Mike Lee introduces legislation to sale/develop public lands

O

Oneye

Active Member
Messages
443
www.deseret.com

Buying federal land for affordable housing? Sen. Mike Lee proposes a plan

Sen. Mike Lee has a novel approach to help alleviate Utah’s housing crunch while putting more of the vast amounts of federal land into local hands.
www.deseret.com www.deseret.com

This man makes no secret why he wants public lands transferred. So he can discount(to his political friends), sale, and develop. Remember, this man has an election coming up with several alternative options. How any hunter, outdoorsman, or person who enjoys public lands can continue to endorse this guy, is really way beyond me. Let’s make sure we sale and develop ALL winter range for wildlife in our state. Develop, develop, develop. Water will certainly never run out.
 
Makes no sense, use up all the land and then what? We are back to the original problem. Bottom line is housing is more affordable in the Midwest because it is more sustainable for humans to live there.
 
BeDawg said:
Makes no sense, use up all the land and then what? We are back to the original problem. Bottom line is housing is more affordable in the Midwest because it is more sustainable for humans to live there.
Click to expand...
Apparently water….that thing we’re already running out of, will never be an issue that needs to be acknowledged or addressed. Mike Lee is simply bold about the whole “transfer federal lands” drum beat. This is what the results will be. Discount, sale to certain political and development buddies, and end up with development that is anything but affordable. Apparently the benches of the Wasatch Front aren’t quite developed enough for people like Lee. Beyond the land, the water issues that are going to face Utah and much of the west going forward make this such unsustainable stupidity. The places they’ll be eyeing with things like this is plenty of great mule deer, elk, and pronghorn winter ranges.

As I said, Lee has an election coming up, he’s about the most anti-public lands guy in congress. He has multiple primary challengers, and McMullin running against him in the general. McMullin mirrors Lee on most policies, but is running as an independent. I would encourage hunters and those who value public land and wildlife habitat to give him a look. I understand public lands isn’t the top voting priority for some, but McMullin does mirror Lee policy wise in a lot of ways, and we could at least hope he would have a more favorable public land approach than Lee has shown for his entire time in congress at this point.
 
grizzly said:
I'll vote for McMullin over Lee, but he's no friend of public land. I'm still waiting for one of Lee's primary challengers to separate from the other so I know who to vote for. They're splitting the anti-Lee vote right now.
Click to expand...
Agreed, Lee has shown a pattern of behavior in regards to this, and I’ll take a change at this point. Lee is not open to changing his mind on this, McMullin isn’t running on a “transfer, sale, or develop” public land platform. Lee will likely slide through his primary fairly easily, McMullin will really be his only legitimate challenger, and that will be if Democrats do the wise thing and just not run anyone this go round. McMullin’s policy alignments are very much on the conservative side, but he’s not nearly as extremely as Lee is, especially on things like this. Transferring and selling public lands are at the top of Lee’s list, I would take a leap that that agenda is quite low on McMullins list.
 
JakeH said:
Mcmuffin can suck a fat D. Wouldn't vote for that douch if he was the only option. Worse then Romney.
Click to expand...
Why don’t you give an actual reason rather than childish names? He essentially holds most policy positions Lee does. Apparently political rhetoric is more important to you than your public lands turning into houses and shopping centers. Will you vote for Lee? In spite of the fact he wants to discount, sale, and turn your BLM lands into houses?
 
Oneye said:
Why don’t you give an actual reason rather than childish names? He essentially holds most policy positions Lee does. Apparently political rhetoric is more important to you than your public lands turning into houses and shopping centers. Will you vote for Lee? In spite of the fact he wants to discount, sale, and turn your BLM lands into houses?
Click to expand...
The dude fought tooth and nail against his own part for 4 years, he is no friend of mine.

Would gladly vote for Lee again, not a fan of the state taking over public lands, but that hasn't went anywhere in the 11 years hes been in office, on most other things i support him.

The proposed bill is not the same thing as what has been proposed in the past. What I got from reading the article is it would expand city areas that are butting up against federal land. My opinion of that would be on a case by case basis as I am sure there is a ton of area that this would be useful for and not effect public hunting in the slightest.

McMullen is a blow hard Rino, and I wouldn't trust him on anything. He's a Mitt 2.0 or worse. Neither are people to be trusted. Throw Cox in that group as well.
 
JakeH said:
The dude fought tooth and nail against his own part for 4 years, he is no friend of mine.

Would gladly vote for Lee again, not a fan of the state taking over public lands, but that hasn't went anywhere in the 11 years hes been in office, on most other things i support him.

The proposed bill is not the same thing as what has been proposed in the past. What I got from reading the article is it would expand city areas that are butting up against federal land. My opinion of that would be on a case by case basis as I am sure there is a ton of area that this would be useful for and not effect public hunting in the slightest.

McMullen is a blow hard Rino, and I wouldn't trust him on anything. He's a Mitt 2.0 or worse. Neither are people to be trusted. Throw Cox in that group as well.
Click to expand...
McMullin was anti-one guy. He didn’t think a party should sale it’s soul to one man, and unfortunately it largely did. McMullins actual policy positions, MIRROR Lee’s. So what you’re really into is Lee’s political rhetoric, and blind partisanship. I’m not sure what happened to “country over party” but that seems to be really really getting lost in the weeds. “Rhino” is such a stupid term. Mitt also votes the exact same way as Lee (90% of the time) nearly all the time. Stop pretending you have any actual knowledge on policy, all you’re spewing is that you don’t like that those guys don’t spew political theatre party line garbage. That’s the ONLY difference between someone like Cox/Romney or Lee. That’s it. Because guess what? Mitt voted for more Trump legislation than Lee did while he was in office. You have no actual policy knowledge or standards my guy, you’re willing to sale out your public lands just because you like a guys political theatre more, because it has nothing to do with the way any of them vote or the positions they hold because they’re in 90% lockstep in those categories. Lee is just much more severely anti-public land than basically anyone else in congress. So please, don’t pretend you’re voting for Lee on some sort of high ground here, because I can promise you, you won’t be able to name the policy position differences in the two because there aren’t many.

