Export thread

Republicans vote today, Democrats vote tomorrow

#1

strawman

strawman

In order to avoid fisticuffs at the polls, please allow Republicans to vote today and give the Democrats a turn tomorrow.

Thanks.

:minionhappy:


#2

Dave

Dave

Nice. I already voted. A few of the candidates I voted for were Democrat but the vast majority are Republican. Most incumbents here in Nebraska are Republican so if they were doing a good job I voted for them. My Senator and Representatives were not so I voted for the Democratic challengers. Probably wasted my vote doing that around here, but ya gotta vote, man. If you don't vote, nothing will ever change.


#3

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

In the face of a public health nightmare, and while citizens in the state capital were still under a do not use order, some of our elected officials publicly stood with the coal companies responsible for poisoning our water and against the people.

In every race possible, I wrote in Ken Hechler. So what if he's 100. He's still around, and a far better choice than any of the slimes on the ballot.


#4

Covar

Covar

Damn it Dave! Don't you know anything about US Politics? You're supposed to vote party line. The opposition is a bunch of racist, homophobic, communist, druggies who are trying to ruin this country.


#5

PatrThom

PatrThom

stienman said:
please allow Republicans to vote today and give the Democrats a turn tomorrow.
Click to expand...
Joke's on you! Thanks to the end of Daylight Savings Time, Tuesday was actually yesterday, so Republicans missed their chance!

--Patrick


#6

Dei

Dei

Jokes on you, Colorado has been able to vote since October. :p


#7

GasBandit

GasBandit

In a move that will shock nobody, straight Libertarian ticket. John Cornyn can twitch in a ditch, to borrow a phrase from Mojo Nixon.


#8

Terrik

Terrik

GasBandit said:
In a move that will shock nobody, straight Libertarian ticket. John Cornyn can twitch in a ditch, to borrow a phrase from Mojo Nixon.
Click to expand...
In a result that will shock nobody, none of them will get elected. :troll:


#9

GasBandit

GasBandit



I like being on record as voting my conscience, no matter how futile.



#10

PatrThom

PatrThom

I always vote for whomever I think will do the best job in their position.

--Patrick


#11

sixpackshaker

sixpackshaker

GasBandit said:
Click to expand...
It should say

NO


#12

GasBandit

GasBandit

sixpackshaker said:
It should say

NO
Click to expand...







#13

Dave

Dave

Very timely. I just watched the extended version of that last night.


#14

Covar

Covar

Dave said:
Very timely. I just watched the extended version of that last night.
Click to expand...
Does the extended version fix things?


#15

GasBandit

GasBandit

Covar said:
Does the extended version fix things?
Click to expand...
It adds comic-book animated interludes, but doesn't change the story overmuch.[DOUBLEPOST=1415142037,1415141557][/DOUBLEPOST]Apparently turnout in New Hampshire was so high it may have set a record (for midterms that is).


#16

GasBandit

GasBandit

Word is exit polling is saying that the under-30s didn't show up to vote very much, as per usual in midterms.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/where-are-millennials-midterm-voters-skew-old-n241216



#17

GasBandit

GasBandit

The first black candidate to win a statewide election in South Carolina since reconstruction.

http://www.breakingnews.com/item/2014/11/05/nbc-news-ap-project-republican-tim-scott-wins-us/


#18

CrimsonSoul

CrimsonSoul

I voted libertarian too.


#19

PatrThom

PatrThom

Libertarian candidate for MI Gov has 1% of the vote right now.

--Patrick


#20

GasBandit

GasBandit

PatrThom said:
Libertarian candidate for MI Gov has 1% of the vote right now.

--Patrick
Click to expand...


#21

bhamv3

bhamv3

I made a conscious decision not to vote today.


#22

Terrik

Terrik

Go swat a mosquito, @bhamv3


#23

bhamv3

bhamv3

Terrik said:
Go swat a mosquito, @bhamv3
Click to expand...
It's November, the mosquitoes have retreated back into whatever blood-stained hell they come from.

Admittedly it's been an unseasonably warm autumn so far, though, so you can still see a few stragglers every now and then. I'll go see if I can snag one.

Still not voting today though.


#24

Terrik

Terrik

bhamv3 said:
It's November, the mosquitoes have retreated back into whatever blood-stained hell they come from.

Admittedly it's been an unseasonably warm autumn so far, though, so you can still see a few stragglers every now and then. I'll go see if I can snag one.

Still not voting today though.
Click to expand...
@bhamv3 pls. Go on.


#25

bhamv3

bhamv3

Terrik said:
@bhamv3 pls. Go on.
Click to expand...
:eek:

No one told me there's money to be had! Someone get me my zapper paddle!
zapper.jpg


#26

Hailey Knight

Hailey Knight

Only 50% of precincts reporting for us, and of those it's still too close to call.


#27

GasBandit

GasBandit

The republicans now have control of the US Senate, and remain solidly in control of the house.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/04/politics/election-day-story/index.html?hpt=hp_t1


#28

GasBandit

GasBandit

I didn't even know this was a thing? Apparently the Empire State Building started flashing red lights to indicate the GOP takeover of the senate.




#29

Zappit

Zappit

The Empire Strikes Back.


#30

GasBandit

GasBandit

I was wondering if it was more a "Gondor calls for aid!" type situation.


#31

CrimsonSoul

CrimsonSoul

Zappit said:
The Empire Strikes Back.
Click to expand...
Buh dun psh


#32

Hailey Knight

Hailey Knight

And now we have two years to wonder what kind of shit they'll push for the White House. I can at least say for certain that the next two years will continue to be all about in-fighting and not about getting anything done. So please, Congress, continue to waste our money and destroy the country.

Mandatory overtime + public transportation = no voting for me. I'm going to have to start doing early vote from now on, because this almost happened two years ago as well.


#33

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

Any other time, I'd posit that smashing the generations-long stranglehold the Democratic Party has had on this state might be a good thing. But not today. Today there is no plan, no vision, no new ideas.

This election was all about who could scream FUCK OBAMA! the loudest while still keeping their lips firmly affixed to coal's ass.


