***OFFICIAL 2020 2ND PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE IN-DEBATE THREAD!!!***

cncmin

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
17,198
Reaction score
1,440
Points
113
Shocking right????? that people aren't a fan of methane in their drinking water (Watch Gasland a documentary on it in PA that shows scenes of people lighting their water on fire) and increased cancer & health risks (there are innumerable articles if you use your Google machine people).



Education is fun and will help your brain from rotting as you get older.

View attachment 9933
TBH, it's not really fracking getting into water supplies that is the biggest problem. Fracking is problematic for many other less acute reasons. The risk of fracking contaminating the drinking water is very low.

I should note, I'm not against fracking, per se, even if I agree with Biden that fracking of natural gas should be only a stopgap measure in our continuous transition away from coal, oil, and other fossil fuels.
 

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
2,900
Reaction score
1,163
Points
113
Then why is the Biden campaign running away from Joe’s fracking comments last night? They are out spreading the word that he didn’t say what he said last night. Joe “didn’t mean that we’re going to ban fracking, just fracking subsidies”. 😂🤣😂🤣

Joe says it won’t be total for another 30 years.

One problem, he said that his objective was to be carbon neutral by 2035. Are we supposed to believe that he’s going to start some time well into the future regarding eliminating the fossil fuel industry?

And yeah, I have a problem with attempting to destroy an industry that we lead the world in and tens of millions of jobs are dependent on.
I hope your grandchildren despise you.
 

Angry

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 8, 2012
Messages
1,497
Reaction score
161
Points
63
I have never had the feeling that Trump really caters to the worst. That’s why the Dems constantly scream dog whistle. Are you really catering if it’s not stated outright? It’s an attack angle but not the truth. The rip on Don is that he way over embellishes, brags way too much, and is a dink on Twitter.
Everyone on Twitter is a dink.
 

cncmin

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
17,198
Reaction score
1,440
Points
113
Exactly. We don't need to ban anything. If we make these companies pay mitigation for the environmental issues they cause (and take away their tax breaks) they will cease to be price competitive and the beloved free market will take care of it.
If the fossil fuel industry had to account for the same cradle-to-grave costs that, for example, the nuclear power industry has to account for, its price would be quite unfavorable. Imagine just the cost that the oil industry would have to pay to fight wars in the Middle East, alone. Or to cover the contribution to global warming? Either would be a backbreaker in terms of price competitiveness. But for some reason, fossil fuel industries are able to avoid paying all the costs that the other energy sources have to pay. And why? Because they are Haves, and the Haves get to set the policy and force out the competition.

If S2 was a fair, truthful person, I'd ask him to expand on this for us all...
 

cncmin

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
17,198
Reaction score
1,440
Points
113
Definitely. Trump didn't convert any undecided voters I wouldn't think. Biden stumbled a couple times from what I saw....but he fought back against the lies and other crap well enough. He simply couldn't let Trump come out and lie for half the debate without saying anything.
The main problem anyone debating Trump has is that they would have to spend their entire time fact checking the continuous speweth of lies by the President, and they'd have close to zero time to say anything else. It's really not fair in a "debate" format unless other fact checkers are there to do that work.
 

Angry

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 8, 2012
Messages
1,497
Reaction score
161
Points
63
In Minnesota we need a diverse energy plan or we’ll freeze to death.
I also think going away from nuclear has hurt us.
 

cncmin

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
17,198
Reaction score
1,440
Points
113
And now we shift from "he never said it" to "what's wrong with it".
Who said what? Biden clearly articulated that he wants the U.S. to transition away from an oil economy. That's an appropriate goal and one desired by most Americans. Only people working in the oil industry and anti-intellectual ding dongs should disagree.
 

