Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trump Presidency

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by phgreek View Post
    Angels Sing!

    Actually the angels are stunned, speechless, singless.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by BGIF View Post
      Actually the angels are stunned, speechless, singless.
      ...Or that. Either way... An event!
      One equal temper of heroic hearts, Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will. To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

      Comment


      • So much for "integrity". Millions $$$ for recounts but not one for a bond.

        Green Party's Stein drops Pennsylvania presidential recount bid | Reuters
        Sat Dec 3, 2016 | 7:57pm EST

        Green Party candidate Jill Stein abruptly dropped her bid to seek a recount of the presidential election vote in Pennsylvania after a judge ordered her campaign to post a $1 million bond, a spokesman said on Saturday.

        "Petitioners are regular citizens of ordinary means. They cannot afford to post the $1,000,000 bond required by the court," an attorney for the Stein campaign wrote in court papers, according to an email from spokesman Sam Scarrow.

        "How odd is it that we must jump through bureaucratic hoops and raise millions of dollars so we can trust our election results?" Stein said on Twitter.

        The campaign of Republican President-elect Donald Trump had requested a $10 million bond, court papers showed.

        Stein, who garnered only about 1 percent of the vote, has also sought recounts in Michigan and Wisconsin, saying that she wants to ensure the integrity of the U.S. voting system.

        Trump, who beat Democrat Hillary Clinton in the Nov. 8 election, has called the recount effort a "scam."

        Clinton's campaign has said it would take part in the recounts.

        Even if all of the recounts were to take place, they are extremely unlikely to change the overall outcome of the election.

        The presidential race is decided by the Electoral College, or a tally of wins from the state-by-state contests, rather than by the popular national vote.

        Trump surpassed the 270 electoral votes needed to win, with 306 electoral votes, and the recount would have to flip the result to Clinton in all three states to change the overall result.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by BGIF View Post
          I thought she raised a bunch of money for this??
          Based Mullet Kid owns

          Comment


          • Originally posted by NorthDakota View Post
            I thought she raised a bunch of money for this??
            Money in the bank.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by NorthDakota View Post
              I thought she raised a bunch of money for this??
              Jill Stein's recount fundraising: What happens to leftover money? - CBS News
              EMILY SCHULTHEIS CBS NEWS December 1, 2016, 6:06 AM


              First, Green Party candidate Jill Stein’s campaign said it needed $2.5 million to fund its three-state recount effort in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan. Then it was $4.5 million. Then it was $7 million. Now it’s $9.5 million.

              As Stein brings in millions of dollars in campaign contributions -- in the last week, she’s already raised almost twice what she raised during the entire 2016 campaign -- her fundraising success raises a big question: where is that money going, and what happens to it if there are leftover funds after the recount?

              President-elect Donald Trump has slammed the recount efforts, saying in a statement Saturday that it’s a “scam” that will allow Stein “to fill her coffers with money, most of which she will never even spend on this ridiculous recount.”

              But Stein’s campaign has since actually filed for recounts in all three states -- and does not expect to have money left over at the end of the process.

              CBS News spoke with both the Stein campaign and campaign finance experts about recount fundraising. Here’s what we found:

              How much money has Stein raised?
              As of Wednesday, Stein’s website indicated she had raised $6.7 million toward the recount effort.

              This is effectively twice what Stein’s campaign raised during the entire 2016 campaign: through Oct. 19, the date of the final filing period of the 2016 cycle, Stein had brought in about $3.5 million.

              She would need just $300,000 more for the recount effort to double that amount.

              Is that money going directly to her campaign?
              No -- the money Stein is raising for the recount goes into a completely separate account that’s specifically designated for the recount campaign, not into a general campaign fund.

              How much can people donate?
              Up to $2,700 per person.

              Because this is a fund that’s totally separate from Stein’s campaign fund, the maximum individual contributions are reset since the 2016 election -- meaning if someone donated the maximum $2,700 to her general election campaign, they could give an additional $2,700 to the recount campaign.

              However, at least thus far it seems like most of the donations are considerably smaller. Stein campaign manager David Cobb told OpenSecrets that of the 140,000 donations that had come in by Wednesday, they averaged $46 -- and that just 414 donors gave more than $1,000.

              What costs are associated with a recount?
              Initially, Stein’s campaign estimated (according to its fundraising page) that the Wisconsin recount would cost $1.1 million, Pennsylvania would cost $500,000 and Michigan would cost $600,000. To cover those costs, the campaign’s original stated goal was to raise $2.5 million.

              Once they quickly blew past that goal, though, the fundraising page on Stein’s website included a line saying that there were more costs involved than just the fees owed to each state: they’d also need money for attorneys’ fees (which they estimated to be $2 to 3 million) as well as money to pay the statewide recount observers. That new estimate, they said, brought their fundraising goal up to $7 million.

