Dakota Access Pipeline

zitothebrave

Connoisseur of Minors
Trump won't talk about it

Hillary won't talk about it

Obama won't talk about it

CNN/NBC/ABC/etc. whon't talk about it.

Why are we not talking about it?

Obviously it's a dense issue, but at it's core we have an issue where the money in this country is bullying the people. Including Native Americans on their own land. Which is protected by treaties we've signed. Seriously, it's sickening that it's happening. Where were the police rolling in with military weapons and vehicles when the bundy clan invaded a national parK? Didn't happen.

Only candidate to speak on this so far is Jill Stein, which clearly indicates that until Hillary does, Stein is clearly the only progressive candidate on the ballot.
 
Follow the money. Bet Goldman Sachs has something to do with it.

To steal this from another thread. If you wonder why Clinton is not speaking up on Standing Rock, understand that the same banks that are financing Dakota Access Pipeline are supporting Hillary Clinton. Goldman Sachs has $234,000,000 invested in revolving credit line for DAPL, $947,000 in Clinton; Morgan Stanley, $225,000,000 in DAPL, $927,000 in Clinton; JP Morgan Chase, $312,000,000 DAPL; $998,000 in Clinton.
So when you tell me I MUST vote for her because of T, I say, no, actually, I don't, I won't, and I have excellent reasons why not. And when you say this is not time to "stand on principles" I say never has there been a more urgent time for people to do just that.
But if this is what you feel you need to support, go for it. But know that your support of her goes hand in hand with your support of DAPL among other things. #nodapl #sacredstonecamp #lovewaternotoil #honortheearth
 
wonder what a candidate for POTUS can do about this ?
either one

and why / how did HRC in particular become the piñata over something she has no input .

Or is it more CDS ?
 
lF3kUe8.png
 
trump is invested into those that are building the pipeline

man, the next 4 years he is going to exploit the **** out of this an actually turn all of his failed ****ty businesses into a real profit
 
So is Hillary, well not directly, but her biggest donors and people who paid her a ton of money to speak are.

cool, that has nothing to do with our soon to be president directly being invested in it

hillary lost so who cares who her donors are now?
 
I haven't been following this that closely, but isn't it basically the federal government giving the Native Americans crappy land and then asking them to roll over for industry once it is discovered that the crappy land has some value?

Everyone here should read Steve Inskeep's Jacksonland. The treatment of Native Americans in this country has been deplorable from the get-go.

9781594205569_custom-2b6d532a0e40cfefa27bc984955974f0996e47ac-s400-c85.jpg
 
Im firmly on the fence on this issue. As a Native American, it is clear that the treatment of Native Americans in the past is unfathomable. However, land was taken from countries all over the world and the land was previously someone else before Native Americans took it from them.

Tell me where I'm wrong here:

The Corps tried for well over a year to get comments from the tribes on the proposed location of the pipeline and got no response. The ARMY COE actually seeks comments from the tribes even though it is not legally required.

"Every other tribe involved managed to respond in a timely manner, they did not join in the lawsuit, they were given a chance to make their voices heard, and their requests were almost universally complied with. No one else seems to have an issue, except this tribe who continually failed to appear at scheduled meetings, they failed to respond to correspondence in anything close to a timely manner (if at all), and when they did respond they responded with ludicrous and unhelpful demands (such as refusing to appear at consultations until a Level III Cultural study was re-done with one of their members present). The DAPL made attempts to proactively avoid sites with historical significance, running cultural surveys and adjusting the path of the pipeline all on their own. They even chose a form of drilling that doesn't require disturbing the surface with trenches and the like (probably because they get to avoid federal jurisdiction that way).
"

I understand the pipeline was originally planned for further north, but the core asks for comments and listened when people objected.

This pipeline was built over top of an already existing pipeline and alongside a national gas pipeline. The pipeline is not being built over any portion of Native American land. Additionally, this is a much better method of transporting oil:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/pipelines-vs-trains-which-is-better-for-moving-oil-1.2988407

The Tribes insistence that it will affect their water source appears to be 100% not true. Their water intake is 70 miles south and only 1.6 miles from a rail that already transmits 300,000 barrels per day. The Federal government helped fun the new water intake. m

Of course, big oil companies are going to be the big winners here and the majority of people will side with low income society over "big government." But, this could also be the case of a Tribe making ridiculous requests (after not responding in the planning stages). This could totally just be a money grab.

In the bigger picture, is the pipeline better or worse for the American population? Who is being harmed?

I'm willing to listen and hear points from the other side of the argument. To me, it seems that it is not on Native American land, the tribe had the opportunity to comment and didn't, the water supply will not be affected, and there haven't been any burial grounds.
 
cool, that has nothing to do with our soon to be president directly being invested in it

hillary lost so who cares who her donors are now?

If it didn't matter she could come out and rail against it now. Politically she's poison and won't have another crack at office. So why not? Oh right, cause she's bought too.
 
Im firmly on the fence on this issue. As a Native American, it is clear that the treatment of Native Americans in the past is unfathomable. However, land was taken from countries all over the world and the land was previously someone else before Native Americans took it from them.

Tell me where I'm wrong here:

The Corps tried for well over a year to get comments from the tribes on the proposed location of the pipeline and got no response. The ARMY COE actually seeks comments from the tribes even though it is not legally required.

"Every other tribe involved managed to respond in a timely manner, they did not join in the lawsuit, they were given a chance to make their voices heard, and their requests were almost universally complied with. No one else seems to have an issue, except this tribe who continually failed to appear at scheduled meetings, they failed to respond to correspondence in anything close to a timely manner (if at all), and when they did respond they responded with ludicrous and unhelpful demands (such as refusing to appear at consultations until a Level III Cultural study was re-done with one of their members present). The DAPL made attempts to proactively avoid sites with historical significance, running cultural surveys and adjusting the path of the pipeline all on their own. They even chose a form of drilling that doesn't require disturbing the surface with trenches and the like (probably because they get to avoid federal jurisdiction that way).

"

I understand the pipeline was originally planned for further north, but the core asks for comments and listened when people objected.

This pipeline was built over top of an already existing pipeline and alongside a national gas pipeline. The pipeline is not being built over any portion of Native American land. Additionally, this is a much better method of transporting oil:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/pipelines-vs-trains-which-is-better-for-moving-oil-1.2988407

The Tribes insistence that it will affect their water source appears to be 100% not true. Their water intake is 70 miles south and only 1.6 miles from a rail that already transmits 300,000 barrels per day. The Federal government helped fun the new water intake. m

Of course, big oil companies are going to be the big winners here and the majority of people will side with low income society over "big government." But, this could also be the case of a Tribe making ridiculous requests (after not responding in the planning stages). This could totally just be a money grab.

In the bigger picture, is the pipeline better or worse for the American population? Who is being harmed?

I'm willing to listen and hear points from the other side of the argument. To me, it seems that it is not on Native American land, the tribe had the opportunity to comment and didn't, the water supply will not be affected, and there haven't been any burial grounds.

If that's true I have to side with the gov't.
 
If it didn't matter she could come out and rail against it now. Politically she's poison and won't have another crack at office. So why not? Oh right, cause she's bought too.

Who gives a flying **** what a non elected person that can't really do anything is or isn't doing on the matter?

The election is over. I'm not sure why you are stuck on talking about the loser instead of the soo to be president and the issue at hand
 
Back
Top