Now that rant was a bit too far off the public land topic at hand. Yes, and you’re sitting here pretending a hell of a lot of BLM/winter range doesn’t butt up against development? The fact it’s public land is the ONLY reason a lot of valuable habitat is not eaten up by development and that’s exactly what legislation like this opens the door to. There’s multiple places I hunt this would have potential to impact at some point. What you’re making is excuses for a dude who would gladly transfer, sale, and develop your favorite hunting spot for quick buck, but political rhetoric has become just that valuable to waaaaay too many these days. So you keep fighting tooth and nail for the worst public land legislator in Washington.
 
I can see land xfers for critical infrastructure (after a proper impact analysis), but not for cheap housing. Bad idea (n)

Break up the Yellowstone first.
 
Oneye said:
McMullin was anti-one guy. He didn’t think a party should sale it’s soul to one man, and unfortunately it largely did. McMullins actual policy positions, MIRROR Lee’s. So what you’re really into is Lee’s political rhetoric, and blind partisanship. I’m not sure what happened to “country over party” but that seems to be really really getting lost in the weeds. “Rhino” is such a stupid term. Mitt also votes the exact same way as Lee (90% of the time) nearly all the time. Stop pretending you have any actual knowledge on policy, all you’re spewing is that you don’t like that those guys don’t spew political theatre party line garbage. That’s the ONLY difference between someone like Cox/Romney or Lee. That’s it. Because guess what? Mitt voted for more Trump legislation than Lee did while he was in office. You have no actual policy knowledge or standards my guy, you’re willing to sale out your public lands just because you like a guys political theatre more, because it has nothing to do with the way any of them vote or the positions they hold because they’re in 90% lockstep in those categories. Lee is just much more severely anti-public land than basically anyone else in congress. So please, don’t pretend you’re voting for Lee on some sort of high ground here, because I can promise you, you won’t be able to name the policy position differences in the two because there aren’t many.

Now that rant was a bit too far off the public land topic at hand. Yes, and you’re sitting here pretending a hell of a lot of BLM/winter range doesn’t butt up against development? The fact it’s public land is the ONLY reason a lot of valuable habitat is not eaten up by development and that’s exactly what legislation like this opens the door to. There’s multiple places I hunt this would have potential to impact at some point. What you’re making is excuses for a dude who would gladly transfer, sale, and develop your favorite hunting spot for quick buck, but political rhetoric has become just that valuable to waaaaay too many these days. So you keep fighting tooth and nail for the worst public land legislator in Washington.
Click to expand...
Yeah one guy that did more for this country then Romeny could have ever dreamed of. It's the Romeny and McMullen in this country that put us in the sh!t show we are in today with our current president. Those two are the ones that chose party over country, there rhetoric is what helped bring our country to what it is now. All because they didn't like the guy running their own party.

I already said I didn't like the public land transfer stuff, and I said the bill now would be on a case by case basis whether or not I supported it.

You get someone in the primary that I can support I would vote for them over Lee, but McMullen is a non starter for me. Can't stand the guy.
 
So, Lee will get ground opened so Blackrock can own even more housing.

Check the leadership in Utah, outside of Cox, they are all developers.
 
Anyone else feel like we are due a whole bunch of "Utah Values" , abortion, or gun commercials from Mike Lee now?

As he takes another swing at selling off Utah
 
JakeH said:
Yeah one guy that did more for this country then Romeny could have ever dreamed of. It's the Romeny and McMullen in this country that put us in the sh!t show we are in today with our current president. Those two are the ones that chose party over country, there rhetoric is what helped bring our country to what it is now. All because they didn't like the guy running their own party.

I already said I didn't like the public land transfer stuff, and I said the bill now would be on a case by case basis whether or not I supported it.

You get someone in the primary that I can support I would vote for them over Lee, but McMullen is a non starter for me. Can't stand the guy.
Click to expand...
Yet again, you can't name the actual policy that they differ on. You're just invested in the political rhetoric that your brand of politics spew. If only ultra right wing individuals could see how much alike they are to leftists. PS I'll say again, Romney voted more in favor of Trump era policies than Lee, one guy simply didn't like the guys actions and for some reason that means more to you than actual policy. They have every right to not like plenty of the guy running their parties personality and the rhetoric he spewed. I'm sorry but if all you got is "those two were mean to the celebrity President I liked so I'll vote against them and my public lands because I love politics so much" then I really can't help you. It's unfortunate how important certain politicians and politics have become to some. They'll quite literally cut off their nose to spite their face. My public lands are more important to me than worrying about a specific politician or being a fan of them, including the last guy. Trump is quite a bit less important to my day to day life than public lands. I don't fan for any politician that hard. McMullin and Romney very clearly did NOT choose party over country, Lee is the one who ran to the safe base of the party and uses political rhetoric to appease them every day. Lee went from "Trump should step down" to "He's captain Moroni himself" McMullin and Romney's opinions never changed on the dude, and they're 100% right about his character btw.

As for the primary. Isom likely aligns most to stringent conservatism that you would be a bigger fan of, Edwards is more of a moderate.
 
Last edited:
hossblur said:
So, Lee will get ground opened so Blackrock can own even more housing.

Check the leadership in Utah, outside of Cox, they are all developers.
Click to expand...
Cox has surprisingly been softer on this issue. You don't hear him beat the PLT drum near as much as Herbert would. I really haven't had any issues with Cox, he's been pretty decent. He's obviously very pro-mineral development on public lands, but he doesn't make transferring them a keystone issue, he has focused more on management which is what should be focused on. And agreed, the legislature is full of developers, which is why it seems to be the main thing this state pumps and pumps and pumps. We got rid of Chaffetz and Bishop. Lee and Stewart are really the biggest thorns in the side of public lands left in the state. I am surprised (and disappointed) in Romney for signing onto this. He actually introduced fire funding fix legislation that was good legislation that helps fix public land policy and funding issues.
 
hossblur said:
Anyone else feel like we are due a whole bunch of "Utah Values" , abortion, or gun commercials from Mike Lee now?

As he takes another swing at selling off Utah
Click to expand...
Of course. Lee will make sure to pander as hard as he can to the base of his party.
 
Any bets that One-eye is a BHA pint night Bro?

BLM has been selling land around Las Vegas for years due to this same issue. This isn’t the issue or precedence setting you think it is.

BLM sells nearly 665 acres of Las Vegas Valley land at auction | Business

The biggest parcel that sold at the Bureau of Land Management auction Thursday spans 270 acres in the upper northwest valley.
www.reviewjournal.com www.reviewjournal.com

www.blm.gov

Bureau of Land Management Proposes Online Spring Land Sale in Las Vegas Valley | Bureau of Land Management

www.blm.gov www.blm.gov
 
wyoflythrower said:
Any bets that One-eye is a BHA pint night Bro?

BLM has been selling land around Las Vegas for years due to this same issue. This isn’t the issue or precedence setting you think it is.

BLM sells nearly 665 acres of Las Vegas Valley land at auction | Business

The biggest parcel that sold at the Bureau of Land Management auction Thursday spans 270 acres in the upper northwest valley.
www.reviewjournal.com www.reviewjournal.com

www.blm.gov

Bureau of Land Management Proposes Online Spring Land Sale in Las Vegas Valley | Bureau of Land Management

www.blm.gov www.blm.gov
Click to expand...
This is opening the door far wider to plenty of other more valuable land being sold. Btw I am 100% a BHA member. I care about our public lands, so don’t ever think that’s an insult. It’s hilarious you think it is.
 
I fail to see how this will help affordable housing. Steal the land and build 100,000 new homes to flood the market, thus dropping everybody's home value? The guy who just paid current market value is going to love that. And I'm sure the banks will love it when he walks away from to to buy one of the new cheap homes.

Development and construction costs are what they are and I don't think they're getting any cheaper. Beware of any government fix to anything. And expect everybody else in America to move to Utah when they discover "cheap housing" in Utah, thus driving prices through the roof...again.
 
This is just another excuse for a few well known anti-Mike Lee people to start another thread. I am happy to support Mike Lee and think that he is one of the better senators in the country.

And now that you have your panties in a wad, did you happen to notice that Mitt Romney is a co-sponsor? So why not make this thread about how Mitt Romney wants to sell public land? Just because he is the poster boy for the establishment RNIO, he gets a pass from the OP? I actually am more willing to question this proposal now that I now the spineless Mitt is on board.

Selling public lands within a city is not really any different that what goes on every year. Requiring it to be used for low income housing is the big change, instead of just selling to developers. Amazing the lengths people go to twist simple concepts.

Bill
 
I support Mike Lee in most of what he stands for... not this though.

I will never support this "Affordable Housing" push... I'm seeing it in local neighborhoods. These 4-6 story apartment buildings that will be for rent. Since the dawn of the "Housing Projects" in major urban cities... politicians and developers have been duping people into thinking that is "housing"... I wish I knew how to push back.
 
wyoflythrower said:
Any bets that One-eye is a BHA pint night Bro?

BLM has been selling land around Las Vegas for years due to this same issue. This isn’t the issue or precedence setting you think it is.

BLM sells nearly 665 acres of Las Vegas Valley land at auction | Business

The biggest parcel that sold at the Bureau of Land Management auction Thursday spans 270 acres in the upper northwest valley.
www.reviewjournal.com www.reviewjournal.com

www.blm.gov

Bureau of Land Management Proposes Online Spring Land Sale in Las Vegas Valley | Bureau of Land Management

www.blm.gov www.blm.gov
Click to expand...


Yup. Harry Reid had quite a scheme going didn't he.

And I'm not a BHA member.
 
llamapacker said:
This is just another excuse for a few well known anti-Mike Lee people to start another thread. I am happy to support Mike Lee and think that he is one of the better senators in the country.

And now that you have your panties in a wad, did you happen to notice that Mitt Romney is a co-sponsor? So why not make this thread about how Mitt Romney wants to sell public land? Just because he is the poster boy for the establishment RNIO, he gets a pass from the OP? I actually am more willing to question this proposal now that I now the spineless Mitt is on board.

Selling public lands within a city is not really any different that what goes on every year. Requiring it to be used for low income housing is the big change, instead of just selling to developers. Amazing the lengths people go to twist simple concepts.

