Trump Reaches Out to Outdoor Enthusiasts

[wesheltonj]

Robert, I too appreciate the post. If you have ever done any reading of Donald Trump, you would know that lying to you and getting you to believe it is TOTALLY justified and perhaps the best kind of WINNING! So, I don't believe anything that he says!

He also talks about "skin in the game" and we know how passionate he is about his kids so I do think that his son's passion for the outdoor sports would bode well.

But what I think is funnier than hell is all of the posters on this thread talking about him like he is a Republican. He is a life-time Democrat who is lying out his a$$ (see above ... the best WIN is the WIN earned through the BIGGEST lie!) to get elected. He is actually more likely to pivot more to the left than anyone running on the Democratic side. The DONALD is the best example that a politician is a politician is a politician as Robert said ... once elected they do whatever they can do to get elected. So I have no concerns that Hillary is going to end hunting or that Donald is going to be a boon for hunting.

I agree that he is a lifetime Democrat running as a Republican, and I like you don't know if he has changed his view for real or not. I would much prefer to have Ted Cruz in the White House, but that not reality. The fact is that Cruz can turn out the party base and the evangelicals vote, but cannot get the cross over vote or independent votes. Trump can get those vote. The only problem is will the evangelicals stay home again for the 3rd time and hand the white house over to the Democrats again.

I know Clinton's stand on the 2nd amendment and Trump's, and that enough for me to vote for Trump.

 

[robertq]

Red leg, please watch this till the end....

http://redstatewatcher.com/article.asp?id=10109



Donald Trump testifies at a House hearing on economic recovery - 1991. Get ready to be wowed!

The media needs to go back to videos like this to show Donald Trump addressing real problems in an intelligent and common sense manner - 25 years before he ran for President. Does he come off as a "clown" or "buffoon", or "not a serious candidate" here? You be the judge: The House Task Force on Urgent Fiscal Issues met on November 21, 1991 to discuss the credit shortage in the U.S. and whether it is stifling America’s economic recovery. Witnesses included financier Donald Trump and the former chairman of the FDIC, William Seidman, who testified on the current recession and proposals to spur economic growth and investment…


Donald Trump on Economic Recovery (1991)

 

[Hank2211]

Hank, you are correct.... but its not about hunting.
Hunting is the tool for gun control......
We (SSI) are having a very difficult time with trophies from all over.
Take the airlines, the ban of certain animals.....
The President can and will use an Executive order....

You are certainly right about this - the President can no doubt give orders to executive branch agencies like the USFWS. They can make a life a pain . . . but ultimately, they can't make the laws.

What we need to find a way to do - and there have been thread upon threads about this - is get the buying power of hunters, outfitters, gear manufacturers, etc. together to demonstrate that you mess with us at your (financial and voting booth) peril.

I just don't understand why that isn't happening.

 

[Red Leg]

You are certainly right about this - the President can no doubt give orders to executive branch agencies like the USFWS. They can make a life a pain . . . but ultimately, they can't make the laws.

What we need to find a way to do - and there have been thread upon threads about this - is get the buying power of hunters, outfitters, gear manufacturers, etc. together to demonstrate that you mess with us at your (financial and voting booth) peril.

I just don't understand why that isn't happening.

I am afraid we are simply too few against the prevailing tide. Worse - we are also fragmented. The NRA (of which I an endowment member) is all in on the ownership and use of weapons for defensive purposes. Sport shooting and hunting gets a bit of lip service, but that is not where they put there money and lobbying efforts. We hunters are divided up among a host of different organizations, some of which can't abide one or more of the others. I am a life member of both DSC and SCI and much bitterness remains from the estrangement which created DSC. Quail hunters and duck hunters can both be very single species and organization focused. I am sure you know people in DU who wouldn't think to lift a finger or write a check to affect African hunting related importation. To date, no hunting equivalent of the NRA has arisen to coalesce hunters' interests into a single organization. Probably, because hunting hasn't seemed as threatened as gun ownership. Perhaps the current madness will be the catalyst to get something moving.

 

[James.Grage]

If we fail to vote for a republican candidate that is running, it is like you are voting for the Democrat that is running.