#34

Eriol

Eriol

GasBandit said:
I didn't even know this was a thing? Apparently the Empire State Building started flashing red lights to indicate the GOP takeover of the senate.


Click to expand...
See, the first thing I thought of is "Is New York trying to say it wants to join Canada?" It's where my thoughts went at least. Red-n-white.



#35

GasBandit

GasBandit

So if it had gone blue, it'd have been a plea for Swedish intervention?


#36

Eriol

Eriol

GasBandit said:
So if it had gone blue, it'd have been a plea for Swedish intervention?
Click to expand...
Hey why not?

Still, it does appear red-n-white to me, and so that's where my mind went. And considering how NEW the red-blue classification is to you guys, (not that some are predominantly dem and some are repub, I mean the colors, since that's only since 2000) this makes even less sense IMO.


Still, what you guys should try and get in first is STV. Better chance of that IMO than Proportional Representation, and has some advantages too.


#37

GasBandit

GasBandit

Eriol said:
Still, what you guys should try and get in first is STV. Better chance of that IMO than Proportional Representation, and has some advantages too.
Click to expand...
Hell, I've been calling for that for years, but I've been calling it by its more conventional name - Instant Runoff Elections.

But as is always pointed out when I bring it up, that would break the 2-party stranglehold, and thus probably won't happen without collapse or revolution anytime soon.


#38

Dei

Dei

I'm not really surprised by Red in New York. Most of the (landmass of the) state generally swings that way, but is usually overruled by NYC.


#39

GasBandit

GasBandit

Dei said:
I'm not really surprised by Red in New York. Most of the (landmass of the) state generally swings that way, but is usually overruled by NYC.
Click to expand...
That's also true for the nation at large. By landmass, it's red, but the denser population centers (NY, South Cali, Chicago) skew heavily blue.


#40

GasBandit

GasBandit



That is, without doubt, the worst county commissioner I have ever heard of.


#41

sixpackshaker

sixpackshaker

I voted for Quanah Parker. I thought he has been dead these 70 years.


#42

Reverent-one

Reverent-one

GasBandit said:


That is, without doubt, the worst county commissioner I have ever heard of.
Click to expand...
Ah, but you have heard of him.


#43

GasBandit

GasBandit

Reverent-one said:
Ah, but you have heard of him.
Click to expand...
soitwouldseem.JPG


So it would seem.


#44

Emrys

Emrys

A better choice for a better nation.



#45

SpecialKO

SpecialKO

GasBandit said:


That is, without doubt, the worst county commissioner I have ever heard of.
Click to expand...
So that's what he was talking about when he said, "...and then they made me their chief!"


#46

GasBandit

GasBandit

Ok, so guffaws aside... what does this mean?

First off, temper all reactions with the fact that the opposition party always gains ground in midterms, historically speaking.

The republicans ran with no agenda. They made no promises. The entire platform was "(my race's opponent) is an Obama supporter/crony!" And "Harry Reid and the democrat senate has stopped us from getting what needs to be done, done!"

Well, now you've got both the senate and the house. It's time for you to be seen vigorously walking the walk. You need to start passing legislation that you claim is your mandate, even if you know you face a presidential veto. Yeah, that means send that obamacare repeal through for the 200th time. It means passing your pigeonholed border security legislation. Above all, it means PASSING AN ACTUAL BUDGET FOR THE FIRST TIME IN OVER EIGHT YEARS. It doesn't matter if you know Obama is going to veto it anyway - if you give the mealy mouthed excuses to the cameras, your mandate will evaporate faster than the punch at your election after-parties.

You've got two years. Two years to make Americans feel like their lives are getting better, or at least that you are doing absolutely everything in your power to make it so. You've got no time for a victory lap. You've been pushing an "America is taking on water" narrative, now it's time for you to start bailing. Because if you aren't seen as effectively improving the nation, ESPECIALLY its jobs numbers (and let's not forget that that the current unemployment rate is a bald-faced lie), then come 2016, your support will be gone and you'll be back out in the cold again.

And you need to make sure you're picking the right battles. Your social agenda did not win you this election. Don't make opposition to gay marriage and legal pot your signature issues. Don't even bring it up. The inevitability should be obvious even to the most staunch country club WASP at this point. You've been on the wrong side of history on that issue, and now it is a sword waiting for you to throw yourself upon it.

This election was quite a shellacking even by midterm standards. The pendulum is way out far to the right, for the moment. Expect it to swing back in 2016. If you aren't shitting nothing but pure, tasty, fat free frozen yogurt for the next two years, you're looking at President Hillary Clinton.


#47

Mathias

Mathias

GasBandit said:
That's also true for the nation at large. By landmass, it's red, but the denser population centers (NY, South Cali, Chicago) skew heavily blue.
Click to expand...

Or, you know, gerrymandered districts...[DOUBLEPOST=1415225717,1415225536][/DOUBLEPOST]
GasBandit said:
Ok, so guffaws aside... what does this mean?

First off, temper all reactions with the fact that the opposition party always gains ground in midterms, historically speaking.

The republicans ran with no agenda. They made no promises. The entire platform was "(my race's opponent) is an Obama supporter/crony!" And "Harry Reid and the democrat senate has stopped us from getting what needs to be done, done!"

Well, now you've got both the senate and the house. It's time for you to be seen vigorously walking the walk. You need to start passing legislation that you claim is your mandate, even if you know you face a presidential veto. Yeah, that means send that obamacare repeal through for the 200th time. It means passing your pigeonholed border security legislation. Above all, it means PASSING AN ACTUAL BUDGET FOR THE FIRST TIME IN OVER EIGHT YEARS. It doesn't matter if you know Obama is going to veto it anyway - if you give the mealy mouthed excuses to the cameras, your mandate will evaporate faster than the punch at your election after-parties.

