Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday December 05 2016, @01:13PM   Printer-friendly
from the embrace-extend-extinguish? dept.

According to an article at Snopes.com:

The Army Corps of Engineers has denied the easement needed to complete the Dakota Access Pipeline, according Colonel Henderson, who notified Veterans for Standing Rock co-organizer Michael A. Wood Jr on 4 December 2016.

More than 3,000 veterans had converged at the Standing Rock camp to support the Sioux in their ongoing opposition to the building of a $3.7 billion pipeline that would cross through disputed land managed by the Army Corps of Engineers. Wood said upon learning of the move, "This is history."

From a report in Al Jazeera :

The US Army Corps of Engineers has turned down a permit for a controversial pipeline project running through North Dakota, in a victory for Native Americans and climate activists who have protested against the project for several months, according to a statement released.

The 1,885km Dakota Access Pipeline, owned by Texas-based Energy Transfer Partners LP, had been complete except for a segment planned to run under Lake Oahe, a reservoir formed by a dam on the Missouri River.

"The Army will not grant an easement to cross Lake Oahe at the proposed location based on the current record," a statement from the US Army said.

The Standing Rock Sioux tribe, along with climate activists, have been protesting the $3.8bn project, saying it could contaminate the water supply and damage sacred tribal lands.

[...] "Today, the US Army Corps of Engineers announced that it will not be granting the easement to cross Lake Oahe for the proposed Dakota Access Pipeline," said Standing Rock Chairman Dave Archambault II, in a statement.

"Instead, the Corps will be undertaking an environmental impact statement to look at possible alternative routes."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by nyder on Monday December 05 2016, @02:05PM

    by nyder (4525) on Monday December 05 2016, @02:05PM (#437146)

    So he has sold his shares and no longer owns any stock in the company that wants to build the pipeline and that is somehow a conflict of interest?

    Seriously, Trump sucks, but this sort of shit sucks worse. Look Clinton, you lost, suck it up.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   -2  
       Offtopic=1, Insightful=1, Overrated=2, Total=4
    Extra 'Offtopic' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   -1  
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @02:10PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @02:10PM (#437147)

    Reading comprehension fail.
    He still owns stock in Pillips 66 which is an investor in the project.
    That's separate from his direct investment in the company building the pipeline itself.

    > Seriously, Trump sucks, but this sort of shit sucks worse. Look Clinton, you lost, suck it up.

    And that dismissive ignorance sucks even worse.
    This isn't about Clinton anymore. This is about Trump. "Winning" the election doesn't give him a free pass for corruption.

    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @02:37PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @02:37PM (#437155)

      Right he still owns $100K stake. Which is equivalent to you owning a $10 stake in it (I'm being very very generous in assuming your net-worth is $1,000,000 when compared to Trumps $10,000,000,000). You care about your $10 so much you want to risk prison to protect your investment? Your argument fails logic test, and you are clearly grabbing at straws here. There is nothing of substance so stop drumming up controversy like a little child.

      • (Score: 2) by rondon on Monday December 05 2016, @02:54PM

        by rondon (5167) on Monday December 05 2016, @02:54PM (#437162)

        I don't think net worth means what you think it means. And before you site Donald, I certainly don't think it means what he would say it means.

        That being said, I figure you are probably only off by one order of magnitude or so.

        • (Score: 3, Touché) by tangomargarine on Monday December 05 2016, @07:10PM

          by tangomargarine (667) on Monday December 05 2016, @07:10PM (#437315)

          And before you site Donald

          Cite. As in citation.

          There's a joke in there somewhere about real estate, though.

          --
          "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @03:33PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @03:33PM (#437180)

        > You care about your $10 so much you want to risk prison to protect your investment?

        lolwut?

        There is no law that says Trump has to sell his shares.
        In fact, he's said it himself, ‘the president can’t have a conflict of interest’ [politico.com]

        There ought to be a law. The only reason there isn't a law is that all presidents in recent memory have voluntarily liquidated their assets and put them into a blind trust. Trump doesn't want to do that. Once he's out of office, congress will probably make it a law because he's proven the need for it. But for now, its not a law.

