Election 2016 POTUS exit poll

[WebSlave]

Well, just when you think Hillary couldn't get any more sleazy and had slimed her way back under a rock.....

 

[AbsoluteApril]

Kind of interesting how upbeat I feel since the election.

While I didn't vote for her, I've been very depressed about the outcome and shell shocked the last few days. I worry for the country. I'm sure if it was the opposite outcome, some of you would feel the same.

The rioting is stupid and people need to be arrested and fined as needed for any property destruction.

The condescending tone of some of the posts in this thread is disheartening. I assume I'll get ridiculed for even posting a dissenting opinion. oh well.

We live in a democracy and this was the choice the majority decided on, we all must strive on and make the best of any situation and have faith in the system of checks and balances.

 

[Pasodama]

Well, just when you think Hillary couldn't get any more sleazy and had slimed her way back under a rock.....

Even if there were any validity, to this video's claims, I don't see it working out for Hillary.

On a side note re. the protesters and those merely taking advantage of the situation.
It is true that people have a right to protest something, should they wish to, but I am appalled, and disgusted, by those who have taken it to violence and criminal behavior.
With those merely taking advantage of the situation, well, what else could we expect from criminals and certain children.

....

 

[Pasodama]

While I didn't vote for her, I've been very depressed about the outcome and shell shocked the last few days. I worry for the country. I'm sure if it was the opposite outcome, some of you would feel the same.

The rioting is stupid and people need to be arrested and fined as needed for any property destruction.

The condescending tone of some of the posts in this thread is disheartening. I assume I'll get ridiculed for even posting a dissenting opinion. oh well.

We live in a democracy and this was the choice the majority decided on, we all must strive on and make the best of any situation and have faith in the system of checks and balances.

Personally, in no way, shape, or form would I ridicule you, for your opinion/post, and feel that it is not justified for anyone else to do so either.

Myself, I am ecstatic that Hillary lost. I truly believe that she would have been a destructive force for our country.
The U.S. would have head for a serious downward spiral.

I don't truly know, at this time, how well Trump will do, as a president, but at least, with him, I have hope.
I wish him the best in his presidency.

....

 

[Lucille]

The condescending tone of some of the posts in this thread is disheartening. I assume I'll get ridiculed for even posting a dissenting opinion. oh well.

We live in a democracy and this was the choice the majority decided on, we all must strive on and make the best of any situation and have faith in the system of checks and balances.

I agree with your outlook. And more people voted for Hillary Clinton than voted for Donald Trump, but he had the most electoral votes. I am hoping that everyone can work together for the common good, and that the election will not continue to be divisive even after it is over.

 

[WebSlave]

Just out of curiosity, to those of you who did vote for HilLIARy, what was it about her that led you to believe she would make the best choice of president of the USA?

Were the negative issues concerning her just insignificant compared to those positive traits you saw for someone wanting to be the leader of our country?

Seriously, I would like to try to understand the "other" view.

 

[Lucille]

Seriously, I would like to try to understand the "other" view.

Seriously, if you go looking for an actual dialogue with someone with a different view, you might set aside the red lettering just while you are talking; it's a dead giveaway that you are not in fact serious about understanding something.
There's a lot of that going around right now in both parties, people want to show off the memes they found and be clever and have the cutest last word post, but not understand.

 

[JColt]

I am surprised and disappointed that all America could come up with was these 2 in the first place.

There was a spattering of riots when Obama won second term.

Now Trump says he'd like to keep some of the most expensive parts of Obamacare.

I think it's going to be a bumpy 4 years. I just hope all of us make it out OK. Left,Right, Dem, Rep and Moderates.

 

[CwnAnnwn]

I would like to point out that both parties and the way the primaries are done, require both parties to select the one that will say the most radical things to win. If you are going to win that system, you HAVE to become more extreme then the other people running.

If you are upset about the current outcomes, you need to go to your parties website, physical address, and email people in charge. DEMAND they change the primary system.

The reason both candidates was completely unacceptable to the VAST majority of people is simply because only 41% of the voting population took part in the primary. Only 19% of them voted for the two candidates that ran.

If you depend on 20% of the voting population to select the candidate don't be surprise if they select some of the worst people.

Just out of curiosity, to those of you who did vote for HilLIARy, what was it about her that led you to believe she would make the best choice of president of the USA?

Were the negative issues concerning her just insignificant compared to those positive traits you saw for someone wanting to be the leader of our country?

Seriously, I would like to try to understand the "other" view.

I will address this. It has nothing to do with the person. Everyone loves to view politics like a football team. They win, they lose....


But when you actually vote for someone, you are voting for the platform you hope they will support.

I will not hide that I am a liberal. I am an old school liberal. I am the original definition of liberal. I am a John Locke liberal.

So when I look at the two candidates.