              Stein’s campaign has explained the growing fundraising benchmarks by saying that they are updating the explanatory text as more information from each state becomes available.

              That happened on Tuesday, when Wisconsin came back to the Stein campaign after consulting with each county about costs, and said the recount there would actually cost $3.5 million -- considerably more than initially expected. Stein campaign spokeswoman Jordan Brueckner said that Wisconsin increase is the reason Stein’s fundraising goal jumped from $7 million to $9.5 million this week.

              Stein’s campaign wired the $3.5 million to Wisconsin’s Elections Commission on Tuesday afternoon.

              What happens to leftover funds?
              When the fundraising plea was first posted to Stein’s website, it included a short message to say the campaign was “raising money to demand recounts in Wisconsin, MIchigan, and Pennsylvania.” That language was updated late last week to include a line about what would happen to unused funds.

              “If we raise more than what’s needed, the surplus will also go toward election integrity efforts and to promote voting system reform,” the new line on the website said.

              At this point, Stein’s campaign does not anticipate that it’ll have money leftover. However, Brueckner said unused funds would either be returned to donors or put toward “voting reform.” She did not specify exactly what form the reform efforts would take.

              “It’s very highly unlikely that there will be any left over,” Brueckner said. “But if the case there is, we will consult with FEC guidelines we will either return the donations according to those guidelines, or put it toward voting reform.”

              What do campaign finance rules say about this?
              Technically, recount funds are supposed to be used solely for expenses related to a recount -- including the things like lawyers’ fees and recount observers that Stein’s campaign has described.

              But as for where the additional money can go, FEC guidelines are unclear -- if Stein’s campaign wants to use the money for yet-to-be-determined voting integrity or “voting reform” efforts, it would likely need to transfer that to another fund or account.

              “There haven’t been that many instances where this has really come up and the FEC has really looked” at the issue, said Brendan Fischer, an associate counsel at the Campaign Legal Center.

              Usually, FEC guidelines say campaigns need to go back to their donors and ask if they would be willing to have their donations transferred to a different fund. In this case, since Stein’s campaign has indicated on its site that it planned to use the additional funds for “election integrity efforts,” that could give them more of an argument to transfer funds without going back to donors and asking for permission.

              “There’s limited guidance from the FEC on how these funds need to be spent,” Fischer said. “What the FEC has said very clearly is if the campaign has leftover funds in its recount account after the recount is done, they are allowed to refund those contributions to donors. They can also … go back to the donors and ask that the contributions be redesignated to their general election fund or to remain for future recounts.”

              Comment


              • Judge orders immediate start of Michigan recount
                Paul Egan and Tresa Baldas , Detroit Free Press 1:09 a.m. EST December 5, 2016

                A federal judge early Monday morning ordered a recount of Michigan's presidential ballots to begin at noon on Monday, and for the state to "assemble necessary staff to work sufficient hours" to complete the recount by a Dec. 13 federal deadline.

                Lawyers for Green Party candidate Jill Stein urged the action in an emergency request, and U.S. District Judge Mark Goldsmith held a rare Sunday hearing in federal court. It lasted three hours, and Goldsmith issued a written opinion just after midnight on Monday morning.

                Goldsmith said a state law requiring a two business day waiting period to start the recount likely violates voting rights. Stein has shown "a credible threat that the recount, if delayed, would not be completed" by Dec. 13 -- the federal "safe harbor" deadline to guarantee Michigan's electoral votes are counted when the electoral college meets on Dec. 19.

                "With the perceived integrity of the presidential election as it was conducted in Michigan at stake, concerns with cost pale in comparison," Goldsmith said in his opinion.

                In ordering the recount to begin at noon Monday, rather than Wednesday morning under the two-day waiting period the state planned to observe, Goldsmirh ordered the recount, once started, "must continue until further order of this court."

                ...

                Comment


                • Green Party's Stein To Pursue Pennsylvania Recount Petition In Federal Court | The Huffington Post


                  Green Party candidate Jill Stein late Saturday vowed to bring her fight for a recount of votes cast in Pennsylvania in the U.S. presidential election to federal court, after a state judge ordered her campaign to post a $1 million bond.

                  “The Stein campaign will continue to fight for a statewide recount in Pennsylvania,” Jonathan Abady, lead counsel to Stein’s recount efforts, said in a statement.

                  Saying it has become clear that “the state court system is so ill-equipped to address this problem,” the statement said “we must seek federal court intervention.”

                  The Stein campaign said it will file for emergency relief in the Pennsylvania effort in federal court on Monday, “demanding a statewide recount on constitutional grounds.”

                  The bond was set by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania a day after representatives of President-elect Donald Trump requested a $10 million bond, according to court papers.

                  The court gave the petitioners until 5 p.m. local time (2200 GMT) on Monday to post the bond, but said it could modify the amount if shown good cause. Instead, Stein’s campaign withdrew.

