What presidential candidate would be most beneficial to the climbing community and land access?

powhound84 wrote: If you believe in any politician, you are a not very smart. Voting is about picking the lesser of 2 evils.

Know how to tell if a politician is lying?

highaltitudeflatulentexpulsion wrote: Can you be specific on why you'd choose Trump over Hillary? I'm genuinely curious.

Its not Trump over Hillary, its anyone but her.
Simply put Hillary dose not have the best interest of the American people, and she is extremely corrupt. I do not trust the Clintons, they are toxic to America. If she makes it to the white house there is a possibility that she will be impeached, this could have serious repercussions to the democratic party and for feminism. How can anyone with 3 separate ongoing federal investigations be a presidential candidate. Shes not running for president shes running from the law in hopes she makes it to the white house so she can pardon herself. This is just one reason of many.
Hillary for Prison!

Trump mainly because I think he will strip the government down (laissez faire). Although I do not agree with most of his rhetoric I feel he would be the lesser of the 2 evils, even if it means there will be hell toupee. He said he would prosecute Hillary, that is something I can agree with. The main issue I have with Trump is I feel that hes only running to win, not necessarily to be POTUS.

I will vote, its just a matter of for whom, I feel it is your civic duty to to so.

powhound84 wrote: There are words coming out of his/her mouth?

Yup. (I was going to say "Their lips are moving")

Old joke but a good one....

Brian Scoggins wrote: It must be awful living in a part of the world where all of the Federal land is flat and bereft of climbing. So, all of the climbing in National Parks (which is part and parcel of the federal lands heist) is managed at the Federal level. Likewise for anything on National Forest (Wind Rivers, most of the Sierras) or BLM (Indian Creek). While the management offices are staffed by locals, and the decisions are made by and with local input, they are still federal lands. This is true for virtually all the climbing west of the Mississippi River. Even your beloved Red Rock Canyon Conservation Area is federally administered. So, right, wrong or indifferent, the federal government (and therefore the president) can have a lot of say on the subject.

Lol...low blow! Yeah, we don't have a ton of federal land to speak of around here, and most of the nearby climbable rock is either private property, state owned (Devil's Lake, Mississippi Palisades) or climber owned (RRG). That's a fair point about Red Rock and the west, but to be fair, doesn't apply to all (dare I say most) areas. It would be interesting to see data on what % of climbing areas are on federal, state, or private lands, as I think it would best guide the conversation. I assume Access fund has that data...

FDR

powhound84 wrote: He has some good ideas and views but there's that one problem. What is it? Oh yeah, he's a socialist. I can't wait for this election to be over so I can stop hearing about Bernie Sanders.

Socialism sounds good when you are young and idealistic. Take care of those less fortunate than yourself. Steal from the rich and give to the poor.
However, if you are old and still think it would work in this country, you are a bit foolish.

There are too many passive and unambitious people who are happy to be taken care of by the government.
Unfortunately, this makes it rough for those folks that are down and out and really just need some temporary assistance becoming self sufficient (and maybe regaining their pride)

Gary Johnson

#feelthejohnson

But really, loves shooting the government down and he has climbed Everest and some other mountains.

Hippie dirt bag climbers: he was president of a medical cannabis
Company

Mountain folk: he supports the 2nd amendment

highaltitudeflatulentexpulsion wrote:I've gotten rather political this year. I talk to a lot of people. Guess what, I have yet to meet someone that actually comes out and says "Trump". I talk to people who like Hillary, or Sanders. I occasionally talk to someone who likes Rubio or Cruz. More often than not, I talk to people who don't like any of them, and of the bunch are most critical of #1 Trump and #2 Clinton. So what gives, are people publicly embarrassed to like him? Cause statistically, I've definitely talked to someone who likes him. As far as who I like, I vote for the environment. Even if it limits certain areas, at least I know it's not turned into a strip mine.

Quite possibly it could be that people tend to surround themselves with others of similar political/ideological views... How far outside of your own group of friends/acquaintances did you go with this survey?

D B wrote: A higher minimum wage forces those companies to soak up the costs instead of us.

If only that were true...