Livingat45north

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 27, 2013
Messages
4,712
Reaction score
1,594
Points
113
If the fossil fuel industry had to account for the same cradle-to-grave costs that, for example, the nuclear power industry has to account for, its price would be quite unfavorable. Imagine just the cost that the oil industry would have to pay to fight wars in the Middle East, alone.
You do realize that right now we're exporters of oil, not importers. Thanks to Trump we no longer have to "fight wars in the Middle East" for oil. Of course, if Hiden gets elected, then we'll go right back to those days of OPEC and Russia controlling us again.
 

cncmin

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
17,198
Reaction score
1,440
Points
113
You do realize that right now we're exporters of oil, not importers. Thanks to Trump we no longer have to "fight wars in the Middle East" for oil. Of course, if Hiden gets elected, then we'll go right back to those days of OPEC and Russia controlling us again.
Leave it to someone as deft as you to completely fail to understand even the simplest aspects of the global energy market.
 

Livingat45north

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 27, 2013
Messages
4,712
Reaction score
1,594
Points
113
Leave it to someone as deft as you to completely fail to understand even the simplest aspects of the global energy market.
Yes, because being an energy independent country is such a trivial little detail when it comes to your claim of us having to fight wars over getting oil that we no longer need from foreign countries. Totally a non-factor... Thanks for clearing that up for us.
 

cncmin

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
17,198
Reaction score
1,440
Points
113
Yes, because being an energy independent country is such a trivial little detail when it comes to your claim of us having to fight wars over getting oil that we no longer need from foreign countries. Totally a non-factor... Thanks for clearing that up for us.
That's not how the global energy market works.

Energy independence only matters in terms of wartime resources; which is important in its own way, but that's clearly not what you are trying to say. The oil market is global. If you want true energy independence, you need to vie for 100% locally-produced and 100% locally-consumed energy; i.e., something oil is not and will not ever be.
 

Livingat45north

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 27, 2013
Messages
4,712
Reaction score
1,594
Points
113
That's not how the global energy market works.

Energy independence only matters in terms of wartime resources; which is important in its own way, but that's clearly not what you are trying to say. The oil market is global. If you want true energy independence, you need to vie for 100% locally-produced and 100% locally-consumed energy; i.e., something oil is not and will not ever be.
Got it, Energy independence only matters in terms of wartime and only if it's 100% locally sourced. It has to be local. There's obviously no way that oil could be moved around a country. If only they could invent something, you know, like a pipeline where oil could be distributed, or railroad cars where they have tankers that you could fill with oil. That way you could get it from the wells to the refineries. How come no one has thought of doing that before? And obviously, energy independence doesn't mean anything to our day to day lives -- only something to consider if we're in a full out war. Thanks for clearing it up for us. I'll remember that next time I go to get gas and I'm paying about $2/gal instead of the $4+ it reached during the Obama/Biden years. Thanks for clearing that up for us.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
18,761
Reaction score
2,456
Points
113
Cuz who'd ever want to move forward and evolve when we can stay dependent on the extraction of expensive and finite resources until we run out or are denied access?

Why can't we "..finally realize<d> the obvious benefits of being energy independent, like unlimited supply of energy, net exporter of oil/gas, cheaper fuel, and leverage over world adversaries" with clean, renewable energy? Unless your portfolio is heavy in fuel investments, seems like a weird flex.
If you call rolling blackouts and relying on outside sources of energy, like California does, as moving forward, no thanks.
 

cncmin

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
17,198
Reaction score
1,440
Points
113
Got it, Energy independence only matters in terms of wartime and only if it's 100% locally sourced. It has to be local. There's obviously no way that oil could be moved around a country. If only they could invent something, you know, like a pipeline where oil could be distributed, or railroad cars where they have tankers that you could fill with oil. That way you could get it from the wells to the refineries. How come no one has thought of doing that before? And obviously, energy independence doesn't mean anything to our day to day lives -- only something to consider if we're in a full out war. Thanks for clearing it up for us. I'll remember that next time I go to get gas and I'm paying about $2/gal instead of the $4+ it reached during the Obama/Biden years. Thanks for clearing that up for us.
Dear lord, you are stupid.
 

Livingat45north

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 27, 2013
Messages
4,712
Reaction score
1,594
Points
113
Team Trump is rolling with Biden's disastrous debate performance - "Turing the Corner" versus "A Dark Winter".

 

Livingat45north

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 27, 2013
Messages
4,712
Reaction score
1,594
Points
113
Trump, carrying home this theme. This is going to be a drumbeat for the next two weeks. Really a bad move by Biden.

