Trump asked for public input on Monuments and it's not what he thought

Now we will see if Trump actually gives a damn about what the people of America think. The vast majority of input the government is getting on the review of National Monuments is to leave them alone. I am predicting that Trump will ignore the will of the people and open them up, if not give the outright to big business for mining, drilling, etc. He could make a lot of money by leasing or selling those lands so I will be shocked if he doesn't do it, despite the will of the people.

www.seattletimes.com...

Trump asked for input on monuments — and he’s sure getting it

a reply to: CB328

In keeping with the last administration, Trump should order the FBI to shoot dead anyone that protests government decisions regarding national monuments.

# what the people think, the governments decision is final.

im kinda shocked that people would be willing to stand behind the previous administrations land grab that accounted for over 550 million acres of land. now not all of it should be repealed but a good portion is land that is rich with resources and imo was only protected to prevent agricultural and industrial use. including alot of area out at sea used for fishing. this qoute kinda irked me from the article “Do not do it, Trump,” read one unsigned letter. “These are America’s assets, not yours.” i guess they dont understand that the land grabbed was taken from us the us citizens and held hostage by the fed.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

I agree. The government serves the corporations not the American people.

a reply to: CB328

Except you completely missed the point of Trump's question. Obama made decisions without asking people, and some of those decisions pissed off the locals.

We can have a 1,000 to 1 lopsided vote for keep the monuments, that could mean that 1 in 1,000 monuments people want gone.

www.washingtontimes.com...

a reply to: TheScale

...i guess they dont understand that the land grabbed was taken from us the us citizens and held hostage by the fed...

And i guess some don´t understand that the land grabbed was taken from the native owners and is held hostage by illegal immigrants from europe, till today!

imo was only protected to prevent agricultural and industrial use

What the hell do you think protecting land mean?! To stop it from being destroyed by business.

originally posted by: DerBeobachter
a reply to: TheScale

...i guess they dont understand that the land grabbed was taken from us the us citizens and held hostage by the fed...

And i guess some don´t understand that the land grabbed was taken from the native owners and is held hostage by illegal immigrants from europe, till today!

u wont get an argument from me there. i have relatives that are native americans and its sickening in many ways how they were pushed from their land into reservations that were placed on the worst piece of land possible. unfortunately thats how the world works and has for millennia. at some point everyone has been persecuted and u cant give back everything due to something that happened ages ago. my relatives do get a hefty chunk of change every 2 months and have many opportunities for their children to get just about any education possible free of charge. so if they do take advantage of whats out there they can get some retribution.

I agree the man (Trump) should get out there and LOOK at what he wants corporations to destroy. Out east here reclamation is a joke. Never happens. Until someone forces companies to build clean-up costs into their business models with realistic numbers I think these places should be "hands off".

This jetting back and forth to Florida and golf courses is nice an all, but America is more than a manicured series of tee's and greens. I'm not against natural source extraction but I am against the way it's currently done. The Rape and Run is BS. I think there "May" be places extraction could be beneficial and decent ways of doing it, but NO decision should be made till Trump has an actual visual of what he's implementing.

No good Boss or anyone with responsible leadership skills operates without seeing firsthand how a project will run downstream in it's processes.
JMO

a reply to: TheScale

The irony is we pushed them onto what we thought was crappy land and now business wants that too!
WTF comes to mind.

That land should be off the table as far as renegotiations go. As long as the US doesn't respect existing agreements who do we expect to make new ones with us?

originally posted by: CB328

imo was only protected to prevent agricultural and industrial use

What the hell do you think protecting land mean?! To stop it from being destroyed by business.

not in every case. the land u live on yourself was changed to accommodate the needs of the people. sometimes those needs outweigh the costs of doing such things. many fisherman were put out of business due to some of these land grabs. on top of that some of this land is not a place people are going to go and visit, its no mans land. its a balance and whether or not u like it the land grab by the previous administration was unprecedented and goes far and beyond what was ever done before. at some point your crippling the ability of the nation to be competitive on a local or global scale which can ultimately lead to our demise. in some cases what would be use by industrial or agricultural uses would account for less then 1% of the land being protected. so its just something to be weighed and looked at but shouldnt be outright barred from the get go. but hey atleast we have pretty land to look at while we sit around homeless unable to move onto such land and use its resources to feed ourselves.

theres many way to go about this aswell. maybe we have different restrictions for certain operations in such areas and by doing business there u require said business to pay a hefty fee which goes to promoting and preserving the vast majority of that land aswell. there are alot of options but outright taking them all off the table shouldnt be one of them.

originally posted by: TheScale
im kinda shocked that people would be willing to stand behind the previous administrations land grab that accounted for over 550 million acres of land. now not all of it should be repealed but a good portion is land that is rich with resources and imo was only protected to prevent agricultural and industrial use. including alot of area out at sea used for fishing. this qoute kinda irked me from the article “Do not do it, Trump,” read one unsigned letter. “These are America’s assets, not yours.” i guess they dont understand that the land grabbed was taken from us the us citizens and held hostage by the fed.

The "prevent agricultural and industrial use" was the issue that got the most opposition. Ranchers who had been granted rights to use the land for cattle grazing were affected. They are family run businesses and Republican voters. It's a similar situation with the fishing industry.

www.foxnews.com...

Weak.
a reply to: DerBeobachter

originally posted by: DerBeobachter
And i guess some don´t understand that the land grabbed was taken from the native owners and is held hostage by illegal immigrants from europe, till today!

Very good example of why illegal immigration is a bad idea.

originally posted by: stormcell

originally posted by: TheScale
im kinda shocked that people would be willing to stand behind the previous administrations land grab that accounted for over 550 million acres of land. now not all of it should be repealed but a good portion is land that is rich with resources and imo was only protected to prevent agricultural and industrial use. including alot of area out at sea used for fishing. this qoute kinda irked me from the article “Do not do it, Trump,” read one unsigned letter. “These are America’s assets, not yours.” i guess they dont understand that the land grabbed was taken from us the us citizens and held hostage by the fed.

The "prevent agricultural and industrial use" was the issue that got the most opposition. Ranchers who had been granted rights to use the land for cattle grazing were affected. They are family run businesses and Republican voters. It's a similar situation with the fishing industry.

www.foxnews.com...

yup i remember it well. people dont realize that there are some benefits to those things for the land aswell. since the herds of wild buffalo have pretty much disappeared, the land is not being broken up under foot from their migration across the land which prevents animals like prairie dogs from being able to dig their tunnels into the upturned earth and they are suffering and numbers are dropping. so theres alot of things that are positives not just for us but for the natural environment of the land. im not saying we should just outright let it be a free for all but atleast let things be considered.

The national monuments that Trump is talking about is Obamas unlawful land grabs that he designated as National Monuments. National monuments serve a good purpose but when land grabs become an obsession by an individual for his own agenda then what he has done needs to looked at.
a reply to: CB328

a reply to: CB328

For the most part national monuments are great. But democrat presidents have been trying to take vast swathes of land from the west under the guise of national monuments. Bears ears is a great example, as is the grand staircase. These monuments should be a couple dozen square miles. Instead they're hundreds of square miles. The purpose is obvious to those in the region: Environmentalist pandering.

I encourage people to voice their opnions, regardless of what those opinions are, about this issue. While you're attempting to pile the comments together in some sort of rebuke on trump, the truth is those one in a hundred comments may be making points about specific monuments. All of this is useful information and will only lead to trump being the best president in the last century.