 

[robertq]

Hank look how corrupt the government is.
How many times has Obama broke the law and nothing is happening.
The President can pass an executive for F&WL to ban hunted trophies for import & export till a wildlife study is performed.
You don't realize how much money the anti have and the power of the Government in there pocket.

 

[Red Leg]

Robert, I am no fan of this administration, but we hurt ourselves when we sound like crazies to people leading normal lives out there. What law, specifically, has the President violated? I don't mean what law some fat rabble rouser on the radio, who is looking for ratings, says he broke. But what court, to date, has said that he has overstepped his power as Chief Executive? And don't tell me it is because "everyone in government is corrupt." They aren't. The vast majority of those judges in the federal courts, regardless of who appointed them, could be making a lot more money in private practice. That vast majority is dedicated to the law and its just application and correct interpretation. They aren't on the take - and because they aren't elected, they are immune from lobbying. The same is true of the vast majority of the people working in the various departments and federal agencies. They may interpret things differently than we would like sometimes, but the vast majority truly are doing their best. It is one reason why the bad apples make so much news when they come to light. Indeed, I would argue the most politicized court in the land is the Supreme Court. But if you look back to both Roosevelt administrations and the decade before the Civil War, it has always been so.

I pray that we can undo much of the damage that has been done our country, its culture, and its future prospects over the last seven years. That means a new set of political appointees need to redirect that federal bureaucracy (and maybe downsize it a bit). I just have very little confidence that a bloviating realty TV star with the demeanor of 16-year-old is the likely candidate to bring that about. I just have no idea what he intends. Take trade for instance. Are you supportive of tariffs and an ensuing trade war? You really want to pay 30-40% more for your next car or truck (I don't care where it was assembled - look under the hood and see where all those electronics were built)? He apparently intends no changes to entitlements, and talks about no meaningful cuts to federal spending. I don't know what he truly intends or believes.

And Robert, it is not that the Anti's have the government in their pocket through some vast conspiracy. How would they do that - exactly? The real problem is that most of our fellow citizens and most of that bureaucracy just don't consider our interests very much at all. We are too few and unlike our alter egos in the NRA, we are not truly organized.

 

[wesheltonj]

I am afraid we are simply too few against the prevailing tide. Worse - we are also fragmented. The NRA (of which I an endowment member) is all in on the ownership and use of weapons for defensive purposes. Sport shooting and hunting gets a bit of lip service, but that is not where they put there money and lobbying efforts. We hunters are divided up among a host of different organizations, some of which can't abide one or more of the others. I am a life member of both DSC and SCI and much bitterness remains from the estrangement which created DSC. Quail hunters and duck hunters can both be very single species and organization focused. I am sure you know people in DU who wouldn't think to lift a finger or write a check to affect African hunting related importation. To date, no hunting equivalent of the NRA has arisen to coalesce hunters' interests into a single organization. Probably, because hunting hasn't seemed as threatened as gun ownership. Perhaps the current madness will be the catalyst to get something moving.

You are correct, not one hunting group is large enough. The largest SCI is 50k members, just not enough. I like that they spend money on lawsuits in DC and have a lobbyist. DCS does not have anywhere close to having anything close to SCI numbers. I don't want to get into a war between DSC and SCI, but perhaps, one could handle Washington and the other conservation and education.

 

[wesheltonj]

Robert, I am no fan of this administration, but we hurt ourselves when we sound like crazies to people leading normal lives out there. What law, specifically, has the President violated? I don't mean what law some fat rabble rouser on the radio, who is looking for ratings, says he broke. But what court, to date, has said that he has overstepped his power as Chief Executive? ..

Well the US Supreme Court did say that he overstep his authority on recess appointments.

 

[edward]

i will vote for the devil as long as he believes in guns,ammo and hunting.i will never except that lying,corrupt bitch clinton or and slick willy as anything other than dog shit garbage.but im just one voter.if everybody doesnt get out and vote,we are in deep shit.this election is THE BIG ONE!!!!!

 

[Hogpatrol]

Interesting thread and interesting that no one mentioned the recent State Department's edicts about getting export permits to take one's firearms out of the U.S. to hunt. I don't know what precipitated that directive but it sure was touch and go there for a while for those that were on the cusp of their safaris. Fortunately a few of the alphabet groups were able to get that stayed. It will be interesting to see how a Democratic president would view those regulations since they are still on the books. It's seemingly innocuous things like this (death by a thousand cuts) that the anti-s of all stripes count on to ruin gun sports and hunting.