I see the republicans telling people what they can and can not do. Telling people who they can marry, who they can socially interact with, what you can do with your body, what your position in society you will full fill.

Republican want to control you. As a liberal, I find that completely unacceptable.

The government and the parties should not care if you want to marry same sex or not. They should not care if you visit other Muslims, anarchists, communist, or reptile keepers. They should not care what you do to your body. If you want an abortion, if you want tattoos, if you want to be a boy or girl.

None of the above is or should be in the course of political discussion. It is in the political realm, and we have parties based on those social constructs.

As a liberal, I am going to default to the party that give the most social and cultural freedoms to the people with the smallest amount of government. Yes, we need government, but we need to make sure that freedoms and rights of the people are the outcome of that government.

When I listen to and hold down my vomit with Donald Trump, I listened to a racist misogynist bigot that has some of the most insult and degrading ideas put forward in the last 40 years. In my opinion he has the right to be a racist misogynist bigot, I have the right to disagree with him.

But if I listen to and hold down my vomit with Hillary Clinton, I find a career criminal that has infringed repeating on our basic rights. Most of the things that have completely screwed us in the last 8 years have been done directly by her or people that she supports. There is zero chance that her election would change the track of the last year 8 years. Hillary Clinton would continue to destroy our basic rights. And she would revoke the basic right to violently overthrow the government.

Now when I voted. I looked at the basic rights each candidate would strip from us. Donald Trump is a threat to basic liberty and basic rights. Hillary Clinton is a threat to basic liberty and basic rights.

In the last 8 years, we gain the right to marry who we want. And that was sorted by the supreme court. Trump may try to change the outcome of this, but it is unlikely.

Clinton WILL repeal the 2nd amendment. That right will be gone and never come back.

Now if I did not care about the fundamental right to defend ourselves, bring jobs back to this country, and building out infrastructure, I could see a person voting for Clinton. Donald trump will damage freedom and liberty for many people. He could enforce the religious ideas onto the whole country. He could create a fascist military state. And to a lot of people that is a scary idea. If you believed that this is possible, it is in your best interest to vote against him.

But if you look at the current behavior of the government and you think Clinton will continue to extend that fascist movement, we are in a fascist military state with zero rights to defend yourselves.

I don't blame people for voting for Clinton. They where put in the place to shot themselves in the hand or foot.

Some shot themselves in the hand, hoping they could run away if this turned south. Some shot themselves in the foot, hoping the could fight off the problem if this turned south.

For most people, and I mean the vast majority of people, they voted on who they thought would not screw it up so much there would not be an election in 4 years.

Most people just wanted to keep the system going. Try to improve their lot in life. They picked who they thought would harm them less. They did not pick a person they thought would hurt others, only not harm them.

Trump won because he promised to bring jobs back, to secure our country, and rebuild our country.

Clinton promised 4 more years of obama. And for those not paying attention, we are heading back to the ditch. People only voted for Clinton because they thought Trump would run over the ditch and into the lake beyond.

Each side did not vote for anyone because they thought it would be better for this country. They voted for a candidate because they thought it would not be as bad for themselves. You can not blame them for that.

 

[WebSlave]

Seriously, if you go looking for an actual dialogue with someone with a different view, you might set aside the red lettering just while you are talking; it's a dead giveaway that you are not in fact serious about understanding something.
There's a lot of that going around right now in both parties, people want to show off the memes they found and be clever and have the cutest last word post, but not understand.

I see. So obviously you have become an expert in knowing my mind and in so doing believe that I am lying about my request for understanding. And in so doing, this obviously negated your ability to be able to attempt to satisfy my request.

Cool.....

I would like to point out that both parties and the way the primaries are done, require both parties to select the one that will say the most radical things to win. If you are going to win that system, you HAVE to become more extreme then the other people running.

If you are upset about the current outcomes, you need to go to your parties website, physical address, and email people in charge. DEMAND they change the primary system.

The reason both candidates was completely unacceptable to the VAST majority of people is simply because only 41% of the voting population took part in the primary. Only 19% of them voted for the two candidates that ran.

If you depend on 20% of the voting population to select the candidate don't be surprise if they select some of the worst people.

And a corollary of that theorem has to be: If 80 percent of the voting population doesn't even vote, then just being along for the ride, they have no stock in the outcome of what other people decide for them.

I will address this. It has nothing to do with the person. Everyone loves to view politics like a football team. They win, they lose....


But when you actually vote for someone, you are voting for the platform you hope they will support.

I see it that way as well. Which was the root of my question as to what people saw in HilLIARy and her platform to convince them to vote for her. What platform did she support that someone voting for her was hoping to support with their vote?

I will not hide that I am a liberal. I am an old school liberal. I am the original definition of liberal. I am a John Locke liberal.