Bill
Click to expand...
Mitt isn't up for election this year and doesn't have the anti-public land track record the other guy has, not to the extent anyway, and I do not know if it is here or a different forum I did mention he signed onto it, and that's a disappointment. Mitt also introduced fire fix funding legislation which would actually help current management of public lands. He doesn't get a pass, but he's not nearly as anti-public land as Mike Lee. I get you want to give your political pandering rhetoric poster boy a pass, but he doesn't deserve one. But yes, I am adamantly anti the worst representative in congress for public lands, and am happy to be so. Want less talk about what garbage public land bills Lee introduces? Maybe ask him to stop introducing them.

PS stop pretending this legislation targets public lands within city limits IT DOES NOT. It opens up a wide swath of public lands to this program and requires it is developed into affordable housing.
 
Oneye said:
Shhh they don't realize he was the original author of what Lee is pushing here.
Click to expand...


Wait, you mean we shouldn't tell them this was a lib scheme?

Probably a good idea, imagine if dudes knew they were now closet libs. Or worse, part of the green decoy crew.

I'll keep that a secret?
 
If you had come on here trying to get support to get this bill shut down you would have gotten alot better respons. But to start waving the Evan McNutter flag around instantly shot your chances. You are making it more about Lee then the bill.

I don't support public land transfers in most situations, that doesn't mean it can happen in some instances.

I don't agree with Lee on every topic, but support most of his stances. Same with Trump. Both have been better for the country as a whole. Definitely better then Romney, and like I said Evan is Romney 2.0.

An argument could definitely be made that Romney, mcmuffin and there ilk are directly responsible for the sh!t show our country is in right now. The country is in bad shape and only getting worse, and what's bad for the country is bad for public lands period. You say we are cutting off our nose to spite our face when in reality it's the people that support these milk toast Republicans that are contributing to the current direction our country is headed that are cutting off there nose to spite your face.

I don't care that Romney voted with Trump more then Lee, I dont agree with trump 100% of the time, it's the things Mitt voted for/against that hurt our country that makes him a worthless D-bag.

In 2016 I almost didn't vote for Trump, thought really hard about putting mcmuffin on my ticket because I didn't trust Trump. But he proved me wrong the guy was a damn good president especially on the policy front. The fact that Romney and McMullen and the others like them couldn't look past there initial impressions is what makes them such a$$holes.

If you want to draw people to your side in opposition to the bill, then highlight the bill and get support that way, but you are immediately turning off a large chunk of potential supporters by bringing up the politicians envolved.

if you want to attack the candidate that proposed it during an election year to get your preferred guy in office then keep doing what your doing.

I'm done with this thread.
 
I support ideas for affordable housing, but we really need to stop building single-family homes on large lots and planting Kentucky bluegrass. I could support ideas of land swaps if they benefit hunting, fishing, and recreation, but not if the money goes back to Washington DC.
 
JakeH said:
If you had come on here trying to get support to get this bill shut down you would have gotten alot better respons. But to start waving the Evan McNutter flag around instantly shot your chances. You are making it more about Lee then the bill.

I don't support public land transfers in most situations, that doesn't mean it can happen in some instances.

I don't agree with Lee on every topic, but support most of his stances. Same with Trump. Both have been better for the country as a whole. Definitely better then Romney, and like I said Evan is Romney 2.0.

An argument could definitely be made that Romney, mcmuffin and there ilk are directly responsible for the sh!t show our country is in right now. The country is in bad shape and only getting worse, and what's bad for the country is bad for public lands period. You say we are cutting off our nose to spite our face when in reality it's the people that support these milk toast Republicans that are contributing to the current direction our country is headed that are cutting off there nose to spite your face.

I don't care that Romney voted with Trump more then Lee, I dont agree with trump 100% of the time, it's the things Mitt voted for/against that hurt our country that makes him a worthless D-bag.

In 2016 I almost didn't vote for Trump, thought really hard about putting mcmuffin on my ticket because I didn't trust Trump. But he proved me wrong the guy was a damn good president especially on the policy front. The fact that Romney and McMullen and the others like them couldn't look past there initial impressions is what makes them such a$$holes.

If you want to draw people to your side in opposition to the bill, then highlight the bill and get support that way, but you are immediately turning off a large chunk of potential supporters by bringing up the politicians envolved.

if you want to attack the candidate that proposed it during an election year to get your preferred guy in office then keep doing what your doing.

I'm done with this thread.
Click to expand...


Lee and Romney agree.

They are co sponsors.
 
hossblur said:
Lee and Romney agree.

They are co sponsors.
Click to expand...
As I'm sure they do on a lot of other things. I can Hate Romney and not hate everything he votes for, same as I can like Lee and not like everything he votes for.

Make this thread about the bill not the politicians pushing it and you would get a lot more support against it. Oneye made this about Lee and McMullen to try and sway people against Lee. Not the bill.
 
Never trust anyone named Mitt (AKA Pierre De Lecto) with a son named Tagg who equated his sons working on his presidential campaign to serving in the military
 
Last edited:
If you want public land keep USA a strong free Republic.
When we become week and not free, It won't matter what initial is tied to their name that is in charge are public land and what we enjoy doing on public land will be in serious jeopardy.
 
JakeH said:
If you had come on here trying to get support to get this bill shut down you would have gotten alot better respons. But to start waving the Evan McNutter flag around instantly shot your chances. You are making it more about Lee then the bill.

