[zabcik]

Texas drilling and fracking regulations are on the chopping block. Soon we'll have little to no leverage to limit drilling or demand environmental studies to be done, so get ready for even more indigenous lands to get violated, even more earthquakes caused from wastewater injection, and even more greenhouse gasses released into our atmosphere exacerbating the already terrifying effects of climate change. No matter how good the profit in the near future might be, we're jeopardizing our ability to live on this planet by allowing this to happen.

[BurningFrog]

> even more indigenous lands to get violated

Or some real jobs and money in these dirt poor areas.

> even more greenhouse gasses released into our atmosphere

Any working solution to that has to be global and reduce demand. Refusing to drill American oil mostly means more oil money to Saudis, Putin, Venezuela and other of the worst butchers and oppressors of the world.

[vkou]

Having a pipeline built through your lands usually doesn't bring you any jobs, or money.

The people building it come from out of town, the people who will be making money from the pipeline are its owners, and the people who will be picking up the bill if things go pear-shaped will be the people who live there.

If you have any doubts about that, check out how the Exxon Valdez spill was handled. The oil company makes the profits, and can find all sorts of ways to get out of paying for the damages.

[BurningFrog]

> Having a pipeline built through your lands usually doesn't bring you any jobs, or money.

Are you saying the land owners don't get paid?

Besides, this is primarily about oil wells, not pipelines. I know having oil wells on your land can be very lucrative.

> If you have any doubts about that, check out how the Exxon Valdez spill was handled

That was a one of a kind, history changing event in the arctic ocean decades ago. It's hard to think it's typical of rural Texas in the 2020s.

"The rich bastards will always screw you" is a fine sentiment over a beer in a country bar, but not a great analysis to to base trillion dollar decisions on.

[chronic6l]

So you would rather us directly fund oppressionist governments around the world, just so you can feel better for the 50 people living in the town next door to the oil fields? Ok.

[xapata]

Perhaps we could invest in other energy sources?

[Stanish]

Our government already does support oppressive oil regimes (the saudis). You see those other governments as substantially worse because the only thing you read is american propaganda.

[BuckRogers]

Every single time. Yes. Nothing will crush the source of power for oppressive governments faster than if we conserve our resources and drain theirs.

But you fail to mention that we have an oppressive government gearing up in the US too. So perhaps it's best if they help us drain ours.

[smsm42]

How draining Saudi Arabia resources have worked so far?

[beedogs]

Not bad, considering they're having to pump seawater down their wells just to get any oil back up. They're running out and they'll be broke within a decade.

[reddytowns]

By giving them, money?

[byuu]

All headed by 70 year old rich men and politicians who won't be around to suffer the long-term environmental consequences. And look at the age demographics where most of their votes come from.

Yet everyone acts like it's a monstrous proposition when I state that voting power should be weighted based on age rather than location like it is today. Not that it matters, it's never going to change.

[smsm42]

You mean, like less you know, less real life experience you have - more voting weight you get? Brilliant idea, that's what is missing in our politics - more immaturity, childishness and inexperience!

[byuu]

I said it wouldn't be a popular sentiment. But as they say, democracy is two wolves and one sheep deciding on what to have for dinner.

Some rise above it, but human nature is inherently selfish. These 70 year olds have grandchildren too, and they're smart enough to play the politics game so I am sure they understand the overwhelming science on this issue, yet they clearly just don't care. And this election makes clear that we can't rely on the voting base to be well informed.

It's a valid concern that one voter only has to worry about their decisions for the next five years, but the rest have to for the next sixty years. Yet we have no problem with prioritizing based on life expectancy when it comes to organ donor recipients, charging more for life insurance based on age, etc.

Further, voting is already inherently unfair and weighted based on where you live thanks to the electoral college and every state getting two EC votes automatically. Some states result in voters having four times the voting power of people in other states. That and all the people living in guaranteed blue (California) or red (Texas) states effectively have no vote in practice. The same is even more true of senate representation, with two senators for every state, regardless of population.

You look at something like marriage equality, and per Pew research, 71% of millenials approve yet only 38% of the silent generation do. Yet the issue has a serious chance of being reversed due to Trump's inevitable Supreme Court picks. And our generation will be stuck with the fallout of that (and every other social issue that's bound to come up in the future) for likely 40+ years.

Look, I'm aging too. I'll be old soon. What I'm saying will already affect me as well. But this is just a matter of basic fairness.