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Monday December 05 2016, @04:09PM

        by DeathMonkey (1380) on Monday December 05 2016, @04:09PM (#437208) Journal

        I love how conflicts of interest and the big banks suddenly don't matter anymore.

        Get paid to give a couple speeches to Goldman Sachs: lock her up!

        Give the Treasury Secretary position to the head of the mortgage division at Goldman Sachs, after he donated a crap ton of money to your campaign: meh!

        • (Score: 2, Disagree) by khallow on Monday December 05 2016, @04:25PM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 05 2016, @04:25PM (#437217) Journal

          Give the Treasury Secretary position to the head of the mortgage division at Goldman Sachs, after he donated a crap ton of money to your campaign: meh!

          Yea, who knew that Trump, like every president before him would give cabinet positions to political allies? Who knew? Glancing through the recent past, Obama has had two people (the last two people in fact) in that very position for which you could make the same claim. And if Clinton had been elected, she'd probably have appointed someone in a similar situation.

          What makes your observation particularly silly, is who else can Trump appoint to that position? It makes sense to appoint someone financially knowledgeable. And it make sense to appoint someone who isn't hostile to Trump's agenda. That makes for a very short list in Trump's case.

          • (Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @04:36PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @04:36PM (#437227)

            > Yea, who knew that Trump, like every president before him would give cabinet positions to political allies?

            It isn't that he picked political allies. Its that he's a damn hypocrite. Or is it your contention that trump has no political allies that aren't members of the swamp? That would be even more damning of hypocrisy.

            As usual, khallow applies juvenile analysis to avoid addressing the real issue.
            Does nominative determinism apply to usernames?

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday December 05 2016, @04:48PM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 05 2016, @04:48PM (#437237) Journal
              There's a reason I'm not taking this complaint seriously. Hypocrisy is not the worst thing ever.
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @04:51PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @04:51PM (#437241)

                > There's a reason I'm not taking this complaint seriously.

                Birds of a feather stick together, eh?

                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday December 05 2016, @04:58PM

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 05 2016, @04:58PM (#437246) Journal
                  There are other evils in the world than hypocrisy and quite a few are far worse.
                  • (Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @04:59PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @04:59PM (#437249)

                    Wooosh.

                    Let me spell it out for you.
                    YOU are a frequent hypocrite on this site.
                    Capiche?
                    Too damn stupid to know when you are being insulted.

                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday December 05 2016, @05:52PM

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 05 2016, @05:52PM (#437277) Journal
                      Thought so. You have nothing to say.

                      There is something deeply wrong with your outlook on politics. Hypocrisy is far from the worst evil out there so why dwell on it. It gives strength to the scoundrels (such as Trump, I might add) since hypocrisy is their bread and butter.

                      And rather than cry wolf over a trivial issue, how about wait till Trump actually does something wrong. It probably won't take long.
                      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @06:55PM

                        by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @06:55PM (#437305)

                        There is something deeply wrong with your outlook on politics.

                        You did NOT just say that bullshit.

                        Hypocrisy is far from the worst evil out there so why dwell on it.

                        That is some lame-ass "children are starving in africa" sophistry.

                        Why "dwell" on hypocrisy?
                        Because if you can't count on a politician to at least try to live up to their rhetoric then you are reduced to nothing more than tribalism. You throw out principles in favor of rote partisanship. It is a cynicism that erodes the foundations of democracy. It induces despair and hopelessness. WORDS MATTER. If society is unwilling to hold their elected leaders to account for their words, then why even have elections? You, in your callow understanding of the world, are advocating for authoritarianism.