 

[ack]

Code4, you see what is happening in the hunting industry and it is not getting better.
If trump does not get in say GOOD BY TO HUNTING.......

Wife and I are in for Trump..Takes a hard man to clean up the DC scum pond...Side benefit-he's the only bussinessman in this.

 

[gizmo]

An executive order to do just what exactly? Stop all hunting? In order to confiscate guns? How, exactly, would that be accomplished? Executive orders - yes even Obamas - are very narrowly written legal actions. Hank is absolutely correct, the legislative body, through the purse, has enormous power to limit the impact of any of those findings, even if they aren't eventually limited by an appellate court.

And our shared concern with imports has almost nothing to do with the president or this administration. This is a problem with the private and publically traded companies which provide that service. The publically traded ones, obviously, are particularly sensitive to public perception. If people - particularly institutional investors - dump their stock because the company is perceived to be profiting off of murdered Cecils, the stock value falls. If that happens, the CEO and senior officers get fired by the shareholders. And they are getting much larger doses of negative perception through emails, twitter, etc. than any counter engagement by a very limited number of sportsmen.

And I am not sure what we can do about it. Delta, for instance, has roughly 850 mil shares of stock supporting a 34 billion dollar company. Those shares are trading at around $40 a share. A 10% minority holder in Delta would have enough heft to force certain behaviors - like flying my buffalo home. Do the math - that would be somewhere north of a 300m dollar investment. Every sporting organization in this country could pool its resources and not buy up enough stock to force a behavior change in just one company. And our customer impact is equally marginal. It is one reason that SCI is going at this through the courts.

And somehow, electing a New York commercial real estate entrepreneur and reality TV star is going to fix all this? Only in America could we end up with a choice between that and an unindicted influence peddler who can't look after classified material.

It's not about the who as much as it is the what

Robert, I am no fan of this administration, but we hurt ourselves when we sound like crazies to people leading normal lives out there. What law, specifically, has the President violated? I don't mean what law some fat rabble rouser on the radio, who is looking for ratings, says he broke. But what court, to date, has said that he has overstepped his power as Chief Executive? And don't tell me it is because "everyone in government is corrupt." They aren't. The vast majority of those judges in the federal courts, regardless of who appointed them, could be making a lot more money in private practice. That vast majority is dedicated to the law and its just application and correct interpretation. They aren't on the take - and because they aren't elected, they are immune from lobbying. The same is true of the vast majority of the people working in the various departments and federal agencies. They may interpret things differently than we would like sometimes, but the vast majority truly are doing their best. It is one reason why the bad apples make so much news when they come to light. Indeed, I would argue the most politicized court in the land is the Supreme Court. But if you look back to both Roosevelt administrations and the decade before the Civil War, it has always been so.

I pray that we can undo much of the damage that has been done our country, its culture, and its future prospects over the last seven years. That means a new set of political appointees need to redirect that federal bureaucracy (and maybe downsize it a bit). I just have very little confidence that a bloviating realty TV star with the demeanor of 16-year-old is the likely candidate to bring that about. I just have no idea what he intends. Take trade for instance. Are you supportive of tariffs and an ensuing trade war? You really want to pay 30-40% more for your next car or truck (I don't care where it was assembled - look under the hood and see where all those electronics were built)? He apparently intends no changes to entitlements, and talks about no meaningful cuts to federal spending. I don't know what he truly intends or believes.

And Robert, it is not that the Anti's have the government in their pocket through some vast conspiracy. How would they do that - exactly? The real problem is that most of our fellow citizens and most of that bureaucracy just don't consider our interests very much at all. We are too few and unlike our alter egos in the NRA, we are not truly organized.

Problem 1 is the establishment is afraid it make waves 2. It is quite clear, especially at this point, that executive actions that have been taken are unconstitutional. No president in the history of this country had even remotely come close to the shear number of executive actions of Obama. He has wielded this tool, that was given in limited scope of authority, as a way of bypassing congress thus removing checks and balances. That's about as unconstitutional as it gets. He's ran this country as a dictatorship and set a presidence which any democrat will expand upon. Not to mention he next president will be picking numerous Supreme Court justices which is the scariest part of all if a democrat it elected. As I've said numerous times, I am not a Trump fan but.... You bet your ass he's better than the alternative. Voting for a democrat in this election will have disastrous consequences and refusing to vote is the same as voting for a democrat, same thing for some write in long shot. It's much like the great president GW Bush said,"either your with us or your against us". Not much difference here. If Trump gets the nomination I will hold my nose come Election Day and vote for him. If one enjoys their freedom, guns, and hunting then they better damn sure do the same like it or not.