So when I look at the two candidates.

I see the republicans telling people what they can and can not do. Telling people who they can marry, who they can socially interact with, what you can do with your body, what your position in society you will full fill.

Republican want to control you. As a liberal, I find that completely unacceptable.

And the Democratic position in the above mentioned issues was what, exactly? In what way did HilLIARy differ from Trump that made her more attractive as the candidate for the presidency?

The government and the parties should not care if you want to marry same sex or not. They should not care if you visit other Muslims, anarchists, communist, or reptile keepers. They should not care what you do to your body. If you want an abortion, if you want tattoos, if you want to be a boy or girl.

None of the above is or should be in the course of political discussion. It is in the political realm, and we have parties based on those social constructs.

As a liberal, I am going to default to the party that give the most social and cultural freedoms to the people with the smallest amount of government. Yes, we need government, but we need to make sure that freedoms and rights of the people are the outcome of that government.

I agree that most people normally look out for their own best interests concerning who it is they want to vote for to hold the highest office in our government. One tends to believe (hope?) that most people think about most things in the same way they do, and therefore improvements in their own state of affairs would generally mean an improvement to society in general. Would be nice if that were universally true, but....

When I listen to and hold down my vomit with Donald Trump, I listened to a racist misogynist bigot that has some of the most insult and degrading ideas put forward in the last 40 years. In my opinion he has the right to be a racist misogynist bigot, I have the right to disagree with him.

I guess it was inevitable that a discussion about Hillary would have to also become a discussion about Trump.

So let's get those terms defined, shall we?

racist = person who believes that a particular race is superior to another.

misogynist = woman hater. a person who dislikes, despises, or is strongly prejudiced against women

bigot = a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.

Now, I can't claim to have read or watched everything Trump has stated, but I believe I have watched quite a bit. But I have to say that I have not read anything that was quoted in it's entirety and not out of context, that I would agree with any of the above labels. Now I did see a LOT of OUT OF CONTEXT clips and quotes that certainly appeared to try hard to cause someone to believe that those sorts of labels applied. And as is apparent, they were quite effective reaching their intended goal. So I guess the impression anyone had come to mind about Trump probably is directly related to the effort they made to actually get to the bottom of those claims being made or inferred. Some people might very well believe that taking such things at face value without digging further was quite enough for them, so obviously, mileage will vary quite a bit with each individual's opinion.

But if I listen to and hold down my vomit with Hillary Clinton, I find a career criminal that has infringed repeating on our basic rights. Most of the things that have completely screwed us in the last 8 years have been done directly by her or people that she supports. There is zero chance that her election would change the track of the last year 8 years. Hillary Clinton would continue to destroy our basic rights. And she would revoke the basic right to violently overthrow the government.

So the question would have to be: Were those qualities that people who voted for her were supporting with their vote? I don't consider them as positives, but perhaps some others do.

Now when I voted. I looked at the basic rights each candidate would strip from us. Donald Trump is a threat to basic liberty and basic rights. Hillary Clinton is a threat to basic liberty and basic rights.

How so? That is a pretty broad claim to make about each candidate, and I will be perfectly honest, I did not get that impression about Trump when I viewed his campaign claims. Of course, I can see where illegal immigrants in this country might feel that way, but quite honestly, I just don't believe that they really have any legal rights in this country anyway, so the point is moot. On the other hand, certainly illegal immigrants would likely have HIGHLY favored Clinton in this race. Matter of fact, it appears that Obama even actively solicited the votes from illegal immigrants because of this presumed favoritism they would exhibit.

In the last 8 years, we gain the right to marry who we want. And that was sorted by the supreme court. Trump may try to change the outcome of this, but it is unlikely.

So you are claiming that Trump is also on public record being against gays as well? In any event, I agree with you that such issues are not the realm of our federal government, so I honestly did not look into that particular aspect of the race for the presidency.

Clinton WILL repeal the 2nd amendment. That right will be gone and never come back.

No, she might ATTEMPT to get the Second Amendment repealed, but the office of the presidency does not hold the power to repeal amendments. This one issue alone would have been enough for me to vote against her. All the rest of the issues I perceived of her was just mold on the cake.

Now if I did not care about the fundamental right to defend ourselves, bring jobs back to this country, and building out infrastructure, I could see a person voting for Clinton. Donald trump will damage freedom and liberty for many people. He could enforce the religious ideas onto the whole country. He could create a fascist military state. And to a lot of people that is a scary idea. If you believed that this is possible, it is in your best interest to vote against him.

Freedom and liberties for which people? Honestly the only thing I recall along such lines is that he claims he wants to deport all illegal immigrants and halt the influx of refuges until a system is in place to adequately identify the people coming in to try to prevent terrorists from being imported along with the innocents. Honestly? I cannot find fault with that at all.