                        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday December 05 2016, @07:44PM

                          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 05 2016, @07:44PM (#437343) Journal
                          Look, the Treasury is the last place I want anti-establishment theatrics. A banker with experience works for me even if you think it's somehow hypocritical. Just look at what's going on in India right now. Last month, the idiot in charge decided, as part of some massively misguided effort to fight corruption and collect taxes, to declare the largest banknotes instantly void and it's been a massive fubar ever since.

                          Because if you can't count on a politician to at least try to live up to their rhetoric then you are reduced to nothing more than tribalism.

                          Let us note that you haven't established that there is a problem in the first place along these lines. Why the propensity to cry "wolf"?

                          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @09:08PM

                            by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @09:08PM (#437383)

                            > Look, the Treasury is the last place I want anti-establishment theatrics.

                            I really DGAF what you want. You are a narcissist with literally no knowledge of civics. What you want is immaterial.

                            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 06 2016, @07:50AM

                              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday December 06 2016, @07:50AM (#437564) Journal

                              I really DGAF what you want. You are a narcissist with literally no knowledge of civics. What you want is immaterial.

                              What a remarkable string of non sequiturs. Wasn't much point to posting that even if you were any good at pop psychology or civics. That you "DGAF" is irrelevant. That you think I'm a narcissist (look up the symptoms sometime) is irrelevant even if it were true. And knowledge of civics is rather irrelevant to anything discussed in this thread.

                          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @10:50PM

                            by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @10:50PM (#437438)

                            The only problem they had is that they couldn't print the new notes fast enough. All the problems were based on that. Of course all the corrupt rich with rooms full of cash are going to run crying to the media and make a big fuss. Thats exactly the target.

                            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 06 2016, @08:27AM

                              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday December 06 2016, @08:27AM (#437571) Journal

                              The only problem they had is that they couldn't print the new notes fast enough.

                              That's absurd. Even if we pretend that all the legit people successfully turn in their money (and this doesn't turn into an exercise to steal from hundreds of millions of poor people), that's still a billion or so people who have to waste time just because some fuck forced them to.

                              Of course all the corrupt rich with rooms full of cash are going to run crying to the media and make a big fuss. Thats exactly the target.

                              What corrupt rich is retarded enough to keep their wealth as Indian banknotes in the first place? This whole scheme is absolutely stupid especially when considered from basic principles.

                  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by edIII on Monday December 05 2016, @06:25PM

                    by edIII (791) on Monday December 05 2016, @06:25PM (#437295)

                    Yes. You engender and represent many of them. Die in a fire today, you stupid fuck.

                    --
                    Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
                    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Monday December 05 2016, @07:09PM

                      by Phoenix666 (552) on Monday December 05 2016, @07:09PM (#437313) Journal

                      I'm incensed, too, but those feelings are better channeled into a robust reply than wishing someone death.

                      --
                      Washington DC delenda est.
                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @07:16PM

                        by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @07:16PM (#437319)

                        Why?

                        I don't know if he's autistic or just pathologically incapable of learning, but if there is one thing that's true about callow is that he's got zero interest in honest intellectual discussion. At some point you give up on the principle of charity and give him what he earns.

                        Its not like the performance of debate is going to bring new ideas to light for examination by an audience. He never says anything new. He's not a useful foil. Admit it, nothing callow has said in the last couple of years has surprised you, has it? The guy's a mental robot.

                        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday December 05 2016, @08:18PM

                          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 05 2016, @08:18PM (#437364) Journal

                          I don't know

                          This is the problem in a nutshell. You're ignorant. Fix it please rather than threatening people with death just because you can't figure out how to understand them. Every discussion involving you has been an utter waste of everyone's time.

                          Its not like the performance of debate is going to bring new ideas to light for examination by an audience.

                          That is the point of debate.

                          He never says anything new.

                          Of course, because you never listen. I'm done with this.

                          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @09:52PM

                            by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @09:52PM (#437407)

                            > I'm done with this.

                            I so, so, so fucking wish that were true.

                            But we all know you'll just come back to spout your ignorance as fact in the very next story. Probably even in other comments on this story.

