• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hunters & Fisherman Wake Up to the Trump Con

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
160,900
Reaction score
57,840
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Well, at least one Right Lean type group has begun to realize that they have been played. That's a start I guess :lol:

Hunting And Fishing Groups Are Starting To Turn On Trump's Interior Secretary | HuffPost

The morning after being confirmed by the Senate and sworn in on March 1, Zinke showed up to his new post in Washington sporting a cowboy hat and riding a horse. Hours later, flanked by representatives of hunting, conservation and gun rights groups, he signed a pair of orders to “expand access to public lands and increase hunting, fishing, and recreation opportunities nationwide,” according to the Interior Department.

For many in the outdoor sporting community, it was a sign Zinke would have their back.

Over the last four and a half months, however, some of those same organizations have changed their tune as Zinke has cozied up to fossil fuel interests and come to support a budget proposal — one he initially vowed to fight — that would slash funding for land acquisition and conservation programs while promoting increased drilling and extraction on public lands.

“The level of frustration is growing daily."

Of course. Duh!

Everyone heard what they wanted to hear when Trump spoke---everyone, even his haters. That's how I realized he was playing a giant con on everyone. I knew that he couldn't deliver on all those "deals." After all, how do you please "Drill baby, drill" and the "I loves to hunt and fish" crowd at the same time?
 
How does a few drilling sites over a many hundred square mile hunting area cause the hunters any trouble?
 
How does a few drilling sites over a many hundred square mile hunting area cause the hunters any trouble?

Noise, pollution, roads, people...to name a few.
 
Well, at least one Right Lean type group has begun to realize that they have been played. That's a start I guess :lol:

Hunting And Fishing Groups Are Starting To Turn On Trump's Interior Secretary | HuffPost



Of course. Duh!

Everyone heard what they wanted to hear when Trump spoke---everyone, even his haters. That's how I realized he was playing a giant con on everyone. I knew that he couldn't deliver on all those "deals." After all, how do you please "Drill baby, drill" and the "I loves to hunt and fish" crowd at the same time?


As usual, this HuffPo piece struggles to fulfill it's alt-left mandate.

It's confusing when it presents these two points

Habitat restoration and endangered species listings have taken a back seat as Zinke pushes for energy and infrastructure projects — not a huge surprise, considering his track record on threatened species, his paltry 4 percent lifetime score from the League of Conservation Voters and his listing on the Center for American Progress’ “anti-parks caucus,” a collection of lawmakers who, according to the group, jeopardize the future of the country’s flagship protected lands.

HuffPost contacted representatives of four groups that came out as early supporters of Zinke. Three expressed disappointment with what they’ve seen from him thus far, but they also said it’s still early and that they remain hopeful.​

So, Zinke is not viewed favorably by the usual alt-left groups, but they also state it's early yet.

So the point to this HuffPo piece is?
 
Well, at least one Right Lean type group has begun to realize that they have been played. That's a start I guess :lol:

Hunting And Fishing Groups Are Starting To Turn On Trump's Interior Secretary | HuffPost



Of course. Duh!

Everyone heard what they wanted to hear when Trump spoke---everyone, even his haters. That's how I realized he was playing a giant con on everyone. I knew that he couldn't deliver on all those "deals." After all, how do you please "Drill baby, drill" and the "I loves to hunt and fish" crowd at the same time?

Well, they can be comforted by the fact that Obama took about a half a billion acres of land and sea out of use before he left office.

So, there's that...

Obama's last-minute land grabs only the tip of presidential excess | TheHill
 
Zinke is a coyote, so of course he slinks in the garbage dumps of the drillers and eco exploiters.

Is anyone really surprised?
 
Well, at least one Right Lean type group has begun to realize that they have been played. That's a start I guess :lol:

Hunting And Fishing Groups Are Starting To Turn On Trump's Interior Secretary | HuffPost



Of course. Duh!

Everyone heard what they wanted to hear when Trump spoke---everyone, even his haters. That's how I realized he was playing a giant con on everyone. I knew that he couldn't deliver on all those "deals." After all, how do you please "Drill baby, drill" and the "I loves to hunt and fish" crowd at the same time?

Compared to the choices of last year, I would say Hunters and fishermen are better off with Trump. The lesser of two evils easily applies here. But as so many or much of the electorate doesn't realize, voting for the lesser of two evils is still knowingly voting for evil.

The thing is last November no one knew what Trump would or wouldn't do. He had this habit of saying one thing one day, the complete opposite the next and denying it all on the third. With Hillary, pretty much everyone knew what she would do. So the unknown or the egotistical, uncouth, obnoxious, opportunistic candidate was indeed the lesser of two evils for those on the right and those who lean right. It was taking a chance, but better a chance than with none with Hillary.

Even knowing what has happen today, I doubt there would be any vote changing. The other choice was 100% evil to them, better to go with the candidate that was only 90%. But the degree was unknown last November. A Trump presidency could have been easily avoided if the Democrats nominated a decent candidate instead of one who was as disliked by America as a whole as Trump was. So in my mind, a Trump presidency is as much the fault of the Democrats as it is the Republicans and Trump supporters.
 
Compared to the choices of last year, I would say Hunters and fishermen are better off with Trump. The lesser of two evils easily applies here. But as so many or much of the electorate doesn't realize, voting for the lesser of two evils is still knowingly voting for evil.

The thing is last November no one knew what Trump would or wouldn't do. He had this habit of saying one thing one day, the complete opposite the next and denying it all on the third. With Hillary, pretty much everyone knew what she would do. So the unknown or the egotistical, uncouth, obnoxious, opportunistic candidate was indeed the lesser of two evils for those on the right and those who lean right. It was taking a chance, but better a chance than with none with Hillary.

Even knowing what has happen today, I doubt there would be any vote changing. The other choice was 100% evil to them, better to go with the candidate that was only 90%. But the degree was unknown last November. A Trump presidency could have been easily avoided if the Democrats nominated a decent candidate instead of one who was as disliked by America as a whole as Trump was. So in my mind, a Trump presidency is as much the fault of the Democrats as it is the Republicans and Trump supporters.

"But as so many or much of the electorate doesn't realize, voting for the lesser of two evils is still knowingly voting for evil."
 
Compared to the choices of last year, I would say Hunters and fishermen are better off with Trump. The lesser of two evils easily applies here. But as so many or much of the electorate doesn't realize, voting for the lesser of two evils is still knowingly voting for evil.

The thing is last November no one knew what Trump would or wouldn't do. He had this habit of saying one thing one day, the complete opposite the next and denying it all on the third. With Hillary, pretty much everyone knew what she would do. So the unknown or the egotistical, uncouth, obnoxious, opportunistic candidate was indeed the lesser of two evils for those on the right and those who lean right. It was taking a chance, but better a chance than with none with Hillary.

Even knowing what has happen today, I doubt there would be any vote changing. The other choice was 100% evil to them, better to go with the candidate that was only 90%. But the degree was unknown last November. A Trump presidency could have been easily avoided if the Democrats nominated a decent candidate instead of one who was as disliked by America as a whole as Trump was. So in my mind, a Trump presidency is as much the fault of the Democrats as it is the Republicans and Trump supporters.

I chose to vote for neither evil. But, had a gun been put to my head with my only option to live being to vote A or B, I would have chosen Hillary. I knew Trump was full of ****. With Hillary, I only knew I did not want Bill back in the WH.

IMO, Hillary did not over-promise or spin fairly tales like Bernie and Donald. However, she still had loyalties to people I did not like, Huma and Bill primarily, which kept me from voting for her. The former struck me as being too close to Muslim radicals; the latter to close to his prior two-term presidency. :)
 
Funny how changing personalities and party makes no difference ain't it.

IF there is a person who is President, THEN he is a power mad megalomaniac who has only one goal and that is to enforce his will on those "under" him.

I have noticed no real departure from this general rule in any President since LBJ.

I may have missed something.
 
IF there is a person who is President, THEN he is a power mad megalomaniac who has only one goal and that is to enforce his will on those "under" him.

I have noticed no real departure from this general rule in any President since LBJ.

I may have missed something.

Goldman Sachs always winds up in the white house and the donor class rules your system; all else is theater.
 
Goldman Sachs always winds up in the white house and the donor class rules your system; all else is theater.

A broker is a broker.

A power broker isn't always the person and doesn't always hold the power, but he does often help to arrange the meeting between the power and the person.

Follow the money is still a good axiom.
 
A broker is a broker.

A power broker isn't always the person and doesn't always hold the power, but he does often help to arrange the meeting between the power and the person.

Follow the money is still a good axiom.

I'm aware our system is corrupt, thanks.
 
"But as so many or much of the electorate doesn't realize, voting for the lesser of two evils is still knowingly voting for evil."

Exactly. There in lies the problem with the two party system. The two major parties have convinced most voters that voting for a third party candidate is a wasted vote since that candidate can not win. Better to vote knowingly for the lesser of two evils, at least you might mitigate the disaster to follow knowingly voting for evil even if that vote is for a degree or two less evil.
 
I chose to vote for neither evil. But, had a gun been put to my head with my only option to live being to vote A or B, I would have chosen Hillary. I knew Trump was full of ****. With Hillary, I only knew I did not want Bill back in the WH.