I don't support public land transfers in most situations, that doesn't mean it can happen in some instances.

I don't agree with Lee on every topic, but support most of his stances. Same with Trump. Both have been better for the country as a whole. Definitely better then Romney, and like I said Evan is Romney 2.0.

An argument could definitely be made that Romney, mcmuffin and there ilk are directly responsible for the sh!t show our country is in right now. The country is in bad shape and only getting worse, and what's bad for the country is bad for public lands period. You say we are cutting off our nose to spite our face when in reality it's the people that support these milk toast Republicans that are contributing to the current direction our country is headed that are cutting off there nose to spite your face.

I don't care that Romney voted with Trump more then Lee, I dont agree with trump 100% of the time, it's the things Mitt voted for/against that hurt our country that makes him a worthless D-bag.

In 2016 I almost didn't vote for Trump, thought really hard about putting mcmuffin on my ticket because I didn't trust Trump. But he proved me wrong the guy was a damn good president especially on the policy front. The fact that Romney and McMullen and the others like them couldn't look past there initial impressions is what makes them such a$$holes.

If you want to draw people to your side in opposition to the bill, then highlight the bill and get support that way, but you are immediately turning off a large chunk of potential supporters by bringing up the politicians envolved.

if you want to attack the candidate that proposed it during an election year to get your preferred guy in office then keep doing what your doing.

I'm done with this thread.
Click to expand...
I’m very much in the middle. You fan for a certain politician, I don’t. I fan for my public lands. And yes, I’ll make it about Lee because he’s up for re-election and has fought for nothing harder during his time in congress than to transfer and sale public lands. He’s as slimy a politician as they come, so yes, I’ll endorse his opponents and point out the **** legislation he continually pushes on public lands. Don’t want it brought up? Tell him to quite pushing it. (He won’t).
 
Last edited:
JakeH said:
As I'm sure they do on a lot of other things. I can Hate Romney and not hate everything he votes for, same as I can like Lee and not like everything he votes for.

Make this thread about the bill not the politicians pushing it and you would get a lot more support against it. Oneye made this about Lee and McMullen to try and sway people against Lee. Not the bill.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry. I guess the bill just introduced itself and it totally wasn’t Mike Lee who proposed it, my mistake.
 
notdonhunting said:
If you want public land keep USA a strong free Republic.
When we become week and not free, It won't matter what initial is tied to their name that is in charge are public land and what we enjoy doing on public land will be in serious jeopardy.
Click to expand...
If I want public land, I’ll advocate for getting rid of people like Mike Lee.
 
I agree with Jake, mostly. On public lands stance, unless someone knows something new, Lee challengers will support the R, who are for selling off public land(for a tiddy profit for themselves of course).

Willard Romney, has been no friend to us either, despite $fw selling him as an ally. His bill to manage mustangs never materialized.

The funny part about this attempt by Lee. Is it's a scheme created by Harry Reid. The former D senate leader. This isn't some conservative idea, based on conservative principles. It's LITERALLY one created by those evil libs. Showing, yet again, that for a $$, Utah(conservative) values are flexible.

BTW, if your feeling frisky, look into Lee history. His DC upbringing, as Harry Reid neighbor and friend. He's a carpet bagger no different than Romney, just not as blatant.

The bill has zero to do with housing, although I'm sure there are some sweet gov hookups for R leadership in the Utah gov, whose leadership are all developers. It's a way to spring open the door for the likes of the Wilks, and extractive companies.
 
hossblur said:
I agree with Jake, mostly. On public lands stance, unless someone knows something new, Lee challengers will support the R, who are for selling off public land(for a tiddy profit for themselves of course).

Willard Romney, has been no friend to us either, despite $fw selling him as an ally. His bill to manage mustangs never materialized.

The funny part about this attempt by Lee. Is it's a scheme created by Harry Reid. The former D senate leader. This isn't some conservative idea, based on conservative principles. It's LITERALLY one created by those evil libs. Showing, yet again, that for a $$, Utah(conservative) values are flexible.

BTW, if your feeling frisky, look into Lee history. His DC upbringing, as Harry Reid neighbor and friend. He's a carpet bagger no different than Romney, just not as blatant.

The bill has zero to do with housing, although I'm sure there are some sweet gov hookups for R leadership in the Utah gov, whose leadership are all developers. It's a way to spring open the door for the likes of the Wilks, and extractive companies.
Click to expand...
I’m interested to see where McMullins campaign goes after the primary. As I’ve said, sure, they might align with the party mostly, but look at a seat like Rob Bishops. Blake Moore has not been Rob Bishop. Rob Bishop was completely antagonistic to public lands every day he was in congress. Blake Moore has focused on transferring/selling public lands far less than Rob Bishop. Sure it’s in the parties platform, so essentially any conservative leaning candidate is going to align with it somewhat. There are levels to it though. I contacted both Isom and Edwards on the issue, Edwards campaign did get back to me and essentially stated she supports the multiple use mandate of public lands, her campaign would not explicitly say whether or not she supported an outright transfer (although did say she doesn’t support sale). Which I expected, as I said it’s in the party platform. With McMullin, I have been trying to fill out most of his surveys and asking him to set himself apart on the issue. I would expect McMullin to caucus with Republicans when it comes down to it, if he ever got that far, but being an independent candidate he does have more ability not to walk the party line as stringently as a Republican. I guess, it’s this simple, if you always do what you’ve always done, you’ll always get what you’ve always gotten. Blake Moore was a step in the right direction from Rob Bishop. John Curtis was a step in the right direction from Chaffetz. After 12 years of Mike Lee in the Senate I’m more than ready to take a step in the right direction even if it’s diet Mike Lee. We always say we hate career politicians then we make excuses to create them. There are people like Mike Lee and Rob Bishop who public land transfer and sale is like their #1 or #2 bullet point on their priority list. And then there’s others who it’s quite a ways down that list. A candidate who says they support it due to what their party platform says, is different to me from someone who makes it their all out goal in congress to attack public lands.
 
