Politics... have at it!!!

[pronovost19]

Some people make it sound like CNN & others are not hate-spewing agencies. Where have you been for the last four years? They ALL do it.

Nobody cares about the middle class. First day what does Biden do? No pipeline. 11,000 jobs lost. No border. Everyone's wages will go down and taxes will go up because people who come here deserve social programs. No deportations for felons. Not like those people live in politician's neighborhoods.
It seems as though politicians care more for people here illegally than the middle class "deplorable racists". What a joke. Both sides suck.

[theblackarts]

Some people make it sound like CNN & others are not hate-spewing agencies. Where have you been for the last four years? They ALL do it.

Nobody cares about the middle class. First day what does Biden do? No pipeline. 11,000 jobs lost. No border. Everyone's wages will go down and taxes will go up because people who come here deserve social programs. No deportations for felons. Not like those people live in politician's neighborhoods.
It seems as though politicians care more for people here illegally than the middle class "deplorable racists". What a joke. Both sides suck.

I'm sorry you can't differentiate, but it's not as simple as "they all do it." We live in an imperfect society, in an imperfect world; you can't paint with that broad a brush and expect to increase your understanding of the situation. You're choosing to be ignorant of nuance, I'm sorry to say.

You can be as upset as you want to be about the pipeline, but it was controversial for a reason. I wasn't aware that Biden dissolved the US/Mexico border, but thankfully they have great food down there. Is America still a country where folks can go to escape persecution? You don't seem to think so. "No deportations for felons" is a funny way to say "no deportations for 100 days and then only felons," but I'm sure you already knew that. Illegal immigrants are eligible for an INCREDIBLY limited number of social programs, far inferior to what legal citizens have access to, particularly the middle class, so that's a silly thing to say.

Do you understand that by making no effort to understand the counterarguments against your posts, that you yourself are guilty of "spewing hate?" "Both sides suck" was the only redeeming part of your post.

[pronovost19]

I spewed no hate. Ad hominem argument. Zero points. Haha

I question people and motives and have an opinion other than yours.

The biggest slap to legal immigrants is giving blanket amnesty to those that do not go through the proper channels. Ask one of your friends who is a legal immigrant what it feels like if the others get it for free. I, for the sake of argument, will assume you do know what it entails to come here "legally". Not one time did I say I was against legal immigration. My neighbors came from Germany, and they will be pissed if nobody else has to "pay" to be American citizens. By the way, you gonna pay those people their money back?

That is similar to the student loan forgiveness they promise. I paid my loans. Do I get my money back?

Lastly, your talking points are fine and dandy, but, like me, you are just another Joe with an opinion.

Oh, controversy does not pay bills. Those 11,000 people out of jobs today wish someone cared about them as much as they care about people who came here illegally. Not to mention that I have already read that Canada is more than pissed off about it too.

I respect your opinion and won't call you names though. I refuse to go there. Happy Friday! The happiest people today are the thousands of dead people who voted for Biden. They don't have to put up with his policies. LOL

Go Pens!

P.S. I am not a Dem. or Rep. I inhabit the vacuum created by both.

[theblackarts]

I spewed no hate. Ad hominem argument. Zero points. Haha

I question people and motives and have an opinion other than yours.

The biggest slap to legal immigrants is giving blanket amnesty to those that do not go through the proper channels. Ask one of your friends who is a legal immigrant what it feels like if the others get it for free. I, for the sake of argument, will assume you do know what it entails to come here "legally". Not one time did I say I was against legal immigration. My neighbors came from Germany, and they will be pissed if nobody else has to "pay" to be American citizens. By the way, you gonna pay those people their money back?

That is similar to the student loan forgiveness they promise. I paid my loans. Do I get my money back?

Lastly, your talking points are fine and dandy, but, like me, you are just another Joe with an opinion.

Oh, controversy does not pay bills. Those 11,000 people out of jobs today wish someone cared about them as much as they care about people who came here illegally. Not to mention that I have already read that Canada is more than pissed off about it too.

I respect your opinion and won't call you names though. I refuse to go there. Happy Friday! The happiest people today are the thousands of dead people who voted for Biden. They don't have to put up with his policies. LOL

Go Pens!

P.S. I am not a Dem. or Rep. I inhabit the vacuum created by both.

I'm not sure if you're trying to make an argument or just regurgitating as many random "alternative facts" as you can in one post. I didn't share any opinions in my reply, so I'm not sure what opinion(s) you're referring to. It's also interesting that you called my appeal for you to not just make up stuff a talking point. Doesn't sound like something an intellectual independent would say.

Anyway, yes, you are "spewing hate" when you say things like "no deportation for felons," "no borders," "care more about illegal immigrants than the middle class," etc. Those claims clearly aren't true, you're just repeating something you randomly read or heard without spending even ten minutes with google to see if there's a shred of truth to it, or if there's a valid counterargument. That's actually worse than CNN, MSNBC, etc., because they are stretching the truth in a premeditated way to reach their intended audience, and likely fully aware of their gaffs. I'm not convinced you are.

Anyway, thanks for being civil, though I do wish you would consider your positions with more care. There are lots of perfectly valid positions to take against the Biden admin, but you've chosen some very generic ones. I have a challenge for you; the next time you want to post something like that, please spend 15 minutes researching the opposing viewpoint, and then if you're 100% sure you correct, post away, or perhaps raise a question for discussion, rather than just coming here to vent.

[Grunthy]

I spewed no hate. Ad hominem argument. Zero points. Haha

I question people and motives and have an opinion other than yours.

The biggest slap to legal immigrants is giving blanket amnesty to those that do not go through the proper channels. Ask one of your friends who is a legal immigrant what it feels like if the others get it for free. I, for the sake of argument, will assume you do know what it entails to come here "legally". Not one time did I say I was against legal immigration. My neighbors came from Germany, and they will be pissed if nobody else has to "pay" to be American citizens. By the way, you gonna pay those people their money back?

That is similar to the student loan forgiveness they promise. I paid my loans. Do I get my money back?

Lastly, your talking points are fine and dandy, but, like me, you are just another Joe with an opinion.

Oh, controversy does not pay bills. Those 11,000 people out of jobs today wish someone cared about them as much as they care about people who came here illegally. Not to mention that I have already read that Canada is more than pissed off about it too.

I respect your opinion and won't call you names though. I refuse to go there. Happy Friday! The happiest people today are the thousands of dead people who voted for Biden. They don't have to put up with his policies. LOL

Go Pens!

P.S. I am not a Dem. or Rep. I inhabit the vacuum created by both.

I'm not sure if you're trying to make an argument or just regurgitating as many random "alternative facts" as you can in one post. I didn't share any opinions in my reply, so I'm not sure what opinion(s) you're referring to. It's also interesting that you called my appeal for you to not just make up stuff a talking point. Doesn't sound like something an intellectual independent would say.

Anyway, yes, you are "spewing hate" when you say things like "no deportation for felons," "no borders," "care more about illegal immigrants than the middle class," etc. Those claims clearly aren't true, you're just repeating something you randomly read or heard without spending even ten minutes with google to see if there's a shred of truth to it, or if there's a valid counterargument. That's actually worse than CNN, MSNBC, etc., because they are stretching the truth in a premeditated way to reach their intended audience, and likely fully aware of their gaffs. I'm not convinced you are.

Anyway, thanks for being civil, though I do wish you would consider your positions with more care. There are lots of perfectly valid positions to take against the Biden admin, but you've chosen some very generic ones. I have a challenge for you; the next time you want to post something like that, please spend 15 minutes researching the opposing viewpoint, and then if you're 100% sure you correct, post away, or perhaps raise a question for discussion, rather than just coming here to vent.

If you want to really fix immigration, fix the immigration courts. They are the cause of most of our problems because there are not enough of them. My brother-in-law is a legal immigrant that escaped genocide in his home country. He waited his turn, and is super pissed if those that didn't follow the rules get rewarded.

Keystone pipeline cancelation is incredibly misguided. Not only just losing jobs, it will actually increase emissions. Now all that oil will be transported by trucks and trains instead of pipeline. Far more spills will occur as well. Cancelling this project has nothing to actually to do with saving the environment, except pleasing the ignorant that know little about the transportation and production of fossil fuels. People hear pipeline and start spouting BS about things they know nothing about.

[interstorm]

Some people make it sound like CNN & others are not hate-spewing agencies. Where have you been for the last four years? :D They ALL do it.

Nobody cares about the middle class. First day what does Biden do? No pipeline. 11,000 jobs lost. No border. Everyone's wages will go down and taxes will go up because people who come here deserve social programs. No deportations for felons. Not like those people live in politician's neighborhoods.
It seems as though politicians care more for people here illegally than the middle class "deplorable racists". What a joke. Both sides suck.

Lol - complaining about the immigrants, way to beat an old conservative talking point. How many jobs have you lost to an illegal immigrant? How many people do you know that want to do their work? I'm guessing there are more people on this board who have actually hired an illegal immigrant (either directly or indirectly when the business they hire has a lower cost than their competition) than had their wage meaningfully impacted. How many people here are happy for cheap landscaping, cheap construction or cheap day labor? You cannot hire illegals to save money then turn around and complain about them being here.

