Trump era: Fascist dawn, or road to liberation?

kalibex said:
Joe said:
I think this pipeline protest business is part of either a deliberate campaign to get a revolution going, just one part of the campaign to whip up a certain section of the population, to create a particular climate. The anti-Trump business seems to be part of that. The more I think about it the more I think that the defining aspect of a Trump presidency is going to be some kind of revolution or social chaos in the USA, with Trump simply being used as the fall guy.

Does this statement imply that you believe that the native protestors are also being used and manipulated into taking a stand that they can't win? This no-DAPL protest is not exactly inconsistent with their general beliefs and philosophy. This protest also did not just start with the Trump presidency.

I was wondering the same thing... I have a close acquaintance who seems well informed on this issue and has visited the protest camps several (3-4?) times as a support volunteer. This is my understanding of the situation:
  • In an early proposal the pipeline would have crossed the Missouri River north of Bismark, ND but it was rerouted through Standing Rock so it could cross the river south of the city. The popular understanding is that this was done because of concerns about the pipeline polluting upriver from a large city full of white people and is a case of "environmental racism" http://abcnews.go.com/US/previously-proposed-route-dakota-access-pipeline-rejected/story?id=43274356
  • The popular story is that the route through standing rock is a problem for several reasons: 1. it disturbs (already destroyed in some cases) sacred sites 2. the route goes under Oahe (feeds into the Missouri River) and many fear it will leak into and poison the water 3. the route illegally crosses sovereign Dakota Sioux lands when they have expressly forbidden it and they are being forced to accept it. All of these points sound quite plausible to me.
  • I found a "Pro" site that advances the company position: https://daplpipelinefacts.com/ . It might be a whitewashing/greenwashing propaganda effort but its interesting because it directly contradicts the popular notion that the pipeline crosses Sioux lands. It also compares the DAPL pipeline to an existing pipeline that follows the same route and insists that the new pipeline will be much safer because it will be buried much more deeply under the lake

Dakota-Access-Pipeline_Path.jpg

ADDED:
Dakota-Access-Pipeline-Private-Land-Map-1-1024x844.jpg

Not sure if this is accurate or propaganda, it comes from an obviously pro pipeline site and has the feel of slick marketing so... FWIW

Getting back to Joe's point:

Joe said:
I think this pipeline protest business is part of either a deliberate campaign to get a revolution going, just one part of the campaign to whip up a certain section of the population, to create a particular climate.

Is this an effort to deliberately provoke the Sioux and their supporters by routing the pipeline through their lands and forcing them to accept it? Are their legitimate concerns that are being deliberately blown out of proportion to manufacture a divisive situation?

Added: I haven't yet listened to the sott radio episode covering this issue that was mentioned a few weeks ago, so my apologies if any of this is redundant.
 
kalibex said:
Joe said:
I think this pipeline protest business is part of either a deliberate campaign to get a revolution going, just one part of the campaign to whip up a certain section of the population, to create a particular climate. The anti-Trump business seems to be part of that. The more I think about it the more I think that the defining aspect of a Trump presidency is going to be some kind of revolution or social chaos in the USA, with Trump simply being used as the fall guy.

Does this statement imply that you believe that the native protestors are also being used and manipulated into taking a stand that they can't win? This no-DAPL protest is not exactly inconsistent with their general beliefs and philosophy. This protest also did not just start with the Trump presidency.

The native people are trying to protect their land and lives legitimately as so many have done against industry for many years and I dont think they're being manipulated. Many others have gotten involved to support them. I can see how this situation presents an opportunity for the ptb to exploit for their own benefit. The protest has gotten nationwide coverage and it has become something they can use.
 
From a subdomain on the same site:

http://landowners.daplpipelinefacts.com/ said:
The Dakota Access Pipeline will employ new advanced pipeline technology to ensure safety and reliability. Pipelines are the safest mode of transporting crude oil, according to statistics from the U.S. Department of Transportation. But there are always opportunities to improve on that record. Today’s crude oil pipelines are designed to exceed stringent federal safety standards. Dakota Access will be built and operated using the most advanced technology and monitoring systems to make it even safer.
[...]
[this speaks to the national security aspect of this situation...]
Although the United States is the third-largest producer in the world, we are the number one consumer of crude oil in the world. We need to close the gap between what we produce as a country and what we consume before we can be truly independent of foreign imports. While the U.S. produced 7.5 million barrels of crude oil per day in 2013, it still imported 7.7 million barrels per day in order to meet consumer demands. We need to close the gap between what we produce as a country and what we consume before we can be truly independent of foreign imports. Every barrel of oil produced in the United States directly displaces a barrel of foreign oil.