The Utah power structure chose Willard. They funded McMullin vs Trump.

They gave us Hatch for 40 years.

Would be curious why they are primary Lee. The real reason.

I got the same non response from Edwards and Isom.

It's too bad we can't smack him down in the primary. Doing so would REALLY silence the "transfer" crowd.

Why's Lee running again? Him and Cruz sponsored a bill to limit Senate to 2 terms. Guess they were exempted?

Do you think they want the Wasatch or Monte for "affordable houses"?
 
hossblur said:
The Utah power structure chose Willard. They funded McMullin vs Trump.

They gave us Hatch for 40 years.

Would be curious why they are primary Lee. The real reason.

I got the same non response from Edwards and Isom.

It's too bad we can't smack him down in the primary. Doing so would REALLY silence the "transfer" crowd.

Why's Lee running again? Him and Cruz sponsored a bill to limit Senate to 2 terms. Guess they were exempted?

Do you think they want the Wasatch or Monte for "affordable houses"?
Click to expand...
We have term limits, it’s called voting. It’s not the ones we want to limit that worries me, it’s the ones who keep voting for these same losers over and over again.
 
hossblur said:
The Utah power structure chose Willard. They funded McMullin vs Trump.

They gave us Hatch for 40 years.

Would be curious why they are primary Lee. The real reason.

I got the same non response from Edwards and Isom.

It's too bad we can't smack him down in the primary. Doing so would REALLY silence the "transfer" crowd.

Why's Lee running again? Him and Cruz sponsored a bill to limit Senate to 2 terms. Guess they were exempted?

Do you think they want the Wasatch or Monte for "affordable houses"?
Click to expand...
Lee once said at a convention he'd serve 2 terms and then step away,he now gets really defensive about that when asked apparently lol. I just personally think McMullin will be more accountable to people considering he doesn't have a major party base as the reason he would win an election. He would have to walk a much finer line to stay elected than those who have a major party backing them. All Lee has to do is get through the primary and appeal to the strongest hold of his base. The truth is, whether a state is very red, or very blue, it doesn't matter which party, it's not good to have one or the other have such a stranglehold on power in a given setting, they'll both abuse it. In Utah the local GOP is seeing just how far they can push than level right now, and I would like to see them get a reality check, because the truth of the matter is, Lee's base is about 40% of the states population, he doesn't represent around 60% of the state that well. These closed primaries are the reason we end up with such shitty candidates. If the Republican primary was open to all voters to pick the Republican candidate, you wouldn't end up with Mike Lee's near as often who don't in reality represent the majority of the people of the state. Looking at voting trends Utah sits at around 40% strong Republican, around 30% strong Democrat, with 30% who a majority will probably vote Republican, but don't actually like the base of the party or the direction it is taking currently. I think someone like Cox actually represents the states political dynamic quite well. I think we've all got in to total wins and total losses mindsets, whereas, I'll take an inch away from Mike Lee, to simply get new and fresh Representation in Washington for Utah that hopefully will be somewhat kinder to public lands. I'm fine with any politicians serving 2 terms in a given position, beyond that, lets get some new blood in there.
 
Last edited:
Bigfoot 1 said:
We have term limits, it’s called voting. It’s not the ones we want to limit that worries me, it’s the ones who keep voting for these same losers over and over again.
Click to expand...
So, its complicated. Politicians, and especially parties rig things to make it that way. Both parties do it, especially if they have a stranglehold on a given place. In California its Democrats, in Utah it's Republicans. You get bad and unrepresentative candidates by doing things like having closed primary elections. In Utah Democrats have an open primary (people from all parties can vote for what Democratic candidate to yield), Republicans have a closed primary where you have to be a registered Republican to vote for what Republican goes to the general. Doing that is becoming more and more ensuring that you yield the most extreme/career candidate on a pretty routine basis at this point. Personally, I think we all should be able to vote for what Republican and what Democrat comes out of the primary. They shouldn't be closed, the candidates should represent and reflect the citizens, not the party base. Last weekend were the Republican caucuses, idk about you but that's not how I want to spend my weekend is at a political convention, I'm not invested in politics like that. Republicans in the state would also love to get rid of the signature gathering method to get on the ballot as well, so the party gets to be the only ones who choose who ends up on the ballot. Politics is really a mess of a game, and the amount of power structure put in place by both major parties is why we end up with such shitty candidates.
 
Bigfoot 1 said:
“I’m not invested in politics like that”

BINGO!

That’s why we get the Government we deserve.
Click to expand...
I don’t think you should have to be that invested in politics on a party level to pick your leaders, that is in essence the problem. I don’t work 50-60 hours a week so that I can then go spend my weekend enthralled in politics. The people who want to go do those things are the past people I want choosing the ones that end up on my ballot, and yet the 2 party system has created it that way for their purposes.
 
Bigfoot 1 said:
We have term limits, it’s called voting. It’s not the ones we want to limit that worries me, it’s the ones who keep voting for these same losers over and over again.
Click to expand...