I did not see or notice anything concerning Trump's attitude about enforcing religious ideas on the country. If you can easily find such a quote, I would appreciate seeing a link to such information.

The same goes for a "fascist military state". Although I can see where that could be construed in his efforts mentioned above to expel illegal immigrants and attempt to put in a system to more secure our country's borders.

Again, you mentioned reason why NOT to vote for Clinton, but I still haven't seen reasons TO vote for her other than simply to vote against what you believe are the negatives of Trump. Certainly she must have something positive going for her to entice that vote at the ballot box?

But if you look at the current behavior of the government and you think Clinton will continue to extend that fascist movement, we are in a fascist military state with zero rights to defend yourselves.

I can't argue against that. So the claim here is that Trump would make that worse, and a positive attribute of Clinton is that she would merely keep it the same?

I don't blame people for voting for Clinton. They where put in the place to shot themselves in the hand or foot.

Some shot themselves in the hand, hoping they could run away if this turned south. Some shot themselves in the foot, hoping the could fight off the problem if this turned south.

For most people, and I mean the vast majority of people, they voted on who they thought would not screw it up so much there would not be an election in 4 years.

So the impression is that most of the 20 percent who DID vote only did so to vote AGAINST the other candidate? Seems odd that there are riots and violent protests if people really didn't find something to feel strongly enough about to vote FOR to be incensed that Clinton did not win the election, don't you think?

Most people just wanted to keep the system going. Try to improve their lot in life. They picked who they thought would harm them less. They did not pick a person they thought would hurt others, only not harm them.

So the status quo after 8 years of Obama was what most people really wanted out of this election? So that was the only attraction of Clinton? That people hoped that she would not CHANGE things as much as Trump would?

Trump won because he promised to bring jobs back, to secure our country, and rebuild our country.

And that was something worthy of voting AGAINST Trump for?

Clinton promised 4 more years of obama. And for those not paying attention, we are heading back to the ditch. People only voted for Clinton because they thought Trump would run over the ditch and into the lake beyond.

Again the supposition that Clinton promised to retain the status quo, and that was worthy of wanting her to become the president of the USA. It sounds to me that what is being said here is that people preferred that NOTHING would change with Clinton, and that was preferable to someone who was promising to actually try to CHANGE things that at face value appear to be an attempt to leading this country OUT of the mess it is in now. Am I reading this right? People would prefer the promise of "more of the same" instead of wanting to take the risk that someone might actually pull a rabbit out of their hat and really make a positive change to our country?

Each side did not vote for anyone because they thought it would be better for this country. They voted for a candidate because they thought it would not be as bad for themselves. You can not blame them for that.

I can't speak for anyone else, of course, but in my case I actually did vote for Trump because I believe what he is saying is the truth. That he truly will try to make this country better. Honestly, at first I did not care for Trump at all, and that was based solely on what I perceived as his treatment of his past wives and his attitude about marriage. In the primaries I wrote him off completely because of that and voted for someone else. And honestly and truly, I had already promised myself that I would not vote solely to vote AGAINST someone again. If a candidate did not present him or herself that I felt strongly enough to vote FOR, I was going to decline to vote at all. But the more I read about Donald Trump, the more I felt my earlier concerns decline in importance to me. It finally reached a point where I truly and honestly felt that Trump, if he is ALLOWED to do what he says he is going to try to do, then he will make this country a better place. No, not for everyone, as that would be an impossible task. But for the greater majority of the people, for certain, in my opinion. The fact that HilLIARy Clinton looked worse and worse the more I read about her really just made the choice so much easier for me as it became obvious to me that her coming into the power that the presidency of the USA would give her would be a disaster in epic proportions to this country.

Obviously others feel differently about Clinton, and regardless of what some have implied here, I honestly DO want to understand what it was that people see in her that would convince them that her warts weren't so big and ugly that they would want her with that sort of power.

In any event, thank you for your thoughts.

 

[WebSlave]

And speaking of Trump, I heard mention of a "100 day plan" to make America great again, so I looked it up.

What follows is my 100-day action plan to Make America Great Again. It is a contract between myself and the American voter — and begins with restoring honesty, accountability and change to Washington

Therefore, on the first day of my term of office, my administration will immediately pursue the following six measures to clean up the corruption and special interest collusion in Washington, DC:

* FIRST, propose a Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress;

* SECOND, a hiring freeze on all federal employees to reduce federal workforce through attrition (exempting military, public safety, and public health);

* THIRD, a requirement that for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated;

* FOURTH, a 5 year-ban on White House and Congressional officials becoming lobbyists after they leave government service;

FIFTH, a lifetime ban on White House officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government;

* SIXTH, a complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections.