You've got two years. Two years to make Americans feel like their lives are getting better, or at least that you are doing absolutely everything in your power to make it so. You've got no time for a victory lap. You've been pushing an "America is taking on water" narrative, now it's time for you to start bailing. Because if you aren't seen as effectively improving the nation, ESPECIALLY its jobs numbers (and let's not forget that that the current unemployment rate is a bald-faced lie), then come 2016, your support will be gone and you'll be back out in the cold again.

And you need to make sure you're picking the right battles. Your social agenda did not win you this election. Don't make opposition to gay marriage and legal pot your signature issues. Don't even bring it up. The inevitability should be obvious even to the most staunch country club WASP at this point. You've been on the wrong side of history on that issue, and now it is a sword waiting for you to throw yourself upon it.

This election was quite a shellacking even by midterm standards. The pendulum is way out far to the right, for the moment. Expect it to swing back in 2016. If you aren't shitting nothing but pure, tasty, fat free frozen yogurt for the next two years, you're looking at President Hillary Clinton.
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is the Republicans are bound for a spankin' in 2016? Cause all that you just said. All that shit that makes sense for them to do? It ain't gonna happen.


#48

GasBandit

GasBandit

Mathias said:
So what you're saying is the Republicans are bound for a spankin' in 2016? Cause all that you just said. All that shit that makes sense for them to do? It ain't gonna happen.
Click to expand...
If the optics show that the republicans do what their constituency thinks is supposed to be "their job" but is plainly only blocked by the veto - and a veto actually forced to happen, not just "the threat of veto means we didn't even bother because we didn't have the votes to override it" then there might actually be a race in 2016.

But yeah, if they say "welp we don't have 60 votes, so no budget this year again guys" then they're going harder than a kennedy in a private plane.

This was not a victory won by the virtue of republicans... this was Darth Voter killing Admiral Democrat and promoting the guy standing next to him. In 2 years, it can just as easily happen again.

Unfortunately Captain Libertarian is never in the room when battlefield promotions are being doled out.


#49

GasBandit

GasBandit

Also, write off the republicans in 2016 if they try to push another McCain or Romney. They need someone with some Zazz.



#50

PatrThom

PatrThom

GasBandit said:
Don't make opposition to gay marriage and legal pot your signature issues. Don't even bring it up. The inevitability should be obvious even to the most staunch country club WASP at this point. You've been on the wrong side of history on that issue, and now it is a sword waiting for you to throw yourself upon it.
Click to expand...
Oh, but they will, because that's the stance that appeals to their core demographic.

...and any of these people (politicians in general) who insist on pandering to their "core demographic" are going to get stomped once the Boomers start dying off in volume.

--Patrick


#51

Dave

Dave

It's all because the Democrats did not stand up and say, "Yes, this is our president. And this is what he did. The economy is better. Same sex marriage is blossoming across the country in the face of right wing opposition. We brought our troops back from two wars that were either illegal or ill-advised. We have made many inroads to environmental changes. Gas prices have dropped. People are getting healthcare where before they would have had to make a choice between going to the doctor and feeding their families. We are Democrats and we have made this country better."

Instead they campaigned on, "I'm not Obama."

Yes, Obama has done some things I just plain don't agree with like the continuation of the disastrous Patriot Act and the continued detention of prisoners in Guantanamo (although to be fair it was the Republicans who blocked that one). But he's done great things in very big areas.

Now two of the three branches of government - Judicial and Legislative - are firmly in the hands of old white men who wish it were still the 1950's and would take our country backwards economically, socially, and in foreign relations.


#52

GasBandit

GasBandit

PatrThom said:
Oh, but they will, because that's the stance that appeals to their core demographic.

--Patrick
Click to expand...
Their core demographic will still show up and vote if they push an economic agenda and ignore the social agenda - they don't even have to repudiate it, just ignore it. But if they push their social agenda, their "big tent" collapses real fast, and suddenly the millenials are motivated to vote again - and not for them.


#53

PatrThom

PatrThom

GasBandit said:
suddenly the millenials are motivated to vote again - and not for them.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I updated my post while you were quoting to say pretty much that.

--Patrick


#54

CrimsonSoul

CrimsonSoul

according to my local paper only 33% of registered voters voted. There was even a school bond issue of millions of dollars on the ballot to build schools that haven't been updated in over 20 years (some of the schools are 60+ years old)


#55

PatrThom

PatrThom

Interesting Information of Indeterminate Usefulness.
The Political Bias Of Workers In Each Profession

--Patrick


#56

Hailey Knight

Hailey Knight

GasBandit said:
Their core demographic will still show up and vote if they push an economic agenda and ignore the social agenda - they don't even have to repudiate it, just ignore it. But if they push their social agenda, their "big tent" collapses real fast, and suddenly the millenials are motivated to vote again - and not for them.
Click to expand...
Pretty much everyone I went to college with doesn't vote unless they get scared into it by the Republicans. They're a bigger threat to their own party than the Democrats.


#57

Mathias

Mathias

Dave said:
It's all because the Democrats did not stand up and say, "Yes, this is our president. And this is what he did. The economy is better. Same sex marriage is blossoming across the country in the face of right wing opposition. We brought our troops back from two wars that were either illegal or ill-advised. We have made many inroads to environmental changes. Gas prices have dropped. People are getting healthcare where before they would have had to make a choice between going to the doctor and feeding their families. We are Democrats and we have made this country better."

Instead they campaigned on, "I'm not Obama."

Yes, Obama has done some things I just plain don't agree with like the continuation of the disastrous Patriot Act and the continued detention of prisoners in Guantanamo (although to be fair it was the Republicans who blocked that one). But he's done great things in very big areas.

Now two of the three branches of government - Judicial and Legislative - are firmly in the hands of old white men who wish it were still the 1950's and would take our country backwards economically, socially, and in foreign relations.
Click to expand...

Democratic politicians are spineless pussies. News at 11.


#58

Ravenpoe

Ravenpoe

Mathias said:
Democratic politicians are spineless pussies. News at 11.
Click to expand...
Sad but true.


Seems like to have any conviction as a politician, you also have to be crazy scary. There's very little in between.


#59

GasBandit

GasBandit

History's most influential people weren't prone to ambivalence.


#60

Dave

Dave

GasBandit said:
History's most influential people weren't prone to ambivalence.
Click to expand...
It has nothing to do with ambivalence, it has to do with wanting to please as many people as possible instead of taking a stand and leading.


#61

GasBandit

GasBandit

Dave said:
It has nothing to do with ambivalence, it has to do with wanting to please as many people as possible instead of taking a stand and leading.
Click to expand...
And being crazy scary breaks that mold, and wild-eyed conviction often attracts followers... if not footsoldiers.


#62

Frank

Frank

Mathias said:
Democratic politicians are spineless pussies. News at 11.
Click to expand...
Not all of them.



#63

Ravenpoe

Ravenpoe

Frank said:
Not all of them.

Click to expand...
You know, murder and corruption aside, at least he gets bills passed.


#64

Hailey Knight

Hailey Knight

Mathias said:
Democratic politicians are spineless pussies. News at 11.
Click to expand...
Pretty much. When Democrats had control of both executive and legislative, they didn't get a damn thing done because unlike Republicans, Democrats can't agree on anything.


#65

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

Zero Esc said:
Pretty much. When Democrats had control of both executive and legislative, they didn't get a damn thing done because unlike Republicans, Democrats can't agree on anything.
Click to expand...
Even though the Democrats had a "majority" in the Senate, McConnell's strategy was to block everything every time. So the reality was a 2/3 majority would be needed to pass anything, which the Democrats didn't have.


#66

GasBandit

GasBandit

DarkAudit said:
Even though the Democrats had a "majority" in the Senate, McConnell's strategy was to block everything every time. So the reality was a 2/3 majority would be needed to pass anything, which the Democrats didn't have.
Click to expand...
McConnell wasn't the one blocking budgets. There was so much pigeonholing going on that Harry Reid's desk must be a grade A fire hazard.


#67

sixpackshaker

sixpackshaker

I just want to go out on the net and troll, saying that I hope Mitch McConnell fails.


#68

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

Post mortem from the state capital's main paper.

At this point I'm giving serious consideration to telling the Democrats here to piss off and join the Mountain Party instead.


#69

Necronic

Necronic

So I actually went out and voted in this years midterm, kind of surprised with myself, I rarely vote in midterms. Glad I did. Gonna make it a thing now. Texas needs the few blue votes it can get.


#70

Fun Size

Fun Size



#71

PatrThom

PatrThom

I would just like to say that I still suffer from the crippling handicap where I keep thinking red is for Democrats, and blue for Republicans. I don't know why I learned it that way, but it always makes looking at the result maps very difficult.

--Patrick


#72

GasBandit

GasBandit

PatrThom said:
I would just like to say that I still suffer from the crippling handicap where I keep thinking red is for Democrats, and blue for Republicans. I don't know why I learned it that way, but it always makes looking at the result maps very difficult.

--Patrick
Click to expand...
They flipped back and forth prior to the 2000 election.
Ross Perot was green, incidentally.


#73

Gruebeard

Gruebeard

PatrThom said:
I would just like to say that I still suffer from the crippling handicap where I keep thinking red is for Democrats, and blue for Republicans. I don't know why I learned it that way, but it always makes looking at the result maps very difficult.

--Patrick
Click to expand...
Probably, because up here in Soviet Canuckistan, and in not-as-Great Britain, red is for the Liberals, blue is for the Conservatives.


#74

GasBandit

GasBandit

McConnell and Boehner have started laying out plans for quick votes on legislation that had been languishing on Reid's desk.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...305bf2-6518-11e4-bb14-4cfea1e742d5_story.html

First up will be approval for the Keystone XL pipeline, repealing the medical devices tax, and passing an actual budget for god damn once. Their long game after that will be trade agreements and tax reform... with undermining Obamacare "in the background."

We'll see if Ted Cruz plays ball. He's already grumbling that taking down the ACA should be one of the top priorities.[DOUBLEPOST=1415302901,1415302702][/DOUBLEPOST]They're up to the politics as usual though, there's already talks of using the reconciliation loophole, yet another federal debt limit increase, etc etc.


#75

Dave

Dave

Keystone pipeline is a bad, bad idea that benefits nobody in the US. It should not be allowed. Obamacare is not only working, but popular if called the ACA. It's just that stupid people say, "I like that ACA but Obamacare is bankrupting the country!"


#76

GasBandit

GasBandit

That the keystone pipeline was not approved years ago was a travesty. Its absence merely means canadian oil goes to china instead of to the US.

The ACA is a complete sham.


#77

Chad Sexington

Chad Sexington

Dave said:
Keystone pipeline is a bad, bad idea that benefits nobody in the US. It should not be allowed. Obamacare is not only working, but popular if called the ACA. It's just that stupid people say, "I like that ACA but Obamacare is bankrupting the country!"
Click to expand...
Would you rather continue to buy oil from states that murder homosexuals for the crime of... being homosexual? Among other charming habits I hardly imagine I have to elaborate on. The Keystone pipeline benefits both of our countries, and rightly spits at OPEC in the process. Besides, at the moment, much of the oil we ship comes through pipelines in Canada, then gets on a rail system, crosses the border, and is put into another pipeline: an expensive (and more dangerous) method than just leaving it in one contiguous pipeline.


#78

Dave

Dave

In states where Medicare was expanded and the bill was embraced costs are not rising, people are getting insured and it's saving lives.

The pipeline was NEVER going to bring oil to the US. It was always slated for China and other points. We'd get no benefit other than about 30 jobs and an environmental nightmare.


#79

Eriol

Eriol

Dave said:
The pipeline was NEVER going to bring oil to the US. It was always slated for China and other points. We'd get no benefit other than about 30 jobs and an environmental nightmare.
Click to expand...
No, it goes to the refineries you guys have on the Gulf. Then you sell it domestically as that, or ship it off if that's more profitable. In "interesting" times, you'll be glad to have that nice safe NATO source. You guys already get more oil from Canada than anywhere else outside your country (your domestic production is also considerable). And everything that Chad said too.