The North Dakota Bakken has witnessed a significant increase in the production of crude oil, from 309,000 barrels a day in 2010 to 1 million barrels a day in 2014. This energy will need reliable transportation networks to reach U.S. markets, and pipelines are the safest, most efficient means of accomplishing this task.
[...]
The project will also address transportation strains in the Upper Midwest created by the dramatic increase in crude oil production in North Dakota. A lack of rail cars to move grain out of South Dakota has magnified the problem. Tariffs on grain railcars have increased from $50 to nearly $1,400 per car. These cost increases can carve up to $1.00 from every bushel of corn shipped. The Bakken Pipeline will help ease transportation shortages for agriculture and other industries.

So it sounds like the oil fields in ND are already producing over 1 million barrels of oil per day and it is being transported with trucks and trains. Again this is from the company website so it is marketing and putting the pipeline in the best possible light, but interesting nonetheless.

FWIW Wikipedia backs up the production claims:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakken_Formation said:
The Bakken formation has emerged in recent years as one of the most important sources of new oil production in the United States. Most Bakken drilling and production has been in North Dakota, although the formation also extends into Montana and the Canadian provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba. As of 2013, the Bakken was the source of more than ten percent of all US oil production. By April 2014, Bakken production in North Dakota and Montana exceeded 1 million barrels per day (160,000 m3/d). As a result of increased production from the Bakken, and long-term production declines in Alaska and California, North Dakota as of 2014 was the second-largest oil-producing state in the US, behind only Texas in volume of oil produced.[15]

According to this (rather confusing) article from Forbes it sounds like "it depends":
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/04/26/pick-your-poison-for-crude-pipeline-rail-truck-or-boat/#38a39e9e5777 said:
The short answer is: truck worse than train worse than pipeline worse than boat (Oilprice.com). But that’s only for human death and property destruction. For the normalized amount of oil spilled, it’s truck worse than pipeline worse than rail worse than boat (Congressional Research Service). Different yet again is for environmental impact (dominated by impact to aquatic habitat), where it’s boat worse than pipeline worse than truck worse than rail.

So it depends upon what your definition is for worse. Is it death and destruction? Is it amount of oil released? Is it land area or water volume contaminated? Is it habitat destroyed? Is it CO2 emitted?

In both the United States and Canada, more crude oil, petroleum products, and natural gas are transported in pipelines than by all other modes combined, using the unit of ton-mile which is the number of tons shipped over number of miles (The Fraser Institute).

In the U.S., 70% of crude oil and petroleum products are shipped by pipeline. 23% of oil shipments are on tankers and barges over water. Trucking only accounts for 4% of shipments, and rail for a mere 3%. In Canada, it’s even more lopsided. Almost all (97%) of natural gas and petroleum products are transported by pipelines (Canadian Energy Pipeline Association).

Amid a North American energy boom and a lack of pipeline capacity, crude oil shipping on rail is suddenly increasing. The trains are getting bigger and towing more and more tanker cars. From 1975 to 2012, trains were shorter and spills were rare and small, with about half of those years having no spills above a few gallons (EarthJustice.org). Then came 2013, in which more crude oil was spilled in U.S. rail incidents than was spilled in the previous thirty-seven years.
[...]
Screen-shot-2014-04-24-at-2.49.58-PM.jpg

This graphic makes rail look like the current safest option...

With the number of refineries decreasing, and capacity concentrating in fewer places, crude usually has to be moved some distance. There are four ways to move it over long distances: by pipeline, by boat, by truck, or by rail. Each has its unique problems and none is without harm.

The question is: which is safest and which should we invest in most? Take two spills for comparison.

The Quebec train wreck last year killed 47 people and spilled 1.5 million gallons of crude onto land (Bloomberg.com). The Enbridge pipeline rupture in 2010 spilled over a million gallons of similar crude into the Kalamazoo River but did not kill anyone (Wikipedia).