On the same day, I will begin taking the following 7 actions to protect American workers:

* FIRST, I will announce my intention to renegotiate NAFTA or withdraw from the deal under Article 2205

* SECOND, I will announce our withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership

* THIRD, I will direct my Secretary of the Treasury to label China a currency manipulator

* FOURTH, I will direct the Secretary of Commerce and U.S. Trade Representative to identify all foreign trading abuses that unfairly impact American workers and direct them to use every tool under American and international law to end those abuses immediately

* FIFTH, I will lift the restrictions on the production of $50 trillion dollars' worth of job-producing American energy reserves, including shale, oil, natural gas and clean coal.

* SIXTH, lift the Obama-Clinton roadblocks and allow vital energy infrastructure projects, like the Keystone Pipeline, to move forward

* SEVENTH, cancel billions in payments to U.N. climate change programs and use the money to fix America's water and environmental infrastructure

Additionally, on the first day, I will take the following five actions to restore security and the constitutional rule of law:

* FIRST, cancel every unconstitutional executive action, memorandum and order issued by President Obama

* SECOND, begin the process of selecting a replacement for Justice Scalia from one of the 20 judges on my list, who will uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States

* THIRD, cancel all federal funding to Sanctuary Cities

* FOURTH, begin removing the more than 2 million criminal illegal immigrants from the country and cancel visas to foreign countries that won't take them back

* FIFTH, suspend immigration from terror-prone regions where vetting cannot safely occur. All vetting of people coming into our country will be considered extreme vetting.

Next, I will work with Congress to introduce the following broader legislative measures and fight for their passage within the first 100 days of my Administration:

1. Middle Class Tax Relief And Simplification Act. An economic plan designed to grow the economy 4% per year and create at least 25 million new jobs through massive tax reduction and simplification, in combination with trade reform, regulatory relief, and lifting the restrictions on American energy. The largest tax reductions are for the middle class. A middle-class family with 2 children will get a 35% tax cut. The current number of brackets will be reduced from 7 to 3, and tax forms will likewise be greatly simplified. The business rate will be lowered from 35 to 15 percent, and the trillions of dollars of American corporate money overseas can now be brought back at a 10 percent rate.
   
2. End The Offshoring Act. Establishes tariffs to discourage companies from laying off their workers in order to relocate in other countries and ship their products back to the U.S. tax-free.
   
3. American Energy & Infrastructure Act. Leverages public-private partnerships, and private investments through tax incentives, to spur $1 trillion in infrastructure investment over 10 years. It is revenue neutral.
   
4. School Choice And Education Opportunity Act. Redirects education dollars to give parents the right to send their kid to the public, private, charter, magnet, religious or home school of their choice. Ends common core, brings education supervision to local communities. It expands vocational and technical education, and make 2 and 4-year college more affordable.
   
5. Repeal and Replace Obamacare Act. Fully repeals Obamacare and replaces it with Health Savings Accounts, the ability to purchase health insurance across state lines, and lets states manage Medicaid funds. Reforms will also include cutting the red tape at the FDA: there are over 4,000 drugs awaiting approval, and we especially want to speed the approval of life-saving medications.
   
6. Affordable Childcare and Eldercare Act. Allows Americans to deduct childcare and elder care from their taxes, incentivizes employers to provide on-side childcare services, and creates tax-free Dependent Care Savings Accounts for both young and elderly dependents, with matching contributions for low-income families.
   
7. End Illegal Immigration Act Fully-funds the construction of a wall on our southern border with the full understanding that the country Mexico will be reimbursing the United States for the full cost of such wall; establishes a 2-year mandatory minimum federal prison sentence for illegally re-entering the U.S. after a previous deportation, and a 5-year mandatory minimum for illegally re-entering for those with felony convictions, multiple misdemeanor convictions or two or more prior deportations; also reforms visa rules to enhance penalties for overstaying and to ensure open jobs are offered to American workers first.
   
8. Restoring Community Safety Act. Reduces surging crime, drugs and violence by creating a Task Force On Violent Crime and increasing funding for programs that train and assist local police; increases resources for federal law enforcement agencies and federal prosecutors to dismantle criminal gangs and put violent offenders behind bars.
   
9. Restoring National Security Act. Rebuilds our military by eliminating the defense sequester and expanding military investment; provides Veterans with the ability to receive public VA treatment or attend the private doctor of their choice; protects our vital infrastructure from cyber-attack; establishes new screening procedures for immigration to ensure those who are admitted to our country support our people and our values
   
10. Clean up Corruption in Washington Act. Enacts new ethics reforms to Drain the Swamp and reduce the corrupting influence of special interests on our politics.

On November 8th, Americans will be voting for this 100-day plan to restore prosperity to our economy, security to our communities, and honesty to our government.

This is my pledge to you.

And if we follow these steps, we will once more have a government of, by and for the people.