IMO, Hillary did not over-promise or spin fairly tales like Bernie and Donald. However, she still had loyalties to people I did not like, Huma and Bill primarily, which kept me from voting for her. The former struck me as being too close to Muslim radicals; the latter to close to his prior two-term presidency. :)

And we always wind up with Goldman Sachs in the white house either way.

https://www.propublica.org/article/...rules-let-lobbyist-help-run-agency-he-lobbied

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/12/...s-now-theyre-on-his-transition-team.html?_r=0

Donald Trump Cabinet: Is He Really Draining the Swamp?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...7d93165c6d4_story.html?utm_term=.c6f6ade76246

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-...ry-lobbyist-to-hud-transition-team-1480453288

https://theintercept.com/2017/01/27/coal-doj-trump/

http://fortune.com/2016/11/16/trump-lobbyists-dc-establishment/
 
I chose to vote for neither evil. But, had a gun been put to my head with my only option to live being to vote A or B, I would have chosen Hillary. I knew Trump was full of ****. With Hillary, I only knew I did not want Bill back in the WH.

IMO, Hillary did not over-promise or spin fairly tales like Bernie and Donald. However, she still had loyalties to people I did not like, Huma and Bill primarily, which kept me from voting for her. The former struck me as being too close to Muslim radicals; the latter to close to his prior two-term presidency. :)

Since I wanted a say in the down ballot offices, if only Trump and Clinton were offered, no third party candidate. I would have wrote in "Mr.None of the Above."

Gallup had an interesting poll last year which showed 25% of all Americans disliked both candidate. That 54% of all independents disliked both candidates. Yet only 6% of all Americans voted against both candidates by voting for a third party candidates which included 12% of the independent vote. A huge difference between the 54% of independents who disliked both candidates and the actual 12% of voted against both candidates. Holding one's nose and voting for the lesser of two evils was definitely in play.

I'm trying to figure out a way to determine whom those holding their nose and voting for the lesser of two evils, who the lesser of two evils action was. What percentage. That I'll see if I can come up with a way using exit polls and Gallups dislike polls. But we know according to CNN exit polls that half of Trump's votes were anti Clinton, not necessarily for Trump, but against Clinton. We also know 39% of Clinton's votes were anti Trump voters, not necessarily for Clinton, anyone opposite of Trump would have done.

That means 23% of Trump's 46% was an anti vote. That 19% of Clinton's 48% was an anti vote. That adds up to 42%, add the 6% who voted third party, last year we had 48% of the total electorate casting an anti vote. Not for someone, but against. This is why I call last years election the anti-election. Or one could look at this way, 29% of the total electorate want Hillary as the next president and actually voted for her, not against someone. Trump, only 23% of the total electorate wanted him and actually voted for him and not against someone.

It is also interesting that only 1.5% of the total electorate voted third party in 2012 and 1.2% in 2008 vs. the 6.0% in 2016. Also according to Gallup, 11% disliked both candidates, Obama and Romney in 2012 vs. the 25% disliked of both Clinton and Trump in 2016.

One in Four Americans Dislike Both Presidential Candidates | Gallup
 
Well, at least one Right Lean type group has begun to realize that they have been played. That's a start I guess :lol:

Hunting And Fishing Groups Are Starting To Turn On Trump's Interior Secretary | HuffPost



Of course. Duh!

Everyone heard what they wanted to hear when Trump spoke---everyone, even his haters. That's how I realized he was playing a giant con on everyone. I knew that he couldn't deliver on all those "deals." After all, how do you please "Drill baby, drill" and the "I loves to hunt and fish" crowd at the same time?

You say right lean post, and your link is to huffpo. Like are we saying this person is to the right of what? Stalin? Hillary?
 
As usual, this HuffPo piece struggles to fulfill it's alt-left mandate.

It's confusing when it presents these two points

Habitat restoration and endangered species listings have taken a back seat as Zinke pushes for energy and infrastructure projects — not a huge surprise, considering his track record on threatened species, his paltry 4 percent lifetime score from the League of Conservation Voters and his listing on the Center for American Progress’ “anti-parks caucus,” a collection of lawmakers who, according to the group, jeopardize the future of the country’s flagship protected lands.

HuffPost contacted representatives of four groups that came out as early supporters of Zinke. Three expressed disappointment with what they’ve seen from him thus far, but they also said it’s still early and that they remain hopeful.​

So, Zinke is not viewed favorably by the usual alt-left groups, but they also state it's early yet.

So the point to this HuffPo piece is?

Bridge material
 
Well, at least one Right Lean type group has begun to realize that they have been played. That's a start I guess :lol:

Hunting And Fishing Groups Are Starting To Turn On Trump's Interior Secretary | HuffPost



Of course. Duh!

Everyone heard what they wanted to hear when Trump spoke---everyone, even his haters. That's how I realized he was playing a giant con on everyone. I knew that he couldn't deliver on all those "deals." After all, how do you please "Drill baby, drill" and the "I loves to hunt and fish" crowd at the same time?