This administration is going to push us well over the edge on carbon emissions. Our grandchildren and beyond will pay dearly for the harm that's going to be done. Those responsible will be long gone by then. That is not fair.

[inimino]

> It's a valid concern that one voter only has to worry about their decisions for the next five years, but the rest have to for the next sixty years.

Do you see the hidden assumption here? It is that people vote purely selfishly and don't care about anything that happens after they are dead. As neither of those is remotely true, your proposal makes no sense.

[smsm42]

> But as they say, democracy is two wolves and one sheep deciding on what to have for dinner.

That's why USA is not a democracy, it's a constitutional republic.

> but the rest have to for the next sixty years.

If you delude yourself with the idea you know what's going to happen in the next 60 years, you overestimate your abilities in such a way it's not even funny.

> You look at something like marriage equality, and per Pew research, 71% of millenials approve yet only 38% of the silent generation do.

So?

> Yet the issue has a serious chance of being reversed due to Trump's inevitable Supreme Court picks.

Based on what? Trump's position is that the issue is settled.

> And our generation will be stuck with the fallout of that (and every other social issue that's bound to come up in the future) for likely 40+ years.

There are a lot of SC decisions that the right didn't like. There are a lot of SC decisions that the left didn't like. Some of them change, some of them don't. I don't see how anything here is new or has anything to do with anything - there always will be some decisions somebody won't like. Trump pick would make SC as balanced as it has ever been - 4 lefty judges, 4 righty judges, one swing vote (Kennedy). Simplifying, of course, but that's what it is.

Moreover, SC running ahead of public consensus is not usually a good idea. The continued abortion struggle is a proof - there obviously wasn't/isn't public consensus, and the issue is still a hot topic.

With gay marriage though, the issue is much closer to public consensus and I predict it will vanish from public discussion (except of course panic propaganda on par with "Republicans are going to recreate slavery!") very soon.

> Look, I'm aging too. I'll be old soon. What I'm saying will already affect me as well. But this is just a matter of basic fairness.

No it's not. Nothing you said has anything to do with "basic fairness".

> This administration is going to push us well over the edge on carbon emissions.

I have no idea what that sentence means. I suspect neither do you.

> Our grandchildren and beyond will pay dearly for the harm that's going to be done.

That's always true - whatever we do, our grandchildren and beyond will have to deal with it. That's kind of by definition.

> Those responsible will be long gone by then. That is not fair.

I agree. I'd like to stick around for the next 1000 or so years, just to see what happens. Unfortunately, so far nobody found a way how. Very unfair!

[byuu]

> So?

So maybe people that will be dead in five years shouldn't be deciding social issues for the next sixty.

The silent generation had their lifetime "where men were MEN, women stayed in the kitchen, and gays didn't exist!"

Now it's our turn to have a diverse society where people can be whoever they want to be.

> Based on what? Trump's position is that the issue is settled.

Is Trump going to nominate himself for the Supreme Court, then? It's not up to Trump how his nominations will rule on the issue. But based on endless cases as evidence (5-4 party line splits), a conservative court will reverse Obergefell v Hodges the second it gets the chance.

It's not 100% certain, but the odds are very good if any of Ginsberg, Breyer, or Kennedy are replaced. The odds go up dramatically for two, and I would bet my life savings on it happening within 5-10 years if all three were replaced by Trump's administration.

> There are a lot of SC decisions that the right didn't like.

Correct, because Kennedy was less socially conservative, we managed 5-4 in Obergefell. But on fiscal issues, Citizens united was 5-4, Hobby Lobby was 5-4, gutting the voting rights act was 5-4, etc.

You're deluding yourself if you think the USSC in its current state is anything but extremely hyper-partisan. And yes, that applies to both sides.

> Trump pick would make SC as balanced as it has ever been - 4 lefty judges, 4 righty judges, one swing vote (Kennedy)

Replacing Scalia won't change the dynamic in any way, that is correct. Clinton making that pick could have pushed it to the left, but I'm betting they would've magically confirmed Merrick Garland within the week had the democrats won the white house and senate.

> Moreover, SC running ahead of public consensus is not usually a good idea. The continued abortion struggle is a proof - there obviously wasn't/isn't public consensus, and the issue is still a hot topic.

Yeah, those darn activist judges in Loving v Virginia and Brown v Board of Education. We should always wait for popular opinion to catch up on what's right. /s

> With gay marriage though, the issue is much closer to public consensus and I predict it will vanish from public discussion

I sure hope you're right. But Trump voters made the gamble with my marriage, not theirs.

> No it's not. Nothing you said has anything to do with "basic fairness".

I'll respond with an equally compelling counter to your argument here -- "yeah huh, it does so!"

Anyway, like I said, my opinion means nothing here. There's a snowball's chance in hell of us moving from proportional voting power based on physical location to proportional voting power based on age. Consider it my opinion, and we'll agree to disagree.

> I have no idea what that sentence means. I suspect neither do you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_point_(climatology)

(And no, I'm not a climate scientist. But I trust them a lot more than I trust oil and gas companies trying to protect their profits. See: tobacco companies in the '60s.)

[smsm42]

> So maybe people that will be dead in five years shouldn't be deciding social issues for the next sixty.

You say it as if you know for sure you won't be dead in five years. It's nice to be a prophet.

> The silent generation had their lifetime "where men were MEN, women stayed in the kitchen, and gays didn't exist!"

Sorry, it's a load of hateful baloney. That generation fought for real civil rights. This generation fights for right not to be served sushi because it's cultural appropriation, not to be subjected to a words of a slightly controversial speaker, because it's "unsafe", and needs coloring books and play-dough to cope with losing an election. That's the generation that seriously claims they feel physically unsafe when somebody challanges their beliefs to the point of being unable to function and needing to be sequestered in a specially designated space, or they will break down completely. Not that's not I am saying about them, that's what they say about themselves. And that's the people claiming to have superior role? Puh-lease. You wanted play-dough, you get play-dough.

> It's not 100% certain, but the odds are very good if any of Ginsberg, Breyer, or Kennedy are replaced.

Keep talking about disenfranchising your opponents, and 4 years of Trump become 8, and you get it for sure.

> Is Trump going to nominate himself for the Supreme Court, then?

Nope, but it is reasonable to think the will nominate somebody who thinks like him. Otherwise all talk about who he's going to nominate is pointless.

> You're deluding yourself if you think the USSC in its current state is anything but extremely hyper-partisan.

And by "extremely hyper-partisan" you mean "not always deciding how I like it."

> But Trump voters made the gamble with my marriage, not theirs.

Votes for Trump had literally nothing to do with gay marriage question. It wasn't an issue in the campaign, and Trump himself is on record saying it's settled. That's what his voters voted for. So really there's no gamble, there's no there there. It's done, it's ok to move on. Using this question in order to criticize Trump could lead to only one outcome - when someone other than Trump arises who thinks it's not settled, he'd look like someone discussing legitimate current issue of the day, not something that was decided and agreed on years ago. Do you really want to fight for that?

> I'll respond with an equally compelling counter to your argument here -- "yeah huh, it does so!"

Except you started with such argument. If you claim you proved Fermat theorem, it's on you to provide the proof. If you claim equal vote is unfair, it's on you to prove so. So far your proof was mostly whining about how old folks ruined everything. That's not a proof, it's just bellyaching.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_point_(climatology)

Nice story. Except nobody knows where it is, what it means and how it works. It's basically a fairy tale. Nobody ever demonstrated any scientific proof of existence of it.

[XJOKOLAT]

If you disliked the logic or content of what OP said, you essentially said the same thing from the other side of the spectrum.

[wott]

He did not. He did not propose to reduce young people voting weight.

[mhb]

Clinton received a lower share of the vote among young voters (ages 18-29) than Obama received in 2012 or 2008.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-trump...

[byuu]

That's fine. My position isn't based on making sure my party wins. It obviously has a liberal slant just due to old people being more conservative for obvious reasons, but the real goal is fairness in "your vote is proportional to how long you have to suffer the consequences of it."

I didn't vote for Clinton either, because she's not a liberal. She's a center-right candidate who is further to the right than Obama was (also a center-right candidate.) She was also far worse at giving motivational speeches, and after she and the DNC threw Bernie under the bus, it's not at all surprising she did poorly with younger voters.

[coolsunglasses]

There are no Indian reservations around San Angelo that I'm aware of.

There are three that I can find, one is in east Texas, one is in Maverick County on the Rio Grande, the third and last one I could find is in El Paso. None of these are co-extensive with the find that borders San Angelo and Lubbock.

>No matter how good the profit in the near future might be

Absolutes won't further your goals. Excess capital is what funds companies like Tesla.

[barney54]

What do you mean, "indigenous lands"? Texas, especially west Texas, doesn't have these conflicts.

[briandear]

How much indigenous land is in West Texas? Not much at all.