Thankfully, there are just two weeks left to go in the 2016 general election. Which begs the question: Which nominee would be better for the National Park System and National Park Service?
While Democrat Hillary Clinton did put forth a statement outlining her intention to create a trust fund for the parks, not much has been heard from Republican Donald Trump on the parks specifically.
There have been reports that Mr. Trump would support the transfer of some federal lands in the West to states, a position the Republican Party adopted at its convention this past summer. And how would his proposal to build a wall along the U.S. - Mexico border impact border parks such as Big Bend National Park, Chamizal National Memorial, Coronado National Memorial, and Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument?
Which candidate do you think would be best for the park system and Park Service?
Comments
Just think of all the posibilities for Mt Rushmore, Lee.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CLGVZ4eUYAAQJJC.png
Gary, I believe you are accurate in saying he has no set plans related to federal lands which is what makes Michigan's accusation so baseless. But to say he has no plans at all is foolish. He has well defined goals and plans in many areas including the economy, immigration, energy, healthcare, child care, national defense, taxes, trade ........ You may not agree with them and I don't agree with all of them, but he does have plans for many of the more pressing issues facing our country. Also while it helps some to imply so when stuffing their strawmen, being for the sale/transfer of some federal lands is not the equivalent of wanting to give away the National Parks. I challange anyone to provide evidence he has said that the National Parks as a whole should be sold or given away.
Lee, what angry young liberals are you talking about? The last time I heard, universities were indicting the author of the Declaration of Independence as a Virginia slaveholder and womanizing hyprocrite. There is even talk now at the University of Virginia of repudiating Jefferson entirely.
This is to explain why Donald Trump has come so far. The so-called Left, in forming its arguments, cannot resist impugning everything held dear by the Right. Why, if we are so smart today, how can the past have been so dumb, i.e., so bigoted and so racist as to declare "all men created equal" while forgetting "diversity?"
It's a fair question, but only if you judge everyone by the same standard. But no, the Left's shortcomings are out of bounds. Were there not free blacks in the South who also owned slaves? Out of bounds. Did not Africans themselves sell one another into slavery? Out of bounds. And so we get to the Left's insistence that only old white guys are to blame for the sorry state of a country missing the right mix of diversity.
Next up (and I do believe it is coming) is to suggest that our national parks are innately flawed. How? There is nothing in their story for the Left. People worry that Donald Trump will sell off the national parks? The point is that they have already been sold. Mount Rushmore, for example? Yes, today an expensive parking lot, whose entire profit goes to the concessionaire.
Get real, good people. This is our culture. Unless we can profit from the government, neither "side" gives a damn. The one historical difference in the formula has been this. Democrats claim to be taking from the rich and giving to the poor, as opposed to those dastardly Republicans doing just the opposite.
How dare the Republicans now insist that the Democrats are also thieves--that Secretary Clinton, for example, now a multi-millionaire herself, engaged in influence-peddling to gain her fortune?
History will not be kind to either side, is the point. But once it was kind (at least understanding) of what goes into building a nation state. Are we to remain that nation, or is diversity now good enough for all it seeks to replace?
No civilization has ever run that experiment without falling flat on its face. Now we'll see. . .
Trump lacks substance, and it was evident during the debates that he had a limited understanding of how our government works. He wouldn't even make it through civics 101 course, but here we are with him so close to obtaining the most powerful seat in our government. How many times did he blame Hillary for all the problems of the last 30 years during the debates? Many of his comments were so off the cuff crazy, that you would have thought Hillary must have been a dictator, not just one of 100 senators, or that she had a limited role as a secretary of state. The way Trump came off durign the debates, one would have thought she had all power within the system of our federal government. It's evident he's not prepared to be President.
As the debates wore on, it was evident he couldn't answer many of the questions without tossing together a giant word salad that had no substance. It became very annoying to sit there and try and piece together his rhetoric..
Don't get me wrong, there were segments during the debates where even Hillary failed to touch on many key issues, but there were many times she answered questions with knowledge, and showed some marginal consistency in her views. She's much more prepared to deal with the chaos of world affairs than a narrcissist like Trump.
I agree with many that she is not a perfect choice, but she's better than the alternative.
Right, Alfred. You just provided support for my thesis that it's extremism on the left and right that is, I believe, the greatest danger we face.
Look where it has taken us . . . two completely unpallatable candidates for president.
Two of Trump's "ideas" I can agree with : The Swamp needs to be drained (although I call it a cesspool); and Term Limits.
But I'm sure neither of the current candidates or their respective parties are the answer to any of our problems.
We must somehow find a way to establish a viable third party of some kind with honest people stepping forward. But that means we have to eliminate Big Money from the equation.
All I can say is that, for myself at least, and based upon what I've been able to try to learn, we will be in deep doo-doo with either Hillary or DJT in the big white apartment house. I'm just hoping that with Hillary it will be only about waist deep instead of up to our ears.
Now it's probably time for all us regulars here to step aside and allow other voices to be heard.
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/4493952-155/bagley-cartoon-trump-gets-down-to
Yes, Lee. A good idea, but again (and just for the record), the Secretary of State is fourth in line for the presidency behind the Vice President, Speaker of the House, and president pro tem of the Senate. It's a very powerful office indeed.
Bankruptcy may be a common and legal method of doing corporate business, all considerations of ethics aside. Not so much for running a national economy.
There is nothing unethical about declaring bankrupty. And who said that was his strategy for running a national economy? Is Tim Tebow using football strategies to play baseball? Does a former prosecutor turned defense attorney use the same arguments and tactics? Does a doctor perform brain surgery to fix a broken leg? In his role as businessman he used the tools and strategies that best serviced his businesses and constituents. As President, his constituents will change as will the available tools and stratagies. Now if you have anything that shows he wants to sell off or give away the National Parks or declare national bankruptcy let us know. Although at the rate we are going the later may be inevitable.