                          • (Score: 3, Funny) by edIII on Tuesday December 06 2016, @09:31PM

                            by edIII (791) on Tuesday December 06 2016, @09:31PM (#438045)

                            Every discussion involving you has been an utter waste of everyone's time.

                            Hello, fuckface. Just to be absolutely clear with you, the AC was not me. That was somebody else that notices what a piece of shit you are, and how useless you are on this planet towards any goals of peace, cooperation, and/or enlightenment.

                            You are the utter waste of everyone's time, and you don't ever say anything new. Just more blind acceptance and kowtow'ng to the disgusting ideals you hold, namely Capitalism infected by extreme avarice, profit over people, the right to do whatever the fuck you want regardless of the cautionary principle, you name it.

                            Every single time you speak, you promulgate the views handed to you by the Elites to continue with the status quo, or just make it worse for the American worker in favor of the Elites. That's why we would all be much better off if you spontaneously caught on fire. You act as a barrier to our progress, and the fact you're a sniveling fuckwad bitterly complaining about how *your* society is being destroyed because we seek equality and living wages from below in extreme material deprivation, is the primary reason why you should burn in hell. You have the cruel audacity to claim we should continue, that's it clearly all of our faults, and that the Elites have done nothing wrong with setting up the systems we have. You would continue with 1/5 (close to being 1/4) children suffering malnourished in a critical time during neural development, to our extreme detriment in the future.

                            You're dangerously ignorant, arrogant, and deeply callous. Your name fits you perfectly.

                            Again, die in a fire you stupid evil bitch. I don't need to respond to you as an AC, and I won't ever "attack" you from the shadows. Remember that fuckface.

                            --
                            Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
                            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 07 2016, @07:46AM

                              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 07 2016, @07:46AM (#438244) Journal
                              The obvious rebuttal here is that outcome matters, intent does not. It doesn't matter what you intend, only what the consequences of your ideals and actions are. The problem with all these touchie feelie programs and initiatives is that they don't work. There's always deep problems that are glossed over and deep harms that are blamed on convenient scapegoats.

                              Sure, if you can get enough unicorns and pixie dust to make "seeking equality and living wages from below in extreme material deprivation" a useful thing to do (assuming it's more effective than approaches I've mentioned over the years, which is a challenging threshold to beat), then fine we can unilaterally do that, even if government or society isn't inclined to do so (which incidentally is a thing about stuff that works, you don't need to have all of society in on it).

                              Every single time you speak, you promulgate the views handed to you by the Elites to continue with the status quo, or just make it worse for the American worker in favor of the Elites.

                              This is fundamentally why I don't take you seriously. If these sorts of approaches actually worked, we'd see evidence of that by now. Instead, all we hear are elaborate excuses for why things don't work such as the "Elites" mentally failwaving us (after they suddenly discovered greed in the 1970s).

                              • (Score: 2) by edIII on Wednesday December 07 2016, @10:41PM

                                by edIII (791) on Wednesday December 07 2016, @10:41PM (#438539)

                                Again, the stupid fuck speaks.

                                The problem with all these touchie feelie programs and initiatives is that they don't work. There's always deep problems that are glossed over and deep harms that are blamed on convenient scapegoats.

                                Riiiiggghtt. They weren't setup to fail? Mismangaged? Deliberately sabotaged? This is why you are such an ignorant fuckwad. Take welfare for example, when they decided that part of welfare was vocational training. Superficially, that sounds fucking great, intelligent, and a path for success right? WRONG. Those in power knew how to fuck these people, fuck the program, and still keep the problems around to point out when they say, "Yeah, but those programs never fucking work". Uh huh. Well what about if you DIDNT train 5,000 beauticians for jobs that don't exist? Then afterwards, we blame THEM for not finding a job again. We blame THEM for a shitty educational system where REAL and DAMAGING disparities in funding and resources exist. To say we actually gave them equal opportunity is one of the greatest lie in our country.

