2020 US Election mega thread

[01RedDX]

.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

There is only one side actively pushing to reduce women's reproductive rights though.

I fail to see what that has to do with my comment, which didn't even mention reproductive rights.

[ExtraSlow]

single-issue voters will never have trouble picking a side.

[finboy]

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).

[01RedDX]

.

[ExtraSlow]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The "both sides are corrupt" argument while valid, neglects the fact that one side is objectively worse.

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.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The "both sides are corrupt" argument, while valid, neglects the fact that one side is objectively worse.

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

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).

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.

[01RedDX]

.

[Misterman]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The "both sides are corrupt" argument, while valid, neglects the fact that one side is objectively worse.

This is the most narrow sighted simpleton statement I've ever seen in regards to the issue you are trying to discuss.

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...........

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Attachment 94269

I just don't think that we should legislate morality at that level and that religion be kept out of government, that's all. It's fine to disagree.

I'm just upset that there is no party for a fiscally liberal, social conservative like me.

Ok now, bring on them neg. reps .

I'm guessing you meant fiscal conservative, socially liberal? I haven't seen you express any socially conservative viewpoints.

[sabad66]

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).

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.

[01RedDX]

.

[dirtsniffer]

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.

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Trump candidate 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.

Biden would be a bad situation for Canada, I think.

[ExtraSlow]

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.

[Tik-Tok]

Is selling more heavily discounted oil to the US really that beneficial to Canada though?

[ExtraSlow]

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.

[sabad66]

TMX is still viable and build is well underway. Much better to have a pipeline completely in Canada and access to global markets IMO.

[01RedDX]

.

[ExtraSlow]

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.

[killramos]

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.