President Donald J. Trump

[MM_Dandy]

I have a bit of an issue with the definition of sacred Indian lands.

Okay, they may have been my words. It's been a few weeks so I don't remember exactly what was said.

How about we substitute "crude oil pipeline" instead?

Well, sure, most crude oil pipelines win on sheer volume, and so have the wider potential repercussions, at least environmentally. On the other hand, is it really that unreasonable to say that both have the potential to have a negative impact on the environment and our safety?

Farming pretty much anywhere in the new world almost certainly has the same negative qualities as crude oil pipelines. Farming practices are relatively more environmentally friendly than they used to be, but it's a given that the environment isn't as "good" as it would be without farming at all. Natural habitats have been and continue to be irrevocably changed while fertilizer and livestock waste runoff pollutes ground water sources. It's also not uncommon to turn up native American artifacts, especially along creeks and rivers. It's almost always mundane stuff like arrow heads, tools, and the like, but occasionally the artifacts are more significant. Native Americans were forced onto reservations which are generally poorly well-suited for agriculture - and, at least in my region, they lie mostly outside of the reachable oil fields. And so, these residents can only benefit by way of consuming the product, and rarely as producer. We need food, and we depend on oil. In the end, I find it very hard to defend one and rebuke the other.

[Lance]

I should probably make it clear that I'm not anti-pipeline. Having worked in that field for a while, I understand the need and have no problem with them at all. There are many, many pipelines that criss-cross the nation already, including a pretty decent sized Keystone spur that terminates right there in SF/SD. I know the guy that used to schedule it.

I just think comparing one to a natural gas line is absurd, like comparing a fire cracker to a nuke. Both can be safe if handled correctly but there is still no real comparison between them.

[Lance]

This is the meme that started the conversation:

[Мастер]

Looks like that would shut it off inside the house. There would still be gas in the pipeline to the house.

[Lance]

Looks like that would shut it off inside the house. There would still be gas in the pipeline to the house.

Good point.

Water comes in via a pipeline too. And doesn't the waste drainage from a toilet exit through a pipeline? Maybe some people should turn that off too, and be even more full of shit.

[Enzo]

I am not really anti-pipeline either. We had a gasoline pipeline through part of Lansing, and there was a huge outcry. "What if it LEAKS? What if it blows up a school?" Of course once or twice a year a home blows up from a gas leak. That pipeline is OK, it heats my house, but the one down the street feeding gasoline to distributors, that;s a bad one. Might leak.

[Lance]

[Richard A]

I don't think any of us are against pipelines per se; the issue is where they get put. When they get routed across the land of people who far too often have been treated as the ones who don't count, and who will benefit least from it, against their will, I have a problem. If they get routed underneath an important source of drinking water and irrigation, I have a problem. Even more if I suspect that pipelines across such people's land will be subject to less maintenance scrutiny than if they went underneath the White House lawn.

[Arneb]

The argument seems to be: If you are using any fossil fuel, in any amount, at all, you have to accept unconditionally every pipeline built in the entire world, under any circumstances and regardless of any drawbacks, risks, and dangers it has. If you don't accept this, without condition or reservation you're a goddam librul hippocrite.

I don't think that argument is sound.

[Lance]

The argument seems to be: If you are using any fossil fuel, in any amount, at all, you have to accept unconditionally every pipeline built in the entire world, under any circumstances and regardless of any drawbacks, risks, and dangers it has. If you don't accept this, without condition or reservation you're a goddam librul hippocrite.

I don't think that argument is sound.

Yes, this is exactly what irked me. Thank you for phrasing it in a way that made better sense than I was able to.

[Мастер]

The argument seems to be: If you are using any fossil fuel, in any amount, at all, you have to accept unconditionally every pipeline built in the entire world, under any circumstances and regardless of any drawbacks, risks, and dangers it has. If you don't accept this, without condition or reservation you're a goddam librul hippocrite.

I don't think that argument is sound.

If that is the argument, then I think there are other grounds to criticise it.

Suppose you advocate tirelessly for the construction of some solar/wind/whatever electricity generating plant. You don't get your way; whoever decides these things determines that the electricity in your neighbourhood will be generated by burning coal.

Does it follow that you are guilty of hypocrisy if you use some of the electricity? Well, I suppose if you had previously said, "I'd rather go without electricity than use any generated by coal!", then you would. If your position was somewhat nuanced, perhaps not.

If you go to the Church of the Victim, also known as FWIS, you may well find American politicians who oppose some government benefits plan being accused of hypocrisy for drawing benefits from that programme. That doesn't strike me as hypocritical at all. You have your point of view, and agitate for it, but you don't get your way. You then conduct yourself in a manner consistent with the outcome of the political/legal process, even though it wasn't what you wanted. Is that hypocrisy? If so, then what about tax cuts? If you oppose a tax cut, but it goes through anyway, are you obligated to keep paying taxes at the old rate, even though you won't be receiving the benefit of whatever it was the higher taxes were supposed to pay for?

I think if I boycotted every product that wasn't produced exactly the way I thought it should be produced, I'd be without possessions and hungry rather quickly.

[FZR1KG]

...If you go to the Church of the Victim, also known as FWIS...

Wow, that was rude!
:P

[MM_Dandy]

This is the meme that started the conversation:

AgainstPipelines.jpg

I see your point better, now.

[Halcyon Dayz, FCD]

It's very strawmannish.
Nobody is against pipelines as a concept, some people are against some pipelines.

NG lines and oil lines are fundamentally different anyway, gas lines are at worst a fire hazard, oil lines in principle can cause severe environmental damage.
Case study: Nigeria.

[Lance]

It's not out of the question for a gas line to take out half a city block and kill people, but still nothing in comparison.

[Heid the Ba]

Is it ok to shout "You stupid fucking fucks!"at the stupid people? Again. I know we shouldn't but fuck me, he told you what he was going to do and you'll be surprised when he does it.

From the article:" "I hope [Trump] don't take the benefits away, but at the same time, I think that once more jobs come in a lot of people won't need the benefits," says Hayes, who currently receives about $500 a month from government assistance. She's also on Obamacare."

[FZR1KG]

Reminds me of this

I’m not on Obamacare. My insurance is through the ACA (Affordable Care Act), which is what they had to come up with after Obamacare crashed and burned as bad as it did. So I’m gonna be fine.

The stupid is strong with some.

[Lance]

Just all the more proof that we got Trump simply because there are many stupid people.

[Enzo]

Now that he is in office and doind whatever it is that he does, I don't see any change in his tone or demeanor. He is slamming through all the superficial changes he said he would. They have no room to complain, he is doing what he said he would, you got exactly what you voted for.

[Lianachan]

Now that he is in office and doind whatever it is that he does, I don't see any change in his tone or demeanor. He is slamming through all the superficial changes he said he would. They have no room to complain, he is doing what he said he would, you got exactly what you voted for.

[FZR1KG]

Just all the more proof that we got Trump simply because there are many stupid people.

Sadly it's not just limited to Trump voters.
For example, Trump was winning the Republican Primaries and is the most unpopular presidential candidate in history at the same time. Not to be out done, the Democrats (particularly the DNC using it's muscle to sway voters) place their support behind the second most unpopular presidential candidate in history. Because how could THAT ever go wrong!
The Republicans didn't win this election, the Democrats lost it.

[FZR1KG]

... He is slamming through all the superficial changes he said he would...

That is a novelty in politics right there. Fulfilling promises, regardless of how crappy they are!

[Heid the Ba]

That certainly is a novelty in most countries.

[Lance]

the most unpopular presidential candidate in history [vs.] the second most unpopular presidential candidate in history

For me, the most frustrating part of it was that most of the things said about Trump are true while most of the things said about Hillary were not.

The True Winner: Stupidity
The True Loser: The whole population of the entire world, whether they know it or not.

[FZR1KG]

The most frustrating part for me was predicting the outcome of a Trump vs Hillary election and spending months trying to convince people that they can think she's a angel sent by God, but if the people don't like her, she is going to end up losing the election. It all fell of deaf ears though.
The usual arguments all of those things are lies...yeah, but if a large percentage of the population believes them and hates her regardless,then maybe you should select someone else as the party favorite?????

Clearly I'm just too dumb to understand politics though. lol