Can't say I agree with everything on that list, but heck, not bad if he can actually pull it off. So we shall see...

 

[Robert Walker]

I would be absolutely thrilled if he could pull off this list, even if it took his whole term. So much on there are common sense goals. I will admit that it is super frustrating that many of the "duh" items haven't already been taken care of in the past.
...limiting terms (duh)
...5 year wait period for lobbyist (duh)
....never a foreign lobbyist (duh)

I didn't vote for him (over cool headedness) but if he can pull this list off, I would be very grateful.

 

[snowgyre]

SECOND, a hiring freeze on all federal employees to reduce federal workforce through attrition (exempting military, public safety, and public health

This sounds good, except the agencies that are going to get hit hardest by these reductions are all the environmental-oriented ones. In addition to already having the lowest employee count since the 1960s and hiring freezes since 2008 (they just started rehiring people this year to replace retirees), Trump is also predicted to slash funding to these agencies by approximately 70%. I've included a list of the agencies below and a description of what they do:

- Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS): Directly assists farmers with the Conservation Reserve Program and other programs which pay farmers for keeping land out of production to prevent food prices from crashing and driving them out of business, among other things. Please note that food supplies have never been truly a free-market Capitalist item for obvious reasons.

- The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS): Responsible for creating hunting regulations on migratory birds because these species cannot be managed at the state level, again for obvious reasons. Fun fact: when Bill Clinton shut down the Federal government while he was in office, Congress had to reconvene for an emergency session to approve the annual duck hunt in the country, which generates millions, if not billions of dollars in revenue annually for the country. The USFWS also manages several key refuges that are the primary production areas for reproduction and feeding for endangered and threatened species, and for huntable species.

- The USDA Forest Service: The Forest Service's mission stems from their first Chief, Gifford Pincho, and is "to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation's forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations." Gifford Pincho was a classic utilitarian, who believed in "the greatest good for the greatest number of people for the longest time." The USDA Forest Service does allow sustainable harvests on its property, and is a fire-fighting machine out west.

Those are just the three I'm going to focus on now, but there is also the US Geological Survey (which I know isn't popular in reptile circles but the agency still provides critical information and expertise, particularly in producing highly accurate satellite imagery and mapping and climate change predictors to assist developers make decisions about where to place buildings based upon projected sea level rises, etc.), and the Environmental Protection Agency. Again, the EPA isn't popular, but it isn't meant to be. It's meant to protect everyone's basic rights to clean air and water from the few who would destroy those resources based upon greedy and unethical business practices. The rules exist generally because something really bad happened. Remember, the feds aren't really good at preventing anything, most regulation is reactionary.

Trump's policies are that he will open these public lands to mining, fracking, and pipelines to private entities that will profit immensely with little, if any, of those profits actually being returned to the American public. Some of these areas are incredibly ecologically sensitive and simply cannot be restored if destroyed, and it doesn't take much to destroy these areas. For example, a single vehicle driving over arctic tundra can leave tracks that will remain for over 100 years. Now imagine semi-trucks doing the same.

I did a post doc on the USDA Forest Service Safety Journey in 2010-2011. I surveyed over 10,000 USDA FS employees. The results are published, so I am free to discuss them now. USDA FS employees are extremely demoralized. They've been forced to operate under the mantra "do more with less" because of chronic, pathological operating cuts and deaths and injuries have occurred. Additionally, the new FS trucks are white... same as border patrol, and several non-law enforcement FS employees have been shot at due to mistaken identity in border states. Buildings haven't been renovated since the 1960s. Employees can't retire because the 2008 market crash tanked their investments. They are exhausted.

This has been an extremely disheartening plan for those of us in a field that is already not appreciated by most. It has been extremely difficult to teach students the sciences of wildlife ecology and management and forestry when the job market continues to shrink not because of declining needs (the need is greater than ever due to ever-increasing human populations), but because of fickle politics. This really is about crapping in one's bed, and my fields are the ones with the proverbial plunger.

 

[JColt]

Funny you posted Vanessa, I read an article from my local newspaper yesterday and thought it might be interesting to you although at the time I couldn't remember what your screen name was. Anyway read below. I'd like to hear your response.

Dear President-elect Trump,

I suppose congratulations are in order. As I’m not into politics, allow me to find some common ground between us and invoke the cheer of that great outdoorsman and former holder of your new office, President Teddy Roosevelt, and say, “Bully for you!”

Now, let’s get down to brass tacks. We, the People, have some jobs for you in the outdoors.

First and foremost, save our public lands. Stop the transfer of federally managed lands to individual states where it’s being sold for mineral exploitation and closed to the public. This land has always been open to public recreation of the people, and that’s not for sale.

