
Okay, this is an honest question; I'm not trying to offend anyone here, just trying to understand.
I'm a hunter, and I care about issues concerning hunting. Experience has shown me that most hunters I know are vastly more concerned about the 2nd amendment than about many conservation issues (which I assume leads to the high levels of conservatism among hunters). However, conservatives tend to rack up rather poorly when it comes to conservation issues (i.e. public lands transfer, deregulation that leads to habitat fragmentation/degradation, opening of lands to oil/gas/other development). "Attacks" on the 2nd amendment often come in the form of increased background checks, limits on high capacity clips, conceal carry, and things of these nature. Again, this is an honest question, and I'm not looking to offend anyone here; just trying to understand. What do banana clips, assault rifles, and carrying my .45 ACP in public have to do with hunting?
I can completely understand the 2nd amendment arguments from a militia perspective and having to defend our freedoms should the government ever become so corrupt that we need to overthrow them (no comment about how close or far we are from that), but, as stated, I am a hunter, I care about hunting issues, and these are of primary importance to me when going to the polls. I see protecting our public lands as far more important than being able to carry in public, and I don't see anyone in the very long-term future banning hunting weapons of any kind.
I'd love to hear your thoughts and opinions.
Okay, this is an honest question; I'm not trying to offend anyone here, just trying to understand.
I'm a hunter, and I care about issues concerning hunting. Experience has shown me that most hunters I know are vastly more concerned about the 2nd amendment than about many conservation issues (which I assume leads to the high levels of conservatism among hunters). However, conservatives tend to rack up rather poorly when it comes to conservation issues (i.e. public lands transfer, deregulation that leads to habitat fragmentation/degradation, opening of lands to oil/gas/other development). "Attacks" on the 2nd amendment often come in the form of increased background checks, limits on high capacity clips, conceal carry, and things of these nature. Again, this is an honest question, and I'm not looking to offend anyone here; just trying to understand. What do banana clips, assault rifles, and carrying my .45 ACP in public have to do with hunting?
I can completely understand the 2nd amendment arguments from a militia perspective and having to defend our freedoms should the government ever become so corrupt that we need to overthrow them (no comment about how close or far we are from that), but, as stated, I am a hunter, I care about hunting issues, and these are of primary importance to me when going to the polls. I see protecting our public lands as far more important than being able to carry in public, and I don't see anyone in the very long-term future banning hunting weapons of any kind.
I'd love to hear your thoughts and opinions.
Last edited:
pfrater - I believe the logic goes along the lines of "many chips in the wall, and the wall will crumble"
So, putting a limit on banana clips is just one step closer to banning all guns.
Not my opinion on the matter, just an explanation
So, putting a limit on banana clips is just one step closer to banning all guns.
Not my opinion on the matter, just an explanation
You answered your own question.
Not a darn thing! The same people that were screaming "they are going to take away our guns" when Obama was elected have now elected even more conservative politicians into office that will only help push their agenda of getting rid of our public lands.
They are so short sighted that they don't stop to think that maybe soon they won't have any public land to shoot those precious AR-15s.
Yes it is the Republicans that are pushing for this to happen.
Since this is a forum for and about public land hunting it really makes me scratch my head as to why the majority here are pro republican and then worry about the future of public lands.
Last edited:
Similar threads