So please, stop moaning about stuff you really don't actually care to fix -- and no, a vote for Trump or the GOP isn't a fix. Next time you care about illegals, make sure you do a complete background check on every single thing you buy (especially produce) and purchase accordingly. Until then, you will be the one not truly caring to fix the problem - you will be just as complicit as the politicians.

(Besides, the number of illegal immigrants is lower than it has been in a decade - so can't we move on to another thing, maybe one not rooted in racism, to care about and put at the top of the list)

[Sigwolf]

Some people make it sound like CNN & others are not hate-spewing agencies. Where have you been for the last four years? They ALL do it.

Nobody cares about the middle class. First day what does Biden do? No pipeline. 11,000 jobs lost. No border. Everyone's wages will go down and taxes will go up because people who come here deserve social programs. No deportations for felons. Not like those people live in politician's neighborhoods.
It seems as though politicians care more for people here illegally than the middle class "deplorable racists". What a joke. Both sides suck.

Lol - complaining about the immigrants, way to beat an old conservative talking point. How many jobs have you lost to an illegal immigrant? How many people do you know that want to do their work? I'm guessing there are more people on this board who have actually hired an illegal immigrant (either directly or indirectly when the business they hire has a lower cost than their competition) than had their wage meaningfully impacted. How many people here are happy for cheap landscaping, cheap construction or cheap day labor? You cannot hire illegals to save money then turn around and complain about them being here.

So please, stop moaning about stuff you really don't actually care to fix -- and no, a vote for Trump or the GOP isn't a fix. Next time you care about illegals, make sure you do a complete background check on every single thing you buy (especially produce) and purchase accordingly. Until then, you will be the one not truly caring to fix the problem - you will be just as complicit as the politicians.

(Besides, the number of illegal immigrants is lower than it has been in a decade - so can't we move on to another thing, maybe one not rooted in racism, to care about and put at the top of the list)

Lol - defending the *illegal* immigrants, way to beat an old liberal talking point. Please, continue to deflect with numerous, unrelated, and unsubstantiated claims, like you attempted. You are clearly happy for cheap landscaping, cheap construction, or cheap day labor, and therefore don't want anyone jeopardizing that option. Please, continue to assume that is everyone's desire.

So please, stop moaning about people voting for Trump or the GOP to fix the problem. Will it, no, but it may just make more progress than a wasted vote for Biden or any other liberal that actively encourages illegal immigration, especially given no other option. I believe there was a very small percentage of this country that actually believed and supported Trump, himself. Nearly half the country voted for him, not out of ignorance for his faults, but because he was viewed as less unpalatable than the alternative. That is a sad, sad, state of affairs, and that is the current state of US politics.

BTW, finishing your post with the factoid that the number of illegal immigrants is lower than it has been in a decade, considering forty percent of the last decade has been under the maligned Trump and GOP leadership... not really helping your point. Nor is the trite old argument of being "racist" because you want to curtail illegal immigrants regardless of their race, origin, religion, or otherwise. Somehow it has become racist to want people to enter a country legally, so the left would like everyone to believe...

[theblackarts]

I spewed no hate. Ad hominem argument. Zero points. Haha

I question people and motives and have an opinion other than yours.

The biggest slap to legal immigrants is giving blanket amnesty to those that do not go through the proper channels. Ask one of your friends who is a legal immigrant what it feels like if the others get it for free. I, for the sake of argument, will assume you do know what it entails to come here "legally". Not one time did I say I was against legal immigration. My neighbors came from Germany, and they will be pissed if nobody else has to "pay" to be American citizens. By the way, you gonna pay those people their money back?

That is similar to the student loan forgiveness they promise. I paid my loans. Do I get my money back?

Lastly, your talking points are fine and dandy, but, like me, you are just another Joe with an opinion.

Oh, controversy does not pay bills. Those 11,000 people out of jobs today wish someone cared about them as much as they care about people who came here illegally. Not to mention that I have already read that Canada is more than pissed off about it too.

I respect your opinion and won't call you names though. I refuse to go there. Happy Friday! The happiest people today are the thousands of dead people who voted for Biden. They don't have to put up with his policies. LOL

Go Pens!

P.S. I am not a Dem. or Rep. I inhabit the vacuum created by both.

I'm not sure if you're trying to make an argument or just regurgitating as many random "alternative facts" as you can in one post. I didn't share any opinions in my reply, so I'm not sure what opinion(s) you're referring to. It's also interesting that you called my appeal for you to not just make up stuff a talking point. Doesn't sound like something an intellectual independent would say.

Anyway, yes, you are "spewing hate" when you say things like "no deportation for felons," "no borders," "care more about illegal immigrants than the middle class," etc. Those claims clearly aren't true, you're just repeating something you randomly read or heard without spending even ten minutes with google to see if there's a shred of truth to it, or if there's a valid counterargument. That's actually worse than CNN, MSNBC, etc., because they are stretching the truth in a premeditated way to reach their intended audience, and likely fully aware of their gaffs. I'm not convinced you are.