Contamination of water is generally much worse for the environment than contamination of land as it spreads quickly over more area and impacts more species and habitat. But killing people makes a big difference. I don’t want to put a price tag on human life, but the Government has, and it’s about $8 million a person (NYTimes).
[...]
These are not easy questions and one’s vested interest has a great deal of sway in the answer. You really do need to pick your poison.

Like always, it will probably come down to money. And it won’t be about jobs (Pipeline Jobs), regardless of which end of the spectrum you believe, because there just isn’t enough jobs to matter compared to the value of the oil itself and the refinery capacity. It’s simply cheaper and quicker to transport by pipeline than by rail or by truck. The difference in cost is about $50 billion a year for shipping via the Keystone versus rail, totally eclipsing any economic effect of jobs in either direction.
[...]
The Congressional Research Service estimates that transporting crude oil by pipeline is cheaper than rail, about $5/barrel versus $10 to $15/barrel (NYTimes.com). But rail is more flexible and has 140,000 miles of track in the United States compared to 57,000 miles of crude oil pipelines. Building rail terminals to handle loading and unloading is a lot cheaper, and less of a hassle, than building and permitting pipelines.

It isn’t acceptable to just say we shouldn’t be moving oil, because we will for the next decade or more, no matter what. So, keeping in mind the difference between death/damage to humans and damage to the environment, which would you choose?
[...]
In the end, all of these transportation modes can be made safer if stricter regulatory controls and modern technologies are emplaced, but the questions remain – can we make the industry comply and which ones do we want to invest in?
 
SummerLite said:
kalibex said:
Joe said:
I think this pipeline protest business is part of either a deliberate campaign to get a revolution going, just one part of the campaign to whip up a certain section of the population, to create a particular climate. The anti-Trump business seems to be part of that. The more I think about it the more I think that the defining aspect of a Trump presidency is going to be some kind of revolution or social chaos in the USA, with Trump simply being used as the fall guy.

Does this statement imply that you believe that the native protestors are also being used and manipulated into taking a stand that they can't win? This no-DAPL protest is not exactly inconsistent with their general beliefs and philosophy. This protest also did not just start with the Trump presidency.

The native people are trying to protect their land and lives legitimately as so many have done against industry for many years and I dont think they're being manipulated. Many others have gotten involved to support them. I can see how this situation presents an opportunity for the ptb to exploit for their own benefit. The protest has gotten nationwide coverage and it has become something they can use.

Sounds about right to me...
 
Thank you Seamas for this information about the pipeline. Even though it is a PR effort, it is useful to know what their arguments are, and they may even be reasonable. I can't say because I don't know enough about this issue. But we don't need to discard these arguments out of hand just because they come from an 'evil corporation', and we don't need to automatically side with the demonstrators just because they are demonstrators. It might be more complex than that, and unreasonable protests DO happen. Again, I can't say in this case.

Trump's general idea of environmental policy sounds about right to me: do away with the billion dollar climate change industry and generally calling this fraud what it is. And then:

_https://www.whitehouse.gov/america-first-energy said:
Lastly, our need for energy must go hand-in-hand with responsible stewardship of the environment. Protecting clean air and clean water, conserving our natural habitats, and preserving our natural reserves and resources will remain a high priority. President Trump will refocus the EPA on its essential mission of protecting our air and water.

In other words, forget climate change, focus on real environmental issues. Can't argue with that.

However, he also has a clear focus on business and self-sufficiency (not unlike Putin BTW, as far as I know), which means that he embraces 'clean coal', shale gas etc. and strengthening US energy production. So there's a bit of a contradiction to his environmental goals.

You can read his stance on the energy issue here: _https://www.whitehouse.gov/america-first-energy

Of course, what he will actually do or can do remains to be seen.
 
kalibex said:
Joe said:
I think this pipeline protest business is part of either a deliberate campaign to get a revolution going, just one part of the campaign to whip up a certain section of the population, to create a particular climate. The anti-Trump business seems to be part of that. The more I think about it the more I think that the defining aspect of a Trump presidency is going to be some kind of revolution or social chaos in the USA, with Trump simply being used as the fall guy.

Does this statement imply that you believe that the native protestors are also being used and manipulated into taking a stand that they can't win? This no-DAPL protest is not exactly inconsistent with their general beliefs and philosophy. This protest also did not just start with the Trump presidency.