 

[Red Leg]

It's not about the who as much as it is the what


Problem 1 is the establishment is afraid it make waves 2. It is quite clear, especially at this point, that executive actions that have been taken are unconstitutional. No president in the history of this country had even remotely come close to the shear number of executive actions of Obama. He has wielded this tool, that was given in limited scope of authority, as a way of bypassing congress thus removing checks and balances. That's about as unconstitutional as it gets. He's ran this country as a dictatorship and set a presidence which any democrat will expand upon. Not to mention he next president will be picking numerous Supreme Court justices which is the scariest part of all if a democrat it elected. As I've said numerous times, I am not a Trump fan but.... You bet your ass he's better than the alternative. Voting for a democrat in this election will have disastrous consequences and refusing to vote is the same as voting for a democrat, same thing for some write in long shot. It's much like the great president GW Bush said,"either your with us or your against us". Not much difference here. If Trump gets the nomination I will hold my nose come Election Day and vote for him. If one enjoys their freedom, guns, and hunting then they better damn sure do the same like it or not.

Erik you and I are on the same side, but you are repeating afternoon radio propaganda and internet hysteria that is patently untrue. And it makes us look looney to people who are on the fence. Obama and W both used recess appointments (one set of Obama's to the National Labor Board were ruled unconstitutional because the senate technically was not truly in recess when made). Of course, W's most famous was Bolton to the UN. While you might be a constitutional scholar, and know that it is "quite clear" that Obama's orders are unconstitutional, I know of none that have been overturned by a major appellate court or SCOTUS. These things are written very narrowly by teams of pretty darn good constitutional lawyers, who actually do know something about the constitutional latitude of the executive branch, and are rarely challenged successfully. It is another right wing nut myth that Obama has issued more executive orders than any other president. To this point in their presidencies, Obama and GW issued about the same number. The all time leader in executive orders was FDR with around three thousand - but he was decisively engaged in trying to win a world war. Even Dwight Eisenhower issued more than either W or Obama who are pretty far down the list. I agree that the Supreme Court appointments may be the most significant pending activity of the next president. I have no clue what sort of jurist Trump will nominate, because I have no clue what his actual political philosophy is. What I fear is that a Trump nomination will cause the Republican party to lose in a landside this fall. If that happens, the down ticket result almost inevitably will be loss of the senate. And if that happens, we will have thrown away the hard work of two election cycles, and our ability to meaningfully influence the choices of a Democratic president (SCOTUS or any other issue) crater.

 

[Royal27]

. It is another right wing nut myth that Obama has issued more executive orders than any other president. To this point in their presidencies, Obama and GW issued about the same number.

The numbers.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php

 

[LivingTheDream]

I do think we as sportsman have been beat up too long and as someone said a death by a 1000 papercuts. I agree with Red Leg that sometimes we risk sounding slightly "out there" by just referencing the talking points. However, I think part of that comes from the fact that we are all very passionate about our sport and realize that we are under attack, from import permits to ammo, to purchasing guns, to travelling with guns, etc. etc. I think the point here is that the president can't just ban guns, technically he could, but the country would revolt and it would be messy. The second point being is that if they can do it piece by piece, for example, no more lion imports until we can have scientific proof that hunting is beneficial. Which anyone who is neutral or doesn't know any better goes that makes sense, and then moves on to reading about the Kardasians. Meanwhile there is a legal battle between SCI/Conservation Force and USFW not to mention then we have to define scientific proof, who are the scientists and what mets the burden of proof. As this battle rages on, then there is an executive action passed which states that corporations/trusts have to go through background checks, again most gun owners go this doesn't effect me, but it effects over 90K applications in 2014. My point being slowly and ever so slowly the rights get taken away or at least are made more and more difficult to do the things we love. Before we can even settle the last legal action, there is a new one we have to worry about. Think of this as negotiation, they are pushing the baseline further and further to the left. We need to at least get someone in the presidency that won't start negotiations off with well we let you keep hunting but we are going to take XYZ or require permit XZY with this tax and we have to defend ourselves constantly. It would be nice to be on the offense.

