This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Driver2 · M
@FaeLuna here we go , he inherited the problems . No he created the current issues . Stopping the pipeline and prohibiting fracking on public lands and the other green laws do raise
energy costs . And raising taxes in a weak economy is going to make it much worse.
And the border is all federal , and now thanks to the tin man it’s a cluster fuck .
I don’t hate democrats. And the democrats left will either be destroyed by the socialist or get out of the party.
But no those issues are all tied to DC . And they will wreck our economy which is their intention
energy costs . And raising taxes in a weak economy is going to make it much worse.
And the border is all federal , and now thanks to the tin man it’s a cluster fuck .
I don’t hate democrats. And the democrats left will either be destroyed by the socialist or get out of the party.
But no those issues are all tied to DC . And they will wreck our economy which is their intention
FaeLuna · 31-35, F
@Driver2 He shut down the pipeline and stopped fracking because they're both dangerous and unsustainable. Not to mention hazardous to the environment with leaks, and the destruction of land. I can see your point if all you care about is the cost of your own personal bill, but we need to look to the future where we're not reliant on fossil fuels. They won't last forever.
And the taxes they're talking about raising are on people who already have an excess of wealth, not on average people like us.
And the taxes they're talking about raising are on people who already have an excess of wealth, not on average people like us.
sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M
@FaeLuna LOL, straight left-wing nut job bullschiff. Now the oil goes on trucks and trains, which everyone knows are safer, and since taxes are not paid by companies, rich folks, and the poor, take a guess who is going to get taxed?
SumKindaMunster · 51-55, M
@FaeLuna [quote]He shut down the pipeline and stopped fracking because they're both dangerous and unsustainable. Not to mention hazardous to the environment with leaks, and the destruction of land[/quote]
Nonsense. There is an oil pipeline in Alaska running the length of it North to South. It has been there for over 50 years with no major environmental impact. Same with fracking. While I am not 100% it is 100% safe, they certainly didn't' stop fracking elsewhere. If it was truly dangerous, why just ban it on Federal lands?
No, this is about money. Now these tar sands must be transported as they always have, through the railroads. Guess who owns the railroads that it will be transported over?
Warren Buffet. Friend and advisor to former President Obama, and obviously he would also have close ties to Biden since he served as Obama's VP.
Nonsense. There is an oil pipeline in Alaska running the length of it North to South. It has been there for over 50 years with no major environmental impact. Same with fracking. While I am not 100% it is 100% safe, they certainly didn't' stop fracking elsewhere. If it was truly dangerous, why just ban it on Federal lands?
No, this is about money. Now these tar sands must be transported as they always have, through the railroads. Guess who owns the railroads that it will be transported over?
Warren Buffet. Friend and advisor to former President Obama, and obviously he would also have close ties to Biden since he served as Obama's VP.
FaeLuna · 31-35, F
@SumKindaMunster The fact checking sources I've been reading indicate that Buffett's railroads are not going to be involved in moving that oil. They're going to be using the existing infrastructure.
Regardless, that still doesn't change the fact that oil reserves are not going to last forever, and the sooner we stop relying on them, the better. There are better, cleaner, cheaper sources of energy out there that we need to take advantage of if we're going to survive. I'd rather not depend on foreign nations to keep giving us oil, how about you?
Regardless, that still doesn't change the fact that oil reserves are not going to last forever, and the sooner we stop relying on them, the better. There are better, cleaner, cheaper sources of energy out there that we need to take advantage of if we're going to survive. I'd rather not depend on foreign nations to keep giving us oil, how about you?
SumKindaMunster · 51-55, M
@FaeLuna Oh yes? Are these "fact checking" sources legit? As in, independent, not related to the story they are fact checking, not funded by some political PAC, not affiliated in some way?
Coincidentally, I was reading Glenn Greenwald's take on that, it's not favorable:
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/how-do-big-media-outlets-so-often
Also curious if this is a direct quote from your fact checker:
[quote]They're going to be using the existing infrastructure.[/quote]
Because really, existing infrastructure would include the railroads.
Are you that confident in your source?