Yeah, and neither did the Black Lives Matter protests. My point is that over the past few years there seems to have been a concerted effort to whip American "do-gooders" and liberal types up by using the media and private funding to give 'legs' to various causes. The DAPL protest got a LOT of attention that it normally would not have had, but for the funding that went into organizing the protestors. You could say this is part of an 'awakening' of the people to corruption, but there have been a LOT of other pipelines and environmentally-damaging projects over the last 10 years that no one apparently cared about. So why the DAPL?
 
Seamas said:
SummerLite said:
kalibex said:
Joe said:
I think this pipeline protest business is part of either a deliberate campaign to get a revolution going, just one part of the campaign to whip up a certain section of the population, to create a particular climate. The anti-Trump business seems to be part of that. The more I think about it the more I think that the defining aspect of a Trump presidency is going to be some kind of revolution or social chaos in the USA, with Trump simply being used as the fall guy.

Does this statement imply that you believe that the native protestors are also being used and manipulated into taking a stand that they can't win? This no-DAPL protest is not exactly inconsistent with their general beliefs and philosophy. This protest also did not just start with the Trump presidency.

The native people are trying to protect their land and lives legitimately as so many have done against industry for many years and I dont think they're being manipulated. Many others have gotten involved to support them. I can see how this situation presents an opportunity for the ptb to exploit for their own benefit. The protest has gotten nationwide coverage and it has become something they can use.

Sounds about right to me...

Yes, agreed - any protest movement can and may be 'used'. That doesn't mean to automatically throw the baby out with the bathwater because this is now President Trump's issue to deal with, nor to dismiss the protestors as mere 'minorities' who are now on the wrong side of economic progress, etc.

The no-DAPL stance, at it's most basic, remains: 'Water is Life' - a stance against the very possible environmental damage. On the other hand...if the EPA does its job properly and ensures that appropriate standards are in place for such constructions - though that's if such pipelines can even be made 'safe enough'...
 
I think many of the things Trump has done since taking office, as well as many positions he had taken before, can be explained by the idea that he has a businessman view of things, and he considers the USA his new enterprise, which he wants to make successful. By this I do not mean he wants to make money for himself nor that he wants to favour the corporate powers; but rather that the country itself is like a business that needs to be run efficiently and effectively. In fact, the Cs themselves said so, and they added that he sees the population as human capital.

So, he wants to build infrastructure, which includes that pipeline, because it will make the country run better and it will create jobs, and environmental considerations are secondary. He wants to make friends with Russia because a conflict with the other global power would be a big hindrance for the 'business' - WWIII certainly would be. But he is more confrontational towards China for economic reasons: there's currency wars, plus the US imports a lot of manufactured goods from them, which Trump feels should be produced at home to create more jobs. He is not into imperialistic adventures because that is just a distraction. He is in good terms with Israel because he knows many jews own the means of production, plus he is aware of how much power they have, even to take down a US president. He is against immigration not because he is racist (he isn't) but because immigration means less jobs for locals. He rejected the TTP not because it was evil (it was), but because it didn't match his vision of how to 'run the company'. Similar thing for NAFTA.

Having a 'businessman vision' at the presidency has both good and bad consequences. Mostly good, but that's because he stands in contrast with all his predecessors who have served the deep-state /establishment and its imperialistic, total-control of the population agenda. So anything different is an improvement. Another good thing is that the working class may improve its living conditions - again, not so much because he loves the people or he believes in equality or human rights, but because happy, stable people make 'good employees'. By the same token, there are other consequences which are bad, like the relationship to Israel or some of his choices for his cabinet. But notice that, at least in some cases, he didn't choose people because they were good or patriotic, but because he thought they were very efficient at what they do.

That's how I see Trump at the moment. But it's virtually impossible to explain this to anyone outside the forum because everyone is possessed by hysteria and running on emotions, calling him Hitler and what not.

Finally, it would have been interesting to see how far Trump would have gotten to "make America great again" with his 'benevolent businessman' approach. But, like others here, I'm afraid that's not going to happen because they seem to be going serious with the color revolution plans. Then, as has been discussed, either the deep state takes power from him, or he is forced into imposing his will with a heavy hand.
 
