.
.
Last edited by 01RedDX; 10-14-2020 at 12:37 AM.
I fail to see what that has to do with my comment, which didn't even mention reproductive rights.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
single-issue voters will never have trouble picking a side.
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
I really don’t understand the dem’s threat of expanding the court, if they win and do it, why would t the republicans do the same right after that? If the dems win it is likely there will likely be at least 2 more appointments coming up in the next 8 years (Breyer and Thomas).
Last edited by finboy; 09-22-2020 at 06:49 PM.
sig deleted by moderator, because they are useless
.
Last edited by 01RedDX; 10-14-2020 at 12:37 AM.
SO, both sidesw are somewhat similar, but not in every aspect, and it's your opinion that one issue is "objectively" more important than any other, and has only only moral opinion. Gotcha.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Sorry, I don't recall mentioning corruption, or abortion, or relative merits of American political party platforms. Who are you having this conversation with?This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
The threat is an empty one. Dems know that stacking the court is the short-term nuclear option - they got burned the last time they took it (see: voting requirements on federal court appointments) so I can't imagine they'd be stupid enough to do it twice in ten years.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
.
Last edited by 01RedDX; 09-23-2020 at 12:15 PM.
This is the most narrow sighted simpleton statement I've ever seen in regards to the issue you are trying to discuss.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
I am all for abortion, hell, I think it should be mandatory in a lot of cases. But even I'm not blinded by my own personal opinions enough to pretend like the anti abortion stance isn't a pretty strong position that is hard to debate the other side of. Yes women should have the right over their bodies. Unfortunately your rights end when they infringe on someone elses So by default it is an impossible argument to win, because abortion involves valuing one humans right to choose, over another humans right to life.
Now that your strawman is out of the way. Trump has never pushed to take away a womens rights to her body. He has been against late term abortion. And honestly, if you are so pro-abortion that you're cool with killing a 9 month baby that is crowning, you are a fucked up individual.
Now you can also keep in mind that it's pretty much guaranteed Trump will nominate a woman for this SC seat. So now your entire argument for the Republicans to sit on their hands and not do the job they were elected to do, is that you think a woman has no place determining womens rights...........
I'm guessing you meant fiscal conservative, socially liberal? I haven't seen you express any socially conservative viewpoints.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Last edited by Misterman; 09-23-2020 at 12:31 AM.
Nothing stopping republicans from expanding it either. In fact they could have done it during Trump’s first two years if they felt they needed to, but they didn’t because it was a 5/4 conservative/liberal court after Gorsuch. But now (assuming it goes through) with 6/3 composition, the balance is way off and doesn’t represent the population. so that’s the justification for expanding it and would actually have a lot of public support.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
.
Last edited by 01RedDX; 10-14-2020 at 12:37 AM.
Trump gave an executive order to construct KXL. Biden has said he will stop it completely and make it relatively impossible to get another transmission line from Canada to the gulf.
Last edited by dirtsniffer; 09-23-2020 at 09:40 AM. Reason: grammar
Biden would be a bad situation for Canada, I think.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
I think objectively, KXL has the possibility to be the single largest impact on Canada of any president. Way bigger than aluminum, softwood, or reproductive rights.
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Is selling more heavily discounted oil to the US really that beneficial to Canada though?
Two things: 1) it's heavily discounted at least partly because of the transportation bottlenecks and 2) it's not the #1 most beneficial pipeline, but it's the one that's going to be built. Northern gateway would have been better, but it's dead, so let's focus on pipes that can happen.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
TMX is still viable and build is well underway. Much better to have a pipeline completely in Canada and access to global markets IMO.
.
Last edited by 01RedDX; 10-14-2020 at 12:36 AM.
KXL is much larger than TMX. And besides, it's not a binary choice. we can and should build both pipelines. There's not a downside and having both would be a huge benefit to canada as a whole.
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
End of the day so long as there is demand to sell and buy products it makes 0 sense not to build infrastructure to facilitate that transaction.
If people don’t want to buy oil, that is a different problem that the environmentalists get autistic about.
Originally posted by Thales of Miletus
If you think I have been trying to present myself as intellectually superior, then you truly are a dimwit.
Originally posted by Toma
fact.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote