A significant hurdle was accomplished yesterday when, in a vote that defies all preconceived notions of Oregon's citizenry, three quarters of the voters rejected a referendum that would have prohibited the construction of a Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) terminal on the Pacific.

The terminal, which would provide construction and permanent jobs, would become the US's first Pacific LNG port and open new markets for the vast NG deposits in the Bakken field.

Not only would it create jobs, in Oregon and the Bakken, it would have a significant impact on US exports, as Japan has already indicated their intention to replace Australia LNG with that produced in the US.

Now let's not forget that Oregonians are the stereotypical tree huggers. Portlanders have rejected plans to fluoridate their water supply at least 4 times in the last 50 years. (Talk about denying science.)

Not to be defeated without a fight, the progressive army is putting pressure on Democrats in the Senate to obstruct President Trump's nominees to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. However, once confirmed, these pro-growth members will remove the final obstacle to the plant's construction.

Link

#makingAmericanGreatAgain

LNG, when handled properly, is actually much cleaner burning than other fossil fuels. The shipping industry is embracing LNG to the point where even new cruise ships will use it. Sometimes what's best for the economy and the environment are the same thing.

I would say the majority of the time they should go hand in hand.

Only troglodytes think they can't go hand in hand. Education is the key.

(05-19-2017 10:16 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I would say the majority of the time they should go hand in hand.

In a proper capitalist system, they do. In a socialist or fascist or communist system, they do not.

We're we capitalistic pre 73 Owl?

A pure cspitalistic system suffers from the tragedy of the commons.

I can smell the stench of OP's hyperbole all the way here in Minnesota!

So here are some facts:

- this was a local election, not a statewide election
- Coos County is in southern Oregon, which, along with northern California, is as conservative as any part of the country

- Coos County has a whopping 41,000 registered voters, in a state with over 4M residents
- and none of the reports details how many of those actually showed up for the vote
- so plainly, trying to dishonestly frame this as "Oregon voters reject ..." is purposefully misleading

- the measure was regarded, even by some of the people opposing the LNG facility, as poorly written and likely unconstitutional

- lastly, the company proposing to build the facility spent $600k campaigning for its defeat, as opposed to $12k for those supporting it .... yeah, fair fight!

(05-19-2017 10:37 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  - so plainly, trying to dishonestly frame this as "Oregon voters reject ..." is purposefully misleading

We're they Oregon voters? Yes.
Was it defeated? Yes.
Pretty clear once you remove the spin.

I did not say that the facility was not going to be built.

Just tamping down the false hyperbole of your OP, and dishonesty of your thread title (trying to make it sound like a statewide vote).

(05-19-2017 10:44 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  I did not say that the facility was not going to be built.

Just tamping down the false hyperbole of your OP, and dishonesty of your thread title (trying to make it sound like a statewide vote).

There was nothing false about the title. In fact, those voters were the ones who would be most effected by the terminal, so their votes are extremely important and certainly should count more than a statewide vote.

But your insistence to find a way to diminish the post only reflects on your melting snowflake paranoia. You've lost another round. Buh-bye.

(05-19-2017 10:40 AM)LeFlâneur Wrote:  We're they Oregon voters? Yes.
Was it defeated? Yes.
Pretty clear once you remove the spin.

Does the state have over 4M residents? Yes
Does the county have only 41k registered voters (which likely fewer than that showed up for the vote)? Yes

Pretty clear once you view the facts that implying it was a statewide vote is dishonest!

The op is bad. Then to find a tie in to Trump? So odd.

(05-19-2017 11:12 AM)LeFlâneur Wrote:  certainly should count more than a statewide vote.

I didn't say it should have been a statewide vote.

I said that you making it sound like it was a statewide vote is dishonest, which is true.

I have to agree Mpls. The right HAS to stop making the environment the enemy. It doesn't have to be and as a matter of fact the higher the environmental stsndards the more wealthy an area is. A direct correlation can be made. Absolutely mind blowing to say anything else.

(05-19-2017 10:28 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  We're we capitalistic pre 73 Owl?

Nope.

(05-19-2017 11:19 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I have to agree Mpls. The right HAS to stop making the environment the enemy. It doesn't have to be and as a matter of fact the higher the environmental stsndards the more wealthy an area is. A direct correlation can be made. Absolutely mind blowing to say anything else.

Ridiculous.

The political left is pandering to real scientists and environmentalist causes just as it does to minorities. They do not care. You really notice this when they ignore environmental issues in black communities on a local level.

(05-19-2017 10:40 AM)LeFlâneur Wrote:  

(05-19-2017 10:37 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  - so plainly, trying to dishonestly frame this as "Oregon voters reject ..." is purposefully misleading

We're they Oregon voters? Yes.
Was it defeated? Yes.
Pretty clear once you remove the spin.

For the record, I would have voted against Coal and for the LNG facility.

But that being said....claiming that OREGON supported this initiatve when it is only one small county...that's a bit dishonest, especially if you're doubling down on that claim. Its small and its the most conservative county on the entire Pacific coast.

(05-19-2017 11:15 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-19-2017 11:12 AM)LeFlâneur Wrote:  certainly should count more than a statewide vote.

I didn't say it should have been a statewide vote.

I said that you making it sound like it was a statewide vote is dishonest, which is true.

But wait....

So voters in local communities can decide for themselves....oh...unless they decide to have LGBT non-discrimination ordinences. Then...its for the entire state to decide..

Ok...got it I think. Hypocrisy writ large.

fake news..........sad but it will be great for america once the terminal is built