Windmill knight said:
I think many of the things Trump has done since taking office, as well as many positions he had taken before, can be explained by the idea that he has a businessman view of things, and he considers the USA his new enterprise, which he wants to make successful. By this I do not mean he wants to make money for himself nor that he wants to favour the corporate powers; but rather that the country itself is like a business that needs to be run efficiently and effectively. In fact, the Cs themselves said so, and they added that he sees the population as human capital.

Here's economist Michael Snyder on what could be the reality behind Trump's infrastructure plans:

SHARMINI PERIES: Right. And that's pretty evident with the cabinet he's lining up, as well — the richest cabinet in U.S. history. And he's actually taking from the very establishment in Washington, as well as Wall Street. So I'm sure it'll be doubled down on, in terms of the kind of establishment we're talking about.

Michael, President Trump said something very interesting about building America, and building America in his own image, I think. Let's have a look at what he had to say.

DONALD TRUMP: We will build new roads and highways and bridges and airports and tunnels and railways all across our wonderful nation. We will get our people off of welfare and back to work rebuilding our country with American hands and American labor. We will follow two simple rules: Buy American and hire American.

SHARMINI PERIES: So, Michael, what does he mean by this kind of infrastructure building?

MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, he's talked a lot about infrastructure and there are a lot of different ways of doing infrastructure. I don't think his way will be the way that it was done a hundred years ago. The whole idea of the Republican Party in the 19th century was for the government to finance infrastructure, and especially transportation, to lower the cost of living and doing business. But I don't think that's what Trump is going to do, because he wants to cut back government spending and he wants to cut back taxation. So what I worry about is when he says, "I'm going to build infrastructure" is that it means that he's going to create a huge trillion-dollar market for Wall Street's high finance.

They're going to fund infrastructure by bondholders, and through private-public partnership, rail lines and transportation lines. Who are going to be the beneficiaries of this, and who's going to pay for it all? If the government doesn't pay for it, it's going to be the bondholders and Wall Street. And the question is what is the cost of this transportation going to be, and who will be the main beneficiaries?

A hundred years ago, it was to build free roads and it was to lower the cost of living. But the reverse is happening today. Take for example the New York City subway's Second Avenue Line, which was just finished a couple of weeks ago. It calls for $10 billion for just six stations.

The way this was funded is for the Metropolitan Transport Authority that runs the subways to borrow $10 billion from Wall Street. It pays bondholders interest, and will meet this cost by raising subway fares for all the riders in New York. To the extent that the New York City and New York State subsidize it, they're going to raise sales taxes here, and also income taxes. So New Yorkers are going to have to pay more for the subway.

Who are the beneficiaries?

The politicians say, "Well, the people along the transport lines are going to be the beneficiaries - people who live on Second Avenue and First Avenue and York Avenue, who had to take those crowded Lexington subways." But the real beneficiaries are the landlords. The $10 billion that's been spent on the Second Avenue subway is probably increasing their land values, the real estate values of real estate developers by from $10 to $20 billion.

Already, wage-earners who live on Second Avenue - the supposed beneficiaries - are complaining that they're being told their rents are going to go up by a couple of hundred dollars a month. Now that these neighborhoods have more easy transport, that makes it more valuable. So they're worried that they can't afford to live there anymore. They worry that they will have to move to Queens, Westchester or outside of New York City.

So there's a giant windfall for the landlords, a give-away thanks to the subway that cost $10 billion, making $10-20 billion of "capital" (land-value) gains.

All this could have been financed by a windfall gains tax. If the subway and transportation, such as Mr. Trump wants to build throughout the United States, is going to increase the value of the rent of location for real estate landlords and developers, then there could have been a windfall gains tax. That would have captured all this $10 billion added value from the subway, to repay the MTA, the subway authority, for the cost of building it. But that hasn't been done.

So what you have is the public paying for the 1% to benefit. That looks to me like the plan that Mr. Trump has. So when he says he wants to help all Americans, he means he wants to help all Americans in the 1% by really letting Wall Street get a huge debt from the 99% of the Americans. It's just the opposite of what people believe.

The same fight is going on in Vancouver. They're trying to spend about $6 billion in transportation up in Canada. How are they doing it? The transportation - the bus lines and train lines - are going to increase what already is the highest priced real estate in Canada. This promises to make a bonanza for the landlords. But they're paying for this transportation by a 0.5% sales tax, that is going to cost consumers in Vancouver $250 million a year. So, again, the users of the transportation are having to pay, not the property owners along the route. They get the gains.

