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 ...
Not quite sure what this means. But, do recall what Trump said about Scalia's comments on affirmative action.
Trump: 'I don't like' what Scalia said about affirmative action
He can’t help himself.
You do understand that the land the feds own goes way, way beyond the National Parks right? Why do the feds need to own and control all of that land? What is the rationale behind that?
Was that a rhetorical question?
By their very nature, states are less corrupt than the feds. They have a limited sphere of influence compared to the feds. This principle is pretty much the raison d’etre of federalism.
-— Those lands constitutionally BELONG to the states NOT to the feds. -—
Trump will get the trains running on time. /s
Reagan would be tarred and feathered by Cruz supporters as a liberal with “California values”.
Thank you Sarah Palin.
Sadly, when it comes to California,Oregon and Washington...all SOCIALIST controlled, he’s right.
If these lands are turned over to the state government, they'll end up being controlled by Denver/Boulder environmentalists. In addition, the Front Range will try to use the leverage of state ownership to suck them dry with more transbasin diversions. Like the water managers say, "water flows downhill toward money and votes."
If these lands are put on the real estate market, you can bet that the highest bidder will be either China or some billionaire who will close them to public access.
There's also the issue of who (feds, state, county, private) has enough resources to fight fires.
Whether they're owned by the feds or the state, it is clear that more local control than what we have now is needed. Back to the original topic of Trump, I don't see how what he said would be incompatible with this.
If only his supporters looked at facts instead of engaging in blind, unwarranted faith in him.
And on day one Ted Cruz will sign an executive order (because congress is too old school) doing just that, right? RIGHT???
I will cast my vote for Cruz. If trump does not get a majority of the delegates then it will go to the convention. The way he has insulted and mocked all the other candidates it is very unlikely that he will get even one delegate from any of the other candidates. So unless trump gets 50% he will not get the nomination
Frankly at this point I would take any of the other candidates over Trump.
Trump is a phony. He’s got a lot of people fooled. You can fool all of the people some of the time.
Trump’s appeal is mostly emotional. He is saying everything the anti establishment people want to hear, but when you look at his record and read between the lines, he’s as establishment as they come.
Why is the establishment suddenly warming up to Trump? Because they know he is deep down one of them. He will take a hard turn left as soon as he’s got the nomination in the bag.
He’s Romney with bad hair.
Polls have shown Cruz and Rubio outperforming Trump in one-on-one matchups with Hillary. It’s probably because he fits the liberal caricature of a Republican.
The federal land should be state land period.
This has been my thought for decades.
Now, is Trump proposing something new here? No.
Somehow the nation has survived this long with the land situation as it is. It will continue to. This is a non issue. There are other issues on the table that are important.
Has anyone been running on a policy of returning federal land to the states? No.
Folks who buy into this issue against Trump are barking mad.
Some folks have lost it.
“If only his supporters looked at facts instead of engaging in blind, unwarranted faith in him.”
So fill us in on Cruz’s plan....not stringing together some platitudes about “Cruz will restore the constitution and unleash the power of the states to blah blah blah”, but his actual plan.
Funny they said the same thing about Reagan but hey Trump is your man...once he wraps it up, watch him turn hard left and boom you got yourself a Liberal in Conservative clothing. Measure the man by what he had done and not by what he has said..Old proverb but hey who cares Trump is going to make America Great again. Man are we in for a world of hurt!
I'm having a hard time understanding your statement. Are you saying that if a few statements are run by Democrats then all of the states should have to suffer federal intrusion into their affairs.
Couldn't that rationale be applied to literally every aspect of our lives. For example, if one state has bad schools, then the feds need to be called in to manage the schools in all of the states. Where does that argument end?
I agree with Trump on this. But also I feel that the States should be granted the ability to adjust some Federal land that could be better used. It takes a balance and this current dictatorship cannot see the difference.
“”Trump’s appeal is mostly emotional.”
Unlike the average Cruz supporter’s post calling everyone stupid, duped, fakes, phonies , and crying that they will vote for Jeb before Trump.
“Why is the establishment suddenly warming up to Trump? “
Because after they got their butts kicked by him, they are surrendering.
“He’s Romney with bad hair.”
I’m a Cruz supporter...BUT I’M NOT EMOTIONAL!!!
> “Anyone here think state governments are less corrupt and more efficient than the federal government?”
Yes, in the broadest sense state legislators ae far more representative of the people than the federal government.
> “Annapolis, DC, Sacramento, Austin - I repeat - Austin?”
Those are all cities that are liberal enclaves that rely on federal rulings and policies. Austin houses the state legislature but does not own it. Texas state legislators come from all over Texas and are by and large very conservative.
Your point fails.
There is always corruption, corruption on every level. Like shoplifting in stores or weeds in a garden, it is always there and must be minimized. To minimize corruption in representative bodies, one must get close to it. State legislators are much closer to the people than federal legislators.
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.