Well, speaking for myself, as an avid hunter and fisherman, I say, "Drill baby drill!" I see no reason the two can't exist at the same time.

My biggest worry is government, during Obama's tenure, was pushing for "catch shares" and other legislation that favored commercial fishing at the expense of the recreational angler. It was something that Walmart, as well as other corporate interests, were pushing for. There was a boycott on Walmart discussed among us in pro-recreational fishing circles.

The bag limits and seasonal restrictions pushed us to the brink. I was sorely disappointed in Obama that he allowed this during his reign. It got very little attention outside of fishing circles. It's as if Obama didn't have a clue what was going on right under his nose or it wasn't important enough for him to get involved.
 
Since I wanted a say in the down ballot offices, if only Trump and Clinton were offered, no third party candidate. I would have wrote in "Mr.None of the Above."

Gallup had an interesting poll last year which showed 25% of all Americans disliked both candidate. That 54% of all independents disliked both candidates. Yet only 6% of all Americans voted against both candidates by voting for a third party candidates which included 12% of the independent vote. A huge difference between the 54% of independents who disliked both candidates and the actual 12% of voted against both candidates. Holding one's nose and voting for the lesser of two evils was definitely in play.

I'm trying to figure out a way to determine whom those holding their nose and voting for the lesser of two evils, who the lesser of two evils action was. What percentage. That I'll see if I can come up with a way using exit polls and Gallups dislike polls. But we know according to CNN exit polls that half of Trump's votes were anti Clinton, not necessarily for Trump, but against Clinton. We also know 39% of Clinton's votes were anti Trump voters, not necessarily for Clinton, anyone opposite of Trump would have done.

That means 23% of Trump's 46% was an anti vote. That 19% of Clinton's 48% was an anti vote. That adds up to 42%, add the 6% who voted third party, last year we had 48% of the total electorate casting an anti vote. Not for someone, but against. This is why I call last years election the anti-election. Or one could look at this way, 29% of the total electorate want Hillary as the next president and actually voted for her, not against someone. Trump, only 23% of the total electorate wanted him and actually voted for him and not against someone.

It is also interesting that only 1.5% of the total electorate voted third party in 2012 and 1.2% in 2008 vs. the 6.0% in 2016. Also according to Gallup, 11% disliked both candidates, Obama and Romney in 2012 vs. the 25% disliked of both Clinton and Trump in 2016.

One in Four Americans Dislike Both Presidential Candidates | Gallup

Weird thing about this election: The DNC shoved Hillary into everyone's face while the RNC did everything they could to shove anyone but Trump into our face.

Bizarre is that both candidates sucked so bad, but yet, each one came to the top of the ticket by completely different means. :lol:
 
Weird thing about this election: The DNC shoved Hillary into everyone's face while the RNC did everything they could to shove anyone but Trump into our face.

Bizarre is that both candidates sucked so bad, but yet, each one came to the top of the ticket by completely different means. :lol:

Isn't it. It is said that Hillary was decided upon as the 2016 Democratic nominee in a meeting between Bill, Hillary and Obama before the 2012 election. That I have no doubt as before the year turned to 2013 Hillary already had 15 pledged super delegates. In January of 2015 she had over 300 pledged super delegates and that was at least 6 months before Sanders decided to run for the nomination. In the end Sanders ended up with 48 of 712 super delegates.

Trump had the largest faction within the GOP. He kept winning primary after primary with 30-35% of the vote. The extra large field really helped him. It wasn't that the majority of Republicans wanted him, but they couldn't make up their mind which candidate should be the alternative to Trump. That was their problem, ours now that he is president. Still even after Trump cinched the nomination and with the band wagon effect in the last few primaries climbing about the Trump train, he still only ended up with 40% of the total Republican primary vote.

At least Clinton received 60% of the total Democratic Primary vote, but it took the rigging by the DNC and all the state Democratic Party leaders in her favor to defeat an independent who decided to run as a Democrat. We ended up with two very detested candidates.
 
Well, at least one Right Lean type group has begun to realize that they have been played. That's a start I guess :lol:

Hunting And Fishing Groups Are Starting To Turn On Trump's Interior Secretary | HuffPost



Of course. Duh!

Everyone heard what they wanted to hear when Trump spoke---everyone, even his haters. That's how I realized he was playing a giant con on everyone. I knew that he couldn't deliver on all those "deals." After all, how do you please "Drill baby, drill" and the "I loves to hunt and fish" crowd at the same time?

We wouldn't have our National Park system, National Forests, and National Monuments as we know them without progress---ive GOPresident Theodore Roosevelt saving them from the Gilded wing of the GOP.

trump/Zinke will be for DEMs to bite into GOP dominance out west, bad for the Nation's parks, forests and monuments .
 
Back
Top Bottom