Anyway, thanks for being civil, though I do wish you would consider your positions with more care. There are lots of perfectly valid positions to take against the Biden admin, but you've chosen some very generic ones. I have a challenge for you; the next time you want to post something like that, please spend 15 minutes researching the opposing viewpoint, and then if you're 100% sure you correct, post away, or perhaps raise a question for discussion, rather than just coming here to vent.

If you want to really fix immigration, fix the immigration courts. They are the cause of most of our problems because there are not enough of them. My brother-in-law is a legal immigrant that escaped genocide in his home country. He waited his turn, and is super pissed if those that didn't follow the rules get rewarded.

Keystone pipeline cancelation is incredibly misguided. Not only just losing jobs, it will actually increase emissions. Now all that oil will be transported by trucks and trains instead of pipeline. Far more spills will occur as well. Cancelling this project has nothing to actually to do with saving the environment, except pleasing the ignorant that know little about the transportation and production of fossil fuels. People hear pipeline and start spouting BS about things they know nothing about.

Interesting; I’ve heard a few times now that transport by rail isn’t happening, Shell walked away from that plan at some point. I could be outdated in this though. Either way, it seems directly in opposition to our carbon footprint goals, and given the exponential growth of renewable resources, I wonder how long it would be in use anyway. I’m assuming that Biden’s climate plan will replace the jobs lost (which is also a highly disputed figure), so I’m not entirely sure this is a bad thing overall. It’s been hard to find unbiased information though.

[Grunthy]

I spewed no hate. Ad hominem argument. Zero points. Haha

I question people and motives and have an opinion other than yours.

The biggest slap to legal immigrants is giving blanket amnesty to those that do not go through the proper channels. Ask one of your friends who is a legal immigrant what it feels like if the others get it for free. I, for the sake of argument, will assume you do know what it entails to come here "legally". Not one time did I say I was against legal immigration. My neighbors came from Germany, and they will be pissed if nobody else has to "pay" to be American citizens. By the way, you gonna pay those people their money back?

That is similar to the student loan forgiveness they promise. I paid my loans. Do I get my money back?

Lastly, your talking points are fine and dandy, but, like me, you are just another Joe with an opinion.

Oh, controversy does not pay bills. Those 11,000 people out of jobs today wish someone cared about them as much as they care about people who came here illegally. Not to mention that I have already read that Canada is more than pissed off about it too.

I respect your opinion and won't call you names though. I refuse to go there. Happy Friday! The happiest people today are the thousands of dead people who voted for Biden. They don't have to put up with his policies. LOL

Go Pens!

P.S. I am not a Dem. or Rep. I inhabit the vacuum created by both.

I'm not sure if you're trying to make an argument or just regurgitating as many random "alternative facts" as you can in one post. I didn't share any opinions in my reply, so I'm not sure what opinion(s) you're referring to. It's also interesting that you called my appeal for you to not just make up stuff a talking point. Doesn't sound like something an intellectual independent would say.

Anyway, yes, you are "spewing hate" when you say things like "no deportation for felons," "no borders," "care more about illegal immigrants than the middle class," etc. Those claims clearly aren't true, you're just repeating something you randomly read or heard without spending even ten minutes with google to see if there's a shred of truth to it, or if there's a valid counterargument. That's actually worse than CNN, MSNBC, etc., because they are stretching the truth in a premeditated way to reach their intended audience, and likely fully aware of their gaffs. I'm not convinced you are.

Anyway, thanks for being civil, though I do wish you would consider your positions with more care. There are lots of perfectly valid positions to take against the Biden admin, but you've chosen some very generic ones. I have a challenge for you; the next time you want to post something like that, please spend 15 minutes researching the opposing viewpoint, and then if you're 100% sure you correct, post away, or perhaps raise a question for discussion, rather than just coming here to vent.

If you want to really fix immigration, fix the immigration courts. They are the cause of most of our problems because there are not enough of them. My brother-in-law is a legal immigrant that escaped genocide in his home country. He waited his turn, and is super pissed if those that didn't follow the rules get rewarded.

Keystone pipeline cancelation is incredibly misguided. Not only just losing jobs, it will actually increase emissions. Now all that oil will be transported by trucks and trains instead of pipeline. Far more spills will occur as well. Cancelling this project has nothing to actually to do with saving the environment, except pleasing the ignorant that know little about the transportation and production of fossil fuels. People hear pipeline and start spouting BS about things they know nothing about.