I think you could call this the Thorstein Veblen Law: that whenever there is a public expenditure on infrastructure, the benefits go to the absentee owners, the landlords. Civic improvement is basically a real-estate development.

So I think Mr. Trump wants to turn the U.S. economy into the kind of real estate development that has made him so rich in New York. It will make his fellow developers rich, and it will make the banks that finance this infrastructure rich, but the people are going to have to pay for it in a much higher cost for transportation, much higher cost for all the infrastructure that he's proposing.

So I think you could call Trump's plan "public investment to create private profit". That's really his plan in a summary, it looks to me.
 
Joe said:
kalibex said:
Joe said:
I think this pipeline protest business is part of either a deliberate campaign to get a revolution going, just one part of the campaign to whip up a certain section of the population, to create a particular climate. The anti-Trump business seems to be part of that. The more I think about it the more I think that the defining aspect of a Trump presidency is going to be some kind of revolution or social chaos in the USA, with Trump simply being used as the fall guy.

Does this statement imply that you believe that the native protestors are also being used and manipulated into taking a stand that they can't win? This no-DAPL protest is not exactly inconsistent with their general beliefs and philosophy. This protest also did not just start with the Trump presidency.

Yeah, and neither did the Black Lives Matter protests. My point is that over the past few years there seems to have been a concerted effort to whip American "do-gooders" and liberal types up by using the media and private funding to give 'legs' to various causes. The DAPL protest got a LOT of attention that it normally would not have had, but for the funding that went into organizing the protestors. You could say this is part of an 'awakening' of the people to corruption, but there have been a LOT of other pipelines and environmentally-damaging projects over the last 10 years that no one apparently cared about. So why the DAPL?
That is a key question, why DAPL?. If one looks at the tools of color revolutions, then the regime changers, use NGOs, who work for years supporting the grassroots, gaining good-will while they gain access to where the problems and tensions are. So when a country then later is ready for a regime change, then they have all these projects that they can push to increase pressure.

Egypt is one example, where while they were supporting Mubarak for years, then they also supported the Muslim Brotherhood and groomed future leaders/tyrants at officer training schools in the US, so when Mubarak fell out of favour with the population and possibly the US, then the US already had an alternative candidate to support. It didn't quite work according to plan in that case as the Muslim Brotherhood was ousted. Sisi, though trained in the UK and the US, took power and perhaps started to show independent non-puppet tendencies which were not too pleasing to the US. Juan Cole in an article today shows, while taking a swipe at Trump, how he is not too happy with the downfall of the Muslim Brotherhood, just like he displays his great displeasure with Assad in Syria. He would probably have liked a regime change in Syria the way Hillary had in mind. He claims further that the Muslim Brotherhood gave up violence in the 1970'ies, but Syria and Libya and many other countries could provide ample examples to correct Juan Cole on this. His article is here: _http://www.juancole.com/2017/01/trump-syrias-steadfast.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
 
The problem I have with these pipelines, is that they will entrench old technologies, ie the burning of fossil fuels, when those technologies have been murderously protected by the power elite over the years. No one is going to invest billions in pipelines if they are not to be used for the next 50 to 100 years. Protests and divisions can be good distractions for what is really at stake. How many scientists, or inventors have been silenced over the years when they were on the verge of discoveries that would upset the old world order?
 
Hesper said:
Speaking of Hitler, he was a looney tune from the very beginning, winding up in homeless shelters 'preaching' to the down-and-out like a maniac. His ideas were grandiose and pathological and he left the actual details to others to figure out. When I hear statements like these from DNC chair candidate Sally Boynton Brown who thinks the best way to solve the 'Trump problem' is to 'shut white people down,' I'm reminded of a Hitler-type mentality:


https://youtu.be/TCeoC7P7Wmo

I guess if we take the talking point that 'racism got Trump elected' then we need to 'shut white people down' in order to fix it. But sheesh what does that even mean? It's such a bizarre, racially charged view of the situation that it's difficult to wrap my mind around.
These people are strange creatures :huh:
I think they would earn a bit of respect if they came out and cleaned laundry by denouncing Hillary, Podesta and the whole elite cabal of the DNC and seriously did some soul searching about what the leaked emails actually said and their implications. And if they then wanted anyone to take them seriously, then they would proceed to respect the choice of the voters and denounce violent protests and lies upon lies.

