Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. exempts oil industry from protecting Gulf animals, for 'national security'

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 129 posts

Re: U.S. exempts oil industry from protecting Gulf animals, for 'national security'

#81

Post by bruce511 »

Detrytus wrote: post #27
perching_aix wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My experience is the exact opposite. It is one of the most common points of pedantry I see in controversial political threads, across nations. Not for no reason either. Turnout was 64.1%, so really it's the active decision of 31.9218% of voters (voting eligibles) culminating in this. Kind of a pattern with modern democracies if you check. Not that passively endorsing this by not voting when the opportunity was there…

I hate this line of reasoning. People who didn't vote are equally guilty, because they did not care enough to show up. Or, maybe, they just didn't make it to polling station on time for some reason (having to pick up kids from school, or working second shift or something). You should always assume that the result of the elections is representative of what society thinks. That's how elections (and opinion polls, for t…

I'm not sure I'd use the word "guilty" - that suggests some wrong doing.

However I agree with your premise - trying to remove abstaining voters from the math is incorrect. Abstainers are explicitly making their view known.

That view is "I don't care, but are equally good or bad". (Which in turn demonstrates a profound ignorance of what's going on - and frankly folk that unconcerned should probably not pick a side.)

I believe it's fair to say "America voted for this". America is a democracy and the voters spoke. Of course it's not unanimous but majority rules.

And it's not like his campaign was disingenuous. The man was on display, and most of the things he's done were signaled clearly in the campaign. (He's long been against foreign wars, so the Iran debacle seems out of character, but then again it's in line with his dictator instincts, and he desperately needs a distraction from the Epstein files.)

Re: U.S. exempts oil industry from protecting Gulf animals, for 'national security'

#82

Post by unethical_ban »

Glyptodon wrote: post #54
alanwreath wrote: post #22

Wasn’t diversifying US energy sources also a national security issue? And wind energy was set aside because, wait for it, they killed animals. Birds to be specific.

The folks in charge just want what they want without rhyme or reason. Mix a mind virus and joy of power together and get your eratic clown show. And many times it can go on a lot longer than you'd ever guess. Unfortunately as a society we keep moving further and further away from the foundations of a functional society based on a representative government and considering the general welfare.

The optimist in me thinks we will pivot from this dark timeline in 10-20 years. That even if we face violent internal strife, we will come out of this dark timeline eventually. Even the threat of omniscient AI surveillance is too much against the will of a free society.

I hope.

Re: U.S. exempts oil industry from protecting Gulf animals, for 'national security'

#83

Post by tehjoker »

Detrytus wrote: post #27
perching_aix wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My experience is the exact opposite. It is one of the most common points of pedantry I see in controversial political threads, across nations. Not for no reason either. Turnout was 64.1%, so really it's the active decision of 31.9218% of voters (voting eligibles) culminating in this. Kind of a pattern with modern democracies if you check. Not that passively endorsing this by not voting when the opportunity was there…

I hate this line of reasoning. People who didn't vote are equally guilty, because they did not care enough to show up. Or, maybe, they just didn't make it to polling station on time for some reason (having to pick up kids from school, or working second shift or something). You should always assume that the result of the elections is representative of what society thinks. That's how elections (and opinion polls, for t…

Many people don’t vote because it is difficult for them, they don’t see a difference in their lives because they get screwed one way or the other no matter who is in power, and if you’ll recall the last administration was complicit in genocide which is why I voted third party.

It’s true trump is bad but so is genocide. Really hard to make the case of the lesser evil when it’s just variations on top tier criminality. You have to offer something to voters.

Re: U.S. exempts oil industry from protecting Gulf animals, for 'national security'

#85

Post by unethical_ban »

SanjayMehta wrote: post #37
whalesalad wrote: post #17

I always thought Trump was such a joke. Completely non-threatening, just a big personality who kept popping up here and there. I even bought a MAGA hat back in the summer before the election explicitly because I thought it was hysterical he was even running, and knew he would lose. I thought the whole thing was a gag, a joke, just like Bloomberg. It didn't even cross my mind that someone so woefully inadequate for th…

[flagged]

I dissent from your theory that all presidents are equally bad because they all have had some level of imperial streak to them. You notably left out Carter, who was imperfect but was by all measures a more decent and thoughtful citizen than Trump has been in his life.