Interesting; I’ve heard a few times now that transport by rail isn’t happening, Shell walked away from that plan at some point. I could be outdated in this though. Either way, it seems directly in opposition to our carbon footprint goals, and given the exponential growth of renewable resources, I wonder how long it would be in use anyway. I’m assuming that Biden’s climate plan will replace the jobs lost (which is also a highly disputed figure), so I’m not entirely sure this is a bad thing overall. It’s been hard to find unbiased information though.

We are decades away from renewables actually taking over all fossil fuels. Building this pipeline could have reduced emissions by 30% or more in transportation for the next couple decades while transferring over. Seems like a net negative to me when trying to fight climate change.

[Grunthy]

https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/quebec-rese ... sc=i3vk2HX

almost a 50% reduction in hospitalization and mortality achieved with gout medicine for covid. This should now be standard of care for all people.

[theblackarts]

We are decades away from renewables actually taking over all fossil fuels. Building this pipeline could have reduced emissions by 30% or more in transportation for the next couple decades while transferring over. Seems like a net negative to me when trying to fight climate change.

I think the argument against the pipeline is that it would accelerate the rate of oil being extracted globally due to decreased market prices, the GHG impact of which would dwarf the efficiency gained in transporting the oil via pipeline. Everyone seems to be in agreement that the oil is going to be extracted one way or the other, but it seems like the x factors are how much canada produces in the future, whether or not other global suppliers cut back, and the associated environmental risks/the message it sends. When you add on the boon for US rail and refineries, I think it comes down to the Biden admin seeing "America First" financial gains in a time of outrageous national debt, and erring on the side of long-term environmental caution given the unpredictable nature of the market with so much energy uncertainty. If Canadian oil transported by rail is a fraction of the industry, it doesn't seem like it's worth the negative PR in the face of a climate emergency. That's my take anyway.

[Grunthy]

We are decades away from renewables actually taking over all fossil fuels. Building this pipeline could have reduced emissions by 30% or more in transportation for the next couple decades while transferring over. Seems like a net negative to me when trying to fight climate change.

I think the argument against the pipeline is that it would accelerate the rate of oil being extracted globally due to decreased market prices, the GHG impact of which would dwarf the efficiency gained in transporting the oil via pipeline. Everyone seems to be in agreement that the oil is going to be extracted one way or the other, but it seems like the x factors are how much canada produces in the future, whether or not other global suppliers cut back, and the associated environmental risks/the message it sends. When you add on the boon for US rail and refineries, I think it comes down to the Biden admin seeing "America First" financial gains in a time of outrageous national debt, and erring on the side of long-term environmental caution given the unpredictable nature of the market with so much energy uncertainty. If Canadian oil transported by rail is a fraction of the industry, it doesn't seem like it's worth the negative PR in the face of a climate emergency. That's my take anyway.

You are still ignoring the fact that we are increasing our emissions no matter how much oil is extracted by not finishing the pipeline. It is pure ignorance to claim it will benefit the environment in the short-term or long term. I would rather negative PR than increase our emissions, but alas people need to play politics.

[theblackarts]

We are decades away from renewables actually taking over all fossil fuels. Building this pipeline could have reduced emissions by 30% or more in transportation for the next couple decades while transferring over. Seems like a net negative to me when trying to fight climate change.

I think the argument against the pipeline is that it would accelerate the rate of oil being extracted globally due to decreased market prices, the GHG impact of which would dwarf the efficiency gained in transporting the oil via pipeline. Everyone seems to be in agreement that the oil is going to be extracted one way or the other, but it seems like the x factors are how much canada produces in the future, whether or not other global suppliers cut back, and the associated environmental risks/the message it sends. When you add on the boon for US rail and refineries, I think it comes down to the Biden admin seeing "America First" financial gains in a time of outrageous national debt, and erring on the side of long-term environmental caution given the unpredictable nature of the market with so much energy uncertainty. If Canadian oil transported by rail is a fraction of the industry, it doesn't seem like it's worth the negative PR in the face of a climate emergency. That's my take anyway.

You are still ignoring the fact that we are increasing our emissions no matter how much oil is extracted by not finishing the pipeline. It is pure ignorance to claim it will benefit the environment in the short-term or long term. I would rather negative PR than increase our emissions, but alas people need to play politics.

That's the first thing I addressed in my reply; if global production increases, the emission savings over rail won't matter. I don't think it's pure ignorance at all if that turns out to be the case. When oil price experts are saying "we're not sure what's going to happen in that scenario" I don't think you can kick off a climate change-centric administration by building an oil pipeline.

[Grunthy]

We are decades away from renewables actually taking over all fossil fuels. Building this pipeline could have reduced emissions by 30% or more in transportation for the next couple decades while transferring over. Seems like a net negative to me when trying to fight climate change.

I think the argument against the pipeline is that it would accelerate the rate of oil being extracted globally due to decreased market prices, the GHG impact of which would dwarf the efficiency gained in transporting the oil via pipeline. Everyone seems to be in agreement that the oil is going to be extracted one way or the other, but it seems like the x factors are how much canada produces in the future, whether or not other global suppliers cut back, and the associated environmental risks/the message it sends. When you add on the boon for US rail and refineries, I think it comes down to the Biden admin seeing "America First" financial gains in a time of outrageous national debt, and erring on the side of long-term environmental caution given the unpredictable nature of the market with so much energy uncertainty. If Canadian oil transported by rail is a fraction of the industry, it doesn't seem like it's worth the negative PR in the face of a climate emergency. That's my take anyway.

You are still ignoring the fact that we are increasing our emissions no matter how much oil is extracted by not finishing the pipeline. It is pure ignorance to claim it will benefit the environment in the short-term or long term. I would rather negative PR than increase our emissions, but alas people need to play politics.

That's the first thing I addressed in my reply; if global production increases, the emission savings over rail won't matter. I don't think it's pure ignorance at all if that turns out to be the case. When oil price experts are saying "we're not sure what's going to happen in that scenario" I don't think you can kick off a climate change-centric administration by building an oil pipeline.

Price of oil will dictate increase/ decrease of production, more than just building the pipeline. These pipelines are built on projections of what will be needed already based on natural increase and what they believe demand will be. Not building it will not stop that increase. That is what is being ignored. So they really already know, within a range, what they will be producing years from now. You can kick off a climate-centric administration by actually going by facts that the pipeline would decrease emissions, or you can go by politics and shut it down because of low information environmental activists.

[theblackarts]

We are decades away from renewables actually taking over all fossil fuels. Building this pipeline could have reduced emissions by 30% or more in transportation for the next couple decades while transferring over. Seems like a net negative to me when trying to fight climate change.

I think the argument against the pipeline is that it would accelerate the rate of oil being extracted globally due to decreased market prices, the GHG impact of which would dwarf the efficiency gained in transporting the oil via pipeline. Everyone seems to be in agreement that the oil is going to be extracted one way or the other, but it seems like the x factors are how much canada produces in the future, whether or not other global suppliers cut back, and the associated environmental risks/the message it sends. When you add on the boon for US rail and refineries, I think it comes down to the Biden admin seeing "America First" financial gains in a time of outrageous national debt, and erring on the side of long-term environmental caution given the unpredictable nature of the market with so much energy uncertainty. If Canadian oil transported by rail is a fraction of the industry, it doesn't seem like it's worth the negative PR in the face of a climate emergency. That's my take anyway.

You are still ignoring the fact that we are increasing our emissions no matter how much oil is extracted by not finishing the pipeline. It is pure ignorance to claim it will benefit the environment in the short-term or long term. I would rather negative PR than increase our emissions, but alas people need to play politics.

That's the first thing I addressed in my reply; if global production increases, the emission savings over rail won't matter. I don't think it's pure ignorance at all if that turns out to be the case. When oil price experts are saying "we're not sure what's going to happen in that scenario" I don't think you can kick off a climate change-centric administration by building an oil pipeline.

Price of oil will dictate increase/ decrease of production, more than just building the pipeline. These pipelines are built on projections of what will be needed already based on natural increase and what they believe demand will be. Not building it will not stop that increase. That is what is being ignored. So they really already know, within a range, what they will be producing years from now. You can kick off a climate-centric administration by actually going by facts that the pipeline would decrease emissions, or you can go by politics and shut it down because of low information environmental activists.

I'm not sure you're reading my replies, because you're explaining things to me that I've already explained. Either way, if global production/demand rises because access to the third largest oil source in the world has become more freely available, and the resulting emissions eclipse what we save from rail by building the pipeline, then clearly the pipeline would not decrease emissions. That seems very plausible to me. Additionally, there are several concerns about additional environmental emissions related to building the pipeline that were not considered by the state department's assessment, that would cloud the pipelines emission advantages. However, there are very strong arguments from several popular scientific journals in support of the pipeline. So, I'm not sure the facts are as clear as you're making them out to be.

If 100 million barrels of oil are being produced every day, and Canada accounts for less than 4%, and the oil fields in question account for another fraction of that, and a new pipeline wouldn't even guarantee lower emissions, I'm ok with not building it, or at least suspending the license until the waters become less muddy. It seems like there are far larger fish to fry.

[Grunthy]

Sorry didn’t see your reply, been super busy at work.

I am definitely reading your comments and realize it is more nuanced than what I am making it out to be. The problem is just outright canceling it is purely political and shouldn’t be done. I have worked in federal regulations and in oil and gas. I used to actually risk assess new pipelines and emissions from them. While oil and gas companies can be nefarious, them saving emissions actually does save them money as well.

[theblackarts]

Sorry didn’t see your reply, been super busy at work.

I am definitely reading your comments and realize it is more nuanced than what I am making it out to be. The problem is just outright canceling it is purely political and shouldn’t be done. I have worked in federal regulations and in oil and gas. I used to actually risk assess new pipelines and emissions from them. While oil and gas companies can be nefarious, them saving emissions actually does save them money as well.

I respect your expertise, but while it appears that it could be purely political, and I understand why you think that it is, I'm not sure. The Biden climate agenda is fairly comprehensive and well thought out in terms of passable legislation; if emissions were 100% guaranteed to be lower and not usurped by additional environmental damages or risk, I honestly don't think they would have cancelled it. That, or they didn't feel that the savings were consequential as I'd mentioned before. Keep in mind, Biden is fairly centrist for a Dem, it's not like AOC and Bernie are running this thing. His career has been built on making deals across the aisle so I'm hesitant to say it was purely political without some sort of insider memo, considering the counterarguments. He doesn't need any additional political momentum, it's not like republicans will ever gain votes from environmentalists. The green party probably won't remember this four years from now anyway.

Either way, eyes on the prize. His admin has a TON of work to do to get us pointed in the right direction both economically and environmentally, thanks to he who will not be named, so I feel like issues like these were there aren't bright lines are sort of a waste of time. I'll be the first in line to hold him accountable for objectively bad moves.

[Grunthy]

Sorry didn’t see your reply, been super busy at work.

I am definitely reading your comments and realize it is more nuanced than what I am making it out to be. The problem is just outright canceling it is purely political and shouldn’t be done. I have worked in federal regulations and in oil and gas. I used to actually risk assess new pipelines and emissions from them. While oil and gas companies can be nefarious, them saving emissions actually does save them money as well.

I respect your expertise, but while it appears that it could be purely political, and I understand why you think that it is, I'm not sure. The Biden climate agenda is fairly comprehensive and well thought out in terms of passable legislation; if emissions were 100% guaranteed to be lower and not usurped by additional environmental damages or risk, I honestly don't think they would have cancelled it. That, or they didn't feel that the savings were consequential as I'd mentioned before. Keep in mind, Biden is fairly centrist for a Dem, it's not like AOC and Bernie are running this thing. His career has been built on making deals across the aisle so I'm hesitant to say it was purely political without some sort of insider memo, considering the counterarguments. He doesn't need any additional political momentum, it's not like republicans will ever gain votes from environmentalists. The green party probably won't remember this four years from now anyway.

Either way, eyes on the prize. His admin has a TON of work to do to get us pointed in the right direction both economically and environmentally, thanks to he who will not be named, so I feel like issues like these were there aren't bright lines are sort of a waste of time. I'll be the first in line to hold him accountable for objectively bad moves.

Republicans may not have anything to gain from environmentalists, but democrats have a lot to lose. These people just won't vote if they feel ignored.

[theblackarts]

Sorry didn’t see your reply, been super busy at work.

I am definitely reading your comments and realize it is more nuanced than what I am making it out to be. The problem is just outright canceling it is purely political and shouldn’t be done. I have worked in federal regulations and in oil and gas. I used to actually risk assess new pipelines and emissions from them. While oil and gas companies can be nefarious, them saving emissions actually does save them money as well.

I respect your expertise, but while it appears that it could be purely political, and I understand why you think that it is, I'm not sure. The Biden climate agenda is fairly comprehensive and well thought out in terms of passable legislation; if emissions were 100% guaranteed to be lower and not usurped by additional environmental damages or risk, I honestly don't think they would have cancelled it. That, or they didn't feel that the savings were consequential as I'd mentioned before. Keep in mind, Biden is fairly centrist for a Dem, it's not like AOC and Bernie are running this thing. His career has been built on making deals across the aisle so I'm hesitant to say it was purely political without some sort of insider memo, considering the counterarguments. He doesn't need any additional political momentum, it's not like republicans will ever gain votes from environmentalists. The green party probably won't remember this four years from now anyway.

Either way, eyes on the prize. His admin has a TON of work to do to get us pointed in the right direction both economically and environmentally, thanks to he who will not be named, so I feel like issues like these were there aren't bright lines are sort of a waste of time. I'll be the first in line to hold him accountable for objectively bad moves.

Republicans may not have anything to gain from environmentalists, but democrats have a lot to lose. These people just won't vote if they feel ignored.

I feel like it would be a marginal loss, considering that conservative politics is SO bad for the environment. Biden has SO many environmental wins coming around the bend that I don't think this will matter come next election cycle. Either way, it's good to be arguing about which environmental opportunities our government pursues.

[Grunthy]

Sorry didn’t see your reply, been super busy at work.

I am definitely reading your comments and realize it is more nuanced than what I am making it out to be. The problem is just outright canceling it is purely political and shouldn’t be done. I have worked in federal regulations and in oil and gas. I used to actually risk assess new pipelines and emissions from them. While oil and gas companies can be nefarious, them saving emissions actually does save them money as well.

I respect your expertise, but while it appears that it could be purely political, and I understand why you think that it is, I'm not sure. The Biden climate agenda is fairly comprehensive and well thought out in terms of passable legislation; if emissions were 100% guaranteed to be lower and not usurped by additional environmental damages or risk, I honestly don't think they would have cancelled it. That, or they didn't feel that the savings were consequential as I'd mentioned before. Keep in mind, Biden is fairly centrist for a Dem, it's not like AOC and Bernie are running this thing. His career has been built on making deals across the aisle so I'm hesitant to say it was purely political without some sort of insider memo, considering the counterarguments. He doesn't need any additional political momentum, it's not like republicans will ever gain votes from environmentalists. The green party probably won't remember this four years from now anyway.

Either way, eyes on the prize. His admin has a TON of work to do to get us pointed in the right direction both economically and environmentally, thanks to he who will not be named, so I feel like issues like these were there aren't bright lines are sort of a waste of time. I'll be the first in line to hold him accountable for objectively bad moves.

Republicans may not have anything to gain from environmentalists, but democrats have a lot to lose. These people just won't vote if they feel ignored.

I feel like it would be a marginal loss, considering that conservative politics is SO bad for the environment. Biden has SO many environmental wins coming around the bend that I don't think this will matter come next election cycle. Either way, it's good to be arguing about which environmental opportunities our government pursues.

I am fairly certain the USA was one of the few countries to be close to meeting the Paris agreement even though we weren't in it. Also, conservatives like nuclear power, something democrats don't. Molten salt reactors are some of the cleanest energy sources available, but environmentalists hate all things nuclear because nuclear is bad to them.

[theblackarts]

Sorry didn’t see your reply, been super busy at work.

I am definitely reading your comments and realize it is more nuanced than what I am making it out to be. The problem is just outright canceling it is purely political and shouldn’t be done. I have worked in federal regulations and in oil and gas. I used to actually risk assess new pipelines and emissions from them. While oil and gas companies can be nefarious, them saving emissions actually does save them money as well.

I respect your expertise, but while it appears that it could be purely political, and I understand why you think that it is, I'm not sure. The Biden climate agenda is fairly comprehensive and well thought out in terms of passable legislation; if emissions were 100% guaranteed to be lower and not usurped by additional environmental damages or risk, I honestly don't think they would have cancelled it. That, or they didn't feel that the savings were consequential as I'd mentioned before. Keep in mind, Biden is fairly centrist for a Dem, it's not like AOC and Bernie are running this thing. His career has been built on making deals across the aisle so I'm hesitant to say it was purely political without some sort of insider memo, considering the counterarguments. He doesn't need any additional political momentum, it's not like republicans will ever gain votes from environmentalists. The green party probably won't remember this four years from now anyway.

Either way, eyes on the prize. His admin has a TON of work to do to get us pointed in the right direction both economically and environmentally, thanks to he who will not be named, so I feel like issues like these were there aren't bright lines are sort of a waste of time. I'll be the first in line to hold him accountable for objectively bad moves.

Republicans may not have anything to gain from environmentalists, but democrats have a lot to lose. These people just won't vote if they feel ignored.

I feel like it would be a marginal loss, considering that conservative politics is SO bad for the environment. Biden has SO many environmental wins coming around the bend that I don't think this will matter come next election cycle. Either way, it's good to be arguing about which environmental opportunities our government pursues.

I am fairly certain the USA was one of the few countries to be close to meeting the Paris agreement even though we weren't in it. Also, conservatives like nuclear power, something democrats don't. Molten salt reactors are some of the cleanest energy sources available, but environmentalists hate all things nuclear because nuclear is bad to them.

The Paris agreement needs to be exceeded by quite a bit to be effective, if I recall correctly, so being close to meeting it isn’t going to cut it unfortunately. Also, per nuclear, that’s definitely not true: both Biden and Harris are on the record supporting nuclear and Biden’s climate plan calls for nuclear and research into nuclear. The rest of the dems seem to be more ambivalent. Critically, big tech and thinkers that dems tend to trust are behind nuclear, so I doubt it would be a hard sell on the population, considering dems and repubs are fairly similar in their opinion of it. I personally don’t see nuclear being an issue for liberals if it helps us meet our climate goals.