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

yep. Tried to overthrow the government once already, with no consequence, so there's no reason not to try it again. This time he's way more entrenched/powerful. He & VP have said multiple times they want to remove all govt workers who aren't "their people", which would make a 1-Party state, aka authoritarian regime. Culmination of Project 2025 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025#Allegations_of_au...).

We're going to lose Iran war, which will put more pressure on "national security" & economy. That'll dovetail into 2028 elections. So he'll start a new war, claim there are extremists at home, start martial law, refuse to leave office. When that happens, same things that happen in every authoritarian regime will start. He's said publicly he wants to jail his enemies and curtail rights like free speech and journalism. It'll be extended into more fearmongering about minority groups to galvanize the base. Those big detention camps will get a lot bigger. Economy will be in the shitter, but that's fine, just blame it on "enemies", talk about "empire", and start a world war. Draft comes back, suddenly you have a huge infantry, lots of factory workers, staffed largely by political enemies.

Lot's of political movements are/were anti-capitalist.

> industrialists were often very good Nazis

This is sort of banal. Lots of X "were good nazis". Where you could substitute scientists, elementary school teachers, trade unions, priests, bus divers, authors, political scientists, or farmers for X. It was a totalitarian society, everyone who wasn't on board was coerced by threat of violence to at least put on the outward appearance of being in support.

The snail darter play. Makes sense.

Okay, since you asked (unpopular, but I have karma to burn, c'est la vie):

This myopic focus on Trump ignores the real issue: Environmentalism is a secular religion, a theocracy, a dogma. Like any religion it employs circular reasoning to justify its existence, namely stemming from this assumption that nature is sacred, vulnerable and deserving of our protection. This faulty assumption is treated as a self-evident tautology and questioning it is shunned, the hallmark of any run-of-the-mill religion.

Environmentalism says it's not worth discovering fire because we would have to burn trees to use it. Think about this carefully: That's not a rational position but an emotional appeal. The thought process is "I would rather go hungry than hurt this poor tree," whereas that poor tree may have ruthlessly strangled the roots of nearby plants in its quest to thrive and grow. If you understand why this argument is irrational, you understand the basic flaw with environmental thought.

Extending that principle to the planet, we come to a foundational truth: Nature is a relentless competition between all organisms on the planet. This is a testable, provable hypothesis. Every modern day human can trace their ancestry to a person who out-competed other organisms. We are here today because successive descendants of our ancestors continued to pass a fitness test, surviving and procreating sufficiently to make us possible. Our continued existence depends on continuing that trend.

Aiming for sustainability hamstrings our ability to make progress and leaves us uncompetitive relative to our peers. Those who used fire out-competed those who didn't. Those who cut down trees to build farms, cities, countries out-lasted those who didn't. Those banded together to combine their ingenuity to get better, faster, stronger, heavily exploited their environment in the name of progress, are the ones ahead of everyone else. We did not start this trend, nature did. The rules of the game were established billions of years ago. It is sheer hubris to think we are somehow above or outside this meta-loop, a grand delusion that we are somehow masters of nature.

There is only one truth: Either we out-compete or we lose ground. Should we do the other things? Take care of the weak? The poor? The infirm? Sure, but if it comes at the expense of losing our competitive edge, then it won't matter what we do for them, because we won't continue to exist to keep doing it for them.

theyre literally your head of state, heads both legislative houses, and the court.

They're all of the positions for speaking for you, elected by the population of the US