Try the political quiz

575 Replies

@9XMGYQ8Republican from Texas answered…3 days

No these religious people are trying to pollute the earth and poison and pollute the water so they can get to heaven quicker

@9XKHGPGVeteran from Colorado answered…5 days

No, but Alaska is such a huge investment of oil, and it is a huge state where we can still and should drill to where we don't have too on the wildlife refuge.

@9XD6YPFWorking Family from Texas answered…2wks

No because it can cause the environment to change for these animals causing danger to them and then they could go extinct so we should find alternatives for this

@9XBPN2BRepublican from Virginia answered…2wks

Yes, but only if other energy sources become cost prohibitive.

@9X8SXVCSocialist from North Carolina answered…2wks

No, the wildlife refuge is a place of calm for animals. Unless we have every drop of oil from Alaska besides the refuge then no.

@9X5B8DLWomen’s Equality from California answered…3wks

Yes, we have done test on oil with fungi and received life changing results

@9X39KLRRepublican from North Carolina answered…3wks

it is a state/ local decision by residents of Alaska. not the federal government.

@9XC525STranshumanist from Illinois answered…2wks

@9XBLRFLVeteran from Virginia answered…2wks

Yes but you get a small amount of land you can give to people. Like they can only drill 30% of an ice biome

@9X98RPDLibertarian from Pennsylvania answered…2wks

@9X978K8Women’s Equality from Pennsylvania answered…2wks

@9WMVSVWVeteran from Utah answered…1mo

@9VXNN25Constitution from Indiana answered…2mos

Yes, but limited drilling and other energy sources should be explored.

@9VT7C5MRepublican from Alabama answered…2mos

No, and increase alternative energy incentives to eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels

@9NZRN8GRepublican from Tennessee answered…12mos

@9NDFQZVWorking Family from Indiana answered…12mos

Yes, but only if it makes the U.S. more energy independent.

@P5CRLAmerican Solidarity from Indiana answered…12mos

@9MXV2YNDemocrat from Michigan answered…12mos

No, because animals live here and drilling here would get in their way

@9MKPSDSJustice party member from Idaho answered…12mos

No, because it will have detrimental effects on the environment

@9LKBF8TConstitution from California answered…12mos

No, We would be able to become energy independent throguh Nuclear Power

@9LBQJZJRepublican from North Carolina answered…12mos

@9KDKMXWUnity Party from Texas answered…12mos

@9KBYTSBLibertarianfrom Guam  answered…12mos

@9KB2K6VPeace and Freedom from Maryland answered…12mos

No, and increase alternative energy subsidies to eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels, and protect the wildlife around us in the environment we are a part of.

@9JB76R7Libertarian from Georgia answered…1yr

@9J7G5TJLibertarianfrom Virgin Islands  answered…1yr

@9HX5WWKLibertarian from Tennessee answered…1yr

@Josh_moodyVeteranfrom Michigan  answered…1yr

Yes, but with very strict punishments for accidents and with ceding future territory to wildlife preserves and refuges, balance give and take.

@9HMKMSTDemocrat from Kentucky answered…1yr

No. the very definition of a wildlife refuge is "an area designated for the protection of wild animals," and per the Department of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service "each refuge is established to serve a statutory purpose that targets the conservation of native species dependent on its lands and waters." The very act of auctioning oil leases for oil companies to go onto that refuge negates the whole purpose of having the refuge! That land has been established for those animals that depend on it for survival, it is not for oil companies to barge onto. So, my answer is no.

@9HHY7RMLibertarian from California answered…1yr

Land should be privatized and the land owner(s) should decide.

@9HCNY2GWorking Family from Texas answered…1yr

Yes, but with very strict environmental regulations, but push towards reaching cleaner alternative energy.

@9GWWK89Democrat from Texas answered…1yr

Yes, but must be put into fund similar to what Norway does that helps all Americans

@9GTZB7HGreen from California answered…1yr

No, and increase the protections and size of environmentally protected areas nationwide

@9GNVNG3Veteran from Georgia answered…1yr

@muchobrentoLibertarian from Utah answered…1yr

No. And end drilling in any remote area where cleanup isn't feasible in case of a disaster.

@mrmpiperLibertarianfrom Idaho  answered…1yr

Yes, but allow large tax subsidies for companies dealing with alternative fuel resources.

@9G9WCKKConstitution from Michigan answered…1yr

Yes, but with disincentives that would discourage environmental laxity

@9G4NJKBSocialist from New York answered…1yr

Absolutely not, it's a national park. The government has no business drilling oil there, or anywhere.

@ConSpaceMonkeyLibertarianfrom North Dakota  answered…1yr


The historical activity of users engaging with this question.

Loading data...

Loading chart...