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

I noticed this thread almost two weeks ago, but decided to ignore it! I find it amazing that there are now 36 pages. I figure I should now chine in to make remind everyone of what this forum's topic question is all about. There is no doubt that climbers benefit from a Democratic administration, that cares enough to properly fund our National Parks, protect federal lands from development, & add more public lands (as President Obama did when he designated Chimney Rock in Colorado a national monument).

Republicans want to cut the federal budget in a way that is very destructive to many public agencies. Republicans want to sell federal land back to the states. Republican controlled states would probably sell it to private entities for development. Lets not forget the government shut down in Fall 2013, thanks to the Republican congress unwillingness to agree on a budget. That cost the US economy $24 billion & closed our national parks during prime climbing season. They are also responsible for a government shut down in the Clinton years of the 1990s.

Any climber, who thinks that we benefit under a Republican Administration really needs an education in recent & past American History. While some climbers consider themselves to be Libertarians & thus fear socialism, I should ask them not to drive on the public roads, climb on public lands or send their kids to public schools. These are all socialist programs. The Libertarian philosophy of less government is great when it comes to government respecting the rights of individuals & their privacy. For example, we have a Nanny state that snoops on its citizens & criminalizes drug use, thus creating the largest prison population in the world. On the other hand, less government is not a good thing, when it comes to the protection of public lands & the environment. Nor is it a good thing when it comes to labor rights, health care, food safety, etc.

Teddy Roosevelt was a great president who saved Yosemite & created the national park system. Yes, he was a Republican, but had very little in common with today's Republican Party. He was a progressive, like Bernie Sanders. He fought the robber barons & signed the first anti-trust laws (the Sherman Act) to end big monopolies.

Today's GOP is the Greedy Old Pigs. They will destroy this country, the middle class & the environment. While Donald Trump is a blatant racist & misogynist, he is doing one very good thing. He is destroying the Republican party. Like Bernie Sanders, he is also against our free trade agreements that have caused almost 60,000 factories to be shipped overseas & has ended almost 6 million US manufacturing jobs. Free trade is bad for American workers & the environment (since cargo ships burn more oil than any other form of transportation). But aside from the issue of unfettered free trade, Trump is a very dangerous candidate & I won't expect anything good from him when it comes protecting public lands.

As for Hillary Clinton, she is much better than any Republican (but that's not a very high bar to jump over). She does have a super PAC & will be beholden to the big money interests such as the fossil fuel industry & Wall Street. She should be a much better choice when it comes to protecting public lands.

Berne Sanders is the only real hope for America not becoming an oligarchy that is controlled by Billionaires. He is also the only real hope for addressing climate change, growing the middle class, debt free college & ending this hideous war on drugs & mass incarceration. If you haven't checked out his website BernieSanders.com it is not too late. There are still primaries in 24 states (all in the west) & he could win them. I strongly support the man who is a true progressive, much like Teddy Roosevelt & Franklin D. Roosevelt. That man is Bernie Sanders.

Tim Lutz wrote:have you ever even smoked the ganja bro?

BRO, DO YOU EVEN MARIJUANA?

Tim ... none of my posts advocated pro or con for criminalization. I am trying to have an honest discussion of the negative physical and mental health effects of marijuana, that is all.

Quinn Baker wrote:While I disagree with your decision to vote for trump, Bill, I have to say its a better decision that Gary Johnson. Gary Johnson is a fine guy, I have nothing against him, but as a third party candidate, he has no chance of winning. As such, a vote for him is voting against your own self interest. You are essentially helping the candidate you least agree with by denying the other "big party" candidate a vote. If you hate Trump, but just dislike Hillary, vote Hillary. If you hate Hillary, but can deal with Trump, vote Trump. Until the voting system changes (which it totally should) voting third party is a waste of your vote.

While he may not win, nothing will ever change and the two party system will stay the same with your poor outlook (imagine if women of slaves had that mentality)

If Bernie loses, he could also be a prime example of a write in nomination that could disrupt the election.