 

Spoofin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
17,501
Reaction score
2,707
Points
113
Trump, carrying home this theme. This is going to be a drumbeat for the next two weeks. Really a bad move by Biden.

Only time will tell. Your theory is that people want to hear encouraging stats, details, and about progress - but one look at the COVID thread tells you some people want to hear, believe, and live the worst possible scenario. 200K more by end of year!
 

Livingat45north

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 27, 2013
Messages
4,712
Reaction score
1,594
Points
113
Only time will tell. Your theory is that people want to hear encouraging stats, details, and about progress - but one look at the COVID thread tells you some people want to hear, believe, and live the worst possible scenario. 200K more by end of year!
Well, Com-Allah said 220 million people died in the last two months, so there's that little fact that I missed. But yes, you've correctly stated my theory. I just don't see the masses relating to the fear tactics and wanting to follow Biden's example of hiding in their basements. Trump's line in the debate of how rank and file people can't hide like Joe does was a solid one to use. Take a spin on Facebook or such and people are not wearing masks at family gatherings or neighborhood parties. Restaurants and bars are in full revolt right now (e.g., Trump's line of Biden requiring people going to a restaurant to eat in a plexiglass bubble). People are seeing unemployment end, businesses have bled their cash-flow reserve dry, parents want their kids back in school, and kids want to go back to school. IMO, they desperately want to reopen the country.
 

Spoofin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
17,501
Reaction score
2,707
Points
113
During the debate, first Joe said he never said he would ban fracking. When Trump exposed him on it he replied “on federal land”. One sheep on GH even repeated that nonsense. Now today, the Biden campaign said he meant “end subsidies”. Sure thing. Glad someone else was able to tell us what Joe meant.
 

USAF

Well-known member
Joined
May 24, 2019
Messages
2,407
Reaction score
2,129
Points
113
During the debate, first Joe said he never said he would ban fracking. When Trump exposed him on it he replied “on federal land”. One sheep on GH even repeated that nonsense. Now today, the Biden campaign said he meant “end subsidies”. Sure thing. Glad someone else was able to tell us what Joe meant.
You have no problem with the whoppers Trump told, though. Dozens. On top of the thousands on record

Nor with the fellas here, who hold Trump accountable for none of it.

Just one Biden statement.

Interesting.

Fraud.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
17,698
Reaction score
3,322
Points
113
If the fossil fuel industry had to account for the same cradle-to-grave costs that, for example, the nuclear power industry has to account for, its price would be quite unfavorable. Imagine just the cost that the oil industry would have to pay to fight wars in the Middle East, alone. Or to cover the contribution to global warming? Either would be a backbreaker in terms of price competitiveness. But for some reason, fossil fuel industries are able to avoid paying all the costs that the other energy sources have to pay. And why? Because they are Haves, and the Haves get to set the policy and force out the competition.

If S2 was a fair, truthful person, I'd ask him to expand on this for us all...
Bolded: just the way the Locke envisioned it! What's fair is fair, amiright?
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
17,698
Reaction score
3,322
Points
113
Look!!! Over there!!!! Something that doesn't matter to voters!!!

*points to fracking*

Let's pound this sucker into the dirt!!
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
17,698
Reaction score
3,322
Points
113
One of the best things about if Trump loses, is that people can no longer dishonestly use the "you just hate what Trump says/does because you hate Trump" shtick.

Talk about lazy arguing.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
45,550
Reaction score
2,146
Points
113
If the fossil fuel industry had to account for the same cradle-to-grave costs that, for example, the nuclear power industry has to account for, its price would be quite unfavorable. Imagine just the cost that the oil industry would have to pay to fight wars in the Middle East, alone. Or to cover the contribution to global warming? Either would be a backbreaker in terms of price competitiveness. But for some reason, fossil fuel industries are able to avoid paying all the costs that the other energy sources have to pay. And why? Because they are Haves, and the Haves get to set the policy and force out the competition.

If S2 was a fair, truthful person, I'd ask him to expand on this for us all...
How would you determine their “contribution to global warming?”
eliminate ALL energy subsidies. Get government out. End US military involvement in the Middle East. Tax energy consumption if you want to reduce it.
progressive solution is not optimal.
 
Top Bottom