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
The Uranium Deal, Rick? EC referenced the New York Times above.
Reaching back awhile I remember you said you acquired a conscience. I suspect (respectfully) that you and many others have lost the ability to think critically.
Snopes has found your argument as unfounded
No, they found it "unproven". But then they didn't delve anywhere near as deeply as the Times. Short of a written contract, it appears Snopes would consider the quid pro quo "unproven". The details laid out by the Times (not Breitbart) are pretty compelling. You pay the Clinton Foundation, Hillary happens to do a favor for you. An all too common set of events to be mere coincidence. But to you Trump is the candidate with the ethics problem because he did (corporately not personally) what a million or more people and businesses do every year - declare bankruptcy.
Well, that doesn't seem to have been proven, according to the Times.
Podesta emails may not contain any references, at the least the ones we have seen so far but the NYT was awfully convined in 2015 when the article I cited was written.
Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal
You think they wrote that headline because they thought there was no connection?
Trump also has admitted to sexually harassing women. Something, I find ironic on this comment thread, since some that post on here (and obviously are trump supporters) reguarly fire off accusations that the culture of the NPS is rampant with people like Trump. I guess it's ok to turn the blind eye if the leader you want for President does that. And, I do believe many of the women that have come forward recently by sayign that Trump harassed them. Trump has a history of harassing and bullying people, and even sued Miss PA for saying that his Miss America pageant was rigged. So, of course intimidation tactics is his modus operandi, and it makes sense that a female that was sexually harassed by someone like that, would fear intimidation or threats of a retaliatory lawsuit by the Orange clown.
I don't think anyone on here has labeled Hillary as squeaky clean, or even would make a great environmental president. I don't think she will. My hope doesn't lie with Hillary, but who she chooses in her cabinet. To me that is much more important.
Trumpty's shortlist for secretary of the DOI are Forrest Lucas, Butch Otter, or his son. Talk about horrific choices. I think anyone with a semi-critical mind that has a passion for National Parks would be horrified at those choices.
Interesting that you have such insight into his "shortlist" Perhaps you can share your source. This recent article has a much longer list of candidates but notes that these are only candidates identified by others not identified by the Trump organization.
http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060043126
Oh, and as the article notes, neoptism laws would forbid Trump from appointing his son so we already know you are at least 33% wrong about your shortlist.
Well, this is fun! You go away for a few hours and the roof comes off the house! So let's cut to the chase. This is an election, in Peggy Noonan's view, between Depression and Anxiety. If you want to be depressed for another four years, you will vote for Secretary Clinton. Liberals just love being depressed. However, if you are the anxious sort--and believe in taking risks--you will be voting for Donald Trump.
I have a slightly different take. This is an election between Smugness and Anger. Secretary Clinton is betting that all of her sins (and there are many) will in the end be overlooked. She will be the first woman in the White House; she will be the first Mom and Grandmother. Because she is on the right side of political correctness, how can anyone (indeed, how dare anyone) doubt her? She will be fighting for YOU!
This is to explain the anger. Trump's followers are so sick and tired of being told they are guilty of failing the country they will do anything to have a change. They sense that Secretary Clinton is not in this race to solve their problems, and after the election will revert to type. It's all my fault again for not supporting "diversity."
Harsh? Just so. The rhetoric of the politically correct has become unusally harsh. As Peggy Noonan again writes, "I don't know about you, but when people look down on me I want them to be distinguished or outstanding in some way--towering minds, people of equisite sensibility or learning. Not these grubby poseurs, these people who've never had a thought but only a sensation: Christians are backward, I saw it in a movie!" It's the big fact of American life now, isn't it? That we are patronized by our inferiors."
You didn't say diversity, Alfred, so nothing you say has any worth.
In short, let's stop kidding ourselves that this election is all about "deficit spending"--or in our case the national parks. It is rather all about a deep-seated anger that, whoever wins, is not about to go away.
EC, I must read a lot more than you because many articles have talked about those possible selections.