If Trump runs, Cruz will be another write in option as many republicans hate him/ he hates many republicans.

There was actually a section NPR where a guy called in and explained how he thinks if trump wins the republican election it will create a three party system (he even said he thought that is why he is running in the first place).

building a wall around mexico and banishing muslims will not happen if he is elected as no other politician will risk career on him. But I guarantee if Hitlery wins we will all see a drop in freedoms.

PosiDave wrote: While he may not win, nothing will ever change and the two party system will stay the same with your poor outlook (imagine if women of slaves had that mentality) If Bernie loses, he could also be a prime example of a write in nomination that could disrupt the election. If Trump runs, Cruz will be another write in option as many republicans hate him/ he hates many republicans. There was actually a section NPR where a guy called in and explained how he thinks if trump wins the republican election it will create a three party system (he even said he thought that is why he is running in the first place). building a wall around mexico and banishing muslims will not happen if he is elected as no other politician will risk career on him. But I guarantee if Hitlery wins we will all see a drop in freedoms.

I take it you haven't read my other posts in this thread, haha. I am an enormous advocate for voting system reform, and would LOVE a more diverse political field. As much as I WANT elections to use instant runnoff voting, they don't currently. So, you shouldn't vote as if they do. If you don't like either of the big candidates, vote for the one you dislike less, not a third party.

Also, what freedoms do you think will be revoked from you if Hillary wins? I don't like her either, but that isn't why lol.

Tim, as with cigarettes, which are legal, there should be the same public outcry through public education, stigma, etc. Educating parents and kids on the dangers of marijuana, and especially smoking pot, should be a major priority in our schools and communities.

Todd Graham wrote:Tim, as with cigarettes, which are legal, there should be the same public outcry through public education, stigma, etc. Educating parents and kids on the dangers of marijuana, and especially smoking pot, should be a major priority in our schools and communities.

There should be a community push to quit listening to and associating with people like yourself.

You think we need to get rid of government so that billionares can run everything, returning us to these times

You think we should treat everyone according to absolute morals

And you think citing poorly designed studies which show weak (unreported statistics and unclear methods sections) relationships between inane things somehow serves as reason to "stigmatize" people. All you have done is give a bunch of people legitimate reasons to "stigmatize" you instead.

Todd Graham wrote:Tim, as with cigarettes, which are legal, there should be the same public outcry through public education, stigma, etc. Educating parents and kids on the dangers of marijuana, and especially smoking pot, should be a major priority in our schools and communities.

Maybe we should label the substance with a Mexican or Islamic sounding name so as to associate it with poor people, then cite a bunch of bogus correlation studies to scare people straight, and then have the govt ram that shit down the children's throats so they will become real mericans. Now that is true libertarian thought for ya.

Hilldog for Prez yo, she can give a hand job to Trump in the oval office to get back at old Billy.

JNE ... I am not talking about criminalization. I am talking about the health risks associated with marijuana. That is all. But what I find interesting is the promotion of marijuana in our culture as some kind of harmless substance when in fact science is proving quite the opposite. I just want it to be looked at with clear lenses, not rose-colored.

Todd Graham wrote:JNE ... I am not talking about criminalization. I am talking about the health risks associated with marijuana. That is all. But what I find interesting is the promotion of marijuana in our culture as some kind of harmless substance when in fact science is proving quite the opposite. I just want it to be looked at with clear lenses, not rose-colored.

I agree. From what I have seen regarding the science behind it, since people can now more easily get funding for research, there is some good science about the measurable effects it has on the brain while the brain is experiencing the substance in a right this moment sense. The conclusions of these studies are things like "after taking marijuana, chemical x incresed/decreased at rate y, whereas in the control, chemical x increased/decreased at rate z" or "after taking marijuana, brain region w looked different than it did in patients who had not taken marijuana". These results are uncontroversial and don't really make any arguments for anyone on either side. They are simply faithful reports of measurements contrasted with other faithful reports of measurements.