Those refinery jobs are not just "30" of them either. Nor the construction in the meantime. And about 100 different other reasons why you SHOULD be building this, and it's a good idea.


#80

Dave

Dave

True that there will be temporary jobs during the construction process, but they were talking about a couple thousand permanent jobs, and that's just not true. I did just get done reading that manufacturing areas are thinking this is a godsend so I'm backing off my opposition a bit, but the claims they made still aren't standing up to scrutiny.


#81

GasBandit

GasBandit

Except not, and not.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/obamacares-failing-cost-control-1413758684

Costs are hemmorhaging.

http://keystone-xl.com/keystone-kl-...s-california-new-york-tom-steyer-transcanada/

It makes no sense to claim Keystone XL, which runs to the gulf, is about exporting oil to china. It's on the wrong side of the continent, and there's already a siberian pipeline.


#82

Chad Sexington

Chad Sexington

Dave said:
The pipeline was NEVER going to bring oil to the US. It was always slated for China and other points.
Click to expand...
This is patently untrue.


#83

Ravenpoe

Ravenpoe

I'm about as bleeding heart liberal as you can get, and even I think the pipeline sounds like a good idea.


#84

Dave

Dave

You post the stats from the WSJ like they are gospel, but it's got a right-wing bias. I was going to post things from other sites that say exactly the opposite, but realized that they were from the other end of the ideological spectrum. Sites like Washington Post, ThinkProgress, or Mother Jones. Sorry, but your site is just as suspect as mine would have been and for the same reasons.

I'm admitting defeat on the XL thing. Being from Nebraska I get bombarded with stuff about it from both sides and it's so much white noise after a while. I still am not convinced it's necessarily good for my state, but will admit a certain level of ignorance about the whole thing.


#85

PatrThom

PatrThom

GasBandit said:
Ross Perot was green, incidentally.
Click to expand...
I might've remembered that, but I couldn't find my chart.

--Patrick


#86

Tiger Tsang

Tiger Tsang

Keystone XL would divert Canadian oil from refineries in the Midwest to the Gulf Coast where it can be refined and exported. Many of these refineries are in Foriegn Trade Zones where oil may be exported to international buyers without paying U.S. taxes. And that is exactly what Valero, one of the largest potential buyers of Keystone XL's oil, has told its investors it will do. The idea that Keystone XL will improve U.S. oil supply is a documented scam being played on the American people by Big Oil and its friends in Washington DC.

When Canadian regulators at the National Energy Board (NEB) considered the Keystone XL proposal in 2008, they asked TransCanada to justify another pipeline when there was already so much spare capacity. TransCanada conceded that Keystone XL would take oil from existing pipelines, increasing shipping costs. However, TransCanada argued that this cost would be more than offset as shifting Canadian oil from the Midwest to the Gulf would increase the price that Americans paid for Canadian oil by $3.9 billion.

In fact, TransCanada refused to support a requirement that oil on Keystone XL be used in the United States in a recent Congressional hearing.


#87

Charlie Don't Surf

Charlie Don't Surf

Zero Esc said:
Pretty much. When Democrats had control of both executive and legislative, they didn't get a damn thing done because unlike Republicans, Democrats can't agree on anything.
Click to expand...
[citation needed]


#88

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

It is said that many of the same folks here (WV here, not HF here) howling about "Obamacare" either have a favorable or no opinion on the Affordable Care Act. All the while taking advantage of the insurance rates the Marketplace provide.


#89

Dave

Dave

Yup. That's the way it is in most places that have it. The problem is that the republicans want to mess with many of the parts that actually pay for the coverage, like the Durable Medical Goods tax and the employer mandates. They cut those and no shit the thing will lose money, which is exactly what they want.They want it to fail and who gives a shit about who it hurts in the process.


#90

Krisken

Krisken



#91

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

Not enough votes to override a veto or stop a filibuster. The GOP is just fapping to the sound of it's own voice again. :rolleyes:


#92

Krisken

Krisken

DarkAudit said:
Not enough votes to override a veto or stop a filibuster. The GOP is just fapping to the sound of it's own voice again. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Wait, I thought that was all politicians.


#93

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

Krisken said:
Wait, I thought that was all politicians.
Click to expand...
Thanks to talk radio, cable news, and the internet, the GOP tends to make more of the mess.


#94

Eriol

Eriol

Krisken said:
Click to expand...
So... this guy is usually pretty well-referenced. What say people?


#95

GasBandit

GasBandit

Eriol said:
So... this guy is usually pretty well-referenced. What say people?
Click to expand...
I don't know anything about him. I would point out, though, that the way the bill was written, the bennies are doled out years before the bill comes due.

http://thefederalist.com/2014/10/03/after-one-year-obamacares-biggest-achievement-hiding-its-cost/


#96

Terrik

Terrik

Some of my most liberal friends in healthcare are against the bill. Since I want to go into medicine, I can only hope since I wasn't there before the ACA, I have nothing to compare it to. I hope. That being said, the US healthcare system has been screwed up for a long ass time. Something had to be done.


#97

Krisken

Krisken

Terrik said:
Some of my most liberal friends in healthcare are against the bill. Since I want to go into medicine, I can only hope since I wasn't there before the ACA, I have nothing to compare it to. I hope. That being said, the US healthcare system has been screwed up for a long ass time. Something had to be done.
Click to expand...
Most liberals dislike it because it doesn't do what they wanted it to do- allow for a national program people could join run by the national government. This was opposed by health insurance companies because they feared (rightly) people would want the healthcare the government would offer at a much cheaper rate since it would have numbers to support it. President Obama made it sound like that was what he wanted to do during his campaign, but it turned out he never really wanted that as a program and quickly lost footing negotiating with Republicans because he started at a position of weakness by stating what he actually wanted with the program right off the bat. Thus, the watered down legislation we got.

Still, like every bill that gets passed there are good things in there. There's just a ton of crap thrown in to make it more difficult for people to take advantage of, too. Especially on the state level.


#98

Necronic

Necronic

That pipeline is sorely needed. Without it we are over relying on trains and trucks to transport oil which is innefficient, bad for the environment, and, if that wasn't enough, really dangerous.


