Home | About | Donate

The Energy Lobbyists Linked to Trump's Offshore Drilling Plans


#1

The Energy Lobbyists Linked to Trump's Offshore Drilling Plans

Sue Sturgis

Last week U.S. Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke announced that President Trump plans to issue an executive order expanding offshore drilling in areas now off limits, including the Atlantic Ocean and parts of the Arctic.


#2

During the campaign, Trump used the word 'love' sparingly. He spoke most believably of how oil companies would love him. Other mentions of his love for anything or anyone were spoken so offhandedly as to make them unbelievable. He pretends to have a conscientious regard for American concerns, but his purported love for anything other than money, power and control is a pretense.


#3

Surely the Koch brothers and Dick Cheney & Halliburton have nothing to do with NOIA.
Of course not!   Nothing to see here, folks . . .


#4

With Trump and company's green lighting of extracting and burning vast amounts fossil fuels, next week's Science March and the following week's People's Climate March should be times to fire the booster rockets of the Climate Justice Movement to take actions well beyond where the movement has gone before. Otherwise we as humans can kiss the already limited and challenging chances for a livable future goodbye.


#5

Marching is nice, but voting is way better. The right votes, votes consistently, and has the big picture in mind, like the Sipreme Court. It's willing to accept flaws in candidates--look at Trump--knowing one appointment to the Court could bring major changes to the country. The Left doesn't, at least not to the same extent, and it will undermine itself at every turn because [name singular issue THAT IS THE BIGGEST DEAL BUT SMALL IN THE SCHEME OF THINGS]. So, I appreciate the marches, but I'm tired of "messages" and hope they translate at the ballot box.


#6

That's sounding like the all-too-familiar "it's the voter's fault," line of reasoning.

To which I respond: the D-Party loses at the ballot box because they care more about campaign contributions than they do about policy that helps the people who once comprised their base.

And BTW, on domestic energy production, they're all of the above, which included vast amounts of drill-baby-drill and frack-baby-frack during the Obama administration. Oh, and I noticed several Dems on that list of NOIA donation recipients. Environmentalists like me were decidedly underwhelmed with the "but at least we're not Republicans" party.

So here's a proposal for you "lesser of two evils" voters: stop pretending you have much to offer liberals and just focus on the mushy middle voters in the suburbs--they're your constituency now.


#7

Stop pretending you are opposed to a Supreme Court that will ensure that the country is dominated by the voices you are opposed to then. Because that's what folks like you promise with an electorate that's basically 50-50.


#8

Actually, that's what your party promises by offering Republican-lite policies like Obamacare, continuing drone attacks, and sniveling while Garland sat on a shelf for 290 days.

If that's the way your party fights, no wonder they get their butts whooped.


#9

And you "fight" by helping Republicans get elected all the while claiming everyone's a sellout who can't reach your mystical progressive bar.


#10

I fight by refusing to accept a duopoly that clearly isn't working for the interests of anyone but the well off.

But I'm sure you'll assure me that reforming the D-Party from within is sure to work this time, especially with noted reformers like Tom Perez, Chuck Schumer, and Nancy Pelosi in charge.

Hilary: "single payer will never happen." So encouraging.


#11

Excellent way to fight--and lose. Who wins in your ordeal? Seriously? In my district, I was like you, and then I realized that's why I have a tea party jerk representing me. Expecting my red district to turn blue is never going to happen unless the left and moderates join forces and vote as a block. Nationally, that's why the Right controls the Supreme Court now--they vote even when the candidate is horrible with the big picture in mind. If you aim to win by losing, good luck.


#12

Last time I checked, your party was on an immense losing streak, and, as always, blaming liberals rather than the feckless, corrupt, and rudderless establishment of that party.

Speaking of rudderless, in the aftermath of the latest butt whooping, they've decided to enlist the socialist/liberal whose followers were sexists, who promised free stuff, and who cost Hilary the election.


#13

No, I don't blame liberals. I blame nihilists like yourself and the Republican donor class. You folks make an excellent pairing.


#14

Did you forget how Hilary's donor class gave way more than Trump's and that she outspent him 2-1?

That she gave quarter-million $ speeches to her Wall Street buddies, and that instead of shaking hands with deplorables she went money-grubbing in Hollywood and Silicon valley?

Did you forget that millions of nihilists who voted for Obama stayed home or switched to Trump? Did you forget that Trump won with less votes than the loser in the last six presidential elections, despite Hilary's warchest?

Or are you too busy forming that liberal-moderate alliance to remember?


#15

President Trump has never made a secret of his pro business and pro drilling views. Of course the oil lobbyists are happy with him. If you want to change Trump's mind you need to use arguments that he understands. We don't need more fracking because there is a glut of natural gas. We don't need off shore drilling because there is a glut of oil available this year. Use business arguments to persuade Trump and the Republicans.


#16

What's your point? Hillary would've been eons better than Trump. In the least, we wouldn't have a rightwing Supreme Court and people like Scott Pruitt taking a wrecking ball to the EPA. Spending all your time fighting people who are more on your side, at least nominally, than fighting folks who don't like the things you like and are adamantly opposed to things you believe is just dumb. In a closely divided electorate, your only giving power to your opposition. But, that's how you fight the "establishment" I guess, right?


#17

We can fight several things at the same time.

For instance, D-Party fecklessness, corporate fealty and dry powder.

For instance, R-Party dominionism, willful ignorance and bigotry.

But rewarding fecklessness, corporate fealty and dry powder with votes isn't fighting, it's acquiescing.


#18

The business rationales you offer for easing up on drill-baby-drill don't matter in drilling country, LR. What matters there is drilling, period. When Hilary told west Virginians that coal jobs weren't coming back--and she was right, despite Trump's blathering--she lost votes.

Just like informing workers that they're as likely to be replaced by technology as by a worker in China doesn't matter. What matters is having someone to blame. When Trump threatened sanctions, tariffs and import duties on Mexico and China--none of which will happen--he gained votes.

See how that works?


#19

What are you fighting? You are just losing if you are going to vote in a way that maximizes Republican power, sorry. In my district, I'm done with that way of thinking. I don't want a tea partier representing me.


#20

Apparently you missed the part above about fighting D-Party fecklessness, corporate fealty and dry powder.

And obviously you missed how it might be working.

Bernie Sanders--that sexist/racist who promises unattainable free stuff like a single-payer bill, which is now co-sponsored by half the D-Party caucus--is now the face of your party.

You remember him, the guy you disparaged mercilessly?