The studies which remain unimpressive are the ones which try to correlate marijuana use with any number of things it was claimed to be linked with in order to perpetrate the war on drugs. These invariably turn out to be small studies with hand picked subjects which could and should be called into question on this alone. I have yet to see anyone have the balls to design a proper study, carry it out, and report the actual measured statistics...

For example, to show marijuana users had a higher incidence of X than the general population, you would first need to argue for the incidence rate of X in the general population, controlling for whether or not every participant used marijuana. Then, using some estimate of the number of marijuana users (as defined as use above a certain threshold) and non-users (as defined as use below a certain threshold) you would need to show that the group of people who used marijuana in fact had a higher incidence rate of X. As long as there did not exist a more obvious and over-arching reason (the marijuana users who had X were given some drug with a likely side effect of X), then the results of the study would likely be valid. I have yet to see a study which is anything like this.

I feel the same way about alcohol. Possibly the most self destructive and dangerous activity next to watching TV is drinking alcohol. Yet it is glorified, promoted and generally accepted as an adult thing to do.

"Yeah I used to smoke pot when I was a kid but I grew out of that." Said by many an alcoholic. Wonder when they will grow out of the childish habit of drinking?

People come into work and brag about how wasted they got last night to the boss and everyone laughs. Why is that acceptable. Why is it even legal when it's so destructive.

Drunk drivers kill thousands more Americans each year than domestic and international terrorists. Maybe they are the real terrorists.

Why is alcohol so heavily associated with climbing and things like auto racing? Every event is promoted with alcohol like it's a good thing.

Long and JNE ... agreed.

Today's weed has concentrations of THC many times higher than in the 70s. And when you take into account the health risks of smoking, and the likely increased risk of psychosis from heavy pot use, it seems fair to say that promoting weed in our culture is not a good thing. Further, we still do not know the risk to the brain of kids in adolescence, whose brains are still developing. All in all I just want an honest discussion.

If Todd was an honest man or woman with honest intentions, I would have expected Todd to post up an article which would defend his/her viewpoint regarding pot causing inane psychological effects he wished he could project onto "others".

Todd, your response tells me everything I need to know about you: you cant out compete pot smokers, so feel the constant compulsion to get those around you to agree that you are in fact better than them. That is pathetic. Try accomplishing something instead, it will make you fell a million or more times better :)

Hunter S. Thompson/Quotes

I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me.

The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over.

Buy the ticket, take the ride.

If you're going to be crazy, you have to get paid for it or else you're going to be locked up.

I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours.

In a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity.

When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.

I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.

For every moment of triumph, for every instance of beauty, many souls must be trampled.

The person who doesn't scatter the morning dew will not comb gray hairs.

I'm waiting for him to post any study which shows real potential psychological risks. The one he posted earlier was a "meta-analysis" which derived it's results from a large collection of poorly done research studies.

I'm not asking for a meta-analysis which is a compilation or overview of poorly conducted research, rather a single study which makes his case at least somewhat valid. I'm waiting.

Hunter S. Thompson/Quotes >
“How low do you have to stoop in this country to be President?”
― Hunter S. Thompson, Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72

goodreads.com/work/quotes/2…

Last one....

“The main problem in any democracy is that crowd-pleasers are generally brainless swine who can go out on a stage & whup their supporters into an orgiastic frenzy—then go back to the office & sell every one of the poor bastards down the tube for a nickel apiece.”
― Hunter S. Thompson, Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72

cragmantoo wrote:Hunter S. Thompson/Quotes I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me. .

Yah! HST was a lunatic but he had American politics nailed a long time ago.
The more things change, the more they remain yhe same....

time.com/61940/recreational…

usatoday.com/story/news/nat…

usnews.com/news/blogs/at-th…

Here's three I found that all say marijuana affects young people's brain negatively.

Ok so that's settled. I still enjoyed talking about positives and negatives. I learned a couple things.I would even say I don't see a problem with adults smoking weed. That's a personal choice. You wanna smoke, let your kids smoke. It's up to you.