Trump - Who should own America? The Feds or the States
From a Field and Stream Interview last week (Jan 22, 2016):
Interviewer: 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’s 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?
Donald Trump: 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. I mean, are they going to sell if they get into a little bit of trouble? And I don’t think it’s 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’ve been hearing more and more about that.
Interviewer: 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’s 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?
Donald Trump: 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. I mean, are they going to sell if they get into a little bit of trouble? And I don’t think it’s 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’ve been hearing more and more about that.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 4.
Take it anyway you want. It's always open season on candidates and politicians.
I am surprised that you seem to lump all non-objectivist candidates into one group- all the same. They arent all identical in the amount of inconsistent talk about freedom and what they would do in various situations. Some are worse than others. For example, Sanders wants 62.4% of capital gains in tax. So if i sell a company for $1 million, I have to give essentially 2/3 of what I made to his administration. Currently its 23.8%. Hillary would raise it somewhat more than 23.8% but nowhere near the 62.4% Sanders wants.
I will admit that I look at these candidates in terms of the bad stuff they would do to ME They are all a mixed bag, but we WILL get one of them regardless of how we vote. A consistent Objectivist just isnt going to have a chance in this environment to get elected. The culture is just too "entitled" for that to happen.
I dont want anything positive at this point from this batch of candidates, but I do want the least harm to be done.
If you dont vote for Trump, you will wind up with Hillary or even Sanders- both of which will do more damage than Trump. Think about that.
There is no rational reason to support Trump, He has no more regard for private property than Hillary or Sanders.
The man is juvenile in personality, as he has demonstrated many times. Further, his obsession with his daughter's looks creeps me out. A vote for him is equal to voting for Hillary or Sanders. The three of them are the worst in the race.
They cheated when the western territories applied for statehood by grabbing the land from the territories beforehand. This needed and still needs to be overturned by the courts.
We are at the cusp right now, you can see it with Local and Federal governments attacking our rights more vigorously, SCOTUS finding against the people's beliefs and the U.S. Constitution; these next steps are going to be important for our future.
Elect a new one and claim no representation anything to cost them money and make them look bad. Shoudn't be hard it's everything they do.
When you are asked to vote for one or the other of the Government party say I don't vote left wing unless your are a socialist or progressive and then boy cott their businesses. Progressive Insurance is a good start. So is Geico just for general principles and really bad service. but Progressive is a relaly good start.Anyone who claims to prefer independence, freedom, the ability to think and reason or any affilliation not to the left that buys from them is either BSing us themselves or both and migh t as put a big mark on their fore head that says SP
That blunt enough....
The main one is allowing government tacit control of the economy. I would have the Bill of Rights include: "Congress shall make no law abridging free trade among consenting individuals". It could probably be refined to ensure that its meaning is clear. Fraud should be more sharply delineated as a use of force for which one can be prosecuted. The Constitution should also make clear that taxation is theft and that theft is also a use of force for which one can be prosecuted.
I'm far from an "environmental socialist," but There are tracts of wilderness that have a unique ecology that most people would like to see remain minimally disturbed. I recognize that nothing remains the same, even without human involvement, but we can sympathize with others who like the idea of some protection for these areas.
There is a spectrum of human social behavior we have to deal with, from extreme individualism bordering on anarchy, to an almost herd behavior of constant approval-seeking, and we have to live with the whole spectrum. Creating the opportunity for all of these groups to live together with minimum hostile interaction is the challenge for government.
the main contradiction I see is contradicting the Constitution by ignoring it or flat out violating it.
Who owns the government?
1) Libertarian way...the people would own the land, but that would end up being sold for the want of trinkets meaning business will own most if not all the land
2) Framers way [as written in the U.S. Constitution] governed by the state which is the holder of said land for the people's use. This is shown by the U.S. Constitution Article 4 Section 3 The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States;
3) Which is not in the U.S. Constitution; that the Federal has the right to own and rule over all lands.
I believe the answer lays closer to if not with the Founders and Framers. That is the Land can be purchased and owned by the People with the State having the ability to form State Parks for the need of the people such as water supplies, fort's for State military or State Government Offices as well to hold historical areas for remembrance. The federal would need to buy lands from the States for national security [forts, navy yards], or Court houses to do the business of the People according to the U.S. Constitution.
So I can see why Donald Trump would say as he did in the interview...1) he had not researched the subject before being asked 2) he is concerned that without the security of the Government Water Supplies and historical sites would be sold off for wealth without regard for We The People...
With the good chain eventually comes the cougars and bears. Where I lived before the country people couldn't send their kids to catch the school busses even with little rain protection sheds because of the cougars. Often times it was easier to drive them to school and pick them up. Sometimes that rotated but with after AND before schools activities more important than education I'm wondering how many went to home school and how many did like I did and GED'd the kid out of school at 15 and put them in JC. Not sure about now but JC back then was the equivalent of High School when I attended. Since we're again talking Oregon a high school equivalent education from the late 50's early sixties might requrie a full four year degree program these days.
Load more comments...