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 ...
Because there were federal territories and federal land long before there were Western states. And though various homestead acts and land sales the government made a lot of land available to individual citizens. When populations became large enough it recognized states.
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.
WAKE UP, Trump first folks -- this is what you stand to "win" with Trump. When winning is more important than WHAT you win, you win garbage like this.
Trump is a clearly a BAD risk for American liberty. Dammit, be accountable for what you are clearly willing to vote FOR and stop deceiving yourselves that by supporting Trump, you are supporting anything but a LEFT LEANING MODERATE.
Please!!!!!
Trump is no Hitler. He will not round up the Jews or anything like that. But if you look at the techniques used in the 1930s to generate fanaticism and a populist mass movement, they are in play here. Yes, the result will look different, but it will still be totalitarian — maybe a soft elitist totalitarianism, but still. Obama is not Hitler either, but very many of Obama’s policies mirror Hitler’s: guns. healthcare, , national police force, etc. . . On the other hand, Trump would be different in his own way, but totalitarian nonetheless. We cannot survive anymore kings.
That seems like a natural fit for Palin.
Well done.
Another reason to vote for Cruz.
Like during the Dakota God Rush that lead to the Indian Wars?
The states are being run by the female US Attorneys that Hillary selected in Bill's first term. I'm willing to wait until later to worry about this problem.
“...The burden is on the anti-Trump columns to make their case...”
Bull-butter! Like I said, how can Trump supporters *NOT* trust their own eyes and ears each time he (consistently) demonstrates his “NYC-Values” center-left political philosophy? It’s what he grew up with. It’s what he knows best. It is what he consistently demonstrates as his *FIRST* instinct.
Tell me - what is Trump’s history for his first noted opinions on:
Assault Rifle Ban, Right to life, Private Property Rights, etc? And just today we read he prefers big govt over states and cozying up to the party establishment to (ahem) “get things done”. What should we expect tomorrow?
There are none so blind that *refuse* to see. But I don’t know if that is entirely true — I think you *DO* see, but the bending over backwards to justify and rationalize-away Trumps first-instincts for a center-left political upbringing and philosophy indicates something else entirely. And it is aruguably worse.
But he’s “evolving”... Right?
“...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...”
That was not the claim - that govt at all levels is inefficient is moot. It is the very nature of govt. You minimize that inefficience with *smaller* govt. The claim I responded to was Trump’s ludicrous assertion was that states could not manage the parks as well as his “benevolent” HYOOGE Big Govt could. I would counter that *millions* of annual state and federal park visitors *know* better. State parks are every bit as well maintained, if not better in many cases in my experience, as national parks — regardless of govt inefficiencies. It could be argued that the inefficiency could be managed better at the state and local level, rather than having the top 25% (or whatever) “middle-man skim” that the Fed-Gov takes. Or perhaps Trump, being from NYC and sharing it’s values, doesn’t want to lose his skim off the top? After all, folks (perhaps misguidedly) *laud* his “cut-throat” business tactics...
to be fair, trump supporters are too busy posting poll numbers instead of transcripts of interviews with him.
this was a pretty sensible answer, and my fear is that he talks irrational and may act irrational,
a lot more of what he says needs to be posted, or one has no sense of the man except the sound bites.
“Why do the feds need to own and control all of that land? What is the rationale behind that?”
Get educated:
http://nwri.org/the-wildlands-project/un-biodiversity-treaty-and-the-wildlands-project/
http://citizenreviewonline.org/special_issues/wildlands_project_step_by_step.htm
He flip flops like a freshly caught fish.
He says he’s going to build a wall...
That’s the rationale if you like big gov’t. Let me know what the rationale is if you are a believer in small gov’t.
“I want to keep the lands great.”
What a complete buffoon.
Hank
Okay, if not Trump who you got?
I like Cruz but he has very little chance. He just doesn’t have the personality. Yeah, I said it. I could tolerate his personality but that’s not the average American. The average American is stupid and will not put him in office.
After Cruz, who you have? Carson? He’s a nutcase on so many issues. Rubio? Mr. Amnesty?
If not Trump, who that can WIN?
_______________________
Trump is the only one who can win the presidency.
As I said Finny. They want their liberalism. No matter what. It’s a lesser evil. They won’t vote for Cruz because he’s a conservative. If they wanted a conservative, they’d vote for one.
The closer to the individual the better the policies.
The reason you bear the burden of persuasion is that Trump is way ahead in the polls, and if you want to reverse that you have to convince his supporters that they should rethink their position.
Let me just say that insulting them, calling them blind and stupid is not generally a persuasive argument. You need to point out some significant fact that they have actually overlooked, rather than one that they weighed set aside, or you need to point to some significant presumption that their support depends upon and that is significantly flawed, e.g. that GOPe are not in fact sell-outs and have their best interests at heart, or that mass Muslim immigration and the lawlessness and cultural disruption it brings are in the long term best interests of the voter, or some such.
It's a heavy lift and some of the "best minds" on the so-called conservative side have attempted it, to the injury not only of the position they are trying to sustain, but of their own personal reputations and standing in the community.
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.