Spicer suggests Trump will push through Dakota Access Pipeline

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Independent

Looks like this thing is going to end in a massacre.

[publicunofficial]

I mean they're also talking about selling off national park land to private interests, so this is just obvious.

[JJC]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[JA]

Doesn't Trump have financial investments in companies that'd profit from the Dakota Access Pipeline? Either way, this is completely unsurprising. Republicans are intent on pushing through with these pipelines, despite them producing only a few short-term jobs and posing potentially enormous threats to the local environment. I can't help but believe the primary purpose is to give a big F-U to Liberals, Environmentalist groups, and Native Americans, while helping their rich big oil buddies.

The result will be violent confrontations between Native Americans and protestors, and the government and private security. Foreign reporters and observers will be barred from going near the site, thereby shutting down coverage of the events that would ultimately, and rightfully, bring international condemnation.

[politics_king]

I hope not, just move the damn pipeline. You can't go after our indigenousness people, we have a right to be against it. Anything in the BP oil pipeline spill should make us question any company (especially BP) motives. The companies want no mistake and the people who live there don't want pollution, so why can we not work together? Because the company doesn't want to invest in the workers and more pay to make it ok? Ultimately, we should want to invest in each other because long-term everyone will be happy with no controversies.

[Intell]

People are just godawful.

[politics_king]

People are just godawful.

Here? Not really. We just want an honest government. But we have "checks and balances" that make us proud to fight what we believe in. I dot believe that.

[DavidB.]

What is the actual argument against this pipeline?

[politics_king]

What is the actual argument against this pipeline?

Ouuuuuu... Ok. A conglomerate oil company that came from the North of our border wanted to build a pipeline through the United States to the end of the South so we as a nation/continent could benefit from profits of our own domestic policy and it went through the Dakota's but they didn't know a ingeniousness tribe in the Dakota which is "No DAPL" would throw their arms up about their water being possibly contaminated by this company, which made the protests about it active. It's a simple fact of government over-reaching about what their trying to do.

It was all politics, then a bunch of activists saw a chance to push their agenda by being against companies that want to just push through for profits, while the average person who lives there was like... "We don't need this." Graphs would also show that they went around suburbs over the ingenious people to make it happen. It became a true left/right issue, it was an opportunity for activist to jump on it. Complete over-reach. The company didn't want to to build around a public area/private-citizens area, cause it cost extra dollars.

That's what makes corporations dangerous, because at the end of the day, they don't see how it goes after a normal citizen for corporate profits. They just see a dollar and profit for the stock investors. I've worked under a union that is in hospitality, they want you to work your guts out but when in a massive conglomerate, they know they need the employees. That's what made unions strong. I could go on for hours about it but if we're going to get down to the subject matter, then it's "Corporate officials make massive over-reach over personal land." in laymen's terms.

[Intell]

People are just godawful.

Here? Not really. We just want an honest government. But we have "checks and balances" that make us proud to fight what we believe in. I dot believe that.

I was referring to Spicer and Trump of course.

[politics_king]

People are just godawful.

Here? Not really. We just want an honest government. But we have "checks and balances" that make us proud to fight what we believe in. I dot believe that.

I was referring to Spicer and Trump of course.

Fair enough. The Spicer press-conference was jaw-dropping, it's like... Really? We're going to be Italy in WWII. I'm not with that. Their too sensitive, even Obama's last presser with the WH press, he was graceful in what they do and their job though he was salty how he was covered the whole time. Our press is a check and balance, seeing Trump at the CIA talking about how we have a "war with the media" raised mega red flags. But I feel like we can let him and his Bannon part of the team keep digging the hole. Kushner seems to be the level headed one while Conway is the true voice of Trump and Priebus is just a hack who will do whatever is told of him, his FOX Sunday interview with Chris Wallace was a joke, and Wallace is the most legitimate journalist for FOX.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Doesn't Trump have financial investments in companies that'd profit from the Dakota Access Pipeline?

He did, but as part of his effort to have the appearance of having no conflicts of interest, he sold off anything not directly related to the Trump Organization.

[politics_king]

Doesn't Trump have financial investments in companies that'd profit from the Dakota Access Pipeline?

He did, but as part of his effort to have the appearance of having no conflicts of interest, he sold off anything not directly related to the Trump Organization.

He's smart. Because it's bad business to do what they're trying to do. It's why a lot of us on the left point out that Wall Street has too much power, they have to answer to investors or stock-holders who don't know what's happening on the actual ground. They only see numbers.

[DavidB.]

What is the actual argument against this pipeline?

Ouuuuuu... Ok. A conglomerate oil company that came from the North of our border wanted to build a pipeline through the United States to the end of the South so we as a nation/continent could benefit from profits of our own domestic policy and it went through the Dakota's but they didn't know a ingeniousness tribe in the Dakota which is "No DAPL" would throw their arms up about their water being possibly contaminated by this company, which made the protests about it active. It's a simple fact of government over-reaching about what their trying to do.

It was all politics, then a bunch of activists saw a chance to push their agenda by being against companies that want to just push through for profits, while the average person who lives there was like... "We don't need this." Graphs would also show that they went around suburbs over the ingenious people to make it happen. It became a true left/right issue, it was an opportunity for activist to jump on it. Complete over-reach. The company didn't want to to build around a public area/private-citizens area, cause it cost extra dollars.

That's what makes corporations dangerous, because at the end of the day, they don't see how it goes after a normal citizen for corporate profits. They just see a dollar and profit for the stock investors. I've worked under a union that is in hospitality, they want you to work your guts out but when in a massive conglomerate, they know they need the employees. That's what made unions strong. I could go on for hours about it but if we're going to get down to the subject matter, then it's "Corporate officials make massive over-reach over personal land." in laymen's terms.

Thank you.

[politics_king]

What is the actual argument against this pipeline?

Ouuuuuu... Ok. A conglomerate oil company that came from the North of our border wanted to build a pipeline through the United States to the end of the South so we as a nation/continent could benefit from profits of our own domestic policy and it went through the Dakota's but they didn't know a ingeniousness tribe in the Dakota which is "No DAPL" would throw their arms up about their water being possibly contaminated by this company, which made the protests about it active. It's a simple fact of government over-reaching about what their trying to do.

It was all politics, then a bunch of activists saw a chance to push their agenda by being against companies that want to just push through for profits, while the average person who lives there was like... "We don't need this." Graphs would also show that they went around suburbs over the ingenious people to make it happen. It became a true left/right issue, it was an opportunity for activist to jump on it. Complete over-reach. The company didn't want to to build around a public area/private-citizens area, cause it cost extra dollars.

That's what makes corporations dangerous, because at the end of the day, they don't see how it goes after a normal citizen for corporate profits. They just see a dollar and profit for the stock investors. I've worked under a union that is in hospitality, they want you to work your guts out but when in a massive conglomerate, they know they need the employees. That's what made unions strong. I could go on for hours about it but if we're going to get down to the subject matter, then it's "Corporate officials make massive over-reach over personal land." in laymen's terms.

Thank you.

You're welcome.