After 8 years with a black president and the response is to shut white people down. Did they not learn, when Martin Luther King said that it was not the color of the skin that was important. Obama should have been a shining example, that it is the character one should look at, and not their color or gender.

However this is not going to happen at the moment, too much rot is still present.

Edit: Spelling and formulation.
 
The title of this Trump era thread says it all for me : This could be fascist dawn leading to a road to liberation.
In the sense that it sounds like a caricature, may be leading to the fall of the present political and economical system.
Something like the 'trumpets' of the Apocalypse, somehow...
 
Seamas said:
[...] [...]

The announcements I've seen say that he want to renegotiate with the companies involved to require use of steel made in the USA and he wants a "better deal for the US gov't (warning biased article):

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-01-24/trump-said-to-plan-orders-approving-keystone-dakota-pipelines said:
President Donald Trump took steps to advance construction of the Keystone XL and Dakota Access oil pipelines, while demanding a renegotiation to get a better deal for the U.S. government.

Trump stopped short of green lighting construction on either pipeline but put a deadline on the government’s review of TransCanada Corp.’s proposed Keystone XL to transport Alberta oil sands crude to U.S. refineries. Trump also announced policies to encourage the use of American-made products in U.S. pipeline projects and to curtail federal environmental reviews for major infrastructure projects.

"If we’re going to build pipelines in the United States, the pipes should be made in the United States," Trump said.

The moves, taken on Trump’s fourth full day in office, are a major departure from the Obama administration, which rejected the Keystone proposal in 2015 and has kept Dakota Access blocked since September. Environmentalists, concerned about climate change and damage to water and land, now face an executive branch that’s less sympathetic to their efforts. For the oil industry, it heralds more freedom to expand infrastructure and ease transportation bottlenecks.

White House spokesman Sean Spicer cast that possible renegotiation of the Dakota Access project as a way to address concerns by stakeholders, including the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, which is concerned about Native-American cultural sites and the safety of its water supply.

Seems like they could easily reroute the pipeline the way Putin rerouted one of the Russia-China pipelines so it wasn't so close to the Capian sea (or lake Baikal?) a few years ago. Here's hoping!

You're right Seamas, Putin intervened with a pipeline group named Transneft in rerouting a major pipeline away from Lake Baikal.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/russian-oil-dispute-russia-s-pipeline-czar-is-putin-s-soldier-a-458803.html

Just speculating but I don't think Trump is going into this situation partially blind. His selection for Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson is a former ExxonMobil CEO with 40 years of experience. Tillerson is also acquainted with the Russian sector of the oil/gas business, including Russia's upgrading of structural integrity of it's pipelines and construction. It's ironic, that an oil deal made between Tillerson's ExxonMobi and Russia came under heavy sanctions by the Obama administration. The sanctions forced Exxon to step back from a drilling project in Russia’s Arctic. Exxon also lobbied the Senate Foreign Relations Committee against previous bills punishing Russia for the suppose invasion of Ukraine.

I'm hoping a compromise will be made to reroute the pipeline.


]Senate panel approves Rex Tillerson for Secretary of State
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/01/23/senate-panel-oks-tillerson-secretary-state/96963454/


ExxonMobil helped defeat Russia sanctions bill
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/exxon-mobile-russia-sanctions-rex-tillerson-232770
 
Joe said:
The DAPL protest got a LOT of attention that it normally would not have had, but for the funding that went into organizing the protestors. You could say this is part of an 'awakening' of the people to corruption, but there have been a LOT of other pipelines and environmentally-damaging projects over the last 10 years that no one apparently cared about. So why the DAPL?

So you're suspicious of how it became such a big a liberal 'cause celebre' in August, after the initial protest camp had been there since April 2016. Fair enough.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this appears to me as if, once a perfectly legitimate protest movement even appears to have been 'compromised' by the neoliberal manipulators (possibly encouraged by 4D STS instigators), you'll write that particular movement off, totally, completely, and not look back.

It was a native-driven movement, they have perfectly legitimate concerns, there have been plenty of pipeline accidents, if and when the pipeline goes where it goes, it may cause problems and suffering...but now it's (perhaps) being used as an impediment to distract President Trump...so that's all that matters at this point?
 
Back
Top Bottom