[quote]Regardless, that still doesn't change the fact that oil reserves are not going to last forever, and the sooner we stop relying on them, the better. There are better, cleaner, cheaper sources of energy out there that we need to take advantage of if we're going to survive. I'd rather not depend on foreign nations to keep giving us oil, how about you?
[/quote]
Oh totally agree. But that's not the crux of our disagreement, its the reasons behind why Biden cancelled the Keystone XL project that we are debating.
Coincidentally, I was reading Glenn Greenwald's take on that, it's not favorable:
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/how-do-big-media-outlets-so-often
Also curious if this is a direct quote from your fact checker:
[quote]They're going to be using the existing infrastructure.[/quote]
Because really, existing infrastructure would include the railroads.
Are you that confident in your source?
[quote]Regardless, that still doesn't change the fact that oil reserves are not going to last forever, and the sooner we stop relying on them, the better. There are better, cleaner, cheaper sources of energy out there that we need to take advantage of if we're going to survive. I'd rather not depend on foreign nations to keep giving us oil, how about you?
[/quote]
Oh totally agree. But that's not the crux of our disagreement, its the reasons behind why Biden cancelled the Keystone XL project that we are debating.
FaeLuna · 31-35, F
@SumKindaMunster I'm going to look into that further and check a few other sources to be sure. I'm fairly confident Buffet's railroads weren't planned on being involved, but the wording was vague enough to where it could be a possibility.
I hate the fact that I even have to consider fact-checking a fact-checking source, but that's the world we live in.
I hate the fact that I even have to consider fact-checking a fact-checking source, but that's the world we live in.
FaeLuna · 31-35, F
@SumKindaMunster Okay, further digging and information from the Associated Press is saying that yes, Buffet's railroads are transporting some of the oil. I will concede I was misinformed there.
However, the claim that the cancellation of the pipeline was solely due to his request seems to be false, or at least exaggerated. Apparently Buffett himself was in support of the pipeline and the oil transport makes up only a small fraction of his railroad revenue, so they didn't even consider it a competitor. He didn't even contribute significantly to Biden's campaign or publically endorse him.
Reuters is saying that only 8% of the oil is transported by rail anyway, and that a majority of it is already transported by existing pipeline (~75%).
Factcheck.org seems to agree.
Whether or not you trust these sources is up to you, but the common element among them seems to be that Buffett did not contribute a huge amount to Biden to influence the decision, and that Buffett wasn't in a place to take over oil transport by rail and make huge profits to begin with.
And whether or not we can trust anything that politicians and billionaires say to the public is a whole other story.
However, the claim that the cancellation of the pipeline was solely due to his request seems to be false, or at least exaggerated. Apparently Buffett himself was in support of the pipeline and the oil transport makes up only a small fraction of his railroad revenue, so they didn't even consider it a competitor. He didn't even contribute significantly to Biden's campaign or publically endorse him.
Reuters is saying that only 8% of the oil is transported by rail anyway, and that a majority of it is already transported by existing pipeline (~75%).
Factcheck.org seems to agree.
Whether or not you trust these sources is up to you, but the common element among them seems to be that Buffett did not contribute a huge amount to Biden to influence the decision, and that Buffett wasn't in a place to take over oil transport by rail and make huge profits to begin with.
And whether or not we can trust anything that politicians and billionaires say to the public is a whole other story.
SumKindaMunster · 51-55, M
@FaeLuna [quote]However, the claim that the cancellation of the pipeline was solely due to his request seems to be false, or at least exaggerated.[/quote]
Absolutely. I got this from right wing sources, and they exaggerate and misdirect as much as the left wing news sources.
To be fair, I never said this was the sole reason. But, isn't it interesting how when you actually look into such things, the truth suddenly becomes more murky and less absolute?
I think it would be fair to say that the reasons for cancelling this project are entirely political and I am certain you will find that this decision benefits key Democrat supporting industries or individuals.
I don't trust any mainstream media source unequivocally. I try to read as many disparate sources as I can, but I take everything with a grain of salt, particularly when discussing political issues such as this one.