#99

Krisken

Krisken

Necronic said:
That pipeline is sorely needed. Without it we are over relying on trains and trucks to transport oil which is innefficient, bad for the environment, and, if that wasn't enough, really dangerous.
Click to expand...
Risk vs Reward, man. Risk vs Reward.


#100

Tiger Tsang

Tiger Tsang

Necronic said:
That pipeline is sorely needed. Without it we are over relying on trains and trucks to transport oil which is innefficient, bad for the environment, and, if that wasn't enough, really dangerous.
Click to expand...
I'm really not sure if Poe's Law is in effect here.

Going by my previous post. Transcanada is looking to make their money abroad, and not in selling their petrol products to the U.S.


#101

AshburnerX

AshburnerX

Krisken said:
Risk vs Reward, man. Risk vs Reward.
Click to expand...
Basically this. A train spill can usually be cleaned up, but a burst pipe generally ruins an area beyond repair and the company involved will usually get a slap on the wrist for it. So the actual results of doing the pipeline are...

- No decrease in gas prices, because domestically refined gas is sold in FTZs where the oil companies can charge more for it.
- About 350 jobs, which will likely be filled by H1B1s.
- A likelihood that any town the line runs through could experience a spill, destroying it's economy, if not making it almost completely uninhabitable.
- A likelihood that the US government will be stuck with the bill for cleaning it up, which means the rest of us pay for it.
- Billions in oil money that go straight into the pockets of government officials and oil barons that will use that money to undermine the democratic system in ours and other countries.

Why exactly should we do this again? Why isn't Canada building their own refineries instead? Every year they hope and pray for this is a year they could be building the capability to do it themselves instead.


#102

Eriol

Eriol

AshburnerX said:
A train spill can usually be cleaned up, but a burst pipe generally ruins an area beyond repair and the company involved will usually get a slap on the wrist for it.
Click to expand...
Umm... no. There are valves every so often (every mile? Half mile? If somebody knows, please say) that shut the flow as soon as a leak (or catastrophic failure, a "burst" as you say) is detected. Sure the volume between two valves will spill out, but that's it. Unlike with a trian, where it's not like 1 car goes off the rails.

And where do you get that the entire area is ruined beyond repair? This sounds like a lot of hyperbole and FUD.


#103

AshburnerX

AshburnerX

Eriol said:
Umm... no. There are valves every so often (every mile? Half mile? If somebody knows, please say) that shut the flow as soon as a leak (or catastrophic failure, a "burst" as you say) is detected. Sure the volume between two valves will spill out, but that's it. Unlike with a trian, where it's not like 1 car goes off the rails.

And where do you get that the entire area is ruined beyond repair? This sounds like a lot of hyperbole and FUD.
Click to expand...
Did you not read that article Krisken posted? Even if they COULD successfully clean up the mess, would you want to live on the site of a former oil spill and risk cancer and god knows what? Would you even want to live close to it? That town is completely fucked.


#104

Krisken

Krisken

"On average, U.S. pipelines spilled over 3.1 million gallons a year between 2008 and 2012, according to the Pipeline & Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). As for the Keystone project,Public Citizen released a report this month documenting over 125 patches, dents, and other worrisome anomalies in its southern half."

The neat thing about reading an article is you get to examine the evidence and come to an informed conclusion before making a declarative statement which will sound foolish.


#105

Krisken

Krisken

stienman said:
Didn't we just go through this? 3.1 million gallons does indeed sound like a lot but it's not, and the way they account for it most of those "spills" don't contaminate anything.

I made a whole post about it in some oil sands thread or something months ago.

"...before you sound foolish" indeed.
Click to expand...
It's a shit ton when it's in your backyard. Of course, if it isn't going through your yard, of course you won't care or can easily brush it off.


#106

Krisken

Krisken

stienman said:
I'm sorry, I'm not being nice. Post deleted.

Here's my previous post on the topic. Make of it what you will.

https://www.halforums.com/threads/tar-sands-oil-blow-out-in-alberta.29599/#post-1067764
Click to expand...
And that's great that when you spread it all out and say in comparison to what gets shipped through the pipeline there isn't a lot that gets spilled. I dare you to tell that to the people of Mayflower, Arkansas or Marshall, Michigan, though.

I stand by my point, the reward may be high, but so is the risk. I really think you'd be reconsidering the pipeline if you had to worry about how close it was to your location.


I didn't see your first post, so I thank you for being considerate and not posting something which would elevate the discussion into personal territory. I respect you have a different opinion than I do and I welcome the discussion we are having.


#107

Krisken

Krisken

Which will be fine when regulations for poorly managed pipelines match the damage done rather than just fines.

Stienman, I'm not saying "OMG, PIPELINES KILL!" I really wish you wouldn't make my argument sound so hyperbolic. And, yes, it is emotional. That's what you think of when you consider a MAN MADE disaster, unlike your tornado example above, caused the evacuation of an entire town of 2,000 people. All those homes destroyed and families suddenly uprooted for who knows how long because of something which could have been prevented. Maybe when the oil companies are more responsible with their disasters I'll be willing to look at it a bit more like you do.

I have to admit, though, brushing off those people feels a little cold to me.


#108

Ravenpoe

Ravenpoe

Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about nuclear power?


#109

Krisken

Krisken

I really wish there was a good way to dispose of the rods and minimize the disasters.

Look, I know there is no great way to get the amount of energy the country needs to sustain the power it requires. I just think when we do make changes we should be careful to consider the impact those changes will make.


#110

Krisken

Krisken

You kinda are. "I especially like how you imply that anyone who defends oil pipelines is inhumane."

That I never said or even implied. Just in this case you sounded cold to me. But if you feel better saying so then be my guest. I'm not interested in changing minds or hearts, just came here to present the info I found.


#111

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

Nah. You want hyperbolic, just look at WV politics this year. Even when their own water was poisoned, the politicians wouldn't back down on the "war on coal" rhetoric. To even suggest that WV could have a future without coal was treasonous, to the point of officials deliberately sabotaging proposals from other officials.


