Posted on 01/23/2016 6:43:01 AM PST by Oklahoma
Some news to report out of Las Vegas where Donald Trump sat down with Field & Stream magazine for an interview during the National Shooting Sports Foundation’s annual SHOT Show.
First up, the GOP front-runner came out against letting states control public lands now run by the federal government saying, “I don’t like the idea because I want to keep the lands great, and you don’t know what the state is going to do."
(Excerpt) Read more at twitchy.com ...
They have NO WAY to keep Cruz off ticket!!! I believe Trump told Sarah Cruz would be on the ticket!!! Cruz is EXACTLY the kind of person Trump surrounds himself with in his business!!! Trump is NOT a stupid guy he KNOWS TRUMP/CRUZ would be a landslide ticket!!!! This guy doesn’t just want to win he wants to win YUGE!!!!!
Not surprised.
“how about getting rid of all federal land except military bases? Could pay down some of the debt!”
My only problem with that is the tendency for corrupt politicians to always connive and sell (or lease) our public assets to their cronies on the cheap. It is how they always work, and how we get screwed.
Wall Street has been doing that since 2008 by using our bailout money to buy up public assets like parking lots and water companies, and highways using our bailout money. They get it on the cheap and then our rates go up.
That’s fine and, of course, up to the people of each state. The point is, caring for lands within a state is a STATES’ issue which of course means it is up to the people of each state, BUT NOT a federal government issue.
That’s a strawman argument. No one is saying the feds shouldn’t own some land. What people are saying is they own too much right now. And tying that into Trump, he doesn’t seem to understand that if a state screws up something, you can move to a different state. But if the feds screw up something, you can’t just move to a different country. And everyone time the feds get their paws on something, they NEVER let go. Trump doesn’t seem to have an intuitive understanding of that like I would argue Cruz does.
I think Donald Trump is like most folks who are not from the West. He does not understand the history of the federal lands argument. I look for him to get clued in after he takes office as he is a very quick study. To his credit he sent an emissary to the Burns OR situation to talk to the protesters so at least he is curious about getting the full story.
Face it, Donald Trump is a good businessman, but not a great fan of our Constitution or an extraordinary thinker.
Tragic
Trump is very much in the habit of promising things that he knows are not within the possibility of even the most aggressive president - unless he figures out some banana republic way to dissolve the legislature.
But this safely insulates him from actually having to have a plan or do anything to fulfill his “promises.” He knows they can’t be kept, he doesn’t have to do anything, and he won’t be blamed. So he can say anything that he thinks will get him some votes.
That said, many federal lands do not need to be federal and should be returned to the states.
I think he’s not conversant with the issues involved. He needs to read Professor Rob Natelson’s explanation of the constitution and the federal government’s responsibilities. That might not change his mind, but I suspect it would.
Our federal government has invested heavily in making Americans think that they’re permitted to own land other than described in the constitution. We grow up hearing of great national parks, monuments, etc., and that gets ingrained in them.
I went through a huge amount of study to understand where this actually comes down constitutionally. FReepers are really an unusually well-educated group of people. Others haven’t had the benefit of our research and discussion.
Here you go:
I think you have that backwards. Yours is the straw argument, though you didn’t raise it. Someone else did and you’re addressing it.
If this were in the top twenty issues of the day, then fine. What we’re talking about here is about 75th on the list of things that bother me.
Nobody is running on the idea we should return 100% or even 50% of government land to the states.
Should a majority of federal lands be surrendered to the states? I believe so. Is Trump’s seeming disagreement with my opinion a serious issue I need to drop him for? No.
This is just one more nothing-burger that some folks are desperately hoping will sink Trump.
Not buying it.
Okay great. Guess which guy will still get my vote.
This is a non-issue that Ted actually thinks will gain him traction.
Guess again Ted.
As I said, there are many things more important to me this election.
Ted didn’t know.
You said that we were talking about all federal land being sold and that is clearly not what is being suggested. As far whether any other candidates have addressed this issue, I posted a link to an amendment Ted Cruz offered that makes a lot of sense.
Does he know any other descriptive word than “great”?
I never once referenced the idea of any land being sold.
That land is the state’s land. Period.
We all recognize the need for government holdings of some land, for bases and the like. Beyond that, no.
The Federal government claiming it doesn’t make it so. It should be recognized as state land forthwith.
This is still way way down the list of important things to this nation.
Ted may know that. I don’t think his stance on it is going to gain him one vote. Those that think it’s a big issue already support Cruz, or they would realize it’s a nothing-burger.
“Al: I'd like to talk about public land. Seventy percent of hunters in the West hunt on public lands managed by the federal government. Right now, there is a lot of discussion about the federal government transferring those lands to states and the divesting of that land. Is that something you would support as President?
DT: I do not like the idea because I want to keep the lands great, and you do not know what the state is going to do. I mean, are they going to sell if they get into a little bit of trouble? And I don't think it is something that should be sold. We have to be great stewards of this land. This is magnificent land. And we have to be great stewards of this land. And the hunters do such a great job - I mean, the hunters and the fishermen and all of the different people that use that land. So I have been hearing more and more about that. And it is just like the erosion of the Second Amendment. I mean, every day you hear Hillary Clinton wants to essentially wipe out the Second Amendment. We have to protect the Second Amendment, and we have to protect our lands.”
The burden is on the anti-Trump columns to make their case. I am merely pointing out some of the difficult terrain you have to navigate in order to press the "pure conservative" case against him. There are many good arguments to weigh in the balance.
The claim that state and, at least big city governments are more honest than the federal government is to a large fraction of the voters laughable.
Actually, this might just astonish you, but I am frequent user of the largest of the Texas State parks. But, at the same time, I am quite well aware of what the legislature does in Austin, as well as the legal courts in Austin, and frequently it is just as disappointing as anywhere else. Turns out people are people with all their faults wherever you go.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.