Posted on 02/22/2016 10:25:45 AM PST by magellan
Real estate mogul Donald Trump would not let states take control of federal lands, the Republican presidential candidate said in a recent interview.
"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," Trump said during a talk with Field & Stream magazine earlier this week.
The trade publication, sitting down with Trump at Las Vegas' Shooting, Hunting, and Outdoor Trade Show, had asked about the issue of turning over federally controlled lands to individual states -- an idea previously floated by rival 2016 contender and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul and supported by staunch states-rights activists.
The proposal has also received more attention in light of recent actions by radical conservatives like Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and his son Ammon Bundy, who led an armed group earlier this month in occupying a national wildlife refuge in Oregon to protest federal land use policies.
Trump cautioned, however, that states would be unpredictable in maintaining the designated lands.
"I mean, are they going to sell if they get into a little bit of trouble?" Trump asked. "I don't think it's something that should be sold."
He added: "We have to be great stewards of this land. This is magnificent land. And we have to be great stewards of this land."
The billionaire businessman suggested later in the interview that while he was a fan of oil and gas companies drilling and fracking on federal lands, protecting the earth should still be a top priority.
"I'm very much into energy, and I'm very much into fracking and drilling, and we never want to be hostage again to OPEC and go back to where we were. And right now, we're at a very interesting point because right now there's so much energy," Trump said. "And maybe that's an advantage and maybe--actually, it's more of an advantage in terms of your question because we don't have to do the kind of drilling that we did."
"I am for energy exploration, as long as we don't do anything to damage the land. And right now we don't need too much -- there's a lot of energy," he said.
What a loon. You are clueless. I laughed so hard at your post, I went outside for a breath of fresh air. The land issue is much deeper than the very superficial post you wrote. I mean, Wow! Your ignorance is amazing.
and therein is the real problem with Donald.
He wants control over everything.
What party does the same?
Guess what happens if you don’t move the needle? You lose.
Who says they are intelligent. I see it quite differently.
Elections are lost because of flawed candidates and more recently, societal disease.
Seems this has been a theme for some time now..
The West land use issue is so far removed and much bigger than your little story.
And the huge Federal monster is gobbling up more and more and more land every year.
True.
Well. I can see the cruznadians are having another of their pearl clutching moments. Get them their fainting couches asap!
As for the underlying issue, I happen to disagree with DT on this so far as it goes. I do think that we’ll get a better land policy under a Trump administration and perhaps something creative, like restarting the homestead program. One thing I find interesting about all this is the lack of discussion of how the states are going to do any better of a job managing western lands than the Feds.
All that said, if “western land management” were ranked by importance as an issue by voters, I doubt it would make the top 25.
“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,” Trump said during a talk with Field & Stream magazine earlier this week.”
And the legitimacy and wisdom of what the federal government will do with it is, of course, a given./s
DO NOT VOTE FOR THIS MAN!
You’re a pretty nasty jerk.
Reagan had huge crowds, so did Obama. Messages diametrically opposed. Count yourself fortunate to have a candidate who can win in November.
Slightly different agendas, perhaps. But both have had similar stances on various issues...and both are obviously pro-big government advocates... and both had no prior experience in government before running for president (and no, I’m not counting Barry’s present-voting non-presence in the Illinois senate as “prior experience”). Hence, my statement comparing them as both “on the job trainees in the WH” would be correct.
My “little” story is multiplied thousands of times each year.
I guess the question to you is “Would you mind if the state took your little piece of land as long as the feds can’t take it?”
Why does an uninformed poster accuse another of naivete when they haven’t bothered to dig out the facts or research the issue?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3400313/posts?page=175#175
Suppose that the federal government gave Nevada control of most federal land. How would that make things better? What will Nevada do that will make things better?
I just don’t see the issue as one of handing over federal land to Nevada. I see the issue as strengthening rights and having respect for ranchers and farmers. Whether the land is controlled by the federal government or the state government matters not. What matters is preservation of a way of life around and on those lands.
Some think these ranchers are terrorists. I don’t see them that way at all. And because Donald Trump says he won’t give land to the state because he doesn’t know what they will do with it has nothing to do with rights and respect of ranchers. They are two separate issues.
What’s at issue is policy of the Bureau of Land Management towards ranchers. That’s the issue. So why devote a thread to a non-issue?
Donald Trump did make statements on the issue of the ranchers. He said first and foremost the rule of law must be respected. I agree with that. He also said it appeared that federal policies of land management were not in line with economic opportunity and growth for surrounding people. Yes, he said that.
Here you go:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/donald-trump-takes-on-federal-land-control/article/2579978
So just what is the problem here? And just who is naive? Who is uninformed? It’s not me.
Thank you. Same to you.
As do I AuntB.
But the STATE is no better! Did you read my post?
The COUNTY, not the Fed tried to take away the rights of many people who owned a WHOLE ACRE of land from building on it!
The STATE is the government as well as the feds TAKE OUR RIGHTS away.
Sorry, this is a big issue with me.
Hugs to you, not trying to screech at you, just have had a very bad experience with government.. (STATE AND COUNTY)
> “Don’t you think he should have gotten educated before he ran for president? It going to be a little late for on the job training.”
What makes you think he’s not educated on this issue? In fact, he’s the only one that has voiced the issue on the campaign trail. No other candidate has touched it, only Donald Trump has.
February 8, 2016 from January 28, 2016 Op-Ed:
“In a new op-ed for the Reno Gazette-Journal, the Republican presidential front-runner rails against the “draconian rule” of the Bureau of Land Management and the Obama administration’s “land grab” in the western United States.”
“”The BLM controls over 85 percent of the land in Nevada,” Trump explains. “In the rural areas, those who for decades have had access to public lands for ranching, mining, logging and energy development are forced to deal with arbitrary and capricious rules that are influenced by special interests that profit from the D.C. rule-making and who fill the campaign coffers of Washington politicians.””
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/donald-trump-takes-on-federal-land-control/article/2579978
And magellan posts hit pieces on Trump without knowing the backstory or facts first. Shame on him/her.
Reading your post and wish to extend sympathy for your troubles.
But want you to know that Donald Trump is knowledgeable and sensitive to these issues. Here’s the link to prove it:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/donald-trump-takes-on-federal-land-control/article/2579978
After you read that, you’ll know with certainty that this thread stems from a total hit piece on Donald.
It should make people angry at how dishonest the media is and some of the thread posters here are. They hate Trump so they will post anything that vents their hate including lies. Shame on them.
I would not make that assertion yet. I vote on march 1st. Even if true, the "can win" argument has no sway with me any longer. I say "any longer" because I once did hold that view, and was a broken glass republican straight ticket voter.
I discovered to my dismay, that this was no longer a idea or practice that I could continue to support.
The "can win" argument, much as I respect it's originator, is no longer 100% valid because the GOP essentially has sold out to donors and special interests to such a degree as to no longer be relevant and now needs to be opposed.
Thus, a republican Party candidate has to be taken on their own personal merit and not the party's. Thus the old and well worn principle of electing the republican candidate who is most conservative and that can win the election still holds some validity , but you have to remove the party affiliation and look hard at the person.
Especially in the case where you now have 3 viable candidates remaining where one is not Conservative at all and a newly minted republican, one is a fake opportunist and open border supporter, and the other a true blue Reaganite Conservative.
So........the "what to do" is a easy call for me. As it should for you or most anyone self identifying as Conservative.
But it isn't.....and the reason should be quite obvious and related to the misunderstood or ignored definition of a Conservative. But apparently the reason is also ignored or misunderstood.
To quote a now famous person from the Katrina event, "You can't fix stupid."
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.