Here's the about page from Factcheck.org
https://www.factcheck.org/our-funding/
Here's some interesting quotes from it:
[quote]We do not seek and have never accepted, directly or indirectly, any funds from unions, partisan organizations or advocacy groups. We do not accept funds from corporations with the exception of Facebook, which provides funding as part of Facebook’s initiative to debunk viral deceptions, and Google, which provided a one-time grant to support our COVID-19 coverage in 2020. Neither corporation seeks nor is given any control over our editorial decisions.[/quote]
This is laughably ridiculous. Of course Facebook and Google have influence on their editorial decisions, you think they would publish something that made either of those companies look bad? Do you trust Facebook to be non partisan and neutral on issues? That certainly hasn't been my experience in observing them. They seem to be greedy, manipulative, and completely fine with brainwashing people if it benefits their bottom line.
[quote]Note: In addition to the sums reported here, FactCheck.org receives in-kind support from the Annenberg Public Policy Center including some infrastructure costs as well as supervisory, technical, and administrative support from APPC faculty and staff. We do not attempt to assign a dollar value to these in-kind services, which are funded from the APPC’s own resources.[/quote]
So basically, they are funded by the Annenburg Public Policy center, what is that?
https://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/
Looks like a left wing Academic think tank that funds left wing ideas and initiatives.
[quote]he Science of Science Communication
APPC's Science Communication area looks at the failure to dispel public controversy over such issues as climate change, vaccinations, and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) despite the presence of valid, compelling and widely accessible scientific evidence.[/quote]
So there is, at minimum, bias in Factcheck.org's "fact checking". I am certain that the figures you quoted me are correct. However, I am also certain those things are irrelevant and the true reasons for the cancellation are not being revealed, rather you are being misdirected to focus on these data points instead of the whole, unvarnished truth.
Absolutely. I got this from right wing sources, and they exaggerate and misdirect as much as the left wing news sources.
To be fair, I never said this was the sole reason. But, isn't it interesting how when you actually look into such things, the truth suddenly becomes more murky and less absolute?
I think it would be fair to say that the reasons for cancelling this project are entirely political and I am certain you will find that this decision benefits key Democrat supporting industries or individuals.
I don't trust any mainstream media source unequivocally. I try to read as many disparate sources as I can, but I take everything with a grain of salt, particularly when discussing political issues such as this one.
Here's the about page from Factcheck.org
https://www.factcheck.org/our-funding/
Here's some interesting quotes from it:
[quote]We do not seek and have never accepted, directly or indirectly, any funds from unions, partisan organizations or advocacy groups. We do not accept funds from corporations with the exception of Facebook, which provides funding as part of Facebook’s initiative to debunk viral deceptions, and Google, which provided a one-time grant to support our COVID-19 coverage in 2020. Neither corporation seeks nor is given any control over our editorial decisions.[/quote]
This is laughably ridiculous. Of course Facebook and Google have influence on their editorial decisions, you think they would publish something that made either of those companies look bad? Do you trust Facebook to be non partisan and neutral on issues? That certainly hasn't been my experience in observing them. They seem to be greedy, manipulative, and completely fine with brainwashing people if it benefits their bottom line.
[quote]Note: In addition to the sums reported here, FactCheck.org receives in-kind support from the Annenberg Public Policy Center including some infrastructure costs as well as supervisory, technical, and administrative support from APPC faculty and staff. We do not attempt to assign a dollar value to these in-kind services, which are funded from the APPC’s own resources.[/quote]
So basically, they are funded by the Annenburg Public Policy center, what is that?
https://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/
Looks like a left wing Academic think tank that funds left wing ideas and initiatives.
[quote]he Science of Science Communication
APPC's Science Communication area looks at the failure to dispel public controversy over such issues as climate change, vaccinations, and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) despite the presence of valid, compelling and widely accessible scientific evidence.[/quote]
So there is, at minimum, bias in Factcheck.org's "fact checking". I am certain that the figures you quoted me are correct. However, I am also certain those things are irrelevant and the true reasons for the cancellation are not being revealed, rather you are being misdirected to focus on these data points instead of the whole, unvarnished truth.