• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Humane Society endorses Hilldawg

Status
Not open for further replies.

Lubricus

Member
The Humane Society Legislative Fund today announces its endorsement of Hillary Clinton for President, and the launch of a new ad campaign to inform voters that a Donald Trump presidency would be a threat to animals everywhere. In our view, Trump represents the greatest threat ever to federal policy-making and implementation of animal protection laws, and we are taking the unusual step of wading actively into a presidential campaign.

They talked about Donald Trump Jr shooting elephants, leopards, Cape buffalo, and waterbuck. Elephants and leopards are considered threatened species.

Then:
It’s not just family members floated for cabinet posts. Politico reported that oil tycoon Forrest Lucas is a “front-runner” to be Interior Secretary, in addition to serving as a member of Trump’s agriculture advisory committee. Lucas is the money man behind the so-called Protect the Harvest, a front group devoted to fighting animal welfare organizations at every turn, on everything. A peevish advocate for trophy hunting, puppy mills, and big agribusiness, Lucas has never met a case of animal exploitation he wouldn’t defend. He personally financed an attack on Proposition B in Missouri—one of the animal welfare movement’s most important ballot measures, designed to impose humane breeding standards for dogs and crack down on puppy mills.

Lucas and his group also opposed efforts to establish felony-level penalties for malicious cruelty against dogs, cats, and horses; promote the spaying and neutering of pets; and provide adequate shelter for dogs to protect them from the elements. He formed a super PAC specifically to defeat animal advocates
.

And:
Recent reports suggest that Iowa factory farming mogul Bruce Rastetter may be Trump’s leading candidate for Secretary of Agriculture. Rastetter has made a fortune off the kind of industrial agricultural practices that family farmers and animal advocates have fought for decades, and was connected to Trump through New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who vetoed a state ban on cruel pig gestation crates in a sop to Iowa’s pork industry. Considering Rastetter’s brother is CEO of a company that builds gestation crates, we have good reason to be concerned about the potential for crony capitalist dealings in a Trump administration.

Meanwhile:
During her eight years in the U.S. Senate, Clinton was a strong and consistent supporter of animal protection policies, earning a 100 percent score on the Humane Scorecard in the 108th Congress, a perfect 100+ score in the 109th, and an 83 in the 110th. She co-sponsored legislation dealing with horse slaughter and animal fighting, as well as bills to stop the processing of “downer” livestock and crack down on abusive puppy mills where dogs are treated like production machines. She led efforts in the 108th and 109th Congresses to stop the overuse of antibiotics in farm animals, which allow them to be crammed into overcrowded, stressful, and unsanitary factory farms. As a Senator, Clinton also signed letters requesting more funds for the U.S. Department of Agriculture to step up enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act, the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, and the federal animal fighting law. During the 2008 campaign, she voiced concern over the slaughter of sick and injured cows whose meat was channeled into the national school lunch program. As Secretary of State, Clinton led international efforts to crack down on wildlife trafficking.

http://blog.hslf.org/political_animal/2016/10/the-humane-society-legislative-fund-today-announces-its-endorsement-of-hillary-clinton-for-president-and-the-launch-of-a-new.html?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=hslf

If you know any Republicans who support animal welfare programs, show them this article.
 

Guevara

Member
It was all perfectly fine when Trump hated women, minorities, the LGBT community, most foreigners, the disabled, Muslims....

But this is beyond the pale.
 

johnsmith

remember me
Melania's gotta keep warm somehow

wv9rIId.jpg
 
Is there anyone who would honestly vote for Trump given his long list of abuses towards humans but is going to be swayed by his stance towards puppy mills? Don't get me wrong, I'm opposed to animal cruelty. I just can't fathom the mindset of someone who thinks deporting Mexicans and banning Muslims might be acceptable, but puppies is where we need to draw the line.
 

captive

Joe Six-Pack: posting for the common man
Is there anyone who would honestly vote for Trump given his long list of abuses towards humans but is going to be swayed by his stance towards puppy mills? Don't get me wrong, I'm opposed to animal cruelty. I just can't fathom the mindset of someone who thinks deporting Mexicans and banning Muslims might be acceptable, but puppies is where we need to draw the line.
Um yes? Dogs > black people.

For some people...
 
Is there anyone who would honestly vote for Trump given his long list of abuses towards humans but is going to be swayed by his stance towards puppy mills? Don't get me wrong, I'm opposed to animal cruelty. I just can't fathom the mindset of someone who thinks deporting Mexicans and banning Muslims might be acceptable, but puppies is where we need to draw the line.

Well yeah. I know people her treat pets better than their own kids.
 

Lubricus

Member
Is there anyone who would honestly vote for Trump given his long list of abuses towards humans but is going to be swayed by his stance towards puppy mills? Don't get me wrong, I'm opposed to animal cruelty. I just can't fathom the mindset of someone who thinks deporting Mexicans and banning Muslims might be acceptable, but puppies is where we need to draw the line.