D B wrote: Already does work! The welfare fraud rate is less than 2%. We're already paying for a living wage, essentially, through welfare. We're subsidizing companies who don't pay their employees enough to live on. A higher minimum wage forces those companies to soak up the costs instead of us.

True-we already have socialism in this country.

I'm all for helping our fellow man and I feel extensive social programs (like in Scandinavia) could work IF every able bodied person was employed and paid decent wages and everyone was taxed heavily but equally (?flat rate).
We have too many people in this country who don't really want to share what they have (and maybe they shouldn't have to) and also too many that really don't want to make any effort to improve their own stock.

Not that I wouldn't want to see the mininum wage raised to at least $10 or $12 but..

The idea that raising by 87% (from $8 to $15 for example) the wages of line employees would add only 17 cents of labor cost allocation to a $4 sandwich implies a ridiculously low cost of line labor as percentage of the sale price.

ie it implies that it was maybe 20 cents out of $4.00 to begin with which implies 5% - I worked with restaurant level McDonald's P&Ls for a couple of years and I can guarantee you that's not an accurate figure for line labor cost as a percent of sales

Not that I trust the Heritage's foundation 38% either, but 4.2% is effin ridiculous.

nationalreview.com/article/…

It was 20 years ago, but if I remember correctly line labor was something like 15-20%, perhaps in the meantime has dropped due to automation but not to the point where it's only 5% of sales.

(I'm leaving out a lot of stuff for simplicity's sake, like the soc sec & medicare matches, state unemployment taxes, workers's comp, some types of bonuses & benefits whose cost might rise w a wage raise, the fact that managers wages' would also go up but not by as high a percentage, etc)

I'm sure the truth is somewhere in between

Write in Yvon Chouinard for Commander and Chief

D B wrote: The welfare fraud rate is less than 2%.

Citation please?

federalsafetynet.com/welfar…

Headstart and Job Training come in at 2%. Nothing comes in at < 2%, everything else comes in higher.

D B wrote: So you like his ideas and views...but you don't like the word? It's gonna be Trump or Sanders, Hillary can't win the general.

Nah, it's gonna be Trump v. Clinton, and Clinton will take it all the way. Unlike the feckless R scam artists, err... candidates that continue to drop like flies, Clinton actually knows how to take an insult from a schmuck like Trump, turn is around, jam it deep into his gullet, and maybe wiggle it around a bit for fun. She is eminently competent and more electable than Sanders.

Personally I am a Sanders man. His policies are largely vaporware, but he was the only one who actually fought against getting involved in Iraq. I can never forgive Hillary for making a political calculation that led to so much suffering and wasted life. That said, I would certainly vote for her over Trump.

And yes, either Hillary or Bernie would be better for land access than any of the republiscammers.

FrankPS wrote:Oh, you want a political discussion? Great idea. Should remain civil for a minute or two.

The time-stamps are giving me a 6 hour mark before the blow-up happened. Maybe we can have faith in humanity afterall :)

D B wrote: Trump would annihilate Hillary over her speeches and campaign finances. Anyways Sanders is gaining as people learn more about him. He'll prob lose super Tuesday, but he'll start winning more and more afterwards. elections.huffingtonpost.co…

Sanders won't just probably lose on super Tuesday, he definitely will, and unless there is a MAJOR sea change after that he will keep losing until at least late March, where he has a fighting chance in Utah and Wisconsin. After that it looks pretty bad for him again.

It's going to be Clinton, and despite my own misgivings about her we should all probably be happy about this, since her chances against Trump are significantly better than Bernie's. Middle America is not ready for a self-professed democratic socialist, regardless of what that actually means, but there are plenty of dumbasses scared by the "sky is falling" crowd that will happily vote Trump.

Clinton v Trump is a really depressing outlook. Sounds like it's time to go live in the woods, lol.

The Clintons should be wearing orange jump suits by the next election.

Biden will fill the slot for Obama's attempt for a third term.

Mickey D's in Castle Rock is paying $10.00/hrs starting wage to employees.

I'm looking to buy an AR-15....

Ted Pinson wrote:Clinton v Trump is a really depressing outlook. Sounds like it's time to go live in the woods, lol.

That's what I don't understand. In a country of several hundred million people, these clowns are the best and brightest? Really?