                                See, this is why you are so offensively ignorant. One of the great cycles of pain we had in Capitalism was the speed-ups in the 19th century. We made so much product, that in our ignorance (or was it?), that we caused our own economic issues. Just like the welfare programs did last century prepping people for service jobs that didn't exist just to be doing *something*.

                                So don't even fucking act like we had a chance to do it right, or that it wasn't fucked from the start of it. Most of those programs in the past weren't designed to do much for people ultimately, but just temporarily remove them from the workforce as unemployed people. Lowering the barrier for education, providing loans, GI Bill, and not pumping up the educational system to handle the load is another example of engineered failure.

                                I might be onboard with your version of reality if the Repugnicans didn't fight tooth and nail the entire time in the same way the South fought back against their loss by instituting Jim-Crow and fucking terrorizing African-Americans for nearly 100 more years. I bet according to your logic, the civil war was a failure to bring equality, and the fault lay with the African-Americans?

                                Sure, if you can get enough unicorns and pixie dust to make "seeking equality and living wages from below in extreme material deprivation" a useful thing to do

                                This is why you should spend eternity in the most painful area of Hell. It's not a USEFUL thing to do, you offensive sniveling piece of shit, but the RIGHT thing to do. We DESERVE equality and living wages from a moral and ethical standpoint. You stupid fuck, we CREATE the WEALTH. Why would we create ANYTHING just to sit in squalor afterwards with Elites looking down us with that wealth telling us, "Idle hands are the devils playthings, and working 16 hours a day is good for you"? Meanwhile, they play in elaborate and lavish parties held in the mansions of the coal and railroad robber barons. Were the Elites of the time really working hard labor for 16 hours a day to make sure their OWN HANDS didn't become tools of the Devil?

                                I'm going to give you some credit and believe you didn't mean to put in equality in that statement so dismissively. Otherwise, what the fuck is wrong with you?

                                (which incidentally is a thing about stuff that works, you don't need to have all of society in on it).

                                Interesting. Something we agree on. Incidentally, we don't need everyone to join a revolution, but just enough to engage in civil war to the extent that we can finally have change. Quite possibly, without any blood shed at all were the participation levels high enough.

                                assuming it's more effective than approaches I've mentioned over the years, which is a challenging threshold to beat

                                Ohh fuck you, you arrogant piece of shit. You haven't set any thresholds of ideas to be "beaten". You haven't proposed anything but continuing on with the status quo, and you REFUSE to acknowledge a living wage as a right due to all the work the people are performing every day. You instead continue with this idea that a janitor needs to be punished all his life as somebody that failed to achieve anything, and as a just reward, he lives in squalor. The entire time ignoring that somebody else is taking the majority of all the wealth he helps create every single day. You think his manager, or owner (de facto chattle slavery, but less for the slave essentially), actually deserves the lion's share of the wealth for some management?

                                I can accept that some people can earn a shit load more than anyone else, as a reward for their intelligence, ambition, and achievements, but I will NEVER accept that people need to live in material deprivation while working 2 jobs. Or 3. That's where the inequality lays you piece of shit.

                                This is fundamentally why I don't take you seriously. If these sorts of approaches actually worked, we'd see evidence of that by now. Instead, all we hear are elaborate excuses for why things don't work such as the "Elites" mentally failwaving us (after they suddenly discovered greed in the 1970s).

                                This is why if I ever meet you, have a body guard with you. That's how offensive of a barrier you are to our progress towards equality.

                                It's not mental failwaiving you offensive fuckwad, but political and regulatory capture to the extent all the programs were engineered to fail, improperly funded due to hell bound Senators and Congressmen playing fucking Jim-Crow style games to make absolutely sure the programs never had a chance.

                                Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Burn in Hell.

                                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday December 08 2016, @08:02AM

                                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 08 2016, @08:02AM (#438664) Journal
                                  edIII, I believe any further communication between us will be unproductive and perhaps harmful to you. Thus, I will not reply to your posts. I ask that you in turn do not reply to my posts.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @04:46PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @04:46PM (#437233)

            "Drain the swamp" was a catch phrase used quite a bit... But this is just another example of cognitive dissonance with trump supporters. At some point you'll have to realize trump is betraying every promise he made.