                  “Petitioners are regular citizens of ordinary means. They cannot afford to post the $1,000,000 bond required by the court,” wrote attorney Lawrence Otter, informing the court of the decision to withdraw.

                  ...

                  Comment


                  • Ben Carson tapped by Trump for HUD secretary - CNNPolitics.com
                    By David Wright

                    Ben Carson will be nominated as the next secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Trump transition team announced Monday.

                    "I am thrilled to nominate Dr. Ben Carson as our next Secretary of the US Department of Housing and Urban Development," President-elect Donald Trump said in a statement. "Ben Carson has a brilliant mind and is passionate about strengthening communities and families within those communities."


                    ...

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by BGIF View Post
                      Ben Carson tapped by Trump for HUD secretary - CNNPolitics.com
                      By David Wright

                      Ben Carson will be nominated as the next secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Trump transition team announced Monday.

                      "I am thrilled to nominate Dr. Ben Carson as our next Secretary of the US Department of Housing and Urban Development," President-elect Donald Trump said in a statement. "Ben Carson has a brilliant mind and is passionate about strengthening communities and families within those communities."


                      ...
                      I was thrilled with the cabinet, especially with Mattis, then this....

                      Ahwell, hopefully HUD doesn't do much anyways.
                      Running the damn ball since 2017.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by drayer54 View Post
                        I was thrilled with the cabinet, especially with Mattis, then this....

                        Ahwell, hopefully HUD doesn't do much anyways.
                        Actually really like the pick. Carson is a smart guy who by the nature of his role as a surgeon understands what it means to LEAD a team. He is a great success story in the black community regardless of what the media wants to make him out to be (a religious crazy). He has his own scholarship fund for students of all races (which I think is more like it), the most impressive portion of this scholar fund is the 160 "reading rooms" he has led being put in some 21 states. These are put in schools from what I understand to encourage leisure reading by kids, something that led in large part to his own rise from poverty to becoming the top brain surgeon in the nation Home - Carson Scholars Fund So in many ways he is already fulfilling the HUD role. While HUD is primarily about housing, it is also about community improvement overall, which is where Carson's heart is.

                        I think he will be a good job when all is said and done. Knowing the nature of the needs firsthand and having a heart to change them goes a long way as a starting point.
                        When God does the big things, the little people get drawn in too. Human systems often forget that, but God doesn’t.- N.T. Wright "from "Simply Jesus"

                        Comment


                        • How will the election of Trump affect the recent decision of the Army Corps of Engineers to force a rerouting of the Dakota Pipeline? Most of the nominees floated around for Secretary of the Interior have had connections with the oil industry. Will Trump let the decision of the Army Corps of Engineers stand? Or will he overturn it in favor of the oil industry?

                          The Standing Rock Sioux opposed the previous routing of the pipeline underneath their supply of fresh water. They gained substantial support from environmentalists and recently from a group of veterans. A potentially violent confrontation was avoided when the Army Corps of Engineers determined they would not grant the oil industry the right to run the pipeline under the source of fresh water for the Standing Rock Reservation. However, with Trump assuming the presidency in January, will he overturn that decision in favor of Big Oil.

                          We will know soon enough where Trump stands on the environment. Will he stand by the little guy (in this case the Native Americans on the Standing Rock Reservation) or will he risk the health and well-being of thousands of people by granting the wishes of the oil industry?

                          Trump has an opportunity to show he intends to be the president that brings the nation together or simply the president that lets big business run roughshod over the people he was elected to represent. Let's see how he "negotiates" this issue to the satisfaction of both sides.

                          Hopefully, he doesn't make a decision similar to the one Michigan's governor made when faced with securing the supply of fresh water to Flint. We won't know the true ramifications of that decision until the children poisoned with lead in their water supply have become fully grown.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by EddytoNow View Post
                            How will the election of Trump affect the recent decision of the Army Corps of Engineers to force a rerouting of the Dakota Pipeline? Most of the nominees floated around for Secretary of the Interior have had connections with the oil industry. Will Trump let the decision of the Army Corps of Engineers stand? Or will he overturn it in favor of the oil industry?

                            The Standing Rock Sioux opposed the previous routing of the pipeline underneath their supply of fresh water. They gained substantial support from environmentalists and recently from a group of veterans. A potentially violent confrontation was avoided when the Army Corps of Engineers determined they would not grant the oil industry the right to run the pipeline under the source of fresh water for the Standing Rock Reservation. However, with Trump assuming the presidency in January, will he overturn that decision in favor of Big Oil.

                            We will know soon enough where Trump stands on the environment. Will he stand by the little guy (in this case the Native Americans on the Standing Rock Reservation) or will he risk the health and well-being of thousands of people by granting the wishes of the oil industry?