#112

Tiger Tsang

Tiger Tsang

And still, you folk won't address Transcanada's plans for the oil.

They haven't made a secret about how it's destined for foreign markets.
They've stated how if the pipeline is completed, the cost to the American market will increase.

This isn't some right or left wing think tank spewing numbers. It's the FRIGGING COMPANY THAT WANTS TO BUILD THE DAMN PIPELINE saying how it wouldn't benefit the american people.

Seriously?!?


#113

AshburnerX

AshburnerX

Ravenpoe said:
Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about nuclear power?
Click to expand...
Nuclear power works just fine when it's facilities are properly managed and inspected by outside 3rd parties. The TEPCO disaster in Fukashima never would have happened (or at least been better contained) had it's management actually DONE ANY OF THE THINGS IT WAS SUPPOSED TO, but instead cronyism, cultural values, and just plain old greed lead to them doing next to none of the safety inspections and maintenance required to prevent the kind of disaster Japan experienced.

That said, I'm in the same boat: I really wish we had some better means of dealing with the waste. I'm almost in favor of dumping it in space or on the moon until we have the means to deal with it, because at least there it wouldn't cause any trouble, but that's a pipe dream. We're just going to have to keep hollowing out mountains until we can properly process it.


#114

PatrThom

PatrThom

stienman said:
"Not in my backyard" is a great line, it goes so well with "think of the children!"
Click to expand...
In the early 1950's, the amount of dissolved oxygen in the Kalamazoo River was so low that fish simply could not live in it. Since then, it had been rehabilitated significantly. My father-in-law is one of the people who was heavily involved in the clean up of the Kalamazoo River starting in the mid-70's. He personally put actual years of effort into the rehabilitation of the river. He's not happy about the spill that (directly or indirectly) undid quite a bit of the years of work he put into that project. Yes, he gets emotional about it, and understandably so.

As far as our energy needs, our current investment in renewables (mostly wind and solar) IS doing a lot to offset this demand for more invasive fossil fuel acquisitions, but until the renewable supply surpasses a substantial portion of the demand, the economics of that demand will continue to push us into further into riskier and more environmentally unfriendly methods of acquisition/reclamation.

For that matter, a person pedaling an exercise bike can comfortably put out about 200W, so your average morning crowd of 8-12 cyclists at the gym could put out a couple of kilowatts. If you put a generator bike in everyone's home and force them to pedal it for a minimum of 2hrs every day (in shifts, and with no pay since it's your civic duty), a US city with the median population of around 25 thousand (minus a third for old/infirm/underage) could conceivably produce around 6700 kWh/day, which is enough energy to run about 200 homes (about 2% of the population) for that same day (but think of the health benefits!). Yet people still consider it more humane to spend time and equipment digging oil/coal out of the ground and flirting with the environmental damage of extracting it and burning it than to do this. We Americans are so lazy that way.

--Patrick
(lots of napkin math here, but it should at least be representative)


#115

Tiger Tsang

Tiger Tsang

There are lots of companies that risk tiny amounts of pollution and displaced people which arguably don't benefit the american people.

Are you suggesting we adopt a version of capitalism where every company has to justify its existence before incorporating?

If nothing else, this pipeline will allow Canada to participate more fully in the world oil economy. This has a lot of benefits for the USA.

Here are a few informative resources about oil spills for those interested:

A panel discussion about two spills in particular, and how the oil industry is responding:
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2013-08-19/aftermath-oil-spills-michigan-and-arkansas

A comparison of the various modes of transporting oil:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesco...poison-for-crude-pipeline-rail-truck-or-boat/

Looking at all the oil spills over time, including natural oil seepage (oil springs!), and oil spills due to drilling and other activities:
http://www.api.org/environment-heal...~/media/93371edfb94c4b4d9c6bbc766f0c4a40.ashx
Click to expand...
Canada is more than welcome to run the pipeline across their own country and build their own refineries and create the massive numbers of Canadian jobs.

Oh, wait, Transcanada tried that and Canadians said "No!"

Keystone XL brings nothing to the American table besides making some big oil folks more money and 'long-term' a relative handful of refinery jobs *which might not even be filled by Americans*.

Meanwhile we get all the risks involved. "Lovely Aquifer you have there, be a shame if something spilled in it."


#116

PatrThom

PatrThom

stienman said:
You suggest laziness if each person in a city doesn't consecrate over 10% of their waking hours to making less than 2% of their city's electrical needs, and none of their other energy (heat, vehicle, etc) needs?
Click to expand...
The comment "We Americans are so lazy" was sarcasm. The rest was not. The post was supposed to plant the idea that "silly people" might someday actually suggest this as a "good idea" for what to do with the expanding prison population, the unemployed, etc. I was just curious as to how much energy could be generated that way, so I decided to work it out and share my findings.

Also, using people to convert food to energy is actually amazingly efficient. It's the process of converting that energy to useful work that is inefficient.

Also, I wish people would spend more money figuring out how to eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels rather than spending money figuring out new and exciting ways of acquiring more of them.

--Patrick


#117

Necronic

Necronic

So most refineries are (afaik) in FTZ's, why does it matter if it's a Gulf Coast FTZ or a Midwest FTZ? This is an issue I'm not entirely clear on. I always thought the purpose of KeystoneXL was to bring the stuff to Houston to be refined, I don't see how it matters after that. I was under the impression that whoever refines it owns it, it's not TransCanada's once it starts getting refined. Like I said though, this part I'm not too clear on.

Also, just to put the 3 mil barrel thing in perspective:

A standard tanker truck carries around 3k gallons. The cumulative spills from pipelines (3 million) are the equivalent of ~1k tanker trucks being spilled, which is a LOT of trucks, no doubt.

The Lac-Megantic train which crashed in Canada lost 72 cars filled with 30k gallons each, which is rougly 2.1 million gallons. It also killed 30 people.

