Trump Presidency

[bobbyok1]

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.

 

[EddytoNow]

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.

 

[IrishLax]

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

 

[IrishinSyria]

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/archive/2016/12/the-historic-victory-at-standing-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.

 

[IrishinSyria]

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.

 

[phgreek]

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...

 

[Cackalacky]

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/12/the-historic-victory-at-standing-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.

 

[phgreek]

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!

 

[Cackalacky]

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.

 

[IrishinSyria]

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.

 

[Cackalacky]

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.

 

[IrishinSyria]

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/show_public_doc?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.

 

[IrishinSyria]

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

 

[Cackalacky]

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/show_public_doc?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?

 

[IrishinSyria]

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.

 

[IrishinSyria]

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.

 

[johnnycando]

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.

 

[IrishinSyria]

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.

 

[IrishinSyria]

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

 

[NorthDakota]

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.

 

[Bishop2b5]

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.

 

[IrishinSyria]

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.

 

[Bishop2b5]

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.

 

[IrishinSyria]

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.

 

[drayer54]

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.

 

[NorthDakota]

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.

 

[johnnycando]

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...

 

[drayer54]

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.

 

[johnnycando]

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

 

[johnnycando]

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