                            Trump has an opportunity to show he intends to be the president that brings the nation together or simply the president that lets big business run roughshod over the people he was elected to represent. Let's see how he "negotiates" this issue to the satisfaction of both sides.

                            Hopefully, he doesn't make a decision similar to the one Michigan's governor made when faced with securing the supply of fresh water to Flint. We won't know the true ramifications of that decision until the children poisoned with lead in their water supply have become fully grown.
                            Kind of cute how you ignore how the project was approved under Obama's admin in the first place... and then they started backpedaling in recent months in response to protests. #Leadership

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by EddytoNow View Post
                              How will the election of Trump affect the recent decision of the Army Corps of Engineers to force a rerouting of the Dakota Pipeline? Most of the nominees floated around for Secretary of the Interior have had connections with the oil industry. Will Trump let the decision of the Army Corps of Engineers stand? Or will he overturn it in favor of the oil industry?

                              The Standing Rock Sioux opposed the previous routing of the pipeline underneath their supply of fresh water. They gained substantial support from environmentalists and recently from a group of veterans. A potentially violent confrontation was avoided when the Army Corps of Engineers determined they would not grant the oil industry the right to run the pipeline under the source of fresh water for the Standing Rock Reservation. However, with Trump assuming the presidency in January, will he overturn that decision in favor of Big Oil.

                              We will know soon enough where Trump stands on the environment. Will he stand by the little guy (in this case the Native Americans on the Standing Rock Reservation) or will he risk the health and well-being of thousands of people by granting the wishes of the oil industry?

                              Trump has an opportunity to show he intends to be the president that brings the nation together or simply the president that lets big business run roughshod over the people he was elected to represent. Let's see how he "negotiates" this issue to the satisfaction of both sides.

                              Hopefully, he doesn't make a decision similar to the one Michigan's governor made when faced with securing the supply of fresh water to Flint. We won't know the true ramifications of that decision until the children poisoned with lead in their water supply have become fully grown.
                              https://www.theatlantic.com/science/...g-rock/509558/

                              Well Trump apparently owns stock in the company building the pipeline so take a guess.

                              That being said, there's a lot of deliberate bureaucratic red tape insulating the Army Corps of Engineers from the White House on this. That's why Obama was unable to stop it when the government pulled support in September. He'll be able to get rid of the consider climate change requirement with a stroke of the pen but now that it's been decided that they need to do an environmental impact statement I don't see how he could get around that.

                              Comment


                              • One thing to keep in mind is that even though the Sioux didn't get a preliminary injunction they also didn't lose the case- even a (kind of) temporary delay may be enough for the underlying legal issues to be resolved in their favor.

                                Comment


                                • Originally posted by IrishLax View Post
                                  Kind of cute how you ignore how the project was approved under Obama's admin in the first place... and then they started backpedaling in recent months in response to protests. #Leadership
                                  Yea this is the kind of stuff that makes me nuts with this guy and his admin...they dream big, but can't execute. How do you reach 90% complete and get pushed around... Never should have come to this.

                                  THIS is what you get when you have an admin primarily dedicated to politics...
                                  One equal temper of heroic hearts, Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will. To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

                                  Comment


                                  • Originally posted by IrishinSyria View Post
                                    https://www.theatlantic.com/science/...g-rock/509558/

                                    Well Trump apparently owns stock in the company building the pipeline so take a guess.

                                    That being said, there's a lot of deliberate bureaucratic red tape insulating the Army Corps of Engineers from the White House on this. That's why Obama was unable to stop it when the government pulled support in September. He'll be able to get rid of the consider climate change requirement with a stroke of the pen but now that it's been decided that they need to do an environmental impact statement I don't see how he could get around that.
                                    How was there no EIA performed up until now. That goes against everything I know abou federal environmental regulation process. If it involves federal money there is no end to the depth of impact assessments performed.

                                    Comment


                                    • Originally posted by Cackalacky View Post
                                      How was there no EIA performed up until now. That goes against everything I know abou federal environmental regulation process. If it involves federal money there is no end to the depth of impact assessments performed.
                                      exactly!
                                      One equal temper of heroic hearts, Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will. To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

                                      Comment


                                      • Originally posted by phgreek View Post
                                        Yea this is the kind of stuff that makes me nuts with this guy and his admin...they dream big, but can't execute. How do you reach 90% complete and get pushed around... Never should have come to this.

                                        THIS is what you get when you have an admin primarily dedicated to politics...
                                        I don't see it lik that. This was not in the public eye until recently. In fact I had heard nothing of this until after Keystone was nixed. Seems to me that it was done outside of public view and once it became an issue was when they had to do something. Seems to me it was at 90% because no one in the public gave a shit (primarily because it's on Indian land) until recently. Or there was no EIA done.
                                        Last edited by Cackalacky; 12-05-2016, 05:56 PM.

