Pretty interesting perspective, worth the read in its entirity.
https://www.fieldandstream.com/politics-hunting-and-fishing
https://www.fieldandstream.com/politics-hunting-and-fishing
Interesting Editorial from F&S magazine
- Thread starter Trial153
- Start date
get-n-birdy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2016
- Messages
- 198
Good read, thanks for sharing that!
Little ignorant on the water part. Water rights in western states don't work that way. They wouldn't turn into global assets. Owning the land out here in headwaters/snowpack land doesn't grant you ownership of the surface water.
Other than that, yeah, good article.
Other than that, yeah, good article.
Last edited:
elkduds
Well-known member
Glaring omission from that article: Republican candidates and legislators are paid to oppose protection of public lands by their biggest donors: Big oil, mining, manufacturing. Meaning that even if the author's pipedream were to come true with Republican voters opposing those candidates on the payroll of extractive industries, $$$ wins elections. Is that what our founders intended?
Draining the swamp failed. It has become a sewer, thanks in large part to Citizens United. We now have the best gov't $ can buy, and it is ruining our country.
I'm finished. Soapbox available.
Draining the swamp failed. It has become a sewer, thanks in large part to Citizens United. We now have the best gov't $ can buy, and it is ruining our country.
I'm finished. Soapbox available.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
And the Dems are owned by NY & CA leftist donors who are anti-gun and anti-hunting. Pick your poison.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,286
Turning everything into a R vs D debate doesn’t change anything for the better long term. If we want a robust lobby outdoorsmen should work hard to only advance good candidates in their preferred party. We are strongest when both parties know our votes cannot be taken for granted and when we actively lobby both sides and support only those candidates who take our concerns seriously.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Fully agree.
waygoner
Member
Elkduds nailed it, and it's going to be the downfall of our country.
BrentD
Well-known member
I gotta agree with that. 100%
Irrelevant
Well-known member
Citizens United will stand as the single worse thing to happen to our country in this generation. I would argue it has, and will continue to have, a larger lasting impact than the death toll of either WWs. And the same judges that support our gun rights handed to us. There clearly is no one direction to go, no one answer, and we as a country seem to just keep making more and more terrible choices. I don't see a way out at this point, there's no turning around. We are Rome.
BrentD
Well-known member
And on that cheery note...
AvidIndoorsman
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2015
- Messages
- 18,402
Couldn't have put it any better.
Midterms this year had great turnout, but the primaries were pretty terrible. There is definitely a lot of work to be done about getting out the vote before the main election so that there are good candidates are in the general election.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
We've, as a forum of hunters, gone down this road several times. Many of us are either one issue voters or 1-3 issue voters, and for many on here those top priorities are not conservation. There's really no where to go in this discussion.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Simply absurd.
While I think that citizens united might be the single worst ruling we have had in a very long time I am not comfortable equating it with the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans.
It ( CU) has created the largest corporate government partnership that the world has ever seen and I can not imagine a more damaging ruling in regards to preserving a republic by and for the people.
In regards to the article, I feel it highlighted well the dicotomy of our two party’s and how it relates to us as voters. What we do with that information and how it effects our actions is on us. Unfortunately in many cases we are no longer a thinking electorate.
It ( CU) has created the largest corporate government partnership that the world has ever seen and I can not imagine a more damaging ruling in regards to preserving a republic by and for the people.
In regards to the article, I feel it highlighted well the dicotomy of our two party’s and how it relates to us as voters. What we do with that information and how it effects our actions is on us. Unfortunately in many cases we are no longer a thinking electorate.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
So, for those of you who find Citizens United the worst case of all times have you read the view advocated by your government in the published testimony? It was that testimony that caused several justices to see just how far some in government were willing to limit speech that causes Kennedy (the beloved moderate if I recall correctly) to call BS on overly broad campaign finance reform. Read Mr. Stewart's view of how much speech the government can ban and tell me that isn't a problem for democracy. At one point he states that book publishers could be fined for publishing a kindle book on Amazon if it made a single reference to a candidate's name if that single reference suggested support for that candidate. To stick with a theme, simply absurd.
Last edited:
Republicans have it wrong on the public lands debate IMO, but the
Democrats as a party are wrong on just about everything else.
I think its easier to influence Republicans to do the right thing on one issue(and one thats not particularly important to them)than to try and reform practically everything Democrats are for.
However, one thing we can all agree on is the fact the practice of buying politicians needs to be stopped. Citizens United was a bit scary and for several reasons, but ultimately I believe we would be in a better spot with it rather than without out.
I read the ruling in its entirety, an not just a bridged summery and I stand by my thoughts that in it’s short time it as done more harm to our Republic then any other modern ruling.
But back on topic. The article should give us pause and thought to what we should expect out of our representatives. What the article doesn’t go into is how our two parties have together fostered a system that created concentric electorate that all votes lead to same outcome.
But back on topic. The article should give us pause and thought to what we should expect out of our representatives. What the article doesn’t go into is how our two parties have together fostered a system that created concentric electorate that all votes lead to same outcome.
Last edited:
BrentD
Well-known member
The LONG TERM impact is almost unimaginable.
Oh, there is nothing to imagine. Spend a couple hours on opensecrets.org and it’s all in black and white. We have a corporate government partnership not a republic at this point.
Similar threads