Make an executive order that for every acre of public access land or water removed from the inventory of public hunting, fishing, hiking and camping, an acre of land or water must be added in an equally accessible area of the country. That is to say you can’t replace 60 acres of Ohio’s Wayne National Forest with 60 acres in the badlands of New Mexico.

Once you get that order in place, let’s move to make it a Constitutional amendment.

Reel in U.S. Fish and Wildlife from being a repository of advocates for political/environmental causes and return it to being an enforcement agency of the laws meant to protect our natural resources. Let the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the EPA handle the big “earth issues.” The little creatures need protection, too, and Fish and Wildlife needs to look at its name and get back on the job.

Here’s another big task: split the National Parks Service into two agencies, National Monuments and National Parks. The mission of folks who patrol and maintain Yosemite and Yellowstone has little overlap with the mission of those who run New York City historical sites and District of Columbia’s alabaster monuments.

The multiple industrial scale marijuana growing operations discovered within National Parks borders show the immediate need for real law enforcement efforts. Only a ranger — a licensed law enforcement officer — should wear a badge and a ranger’s hat — and we need more of them. For crying out loud, stop handing out badges to every park employee from tour guides to fish biologists.

With multiple sexual harassment scandals persisting at multiple parks, you need to clean house of National Parks management. Change the culture by changing the staffs. People dedicated to the parks deserve human decency in the workplace.

The raising and spending of funds at local parks’ discretion is an outrage to the very concept of a government responsible to the people. Until you get this sorted out, a national hiring freeze is definitely in order. The human resources department is trying to run the show from a very dark place.

Next, stop the tragic myth of Green Wind Energy. Wind turbines are drawing in and killing our eagles and raptors by the hundreds and our already threatened bats by the hundreds of thousands. Granting those companies allowances for so many bald eagle deaths per year is just patently un-American and anti-conservationist. It needs to stop.

Since the FBI now has some time on its hands, and seeing how efficiently it processed 600,000 emails in just eight days, put it to work processing the unknown thousands of backlogged applications to buy a firearms suppressor (silencers). Legal to own and hunt with in nearly every state, there’s no reason it should take almost two years to process an application functionally identical to a concealed carry permit that can be processed in a single day.

Also, set up a scientific, unbiased commission to settle the issue of lead use in fishing tackle and hunting ammunition once and for all. Groups with an anti-hunting/anti-fishing agendas are the only ones doing “studies.”

Re-task and reorganize the ATF from a Soviet-styled secret police force to a helpful law enforcement agency aimed at infiltrating gangs and organized crime rather than intimidating sportsmen. Lurking around parking lots at the fairgrounds gun show and photographing license plates is not only unproductive, it’s unconstitutional.

Time and again, statistics show that criminals do not source guns from a public atmosphere of mostly Federal Firearms License dealers. It’s not a bunch of old guys sitting behind a card table at the skeet club you need to be worrying about. Let’s actually put some hurt on the bad guys in the black market on the streets.

Lastly, appoint a Secretary of the Interior who really, truly loves the outdoors. We don’t need another political ticket-puncher or bureaucratic place-holder. Appoint somebody whose office will be the front seat of a dirt road pick-up truck, a tree stand, a pair of hip waders or a tent. If any issue of the office can’t be settled over a cup of coffee at a campfire ring, it’s not being properly considered.

These are the tasks that need to be done. Good luck. I’ll check back with you in four years to let you know how you did.

Sincerely,

Byron ******

Somewhere in the woods, Ohio

 

[WebSlave]

I certainly don't envy Donald Trump in this new job he has taken on. It's pretty obvious that he will not be able to please everyone. Unfortunately, the government has grown so way out of bounds set by the US Constitution, that reeling it all back in will have to be painful for some people.

But the simple fact of the matter is that the US government just cannot continue spending more money than it brings in. And it certainly cannot just keep on raising taxes and adding for fee-based regulations to try to catch up with the runaway deficit spending that has been going on with wild abandon. Sometimes you just have to grab the nettle and PULL, however.

Unfortunately, many things that will be best for this country as a whole will certainly not be best for all of the individual citizens within it. Question is, will we all be able to just suck it up and make the effort to save the country?

The founding fathers never intended the federal government to get to what it has become today. But the federal government has become like a needle in our arms with a slow drip of an euphoric drug (money) to keep us happy and placid. Pulling the needle out of the arm is going to be painful and make people angry. But can anyone really forward a convincing argument that it isn't necessary?

 

[CwnAnnwn]

racist = person who believes that a particular race is superior to another.

misogynist = woman hater. a person who dislikes, despises, or is strongly prejudiced against women

bigot = a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.

Obviously others feel differently about Clinton, and regardless of what some have implied here, I honestly DO want to understand what it was that people see in her that would convince them that her warts weren't so big and ugly that they would want her with that sort of power.