                                        Comment


                                        • The answer to both the "thanks Obama" argument and the why no EIA statement is in the article:

                                          But the environmental-impact question proved thornier. The Army Corps of Engineers never conducted an environmental impact statement for the pipeline, instead approving it under a nationwide permit used only for short water crossings and wetlands preservation. The tribe claimed that this meant that all sorts of environmental risks—like, say, the pipeline leaking into their only source of drinking water—were not taken into consideration.
                                          The Trump administration could seek to abort the environmental-impact process, but it might require reaching far into the Department of Defense bureaucracy. The chief of the Army Corps of Engineers is not a political appointee.
                                          Basically, the company building the pipeline sought to avoid Keystone round 2 by building it entirely on private land. The federal permission they needed involved the permit for going underneath the river but authority over that rests with the Army Corps of Engineers which acts independently of the administration.
                                          Last edited by IrishinSyria; 12-05-2016, 06:02 PM.

                                          Comment


                                          • Originally posted by IrishinSyria View Post
                                            The answer to both the "thanks Obama" argument and the why no EIA statement is in the article:





                                            Basically, the company building the pipeline sought to avoid Keystone round 2 by building it entirely on private land. The federal permission they needed involved the permit for going underneath the river but authority over that rests with the Army Corps of Engineers which acts independently of the administration.
                                            That's infuriating to read and is so obviously dominated by special interest influence.

                                            Comment


                                            • If y'all are interested the opinion denying the preliminary injunction is interesting. The judge hints that he would have been inclined to grant an injunction had they raised environmental concerns instead of just historical preservation ones: https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin...?2016cv1534-39

                                              It also expands on why NOBAMA involvement before this.

                                              A project of this magnitude often necessitates an extensive federal appraisal and permitting process. Not so here. Domestic oil pipelines, unlike natural-gas pipelines, require no general approval from the federal government. In fact, DAPL needs almost no federal permitting of any kind because 99% of its route traverses private land.

                                              One significant exception, however, concerns construction activities in federally regulated waters at hundreds of discrete places along the pipeline route. The Corps needed to permit this activity under the Clean Water Act or the Rivers and Harbors Act – and sometimes both. For DAPL, accordingly, it permitted these activities under a general permit known as Nationwide Permit 12. The Tribe alleges that the Corps violated multiple federal statutes in doing so, including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). In its Complaint, the Tribe asserts that this DAPL permitting threatens its environmental and economic well-being, as well as its cultural resources.

                                              Despite this broad lawsuit, however, the Standing Rock Sioux now seek a preliminary injunction only on the alleged violation of the NHPA. That statute encompasses sites of cultural or religious significance to Indian tribes and requires that federal agencies consult with tribes prior to issuing permits that might affect these historic resources. The Tribe claims that the Corps did not fulfill this obligation before permitting the DAPL activities. It bears noting that the Tribe does not press its environmental claims under NEPA here. Nor does it seek a preliminary injunction to protect itself from the potential environmental harms that might arise from having the pipeline on its doorstep. Instead, it asserts only that pipeline-construction activities – specifically, the grading and clearing of land – will cause irreparable injury to historic or cultural properties of great significance.
                                              Would love to know why the Sioux didn't argue for a preliminary injunction on NHPA and NEPA grounds.
                                              Last edited by IrishinSyria; 12-05-2016, 06:12 PM.

                                              Comment


                                              • Should be noted that acquiring the "private" land involved extensive use of eminent domain on behalf of the company by state governments.

                                                Comment


                                                • Originally posted by IrishinSyria View Post
                                                  If y'all are interested the opinion denying the preliminary injunction is interesting. The judge hints that he would have been inclined to grant an injunction had they raised environmental concerns instead of just historical preservation ones: https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin...?2016cv1534-39

                                                  It also expands on why NOBAMA involvement before this.



                                                  Would love to know why the Sioux didn't argue for a preliminary injunction on NHPA and NEPA grounds.
                                                  That is interesting. NEPA should be a slam dunk unless they did not fully know the route proposed until late in the game if at all. This is also something just don't understand because we know so much about water contamination movement, soil mechanics, plume distribution etc and we know very well that contamination originating from private lands can and will impact federal lands as well as lands down stream or down gradient. Why are private lands released from such EIA?
                                                  Last edited by Cackalacky; 12-05-2016, 06:18 PM.

                                                  Comment


                                                  • Originally posted by Cackalacky View Post
                                                    That is interesting. NEPA should be a slam dunk unless they did not fully know the route proposed until late in the game if at all.
                                                    This is definitely possible but it seems like they'd already made the NEPA argument by the time the judge issued his decision?

                                                    I think it might have just been a matter of urgency- apparently the company destroyed some of the sites they were trying to get the injunction for under NHPA as the judge was considering whether or not to issue the injunction.

                                                    Two days before, Mentz had testified to the DC District Court to report the area that lay in the path of the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) corridor holds 82 cultural features and 27 graves. By the next day, DAPL construction workers graded the area. Behind where Mentz stood in the video was a place known as the Strong Heart Society Staff, where a sacred rattle or staff was placed within stone rings. Here members of the elite warrior society would come to make pledges. Mentz explained the site is tangible evidence that Strong Heart members followed a "spiritual path."
                                                    Looks like they were trying to moot the issue by creating a new set of facts on the ground- wouldn't mind seeing bigly punitive damages for this.

                                                    Comment


                                                    • Originally posted by Cackalacky View Post
                                                      That is interesting. NEPA should be a slam dunk unless they did not fully know the route proposed until late in the game if at all. This is also something just don't understand because we know so much about water contamination movement, soil mechanics, plume distribution etc and we know very well that contamination originating from private lands can and will impact federal lands as well as lands down stream or down gradient. Why are private lands released from such EIA?
                                                      This is also a good question- they're certainly not under the clean water act but maybe the argument is that a pipeline isn't within the nexus or whatever the test is?

                                                      I think you're right that the exceptions in place scream special interests and lobbying. Trump should reform the statutes as part of his swamp draining.

                                                      e. also, what could possibly be the logic for having a different set of standards for domestic oil pipelines vs natural gas pipelines.
                                                      Last edited by IrishinSyria; 12-05-2016, 06:29 PM.

                                                      Comment


                                                      • I mean I'm all for the gas prices staying high as fuck.

                                                        Oil pipelines grant more supply cheaper which means lower gas prices.

                                                        Which means lower oil prices so screw that.

                                                        Hell yeah go Sioux!

                                                        Lol. Drill baby drill.

                                                        Comment


                                                        • Originally posted by johnnycando View Post
                                                          I mean I'm all for the gas prices staying high as fuck.

                                                          Oil pipelines grant more supply cheaper which means lower gas prices.

                                                          Which means lower oil prices so screw that.

                                                          Hell yeah go Sioux!

                                                          Lol. Drill baby drill.
                                                          I'm all for oil pipelines too. I'm not for end-runs around environmental and historical preservation legislation and cost-benefit analysis.

                                                          e. lol, misread you.

                                                          Comment


                                                          • And on a dramatically different tack- at least one Republican elector will not be voting for Trump.

                                                            Comment


                                                            • Originally posted by IrishinSyria View Post
                                                              One thing to keep in mind is that even though the Sioux didn't get a preliminary injunction they also didn't lose the case- even a (kind of) temporary delay may be enough for the underlying legal issues to be resolved in their favor.
                                                              Standing Rock is a joke. The Sioux are a shit tribe. They literally have nothing to complain about. Zero. Zilch.
                                                              Based Mullet Kid owns

                                                              Comment


                                                              • I'll freely admit that I don't know all the key points and facts of the Dakota Pipeline debate, so I'll offer no opinion on which side is right. I do know that all too often in situations like this, though, it has little to do with who's right or what's best for the country. It comes down to politics and who can scream the loudest.
                                                                Winners see success and want to climb up to its level. Losers see success and want to drag it down to their own.

                                                                Comment


                                                                • Originally posted by Bishop2b5 View Post
                                                                  I'll freely admit that I don't know all the key points and facts of the Dakota Pipeline debate, so I'll offer no opinion on which side is right. I do know that all too often in situations like this, though, it has little to do with who's right or what's best for the country. It comes down to politics and who can scream the loudest.
                                                                  Agree. 90% of the stories I've seen on it cover the dynamics of the protestors vs. the authorities without covering any of the substance underlying the debate. Libs seem to reflexively line up on the "no pipeline" side and conservatives seem to reflexively line up on the "drill baby drill" side.

                                                                  The underlying issues relate to really fine points of administrative and Indian law though, so it's tough to fault the press on this one. Questions like "were the Sioux given the requisite level of involvement under NHPA" don't really make for sexy journalism.

                                                                  Comment


                                                                  • Originally posted by IrishinSyria View Post
                                                                    Agree. 90% of the stories I've seen on it cover the dynamics of the protestors vs. the authorities without covering any of the substance underlying the debate. Libs seem to reflexively line up on the "no pipeline" side and conservatives seem to reflexively line up on the "drill baby drill" side.

                                                                    The underlying issues relate to really fine points of administrative and Indian law though, so it's tough to fault the press on this one. Questions like "were the Sioux given the requisite level of involvement under NHPA" don't really make for sexy journalism.
                                                                    And when you strip away the posturing and knee-jerk reactions, both the liberals and conservatives want affordable fuel, neither side wants to trash a natural area or resource, and neither side wants to see the Sioux mistreated.
                                                                    Winners see success and want to climb up to its level. Losers see success and want to drag it down to their own.

                                                                    Comment


                                                                    • Originally posted by Bishop2b5 View Post
                                                                      And when you strip away the posturing and knee-jerk reactions, both the liberals and conservatives want affordable fuel, neither side wants to trash a natural area or resource, and neither side wants to see the Sioux mistreated.
                                                                      Agree! A lot of American politics is picking big fights over small differences.

                                                                      Comment


                                                                      • Originally posted by IrishinSyria View Post
                                                                        Should be noted that acquiring the "private" land involved extensive use of eminent domain on behalf of the company by state governments.
                                                                        This is my basis for hating on oil pipelines. These companies come in and take away people's land by abusing eminent domain claiming that their profit is for the greater good.
                                                                        Running the damn ball since 2017.

                                                                        Comment


                                                                        • Originally posted by drayer54 View Post
                                                                          This is my basis for hating on oil pipelines. These companies come in and take away people's land by abusing eminent domain claiming that their profit is for the greater good.
                                                                          We had an oil train explosion a couple years ago about 20 miles outside of Fargo. I'm inclined to believe a pipeline is probably a bit better than having trains go through cities.
                                                                          Based Mullet Kid owns

                                                                          Comment


                                                                          • Originally posted by drayer54 View Post
                                                                            This is my basis for hating on oil pipelines. These companies come in and take away people's land by abusing eminent domain claiming that their profit is for the greater good.
                                                                            Umm.

                                                                            Because supplying oil at cheaper prices is.

                                                                            Unless you wear 100% wool and cotton.

                                                                            Eat on glass plates and metal forks.

                                                                            Drive a bike everywhere you go without rubber tires on it.

                                                                            Wear soleless shoes made of leather.

                                                                            Etc etc.

                                                                            You got no gripes...

                                                                            Comment


                                                                            • Originally posted by johnnycando View Post
                                                                              Umm.


                                                                              You got no gripes...
                                                                              We are in a supply glut with producers staring down the barrel of a problem of peak demand in the coming years. The idea that a company in Texas wanting to cheaply move crude from ND to IL and take away private land in the name of the delusional promise of energy security or the threat of more expensive oil is an absolute joke.

                                                                              Don't pretend that it's a slippery slope from not using eminent domain to no petroleum products ever. It's not even close. Private companies claiming private lands for profit is a real problem and the oil companies shouldn't have a right to it. I understand the need for certain levels of infrastructure, but the crude was already making it on time and at an affordable price.
                                                                              Running the damn ball since 2017.

                                                                              Comment


                                                                              • Originally posted by drayer54 View Post
                                                                                We are in a supply glut with producers staring down the barrel of a problem of peak demand in the coming years. The idea that a company in Texas wanting to cheaply move crude from ND to IL and take away private land in the name of the delusional promise of energy security or the threat of more expensive oil is an absolute joke.

                                                                                Don't pretend that it's a slippery slope from not using eminent domain to no petroleum products ever. It's not even close. Private companies claiming private lands for profit is a real problem and the oil companies shouldn't have a right to it. I understand the need for certain levels of infrastructure, but the crude was already making it on time and at an affordable price.
                                                                                The security infrastructure to provide completely and independently make us a global sustained power without need of foreign oil to the point we could possibly be able to eliminate import completely someday, makes this attractive to me.

                                                                                I guess we have completely different ideal situations in mind.

                                                                                So I conclude with the FACT I completely and utterly disagree.

                                                                                I have 10s of thousands of dollars in oil company investments, and peak oil consumption is a pipe dream.

                                                                                A partial list of products made from petroleum
                                                                                Last edited by johnnycando; 12-05-2016, 10:25 PM.

                                                                                Comment


                                                                                • (The tens of thousands of dollars thing is true but overly stated as if I'm a baller lol.)

                                                                                  Comment


                                                                                  • Forbes Welcome

                                                                                    Comment


                                                                                    • Originally posted by johnnycando View Post
                                                                                      (The tens of thousands of dollars thing is true but overly stated as if I'm a baller lol.)

                                                                                      OilCando

                                                                                      Comment


                                                                                      • I agree that oil pipelines are attractive for a lot of reasons and I disagree with a certain segment of the left that tries to block pipelines as a roundabout way to protest fracking.

                                                                                        But I also think you gotta do these things the right way. And that means doing the environmental impact statements, not bulldozing sacred tribal land, and not using state-level eminent domain to avoid federal oversight.

                                                                                        Fracking and pipelines aren't exactly eco-friendly, but they're not worse than any other method we use to get energy.

                                                                                        Comment


                                                                                        • Originally posted by IrishinSyria View Post
                                                                                          I agree that oil pipelines are attractive for a lot of reasons and I disagree with a certain segment of the left that tries to block pipelines as a roundabout way to protest fracking.

                                                                                          But I also think you gotta do these things the right way. And that means doing the environmental impact statements, not bulldozing sacred tribal land, and not using state-level eminent domain to avoid federal oversight.

                                                                                          Fracking and pipelines aren't exactly eco-friendly, but they're not worse than any other method we use to get energy.
                                                                                          It's not sacred land. The whole thing is a scam. It's been a lie for Indians to get publicity the whole time.
                                                                                          Based Mullet Kid owns

                                                                                          Comment


                                                                                          • Originally posted by IrishinSyria View Post
                                                                                            I agree that oil pipelines are attractive for a lot of reasons and I disagree with a certain segment of the left that tries to block pipelines as a roundabout way to protest fracking.

                                                                                            But I also think you gotta do these things the right way. And that means doing the environmental impact statements, not bulldozing sacred tribal land, and not using state-level eminent domain to avoid federal oversight.

                                                                                            Fracking and pipelines aren't exactly eco-friendly, but they're not worse than any other method we use to get energy.
                                                                                            Fracking is a terrible thing at shallow depths, in my opinion.

                                                                                            As a Permian Basin guy, my company doesn't frack anything shallower, than I'd guess, 3000' from surface. Where I work, we're after Avalon Shale, 2nd and 3rd Bone Springs, and the Wolfcamp. We're talking 7000-11000' deep.

                                                                                            Groundwater isn't contaminated or even remotely affected at this depth. The fresh water aquaifers are much shallower.

                                                                                            The bad part of fracking is the use of fresh water. Millions of gallons go bye-bye.

                                                                                            If we could harness the ability to fully advance and afford produced water to frack with, we'd have a win-win situation in my parts.

                                                                                            Comment


                                                                                            • Originally posted by NorthDakota View Post
                                                                                              It's not sacred land. The whole thing is a scam. It's been a lie for Indians to get publicity the whole time.
                                                                                              Sacred, and the illusion of burial grounds and great stories of Buffalo hunts fill the mind.

                                                                                              In truth, you're looking at typical BLM land: the land no one but God wanted; but now it's a battle! Lol

                                                                                              Comment


                                                                                              • And as far as environmental regs, I wish everyone knew how far we go and how strict things really are for spill remediation and follow up.

                                                                                                There's a big mental picture fallacy here.

                                                                                                There really is regulations and follow-up. Very strictly enforced stuff that the government makes millions off of in fines, wages to employees to enforce, etc.

                                                                                                We have a very proactive, self-reporting standard at work that will terminate anyone that doesn't timely report and contain an issue.
                                                                                                Last edited by johnnycando; 12-05-2016, 10:53 PM.

                                                                                                Comment


                                                                                                • Originally posted by NorthDakota View Post
                                                                                                  It's not sacred land. The whole thing is a scam. It's been a lie for Indians to get publicity the whole time.
                                                                                                  Then let the case play out and show that. The problem is that the company created the appearance of trying to avoid scrutiny by bulldozing ground in question while the injunction was being considered.

                                                                                                  Comment


                                                                                                  • Originally posted by IrishinSyria View Post
                                                                                                    Then let the case play out and show that. The problem is that the company created the appearance of trying to avoid scrutiny by bulldozing ground in question while the injunction was being considered.
                                                                                                    Standing Rock was invited to like 7 or 8 meetings to discuss the path...they didn't show up for any.
                                                                                                    Based Mullet Kid owns

                                                                                                    Comment


                                                                                                    • Originally posted by johnnycando View Post

                                                                                                      I have 10s of thousands of dollars in oil company investments, and peak oil consumption is a pipe dream.

                                                                                                      A partial list of products made from petroleum
                                                                                                      1) I've played this game too. I've traded nat gas and oil futures with CME. I've made a killing on fine plays like CLR and MMP. Gulfport coming out of the crash was nice. I knew oil was too high, and waited to get back in in the 60's then blew my gains on LINE and Rich Kinder.

                                                                                                      2) In 2012, I was at an energy forum with land men, petroleum engineers, GEO-nerds, and investors who thought peak oil was a joke and frackers were bulletproof. They were boisterous and loud, even for Okies.

                                                                                                      3) In 2015, I caught back up at the same forum, only in Houston and you could feel the panic. Oil is a commodity, not a promise...

                                                                                                      4) You're behind your industry....

                                                                                                      https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...eak-in-5-years

                                                                                                      Forbes Welcome

                                                                                                      Is peak oil demand in sight? | McKinsey & Company

                                                                                                      Energy is changing fast...
                                                                                                      Last edited by drayer54; 12-06-2016, 12:30 AM.
                                                                                                      Running the damn ball since 2017.

                                                                                                      Comment

                                                                                                      Adsense

                                                                                                      Collapse
                                                                                                      Working...
                                                                                                      X