Some other stats on the comparative safety and whatnot of trucks vs trains vs pipelines
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/ib_23.htm#.VGEibEznZTQ
(its a conservative think tank but its got well sourced data, which is all I was looking at)
------------

I must admit that there are some points here I have not fully considered, such as the ones Tiger Tsang pointed out, and I need to better understand those to better understand my stance on KeystoneXL. But at its core, pipelines seem far safer and more environmentally friendly thank trucks and trains.


#118

Chad Sexington

Chad Sexington

It's not Transcanada's oil at all. They own the pipeline, not the material in the pipeline. You could ship teddy bears through it, and as long as it was being used, Transcanada's making money.


#119

Ravenpoe

Ravenpoe

Chad Sexington said:
It's not Transcanada's oil at all. They own the pipeline, not the material in the pipeline. You could ship teddy bears through it, and as long as it was being used, Transcanada's making money.
Click to expand...
This teddy-bear spill is both horrific and adorable.


#120

Krisken

Krisken

Ravenpoe said:
This teddy-bear spill is both horrific and adorable.
Click to expand...
I think I'd be ok with that spill.


#121

Necronic

Necronic

The teddy bears are teratogens


#122

bhamv3

bhamv3

Necronic said:
The teddy bears are teratogens
Click to expand...
That's bad!


#123

SpecialKO

SpecialKO



#124

PatrThom

PatrThom

Salmon cannon evening
When you find your true loooooove...

--Patrick


#125

fade

fade

stienman said:
Converting their food (btw, this would increase their food budget a lot) to energy using people is a terrible idea.
Click to expand...
I know this was off the cuff, but I take issue with this argument. Anyone who exercises regularly can tell you food intake and appetite tend to decrease with increased physical activities. There are a few (admittedly short-term) studies that suggest this isn't simply in the athlete's head: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/11/how-exercise-can-help-us-eat-less/?_r=1


#126

Eriol

Eriol

INCREDIBLY biased article for renewables: http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2011/05/05/EnergySlaves/

100W/person, sustained. But they need to sleep too. So 1/3 that.

Or you can get a barrel of oil. Gives a HECK of a lot more. For $90? Or so? And it's worth about 100 humans or so. Or more. The article is horrifically biased, but I had trouble finding the numbers on stuff, so here we are.


The fact that we can use other things than people for energy is a good thing. You just need to find the right thing (*cough*LFTR THORIUM*cough*) that is abundant, has virtually no waste, and can power as much as we want *COUGH*THORIUM*COUGH*

God, something stuck in my throat today...


#127

PatrThom

PatrThom

Eriol said:
God, something stuck in my throat today...
Click to expand...
Thor-Hammer-Single-Bookend.jpg

--Patrick


#128

Ravenpoe

Ravenpoe

PatrThom said:
View attachment 16647
--Patrick
Click to expand...
It's just a thor throat.


#129

Telephius

Telephius

Ravenpoe said:
It's just a thor throat.
Click to expand...
Not the worst malletdy to be inflicted with.


#130

Eriol

Eriol

To those (including Obama apparently) who are spreading the FUD about how the Keystone XL oil will be for export, the president of TransCanada Pipelines has something to say:
Mr. Girling added to that statement on Wednesday afternoon on a conference call with journalists. “It’s very highly unlikely that any of this crude leaves North America,” he said.
*snip*
Given that there are currently 4.5-million barrels of oil imported to the Gulf Coast every day, Mr. Girling said describing Keystone XL as an export pipeline “doesn’t make any sense.”
Click to expand...
Say what you will about conspiracy, but anybody claiming that the oil from Keystone XL will leave North America needs to give their heads a shake. Who this will impact negatively is anywhere that wants to export (sell to) the USA who is currently shipping it via tanker.


#131

Dave

Dave

Yeah, because the president of the company is not biased at all.


#132

Tiger Tsang

Tiger Tsang

Tiger Tsang said:
Keystone XL would divert Canadian oil from refineries in the Midwest to the Gulf Coast where it can be refined and exported. Many of these refineries are in Foriegn Trade Zones where oil may be exported to international buyers without paying U.S. taxes. And that is exactly what Valero, one of the largest potential buyers of Keystone XL's oil, has told its investors it will do. The idea that Keystone XL will improve U.S. oil supply is a documented scam being played on the American people by Big Oil and its friends in Washington DC.

When Canadian regulators at the National Energy Board (NEB) considered the Keystone XL proposal in 2008, they asked TransCanada to justify another pipeline when there was already so much spare capacity. TransCanada conceded that Keystone XL would take oil from existing pipelines, increasing shipping costs. However, TransCanada argued that this cost would be more than offset as shifting Canadian oil from the Midwest to the Gulf would increase the price that Americans paid for Canadian oil by $3.9 billion.

In fact, TransCanada refused to support a requirement that oil on Keystone XL be used in the United States in a recent Congressional hearing.
Click to expand...
Bares repeating, apparently.

And that's just some of the highlights.


#133

Eriol

Eriol

Tiger Tsang said:
Bares repeating, apparently.

And that's just some of the highlights.
Click to expand...
Ya no shit. It's basically "We're not going to endorse a law that allows you guys are going to use your monopoly to take the price to nothing since we can't export it either. But considering you guys are buying anyway at world prices, we'd be more than happy to sell to you at or near that." To endorse such a stupid constraint would be self-defeating. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if USA companies would buy up the oil at firesale prices, and then sell it right back internationally if such a law/regulation was put in, despite the "used in the USA" part. You'd just dilute it with other oil until the point you could sell it anywhere you wanted to.


#134

Tinwhistler

Tinwhistler

stienman said:
Yeah, I didn't understand it either. The US is a net importer of oil. Someone would essentially have to ship oil out of the US, while others ship into the US.

Someone else could make a lot of money shipping oil from the US to the US and short circuiting the route.

But since I'm not in oil, I figured there was a reason.
Click to expand...
The US does currently both import and export oil and oil products.

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_exp_dc_NUS-Z00_mbblpd_m.htm
http://online.wsj.com/articles/oil-shipment-cracks-decades-old-ban-1406762293
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/does-the-us-export-domestic-oi/


Top