 

[Royal27]

I do think we as sportsman have been beat up too long and as someone said a death by a 1000 papercuts. I agree with Red Leg that sometimes we risk sounding slightly "out there" by just referencing the talking points. However, I think part of that comes from the fact that we are all very passionate about our sport and realize that we are under attack, from import permits to ammo, to purchasing guns, to travelling with guns, etc. etc. I think the point here is that the president can't just ban guns, technically he could, but the country would revolt and it would be messy. The second point being is that if they can do it piece by piece, for example, no more lion imports until we can have scientific proof that hunting is beneficial. Which anyone who is neutral or doesn't know any better goes that makes sense, and then moves on to reading about the Kardasians. Meanwhile there is a legal battle between SCI/Conservation Force and USFW not to mention then we have to define scientific proof, who are the scientists and what mets the burden of proof. As this battle rages on, then there is an executive action passed which states that corporations/trusts have to go through background checks, again most gun owners go this doesn't effect me, but it effects over 90K applications in 2014. My point being slowly and ever so slowly the rights get taken away or at least are made more and more difficult to do the things we love. Before we can even settle the last legal action, there is a new one we have to worry about. Think of this as negotiation, they are pushing the baseline further and further to the left. We need to at least get someone in the presidency that won't start negotiations off with well we let you keep hunting but we are going to take XYZ or require permit XZY with this tax and we have to defend ourselves constantly. It would be nice to be on the offense.

Good post and I think indirectly brings up a great point. This is SO much more than a sportsman issue. This is an issue we have as a country as a whole, and government overtaking all facets of our life. I work in a regulated industry where people often think the same thing as the first highlight above. People don't understand all of the impacts that regulatory moves make and they "sound good."

We can't afford to be single issue voters I don't think.

 

[sierraone]

Well the US Supreme Court did say that he overstep his authority on recess appointments.

The court said he overstepped his authority on specific appointments he made in 2012 because congress was still meeting every third day in "pro forum". Obama said they were not meeting. This was not related to other appointments or to the constitutionality of executive orders as a group. The below link will allow you to read the entire 108 page decision. This so common for both sides to pick a sentence or paragraph of a court decision and use it to support their opinion. In most cases, without knowing the whole decision, you or I will be wrong.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-rebukes

Click in the photo "under read the decision"

 

[gizmo]

Red Leg and Royal I will say that you make some very good points and I was fed some miss information i.e. The number of executive orders and yes it came from talk radio. I was under the impression that Obama had passed 921 ex orders which was supposedly the most. It clearly isn't the case and furthermore he hasn't passed that many. But..... That being said I do take issue with the quality and his threats and use of them. One example would be a 2014 order which raised the min wage for Gov't contractors to $10.10 per hour. He simply does not have the right to bypass congress and wield ex action to get his way. It doesn't work that way. On immigration he has threatened numerous times to use ex action to get his way. This coming straight from the horses mouth at press conferences.
As far as Trump goes and as I've stated many times he's not my ideal pick for president. My whole point is though it doesn't matter who gets the nomination, we as conservatives need to unite behind the nominee regardless of who it is or we will lose this election and the country can't survive four or eight more years of a socialist dictator. We have racked up more debt than our children's children's children will ever be able to pay and the dems want to increase the spending. In 7 years this president has refused to even attempt at a budget plan. He's been a utter disgrace when it comes to foreign policy and certainly turned his back on our allies. I don't even want to get started on his failure as a military leader. As completely inept as he's been as a leader Hillary is twice the idiot. Not to mention she is flat out a criminal.

 

[sierraone]

Good post and I think indirectly brings up a great point. This is SO much more than a sportsman issue. This is an issue we have as a country as a whole, and government overtaking all facets of our life. I work in a regulated industry where people often think the same thing as the first highlight above. People don't understand all of the impacts that regulatory moves make and they "sound good."

We can't afford to be single issue voters I don't think.

Single issue voters? Yep, guns, abortion and the environment for three!!!