Personally I know of three Republican friends of my mother who have show dogs, support the Humane Society and would picket/protest a puppy mill in a heartbeat.
I'm not saying its the most important or noble issue regarding Trump, but it might make a difference.
 

Mike M

Nick N
Trophy hunting is good for those animals though in most casss.

More like "charging trophy hunters out the ass for limited licenses and using the money to fund conservation efforts" is good for the animals. The hunting itself is of no benefit whatsoever.
 

Goro Majima

Kitty Genovese Member
Is there anyone who would honestly vote for Trump given his long list of abuses towards humans but is going to be swayed by his stance towards puppy mills? Don't get me wrong, I'm opposed to animal cruelty. I just can't fathom the mindset of someone who thinks deporting Mexicans and banning Muslims might be acceptable, but puppies is where we need to draw the line.

Old white people.

Or just old bitter people in general that have to come to the conclusion that they hate everyone but dogs.
 

entremet

Member
More like "charging trophy hunters out the ass for limited licenses and using the money to fund conservation efforts" is good for the animals. The hunting itself is of no benefit whatsoever.

The money won't be there without the hunting, though.

I have no problem with well managed trophy hunting. These are poor places and privileged Westerners had no idea the economic involved as seen with the Cecil fiasco.
 

Mike M

Nick N
The money won't be there without the hunting, though.

I have no problem with well managed trophy hunting. These are poor places and privileged Westerners had no idea the economic involved as seen with the Cecil fiasco.

I ultimately don't have a problem with it in the end, though that doesn't mean I don't wish the money and incentive to thwart poachers was there *without* it.
 
Killing elephants is only done by people without any humanity or morality.

Donald Trump Jr. did canned hunts of elephants.
But the money that those people without humanity and morality usually goes towards conservation, as well as giving a reason to keep those animals around in good numbers (stopping poachers).

The report in OP seems to suggest that trophy hunting stands in opposition to conservation, as Hillary Clinton's conservation programs are mentioned in place of Trump's support of trophy hunting.

It definitely means he's a piece of shit, but we already knew that. It doesn't mean he's bad for animals though. He's supporting trophy hunting, not poaching.

More like "charging trophy hunters out the ass for limited licenses and using the money to fund conservation efforts" is good for the animals. The hunting itself is of no benefit whatsoever.
No benefit whatsoever except for the huge one you mentioned.

I ultimately don't have a problem with it in the end, though that doesn't mean I don't wish the money and incentive to thwart poachers was there *without* it.
Sure. I wish I had tons of money too.
 

Toxi

Banned
Better reasons for animal lovers to hate Trump is that he doesn't believe in climate change, isn't concerned about overfishing, and wants to get rid of the EPA.
 
I know they're endangered but isn't it ok to shoot those animals with a license since the right to hunt them is sold legally? Also, the extraordinary amount of money made could funnel back to depopulation efforts.

(remarkably dismal, I know)
 

captive

Joe Six-Pack: posting for the common man
But the money that those people without humanity and morality usually goes towards conservation, as well as giving a reason to keep those animals around in good numbers (stopping poachers).

The report in OP seems to suggest that trophy hunting stands in opposition to conservation, as Hillary Clinton's conservation programs are mentioned in place of Trump's support of trophy hunting.

It definitely means he's a piece of shit, but we already knew that. It doesn't mean he's bad for animals though. He's supporting trophy hunting, not poaching.


No benefit whatsoever except for the huge one you mentioned.


Sure. I wish I had tons of money too.
hunting is not the only way to promote conservation. theres also safaris, photo safaris and private photo safaris that cost 15k+. donations etc.
 
You really can't parse the difference between paying for the privilege and the act itself? Okay.
Also this.
That's like saying brushing your teeth has no benefit whatsoever because the lack of biofilms is actually responsible for reducing caivities, not brushing itself. Saying things like "trophy hunting is bad for animals" may help you sleep at night, but it's blatantly false and is dangerous misinformation to spread. Don't do it.

hunting is not the only way to promote conservation. theres also safaris, photo safaris and private photo safaris that cost 15k+. donations etc.
But it's also a huge way to get money, and there's not enough as is. Both are good for conservation, just one is conpletely morally reprehensible.
 
Lucas and his group also opposed efforts to establish felony-level penalties for malicious cruelty against dogs, cats, and horses; promote the spaying and neutering of pets; and provide adequate shelter for dogs to protect them from the elements. He formed a super PAC specifically to defeat animal advocates.

Like, what? This kind of thing seems ripped straight from a Disney movie. This is what a modern Cruella de Vil does. Trump is actually, seriously considering staffing his cabinet with Disney villains.
 

Hilbert

Deep into his 30th decade
Is there anyone who would honestly vote for Trump given his long list of abuses towards humans but is going to be swayed by his stance towards puppy mills? Don't get me wrong, I'm opposed to animal cruelty. I just can't fathom the mindset of someone who thinks deporting Mexicans and banning Muslims might be acceptable, but puppies is where we need to draw the line.

Even here on GAF you get posts talking about how if someone had to choose between saving a random kid or their dog, they would go with the dog each time...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom