American Politics 3.0 - Back to Brunch

[TheScorpion]

Of note — pretty sure Gaga's performance yesterday was live. Whitney's was pre-recorded.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Just a small reminder here folks, Joe Biden is the American President and his responsibility is to the American people. That is a pretty huge job with the state of the nation. Considering most Americans don't know where Alberta is it is safe to say the condition of Alberta is extremely low on Biden's list of concerns. And truth be told, if you want to know why Alberta is ####ed it is on Alberta and the piss poor leadership that province has had for decades. You would think the NEP would have been a wake up call. You would think all the warnings would have got people thinking about a post-petro economy and diversification. You would think with all the smart people in the province of Alberta someone would have thought about the future and seen where the world was headed. There was a mantra very popular in the 80's; "Please God, let the oil economy come back. We won't piss it away again." Alberta did not learn its lesson from the 80s. Alberta's precarious situation is on Alberta, no one else.

[GordonBlue]

question for you guys.
right now Harris is the tiebreaking vote in the senate, correct?

what happens if Biden dies and she has to vacate that post to become president?

I'm not quite sure how the senate works and how a vote that is tied gets broken with no VP presiding over the senate.

[PsYcNeT]

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/21/polit...ump/index.html

Biden inheriting nonexistent coronavirus vaccine distribution plan and must start 'from scratch,' sources say.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Part of the 25th amendment. New VP gets appointed. Funny enough, it needs to get confirmed by both houses of Congress so it would create an odd situation for sure.

[Mull]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

question for you guys.
right now Harris is the tiebreaking vote in the senate, correct?

what happens if Biden dies and she has to vacate that post to become president?

I'm not quite sure how the senate works and how a vote that is tied gets broken with no VP presiding over the senate.

That might be a very quick period. The 25th amendments put in place after LBG couldn't appoint a VP states:

Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

However, if there is a delay to the nomination after the VP is president we then have no VP. This link states a tie without a VP means the motion fails, as a majority is needed to pass

https://www.quora.com/Who-breaks-tie...Vice-President

[dobbles]

At the risk of coming off as disingenuous, I need to do the "just askin questions" bit....

Even though I now live in an area steeped in oil history, I did not grow up here and am pretty uneducated on energy. So when I read what you guys write about energy I generally take it as its written. However, the narrative I see you guys giving about America just being protectionist is not the one I have gotten when I hear about Keystone.

My takeaway has always been that there are 2 main objections to Keystone. First, that it is going through some important land that needs protected. I know just from growing up in the midwest how important the Ogallala aquifer is to our countries ability to produce food. So my assumption has always been the pipeline puts an unnecessary risk on that infrastructure so that is why people were apprehensive. Secondly, people down here seem to think that the oil coming out of Alberta is of a poorer quality and less environmentally friendly than what can be produced in America. They always use that 'heavy tar sands' type language around it. I am not at all in a position to defend that one as I know nothing about it!

I am assuming based on what I have seen in the past on here that you guys will have a lot to say about the second reason. And that is fine. In neither of the parts am I attempting to support the claims. Mostly I am just trying to square the reasons I have always heard given against the protectionist claims.

Is the narrative I have been given as just a normal non energy savvy American that far off base? Are all the other pipelines that US has built been just as potentially damaging as Keystone? Was there not another route they could have proposed for the pipeline that would have been less impactful?

[calumniate]

A lot of the contention in the US has to do with the pipeline going through indigenous land.

https://www.narf.org/keystone-xl/

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by Mull

However, if there is a delay to the nomination after the VP is president we then have no VP. This link states a tie without a VP means the motion fails, as a majority is needed to pass

https://www.quora.com/Who-breaks-tie...Vice-President

thanks.
that's what I was curious about.

[Mull]

Ability to implement a Biden agenda is being talked about in the other thread, but my question is regarding the 2022 mid-terms.

Assume the house goes Democrat (huge assumption I know, and one that may not be that accurate)

Who is favored to pick up more senate seats? I ask because normally people look at which party is more at risk by how many seats are available

Seats up for election in 2022:
Currently held by Dems: 14
Currently held by Rep: 20

Is there any sort of website that has listed projections by safe blue/red? For example, California is up for election, likely safe blue, whereas North Carolina is currently red, up for election and the incumbent is retiring (incumbents are harder to kick out)

edit: Ah, I scrolled farther down the wiki page ha, it has predictions, was being lazy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_U...nate_elections

Cook predictions:
D - 50 (includes Georgia)
R - 48
2 tossups (NC and Penn)

538 predictions:
D - 49
R - 48
3 tossups (Georgia, NC and Penn)

Other notes

Potentially competitive Republican-held seats up for election in 2022 include Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. However, the GOP is expected to have a significant edge in Florida and Ohio due to rightward shifts in those states combined with strong incumbent senators. Iowa could also become competitive if incumbent United States Senator Chuck Grassley decides to retire (he would be 89 at the start of his next term if he decided to run). Potentially competitive Democratic-held seats up for election in 2022 include Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Nevada, and New Hampshire.[4][5] Although, the Democrats have an advantage in Colorado & New Hampshire (assuming their popular incumbent governor doesn't run) similar to the Republican advantages in Florida and Ohio; 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden overperformed on the 2016 Democratic margin by respectively 8.59% in Colorado & 6.98% in New Hampshire.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Mull

Ability to implement a Biden agenda is being talked about in the other thread, but my question is regarding the 2022 mid-terms.

Assume the house goes Democrat (huge assumption I know, and one that may not be that accurate)

Who is favored to pick up more senate seats? I ask because normally people look at which party is more at risk by how many seats are available

Seats up for election in 2022:
Currently held by Dems: 14
Currently held by Rep: 20

Is there any sort of website that has listed projections by safe blue/red? For example, California is up for election, likely safe blue, whereas North Carolina is currently red, up for election and the incumbent is retiring (incumbents are harder to kick out)

edit: Ah, I scrolled farther down the wiki page ha, it has predictions, was being lazy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_U...nate_elections

Cook predictions:
D - 50 (includes Georgia)
R - 48
2 tossups (NC and Penn)

538 predictions:
D - 49
R - 48
3 tossups (Georgia, NC and Penn)

yeah, pretty much only 3 tossups, here's another article

https://centerforpolitics.org/crysta...an-early-look/

[getbak]

What are the chances we see a push toward statehood for DC and Puerto Rico?

DC is pretty much a lock for both senators to be Democrats from now until the end of time, but PR swings more conservative. Even if it went 3 Democrats and 1 Republican, it would break the tie.


As I understand it, all it requires is a simple majority vote in both houses plus approval from the President, as well as support from the potential new State (both DC and PR support statehood).

For Hawaii, the votes were held and Eisenhower signed the law granting statehood in March 1959. The first state elections were held in late July 1959 and Hawaii officially became a state in August 1959. So, it took less than 6 months from the vote to statehood.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by dobbles

At the risk of coming off as disingenuous, I need to do the "just askin questions" bit....

Even though I now live in an area steeped in oil history, I did not grow up here and am pretty uneducated on energy. So when I read what you guys write about energy I generally take it as its written. However, the narrative I see you guys giving about America just being protectionist is not the one I have gotten when I hear about Keystone.

My takeaway has always been that there are 2 main objections to Keystone. First, that it is going through some important land that needs protected. I know just from growing up in the midwest how important the Ogallala aquifer is to our countries ability to produce food. So my assumption has always been the pipeline puts an unnecessary risk on that infrastructure so that is why people were apprehensive. Secondly, people down here seem to think that the oil coming out of Alberta is of a poorer quality and less environmentally friendly than what can be produced in America. They always use that 'heavy tar sands' type language around it. I am not at all in a position to defend that one as I know nothing about it!

I am assuming based on what I have seen in the past on here that you guys will have a lot to say about the second reason. And that is fine. In neither of the parts am I attempting to support the claims. Mostly I am just trying to square the reasons I have always heard given against the protectionist claims.

Is the narrative I have been given as just a normal non energy savvy American that far off base? Are all the other pipelines that US has built been just as potentially damaging as Keystone? Was there not another route they could have proposed for the pipeline that would have been less impactful?

I'm looking forward to hearing answers to this, too.

My basic understanding is we are actually pretty responsible in how we harvest oil in Alberta, particularly when compared to Middle Eastern countries. It's also less harmful to the environment to transport by pipeline versus tankers across the oceans and rail over land (lower GHG and apparently safer per barrel transported or something like that). That said, I think stopping the pipeline won't have any sort of material negative affect on Americans and since it's so controversial and a win to Biden's base to stop it, I don't see why he wouldn't. It's an easy win for him with no major downside.

Just because there is a better way doesn't mean you can get buy-in. I'm sure that's the same for every industry ever. We probably lost this battle a decade or so ago when "dirty oil" became attached to our product. Now whether the anti-Alberta-oil sentiment came about due to any truth, or if it was propagated by oil companies in the USA and elsewhere to hurt Alberta to their own benefit is sort of moot. We're where we are now and our premier having a temper tantrum on live TV certainly doesn't ingratiate us to anybody, so if it doesn't help, it probably hurts.

Now this is an aside because why should you care about our premier, but OMG what an embarrassment this guy is. Just a dope of the highest order to go on TV to whine that "it's not fair". GFY. As if we'd care about American oil if the shoe were on the other foot and it had to be shipped up here across the land of our people that didn't want it. Also, we can't even get our own countrymen to allow us to build pipelines across our own country. How the fata do we expect residents in a foreign country to let us do what we won't allow at home?

Kenney lashing out a the president of the USA on his first day is so fataing dumb I can barely even comprehend that was real life. What a fataing moron. Where does he think that will get us?

[Cecil Terwilliger]

@dobbles

I don't know if you'll ever get a great unbiased answer on whether AB oil is "dirtier" than anyone elses oil or less environmentally friendly. There's so much risk of inherent bias and conflict of interest you're likely going to have to get several opinions and weigh them yourself.

However, what I will say is that facts, in cases like this, are just as important as myths. Imagine Oil Sands being Tylenol Cold and Flu and US Oil (fracking?) being Robitussin Cold and Flu. It's all about convincing the consumer that the other guy's product is useless, or worse poison, and your product is a miracle product.

Ultimately they - and by they I mean the countries, the energy companies invested and the people who work and lobby for those industries - are trying to grab the most out of the market. And just like any other commodity you see on TV, from feminine products to dish soap to vehicles, there is a constant and never ending ad campaign running and it is worth billion and billions of dollars. You just don't notice it as much because they don't run commercials every 5 minutes.

Right now, the international energy producers (ie non-Canada) have done a fantastic job at indoctrinating the Canadian population, mainly BC/ON/QC, that our own product is terrible and that other similar products from other countries are better. AB and the energy companies with an interest in AB have done a piss poor job at winning that propaganda battle. Beyond piss poor IMO.

It's like how everyone knows about clubbing baby seals in Canada even though that's barely a thing. It's purely international economic leverage. I'm sure most of us know about the evils of tailing ponds and orphaned wells and as such our views of AB oil are quite negative. Not realizing that the alternative is often much, much worse.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by New Era

Just a small reminder here folks, Joe Biden is the American President and his responsibility is to the American people. That is a pretty huge job with the state of the nation. Considering most Americans don't know where Alberta is it is safe to say the condition of Alberta is extremely low on Biden's list of concerns. And truth be told, if you want to know why Alberta is ####ed it is on Alberta and the piss poor leadership that province has had for decades. You would think the NEP would have been a wake up call. You would think all the warnings would have got people thinking about a post-petro economy and diversification. You would think with all the smart people in the province of Alberta someone would have thought about the future and seen where the world was headed. There was a mantra very popular in the 80's; "Please God, let the oil economy come back. We won't piss it away again." Alberta did not learn its lesson from the 80s. Alberta's precarious situation is on Alberta, no one else.

You beat me to it. Thanks for this.

Honestly, if your entire economy relies on the leadership change in an entirely separate nation, you aren't doing a very effective job of self-governance.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

You beat me to it. Thanks for this.

Honestly, if your entire economy relies on the leadership change in an entirely separate nation, you aren't doing a very effective job of self-governance.

It's pretty crazy that one person, the President, can cancel an entire project. But that is another story. Canada cannot even get it's own pipelines going so there's not much of an appetite to begin with. I mean if Canada's best response to yesterday's news is to shrug and say, "Well, Biden is doing what he promised so it's no surprise," then that's pretty much it. The Biden Administration doesn't view Canada as a climate ally and even in Canada there are constant debates between the Conservatives on one side, the NDP on the other and the Liberals walking some line in the middle. Expect Line 5 to be next, Ontarians and Michganers aren't really going to fight for it.

[Fuzz]

We'll get a response from the feds when Ontario gets cut off from the US, no sooner. Until they are knee deep in angry voters paying excessively for oil and gas, nothing is going to happen out here. Then maybe, just maybe, some common sense will kick in and we'll start supplying Canadians with Canadian oil. Not holding my breath on that, though.

[Leeman4Gilmour]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I'm looking forward to hearing answers to this, too.

My basic understanding is we are actually pretty responsible in how we harvest oil in Alberta, particularly when compared to Middle Eastern countries. It's also less harmful to the environment to transport by pipeline versus tankers across the oceans and rail over land (lower GHG and apparently safer per barrel transported or something like that). That said, I think stopping the pipeline won't have any sort of material negative affect on Americans and since it's so controversial and a win to Biden's base to stop it, I don't see why he wouldn't. It's an easy win for him with no major downside.

Just because there is a better way doesn't mean you can get buy-in. I'm sure that's the same for every industry ever. We probably lost this battle a decade or so ago when "dirty oil" became attached to our product. Now whether the anti-Alberta-oil sentiment came about due to any truth, or if it was propagated by oil companies in the USA and elsewhere to hurt Alberta to their own benefit is sort of moot. We're where we are now and our premier having a temper tantrum on live TV certainly doesn't ingratiate us to anybody, so if it doesn't help, it probably hurts.

Now this is an aside because why should you care about our premier, but OMG what an embarrassment this guy is. Just a dope of the highest order to go on TV to whine that "it's not fair". GFY. As if we'd care about American oil if the shoe were on the other foot and it had to be shipped up here across the land of our people that didn't want it. Also, we can't even get our own countrymen to allow us to build pipelines across our own country. How the fata do we expect residents in a foreign country to let us do what we won't allow at home?

Kenney lashing out a the president of the USA on his first day is so fataing dumb I can barely even comprehend that was real life. What a fataing moron. Where does he think that will get us?

https://www.keystonexl.com/project-u...d-keystone-xl/

I posted this before as I thought perhaps TC awarding $1.6 billion in American contracts would make Biden think twice. It clearly didn't. Anyway, there is a material impact on some Americans. Not many in the grand scheme of things, but some.

As for the rest of your post, tough to argue. We are being road blocked going south, west, and east. That's no one's fault but our own ultimately.
Might as well try going north and take advantage of that northwest passage being open longer and longer each year.

[Monahammer]

already answered

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Harris would choose a new VP. This is how Ford became president without running in a federal election.

But if it has to be approved in the Senate, and it is a tie, could the Republicans indefinitely block a VP without a tie breaker? And thus block all legislation? Obviously this would be a bad look, but they don't seem to care.