What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[PDH]

In a town of 30,000 in Wyoming there were at least a dozen.  This was in part due to the tech school there (a certain mindset), which was also the source of the numbers I'm giving (a group there was fighting the coal roller movement).

However, numbers are just one part of the story.  As I said, this represents a view that has been around (or growing again) since the Reagan times - that the environment is here for us to use and attempts to stop that are infringements on our liberties.  This sort of stupid needs to be addressed as there are all sorts of people who seem ripe to fall for this line of nonsense.

[crazy canuck]

In a town of 30,000 in Wyoming there were at least a dozen.  This was in part due to the tech school there (a certain mindset), which was also the source of the numbers I'm giving (a group there was fighting the coal roller movement).

However, numbers are just one part of the story.  As I said, this represents a view that has been around (or growing again) since the Reagan times - that the environment is here for us to use and attempts to stop that are infringements on our liberties.  This sort of stupid needs to be addressed as there are all sorts of people who seem ripe to fall for this line of nonsense.

Agreed.  Among the things Trumps said that should have immediately disqualified him from office is claiming climate change was a Chinese plot.   But I suspect that is part of the reason that people who dislike or don't trust science voted for him.  I agree that giving that kind of stupid any credibility does not end well.

[grumbler]

In a town of 30,000 in Wyoming there were at least a dozen.  This was in part due to the tech school there (a certain mindset), which was also the source of the numbers I'm giving (a group there was fighting the coal roller movement).

However, numbers are just one part of the story.  As I said, this represents a view that has been around (or growing again) since the Reagan times - that the environment is here for us to use and attempts to stop that are infringements on our liberties.  This sort of stupid needs to be addressed as there are all sorts of people who seem ripe to fall for this line of nonsense.

I agree, and also agree that this is just something raising its head again after lying more dormant during the 9/11 aftermath.

Having said that, I think that there is definitely a case to be made that the US government owns too much land, and should auction off a big chunk of it.

[PDH]

Having said that, I think that there is definitely a case to be made that the US government owns too much land, and should auction off a big chunk of it.

But nobody wants a lot of the federal land (at least in the West.  They want to ATV or hunt there, they don't want to own it.

[CountDeMoney]

Having said that, I think that there is definitely a case to be made that the US government owns too much land, and should auction off a big chunk of it.

Make it then.

[Admiral Yi]

Make it then.

If you privatize cattle grazing land then the current disputes about prices and tenure change from a loaded political issue to a purely private one.

[CountDeMoney]

Make it then.

If you privatize cattle grazing land then the current disputes about prices and tenure change from a loaded political issue to a purely private one.

Cattle grazing is baby shit, only matters to a handful of irrelevant fucktards that want to live in the past, is as dead an industry as typewriter repair, and has fuck all to do with Federal ownership of 86% of Nevada and 98% of Alaska.   Try again.

[Admiral Yi]

Try again.

No thanks.

[grumbler]

Try again.

No thanks.

[grumbler]

Having said that, I think that there is definitely a case to be made that the US government owns too much land, and should auction off a big chunk of it.

But nobody wants a lot of the federal land (at least in the West.  They want to ATV or hunt there, they don't want to own it.

I am sure that this is quite true, and that some of the land will remain in federal possession simply because it has only recreational value.

However, a lot of land is leased out in various forms.  That land clearly has commercial value and can thus be sold.

[11B4V]

Having said that, I think that there is definitely a case to be made that the US government owns too much land, and should auction off a big chunk of it.

But nobody wants a lot of the federal land (at least in the West.  They want to ATV or hunt there, they don't want to own it.

I am sure that this is quite true, and that some of the land will remain in federal possession simply because it has only recreational value.

However, a lot of land is leased out in various forms.  That land clearly has commercial value and can thus be sold.

Keep it federal. Fuck the commercial value in destroying it.

[grumbler]

Keep it federal. Fuck the commercial value in destroying it.

Eh.  Some of us are not so socialist as others.  Private property isn't "destroyed" property, no matter what your Little Red Book says.

[PDH]

Selling it means rationalizing the mineral and grazing rights leases.  That will not happen.

[Ed Anger]

I suddenly want one of those diesel trucks. I know just where to drive it through.....

[Admiral Yi]

Selling it means rationalizing the mineral and grazing rights leases.  That will not happen.

Why not?  Do those people extracting rents have enough of a stranglehold on Intermountain politics to veto it?