            • (Score: 2) by Anne Nonymous on Monday December 05 2016, @04:54PM

              by Anne Nonymous (712) on Monday December 05 2016, @04:54PM (#437244)

              > "Drain the swamp"

              That's the new motto over at EPA.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @06:52PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @06:52PM (#437304)

            There are thousands of people that could do it better and be less compromised.

            To think otherwise is naive.

            He is a corrupt hypocrite like every republican and democrat before him.

            I just love watching the mouth breathers play political party tennis as if both parties are not complete shit.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @07:10PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @07:10PM (#437314)

              > He is a corrupt hypocrite unlike any republican and democrat before him.

              FTFY
              Trump embodies the caricature of politicians that venal entertainers like Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, et al have been selling to their audiences.

              Two decades of non-stop exaggeration have normalized his kind of failings so that a completely unqualified and unsuitable candidate could appear acceptable to a large enough segment of the population just because they've been lead to believe that he's their corrupt hypocrite.

              They've generated hundreds of millions in revenue by blurring the distinction between human imperfection and utter moral turpitude. Because of that you've lost your ability to distinguish between the two.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @09:11PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @09:11PM (#437385)

                This ^

                Ethics and morality now regularly take a back seat to profit, corporate rights / desires, and straight up imperial tactics such as running an oil pipeline through an area that would most likely damage the nearby Native Americans. Thankfully the Armoy Corps has stepped in, I think it would be amazing if the US military was able to take the moral high roads and stop acting as global enforcers for corporate interests.

            • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday December 05 2016, @07:18PM

              by Phoenix666 (552) on Monday December 05 2016, @07:18PM (#437321) Journal

              He has not much time to put a team together. Two months isn't very long when you consider the import of the positions he's trying to fill. He's going to do what most managers do and go with people he knows, if he can. He's going to choose people who will be loyal to him, if he can. The Chief of Staff is typically the person that helps guide that effort, so that's why his choice for that role pretty much insta-killed every campaign promise he made.

              If a candidate elected to office had a ready-made roster of non-partisan, independent, acclaimed and accomplished people ready to take up those roles and work for the good of the country rather than the private benefit of a connected few, Trump could hire from that. But I don't think such a thing exists; at least I've never heard about one.

              --
              Washington DC delenda est.
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @07:31PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @07:31PM (#437328)

                Obama nominated 3 and got 2 republicans for his cabinet.
                His campaign obviously had prepared a list of potentials that weren't just loyalists ahead of the election.
                Trump's so ill-prepared that he's literally running his cabinet selection process like a season of the bachelor.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 06 2016, @07:52AM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday December 06 2016, @07:52AM (#437565) Journal

              There are thousands of people that could do it better and be less compromised.

              They wouldn't get elected. At some point, you have to go with what you have, not what you wish you had.

          • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Monday December 05 2016, @07:05PM

            by Phoenix666 (552) on Monday December 05 2016, @07:05PM (#437312) Journal

            Yea, who knew that Trump, like every president before him would give cabinet positions to political allies? Who knew? Glancing through the recent past, Obama has had two people (the last two people in fact) in that very position for which you could make the same claim. And if Clinton had been elected, she'd probably have appointed someone in a similar situation.

            Don't start in with the apologia. "Drain the swamp" does not mean, "do exactly what everybody else always does." Trump is casting his administration in the mold of the status quo, because those people he appoints run the government. When he goes around the table in his cabinet meetings theirs are the voices he will hear as he ponders transportation, monetary policy, matters of state, etc. Theirs are the advice he will hearken to.

            So writing what you write is not how his feet are "held to the fire," as his supporters vowed the morning after the election. It's paving the way for the same old abuse because you're too besotted with the appearance of victory to care.