In any event, thank you for your thoughts.

I also voted for Trump. I am playing devil advocate here.


Racist- I could go into a lot here. But... If you want a hard example not taken out of context. Trump in 1973 sued the fed for the housing act which required him to allow minorities in his buildings. The lawsuit was settled by Trump in 1975. In 1978 the Fed sued and won against trump for denying minorities housing after he promised he would. This is trump, not some 3rd party.

Misogynist- Do we really have to listen to where he grabs them by again?

Bigot- The central park five is all I am going to say.

As for Clinton. She is worst. Which is why I did not vote for her.

But the majority of the population did. If 1 out of 100 of trump voters voted for her, you would be saying president clinton again.

This race was not about how big clintons warts was. This was not about which team was better. This race was about if foot ball or baseball was better.

It did not matter how big or ugly clinton's warts was, because it was her policies that made her lose.

If you put in someone like Jim Webb in the democrat position, you would have trump fighting for places like Texas and Mississippi.

If you put in someone like Marc Rubio into the republican position, you would
have places like Oregon and Washington flipping republican.

But it was clinton vs trump, I can not blame either side for the way they voted.

 

[Pasodama]

Misogynist- Do we really have to listen to where he grabs them by again?

This is one of those things that got "twisted" by quite a few people.
Trump stated this act as just another example of what a celebrity could get away with (during "locker room talk" of what celebrities could get away with). He did not say that he, himself, did it or does it.

....

 

[snowgyre]

Joe, I agree with most of those assessments and requests. My differences of opinion are listed below with the relevant quotes from above. Thank you for sharing the letter, as you can see, there is a lot of unhappiness right now in the environmental field for a lot of reasons.

Reel in U.S. Fish and Wildlife from being a repository of advocates for political/environmental causes and return it to being an enforcement agency of the laws meant to protect our natural resources. Let the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the EPA handle the big “earth issues.” The little creatures need protection, too, and Fish and Wildlife needs to look at its name and get back on the job.

Unfortunately the author does not connect the dots. NOAA, NASA, and USGS already do the vast majority of climate modeling. However, the USFWS and the USDA FS has the difficult task of translating abiotic trends to biotic systems. For example, as the climate changes, so too do weather patterns, rainfall amounts, extreme temperatures, etc. Private forestry companies are already doing "assisted migration" of valuable crop trees, planting them in areas that they do not currently occur but would migrate to if they had the time to do so. Unfortunately, the rate of change exceeds the rate of migration for many of these trees (which require multiple generations to be successful). The same situation is with wildlife, as we are currently trying to restore or maintain wildlife populations in what essentially equates to a patchwork quilt of disconnected refuges. We need the USFWS to continually assess the effects of climate change on wildlife species to predict where we need to focus management efforts now to preserve species into the future.

Also, set up a scientific, unbiased commission to settle the issue of lead use in fishing tackle and hunting ammunition once and for all. Groups with an anti-hunting/anti-fishing agendas are the only ones doing “studies.”

It's very well documented that lead ammunition and fishing tackle is damaging to wildlife. This is why lead shot is no longer allowed for waterfowl hunting, for one example. Legacy lead shot (shot remaining in water bodies from before the lead ban) almost caused the completely failure of endangered trumpeter swan reintroductions in the Upper Midwest and Pacific Coast. These are the largest swans in North America, and could reach areas that had not been picked clean by other species for decades due to their substantially longer necks. Additionally, lead shot in gut piles is a significant cause of mortality of bald eagles and California condors. Lead is enough of an issue that I still teach my students how to examine waterfowl crop tissues for signs of lead poisoning.

 

[Helenthereef]

I'm not an American citizen, I have no political dog in this game, I live in a tiny country where I don't have to listen to international politics if I don't want to, so I won't comment on either side, but....

Does no one see this as a failure of the US electoral system? Your population is now SO huge, and there are SO many of you on different sides of each issue, that it seems to me that the old system simply doesn't work any more.

I've tried to educate myself on how the electoral college works, and I simply don't get it. It seems like maybe it's a hangover from times when it would have taken a long time to count every single vote across the country, but why do you need it when now everyone's vote can be easily counted? If it contradicts the popular vote, why does it take precedence?

But even if the Presidency had gone the way of the popular vote, still almost 50% of the country would have been upset, dismayed, angry etc. Hell, is it even viable to hope that a single person can be expected to act as the face of a country this diverse?

This is happening in many "democratic" countries now - votes coming in almost 50/50 down to the line. Certainly this is what went on in the UK and Australia in the past few years. It seem that no one has a strong idea of what should be done, they are just voting against the other guy.

Is it time for a new look at the democratic system?

 

[JColt]

Very interesting Vanessa. Thanks for explaining. Sensible regulating from either party is essential.