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
Gary - you can call him a racist all you like. It would be nice if you could provide some actual evidence other than some racist is voting for him.
Sorry, bucky but I watch and read the news on a daily basis and Trump has said so many things that makes me know that he's a race baiting, womanizing bigot. I guess you must have seen where he referred to minority neightborhoods as "ghettos" this morning? Haha such a clown, that trump. Rhetoric like that surely makes America great again, in some bizarre way that I don't understand.
You obviously spend too much time here trying to bait people into your games. Now go away. Find someone else to troll.
And... http://www.vox.com/2016/7/25/12270880/donald-trump-racism-history
Eric - you might want to jump ship before you not only apoligize for his well documented racism but also get tarred with his self-avowed sexual predator pattern.
It's that old "explain it to my grandchildren" thing.
Another article that totally misconstues his statements. I.E. " from his claim that Mexican immigrants are criminals" He didn't say all mexican immigrants are criminals and he didn't say mexican's were criminals. You need to learn the definition of "racist"
Peggy Noonan, a well respected conservative writer for the Wall Street Journal, has been cited here several times by some commenters who seem to be backing DJT. Ms. Noonan is one of my favorite columnists. She is one of a small number who seems able to see, recognize, and write coherently in a fair and truly balanced manner.
Here is a link to her most recent article: http://www.peggynoonan.com/
Its title is: Imagine a Sane Donald Trump ;; You Know He's a Nut, What if He Weren't?
I find myself in full agreement with everything she says in this article. I fervently wish there was a sane Donald Trump. But since there is not, and the Trump I see appears to be incredibly dangerous, I cannot vote for him. But I could certainly have done so if he were the sane Trump she describes here.
Please read it -- even if you think you've already made up your mind.
(And to keep this in the park mode -- check out Donald J. Trump State Park. It really does exist.)
Just the facts, ladies.
Good, Lee. You found it. That article is another reason I like Peggy Noonan. Indeed, what if Donald Trump were not a nut?
However, looking back at history, I am reminded of the danger here. He who keeps waving the bloody shirt had better hope the blood hasn't dried. In the election of 1884, the Democrats were labled the party of Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion. They were still being blamed for the Civil War. Grover Cleveland, accused of fathering an illegitimate child, was the party's nominee. Sound familiar? It should. The Democrats had not won since 1856--the longest losing streak in their political history. The Republicans counted on waving the bloody shirt to put their candidate James G. Blaine over the top. You can't trust those racist, immoral slaveholders, can you? Well, the nation did.
Can you trust Hillary Clinton? If so, to be doing what? Do you want Bill back roaming the corridors of the White House? Talk about a womanizer!
These are the images the public is wrestling with as we go to the polls. This time, it is the Democrats hoping the bloody shirt will stick. History is not so sure. If the nation didn't want to allow Richard Nixon to finish out his second term, why should it want to elect the Democrat's Richard Nixon--and she has even more to hide?
Certainly, while Gary and EC duke it out, there is much more reading both of them could do. We all could do. Watergate is still fresh in my mind. I personally don't want more of that.
Kurt - re quid pro quo
The whole list is damning but items 9,14,27,32,60 & 64 are of particularly interest when it comes to quid pro quos. Don't know how the Times could come to the conclusion the claims are unproven but perhaps item 33 might explain it.
Opps - forgot the link: http://www.mostdamagingwikileaks.com/