            Tear into Trump, honestly, with the force you applied to tearing into Obama and Hillary. Make him know he serves at the sufferance of the American people who put him in that chair. It's your job as a citizen, and if you don't do your job he will never do his.

            --
            Washington DC delenda est.
            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday December 05 2016, @07:45PM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 05 2016, @07:45PM (#437344) Journal

              Tear into Trump, honestly, with the force you applied to tearing into Obama and Hillary.

              Phoenix666, I'll tear into Trump when he actually does something wrong. Crying "wolf" is wasting my time.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 06 2016, @01:56AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 06 2016, @01:56AM (#437510)

                There is no crying wolf here, trump has chosen a lot of his cabinet. No guessing, no wondering, no maybes. It is terrible, and you should feel betrayed.

                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 06 2016, @08:31AM

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday December 06 2016, @08:31AM (#437574) Journal

                  trump has chosen a lot of his cabinet. No guessing, no wondering, no maybes.

                  And a hell of a lot of bullshit. I suggest you take my advice here.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @09:16PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @09:16PM (#437389)
          Who should (or could) he even appoint at all?

          Dems hate his guts. Most republicans don't like him.

          Whos left?
          The people who can be paid to do as they're told.
        • (Score: 2) by meustrus on Monday December 05 2016, @09:21PM

          by meustrus (4961) on Monday December 05 2016, @09:21PM (#437392)

          This is the "double standard" that liberals have been complaining about all election. Nobody listened, I guess because they were tired of hearing that feminist message.

          Of course the real reason it works this way is because while Clinton spent her time proving her innocence to Congressional witch hunt committees, Trump spent his time on the media driving the national conversation. It's really about who's better at politics. And now we can see exactly how much a Republican party member can rein in the abuses of the Republican establishment.

          --
          If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
        • (Score: 2) by butthurt on Tuesday December 06 2016, @01:29AM

          by butthurt (6141) on Tuesday December 06 2016, @01:29AM (#437502) Journal

          According to Mr. Trump's disclosure form [wix.com], he had an investment in Goldman Sachs.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @03:00PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @03:00PM (#437163)

      The reading comprehension may be on your part:

      At the time of his most recent disclosure statement in May, Trump owned $100,000 to $250,000 of stock in Phillips 66, which has a 25 percent stake in the Dakota Access project.

      So he owned that stock in May, no mention if he still owns it today. Unfortunately, I can't tell you how long selling those amounts of stock etc.. usually takes. But you are assuming he still owns them, and you are also assuming he is trying to circumvent his forced selling of them. Both of which the story has no info on.
      And that's the BS grandparent is talking about, and it's what I'm seeing over here in Europe to. I'm not saying he should get a free pass, just that he'll be treated as others have in his shoes. And from what I'm seeing, that's currently not the case.

      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday December 05 2016, @03:26PM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 05 2016, @03:26PM (#437174) Homepage Journal

        "he'll be treated as others have in his shoes"

        So - one of the richest men around wears hand-me-down shoes? Who'da thunk it!

        --
        There is a supply side shortage of pronouns. You will take whatever you are offered.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @03:28PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @03:28PM (#437175)

        > So he owned that stock in May,

        Yes he owned it in May.
        And he owend DAPL stock and has said he sold that.
        But has not said he sold the Phillips 66 stock
        So it is entirely reasonable to assume that he still owns the Phillips stock.

        The logical contortions of trump apologetics are ridiculous.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 06 2016, @07:56AM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday December 06 2016, @07:56AM (#437566) Journal
          Once again, he's going to throw this conflict for how much money again? It's hard to say whether it's more insulting or humiliating to claim that Trump will corrupt major decisions for scraps.
    • (Score: 4, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Monday December 05 2016, @04:41PM

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Monday December 05 2016, @04:41PM (#437229) Journal

      Let's also not forget that Energy Transfer Partners LP donated to Trump's campaign in excess of federal campaign finance limits. [theguardian.com]