I reject the notion that Trump is in any way honest just because he is openly corrupt. Accepting open corruption because one has seen imperfections in other characters is a path to simply accepting autocracy.

Re: U.S. exempts oil industry from protecting Gulf animals, for 'national security'

#86

Post by bruce511 »

georgemcbay wrote: post #55
brendoelfrendo wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, I didn't vote for Trump, but I think it should be the US. This administration represents us on the global stage. You may not like it, and it may not feel fair, but we will all have to bear the consequences of their actions. Every day something like this happens--and is allowed to happen--is an embarrassment to all of us.

Agreed. I voted against Trump 3 times. But people outside of the US should definitely act as if they cannot trust the US. Because they can't. I mean ffs we collectively elected him twice.

As someone outside the US I certainly feel this way.

The underlying point is that the American public voted for this. They saw his first term, a million people dead from covid, and thought to themselves "I want more of that guy". And if they can elect this person, what might the next one look like?

In one short year every country on earth has put the US in the "unreliable trade partner" box. (Even Canada. Canada!). That damage will last for decades. The big winner here? China. They're hoovering up goodwill all over the place.

Killing USAid not only killed a major purchaser of US farm surplus, it woke up a lot of grass-roots agencies to the need to diversify funding. Lots of soft-influence lost overnight, and it's not easily coming back.

Re: U.S. exempts oil industry from protecting Gulf animals, for 'national security'

#87

Post by ngai_aku »

whalesalad wrote: post #17

I always thought Trump was such a joke. Completely non-threatening, just a big personality who kept popping up here and there. I even bought a MAGA hat back in the summer before the election explicitly because I thought it was hysterical he was even running, and knew he would lose. I thought the whole thing was a gag, a joke, just like Bloomberg. It didn't even cross my mind that someone so woefully inadequate for th…

Sorry, are you referring to the summer of 2015? Because purchasing a MAGA hat in 2025 for the lols is tasteless and shameful. I share your surprise generally, but at a certain point it’s just irresponsible to treat it all like a joke with no consequences

Re: U.S. exempts oil industry from protecting Gulf animals, for 'national security'

#88

Post by stingraycharles »

unethical_ban wrote: post #80
0xbadcafebee wrote: post #52

Of the 13 billion barrels of oil the US produces every day, 1.5 billion (15%) comes from the gulf. Despite this being more than enough oil (we are a net-exporter of oil), we import crude oil because our refineries need a different type of crude. The extra 15% of oil we are killing the environment over is for making a profit to export to other nations. It is not for national security.

BILLION? My god, I didn't know we produced that much. I've known for a while that our refineries are tuned to lighter "sweet crude" than what Canada or US produces, and long have I thought that a more benevolent, heavy-handed government should incentivize our domestic industry to handle our own oil for national security.

From what I understand, the US currently produces more oil than any other country has ever produced.

Re: U.S. exempts oil industry from protecting Gulf animals, for 'national security'

#89

Post by Gud »

wise_young_man wrote: post #78
kingkawn wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is 100% coming barring a mass political rising

If AI takes all the jobs and consolidation of wealth continues it’s not an unlikely outcome. No income no spending = dead economy, poverty and starvation. What are do people do when their government and capitalism fails them?

AI will perhaps take “all the jobs” in a far distant future.

Hopefully by then humanity has managed to get educated and learned to cooperate and share.

Re: U.S. exempts oil industry from protecting Gulf animals, for 'national security'

#90

Post by danans »

MiguelX413 wrote: post #39
danans wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we are already mostly energy independent The US is the largest oil producer, but also still one of the largest oil importers, and oil prices are set by a global market, so the phrase "energy independent" is at best an accounting trick. The only way we can get truly energy independent is by electrifying most non fossil fuel requiring end uses and supplying that electricity with renewables or nuclear (from domestical…

The US should simply ban energy exporting.

> The US should simply ban energy exporting

Why would an oil company go through the trouble (and expense) of oil exploration and extraction if they don't have the right to sell it to the highest bidder anywhere in the world?

Post reply on HN