Once upon a time, yes.

But it takes $$$, and access, to even start the process.

There's a reason there such a high retention rate for people, we all agree we don't like.

Your not sniffing a Utah Senate seat without millions in a war chest, or without a gazillionaire backer.

Politics(I know Founder, but I think this has been real civil), isn't about R v D, is about have vs have not.

You either have $$ or access to it, or you don't.

Especially at the Senate level
 
hossblur said:
Once upon a time, yes.

But it takes $$$, and access, to even start the process.

There's a reason there such a high retention rate for people, we all agree we don't like.

Your not sniffing a Utah Senate seat without millions in a war chest, or without a gazillionaire backer.

Politics(I know Founder, but I think this has been real civil), isn't about R v D, is about have vs have not.

You either have $$ or access to it, or you don't.

Especially at the Senate level
Click to expand...
Why vote? Just tally up the money on Election Day and whoever has the most crown him.
 
hossblur said:
Kinda what we do now isn't it?
Click to expand...
I see your point but don’t forget there was a guy worth 55.5 Billion Dollars, trying to run against Trump to be President and some galoot in extreme cognitive decline beat him out and is now President of the greatest country on earth. Money doesn’t always win, Bloomberg is a prime example.

Matter of fact Romney against Obama rings a bell, I just thought of Ross Perot also. I’m sure the list goes on. I agree it does take a lot of money to win.
 
Bigfoot 1 said:
I see your point but don’t forget there was a guy worth 55.5 Billion Dollars, trying to run against Trump to be President and some galoot in extreme cognitive decline beat him out and is now President of the greatest country on earth. Money doesn’t always win, Bloomberg is a prime example.

Matter of fact Romney against Obama rings a bell, I just thought of Ross Perot also. I’m sure the list goes on. I agree it does take a lot of money to win.
Click to expand...


George Soros
 
Just wait until you see the residents of these new affordable housing communities driving 80K vehicles!! We are used to it here in Southern Nevada.
 
This will do nothing to drop prices of homes. I love how he says it will “make it more affordable”. All it will do is bring in more people and make some developers and real estate people rich off of the public land that we currently have.
 
Just wait and see when BLM makes deals with non-profits to manage and build these communities! At first it will look like developers and real estate are getting rich and they will for a short while. Then non-profit outfits will take over management and then the development for tax credits. At least that's how they pulled it off down here. Slowly, but surely and methodically!!
 
BeDawg said:
This will do nothing to drop prices of homes. I love how he says it will “make it more affordable”. All it will do is bring in more people and make some developers and real estate people rich off of the public land that we currently have.
Click to expand...
Interest rates are climbing, we are in a recession, Biden is President, that housing bubble we’ve enjoyed for the past few years is about to bust.
 
Here is the link on BHA's website, take a moment and contact Lee and the other two representatives here, it is the top issue on this link:

www.backcountryhunters.org

Take Action

Backcountry Hunters & Anglers is the voice for our wild public lands, waters and wildlife.
www.backcountryhunters.org www.backcountryhunters.org
 
JakeH said:
Feel the exact same way with your support of mcmuffin, and Romney.
Click to expand...
I am willing to give some a chance, and the opportunity of 2 terms. Mike Lee has had his 2 terms in congress, and I don't vote for anyone more than twice. Apparently you like career anti-public land career style politicians. Lee has done absolutely nothing of worth that warrants him having another term as Senator except what some of you seem to think is the cool part of politics by giving sound bites to the extremes of his party. Everyone shouts term limits then just throws their vote behind politicians who never leave. I don't agree with McMullin (I won't use your stupid name calling reference because I'm not a child) on some things, but I do agree with plenty of his policy stances, which are right in line with Lee on most btw. So yes, Lee has had his two terms and I'll gladly vote for McMullin. I'll decide on Mitt in 2024 when he has an election should he choose to run.
 
Oneye said:
I am willing to give some a chance, and the opportunity of 2 terms. Mike Lee has had his 2 terms in congress, and I don't vote for anyone more than twice. Apparently you like career anti-public land career style politicians. I didn't vote for either candidate the last time Lee ran. Yes I did vote for Romney and will consider voting for him one more time depending on who opposes him or how things look when that time comes. Lee has done absolutely nothing of worth that warrants him having another term as Senator except what some of you seem to think is the cool part of politics by giving sound bites to the extremes of his party. Everyone shouts term limits then just throws their vote behind politicians who never leave. I don't agree with McMullin (I won't use your stupid name calling reference because I'm not a child) on some things, but I do agree with plenty of his policy stances, which are right in line with Lee on most btw. So yes, Lee has had his two terms and I'll gladly vote for McMullin. I'll decide on Mitt in 2024 when he has an election should he choose to run.
Click to expand...
Why wouldn’t you vote more than twice for somebody who is doing a good job? I couldn’t vote for that draft dodging rhino Romney unless he was running against somebody like AOC.
 
Oneye said:
I am willing to give some a chance, and the opportunity of 2 terms. Mike Lee has had his 2 terms in congress, and I don't vote for anyone more than twice. Apparently you like career anti-public land career style politicians. Lee has done absolutely nothing of worth that warrants him having another term as Senator except what some of you seem to think is the cool part of politics by giving sound bites to the extremes of his party. Everyone shouts term limits then just throws their vote behind politicians who never leave. I don't agree with McMullin (I won't use your stupid name calling reference because I'm not a child) on some things, but I do agree with plenty of his policy stances, which are right in line with Lee on most btw. So yes, Lee has had his two terms and I'll gladly vote for McMullin. I'll decide on Mitt in 2024 when he has an election should he choose to run.
Click to expand...
the less they do....the happier I am...how much useful public land has he gotten sold??
 
Bigfoot 1 said:
Why wouldn’t you vote more than twice for somebody who is doing a good job? I couldn’t vote for that draft dodging rhino Romney unless he was running against somebody like AOC.
Click to expand...


Define good job.

There's a wide gap between voting in line with the R, and Mitt Romney.

Without googling. Name a bill Lee has passed on abortion, spending, guns, immigration.

I worry about McMullin, because I know Romney was behind his Pres run, which I find concerning since Romney believes his job is to stick a finger in R eyes, while not doing anything either, so his pushing McMullin, makes me fear a Romney Jr.

You can keep the R seat in Senate, and still defeat Lee.

No one should get more than 2 terms
 
hossblur said:
Define good job.

There's a wide gap between voting in line with the R, and Mitt Romney.

Without googling. Name a bill Lee has passed on abortion, spending, guns, immigration.

I worry about McMullin, because I know Romney was behind his Pres run, which I find concerning since Romney believes his job is to stick a finger in R eyes, while not doing anything either, so his pushing McMullin, makes me fear a Romney Jr.

You can keep the R seat in Senate, and still defeat Lee.

No one should get more than 2 terms
Click to expand...
Let me clarify, I’m speaking in general. Just 2 terms would accomplish less than they accomplish now. We get the government we deserve. Half the population is hooked on free stuff, nothing in this country will change until we stop handing out the freebies.
 
hossblur said:
Define good job.

There's a wide gap between voting in line with the R, and Mitt Romney.

Without googling. Name a bill Lee has passed on abortion, spending, guns, immigration.

I worry about McMullin, because I know Romney was behind his Pres run, which I find concerning since Romney believes his job is to stick a finger in R eyes, while not doing anything either, so his pushing McMullin, makes me fear a Romney Jr.

You can keep the R seat in Senate, and still defeat Lee.

No one should get more than 2 terms
Click to expand...
Haha. The average Republican Senator voted against the party majority 3.9% of the time. Mitt voted against the party majority 4.5% of the time.

That's your idea of a "wide gap" of voting in line with the party?

That's indicative of somebody who "believes his job is to stick a finger in R eyes?"

If only people would heed Reagan's advice and "verify" what they hear on looney TV and talk radio.
 
Bigfoot 1 said:
Why wouldn’t you vote more than twice for somebody who is doing a good job? I couldn’t vote for that draft dodging rhino Romney unless he was running against somebody like AOC.
Click to expand...
You do know that "rhino" when used as a pejorative referencing a moderate republican isn't referring to the animal, right?

It's "RINO" and stand for Republican In Name Only.

PS. Romney received four draft deferments (three for education and one for a church mission). Trump received five deferments (four for education and one for bone spurs).

Do you vote for draft dodgers?
 
Thank you for correcting my spelling. I will strive to do much better in the future.

Did you vote for draft dodging Joe Biden sir?

My father received one plane ride over to Vietnam when he was 18.
 
grizzly said:
Haha. The average Republican Senator voted against the party majority 3.9% of the time. Mitt voted against the party majority 4.5% of the time.

That's your idea of a "wide gap" of voting in line with the party?

That's indicative of somebody who "believes his job is to stick a finger in R eyes?"

If only people would heed Reagan's advice and "verify" what they hear on looney TV and talk radio.
Click to expand...


Yup. He made sure to pad his stats on meaningless votes where he made no difference. Where is he on important things?

Mask mandate being off top of my head.

Plus. What's he done for public land? Still waiting on that feral horse legislation he promised.
 
hossblur said:
Yup. He made sure to pad his stats on meaningless votes where he made no difference. Where is he on important things?

Mask mandate being off top of my head.

Plus. What's he done for public land? Still waiting on that feral horse legislation he promised.
Click to expand...
Don’t forget the goofball voted to confirm a radical left wing nut job who is soft on crime, especially against children and doesn’t know the definition of a female.
 
Bigfoot 1 said:
Don’t forget the goofball voted to confirm a radical left wing nut job who is soft on crime, especially against children and doesn’t know the definition of a female.
Click to expand...


He, is a "Maverick". He is on every Sunday show, constantly. He's busy raising money for that Neo Con Cheney. He's the "good R".

So again, what's he done for public land? Or hunters? He's a "Maverick", but not enough to cut ties with the land grab desires.

At least Lee, has the guts to vocalize his desires. Willard, agrees 100% will the grab, but he will do the double speak. He'll let Lee take the heat, but behind closed doors, they are one and the same. Orrin Hatch was very much pro land grab. His hand picked successor, is the same.

You can keep the R seat, but primary defeats speak volumes. Ask Bob Bennett.
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

IMG_4616.jpeg
IMG_5115 copy copy.jpg
Wide Buck 5-18-23.mp4
BCC3B25B-BDE9-4DDF-839A-53C41136C0EE.jpeg
E64DC136-1F7D-4F96-AA56-ED5C8C0F66EB.jpeg
Screenshot_20220312-182218_Gallery.jpg
20201122_085304.jpg
Big Ole Extras Buck
Screenshot_20201120-121300_Gallery.jpg
1608184034684.jpeg
20221117_074305.jpg
E02CD045-8078-433F-8ADF-09919BE9078D.jpeg
Back
Top Bottom