2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[Heald]

Herald, what the colonists were angry about wasn't the taxes, it was a concept called taxation without representation. What that meant was, they had no say in how they were taxed, or even how they were governed.

And that was only one of the ways that they were taken advantage of.

So they were angry about the taxes (i.e. the fact they were being taxed without having any say in their government), which is what I said.

[Dark Sage]

Heald, you said they were too greedy to pay them.

There was also the issue of the Quartering Act, the Townshend Acts, the furor over the Boston Massacre, and many other factors that led to the colonists being mad at the British government.

[Heald]

You also seem to forget the things that Americans did, such as the Boston Tea Party, Sons of Liberty, the boycott etc.

This isn't really a discussion about the build-up to the American Revolution was. I was making a point that you seem to think greed is a wholly conservative agenda, whereas charity is a wholly leftist agenda. Charity and greed are non-partisan, it is whether the greed or charity is driven by a private or public agenda that determines its place on the spectrum. I also agree with Roy - any charity which is not coerced by the government is a conservative principle. The idea on the left is that wealth should be given to the government to redistribute to the less wealthy.

You say the 1% are greedy, yet the 1% contribute to over a quarter of income-related taxes paid in the USA. Likewise, conservatives are generally more charitable than leftists in their givings, even amongst like-for-like income groups.

You also generalise about Donald Trump. I'm no fan of him myself, but he does donate to charity [url=http://www.looktothestars.org/celebrity/56-donald-trump](link)]/url] and he supports universal healthcare, as well as a progressive tax policy.

[Dark Sage]

True, I come down harder on Trump than I do on most Republicans, but my reasons for disliking him are not just partisan. I'm a New Yorker, and many (if not most) New Yorkers wish he'd leave he's an embarrassment to this city.

He's an embarrassment to the GOP, in fact, as is anyone who persists with the Birther balony.

[Roy Karrde]

Well the fall out of the XL pipeline just got worse.

Harper has now said that Canada will export some of the oil sands to China and not just the U.S. if they even export to us at all. He said that even if we agree with the pipeline that will not stop the export to China now, as the damage from Obama has been done. To make matters worse they are hiking the prices to the U.S. and no longer giving us a discount because of the competition.

“Look, the very fact that a ‘no’ could even be said underscores to our country that we must diversify our energy export markets,” Harper told Harman in front of a live audience of businesspeople, scholars, diplomats, and journalists. …

Harper also told Harman that Canada has been selling its oil to the United States at a discounted price.

So not only will America be able to buy less Canadian oil even if Keystone is eventually approved, the U.S. will also have to pay more for it because the market for oilsands crude will be more competitive.

“We have taken a significant price hit by virtue of the fact that we are a captive supplier and that just does not make sense in terms of the broader interests of the Canadian economy,” Harper said. “We’re still going to be a major supplier of the United States. It will be a long time, if ever, before the United States isn’t our number one export market, but for us the United States cannot be our only export market.

“That is not in our interest, either commercially or in terms of pricing.”

“We cannot be, as a country, in a situation where our one and, in many cases, only energy partner could say no to our energy products. We just cannot be in that position.”

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews...02-195920.html

Obama... what a fuck up.

[kurai]

looks like some misleading analysis has been provided!

- the entire point of keystone xl is to get rid of the price discount
- this discount is provided because albertan crude supply exceeds the american refining capacity of existing pipeline targets
- keystone xl connects this excess supply to additional refining capacity: this eliminates the need to sell at a discount (the discount is not a formal thing, just a lower market price)

harper theorizes that escaping this captive refinement system through the use of asian buyers would allow the same bypass of crude discounting. but no excess pipeline to actually get the crude to these buyers exists.

but of course canada is going to develop its export supply chain towards whichever buyer is willing to pay the most regardless of whether or not keystone is expanded. consider that if (and when) the albertan supply grows beyond the new refinement capacity, and crude discounting was again necessary, another buyer would have to be found, and it might just be more economically favorable to not focus on america in that instance. there is no reason to favor america over any other buyer if it is the less profitable option.

[Roy Karrde]

looks like some misleading analysis has been provided!

- the entire point of keystone xl is to get rid of the price discount
- this discount is provided because albertan crude supply exceeds the american refining capacity of existing pipeline targets
- keystone xl connects this excess supply to additional refining capacity: this eliminates the need to sell at a discount

harper theorizes that escaping this captive refinement system through the use of asian buyers would allow the same bypass of crude discounting. but no excess pipeline to actually get the crude to these buyers exists.

but of course canada is going to develop its export supply chain towards whichever buyer is willing to pay the most regardless of whether or not keystone is expanded. consider that if (and when) the albertan supply grows beyond the new refinement capacity, and crude discounting was again necessary, another buyer would have to be found, and it might just be more economically favorable to not focus on america in that instance. there is no reason to favor america over any other buyer if it is the less profitable option.

Thing is apparently the XL pipeline was going to have America be the singular buyer, once Obama started showing weakness, Harper began looking for other buyers.

"Even though the project could still win approval from the Obama administration, Harper appeared to believe that the pipeline would not be completed, meaning Canada would have to look elsewhere to trade its oil.

“When I was down in the United States recently it was interesting. I ran into several senior Americans who all said, ‘Don’t worry, we’ll get Keystone done. You can sell all of your oil to us.’ I said, ‘Yeah we’d love to,’ but I think the problem is now that we’re on a different track,” Harper said.

....

Stephen Harper sent a none-too-subtle shot across the bow of our American friends and allies Monday when he indicated he’s dead keen on selling Canadian oil to buyers in Asia. He didn’t put it in so many words, but he was telling Washington this: “You don’t want our oil, no problem. We’ve got lots of markets across the Pacific where we don’t have to beg to get a sale.”"

It was a timely message and a good one for the Prime Minister to send. There is no need to be rude to the U.S., which is and always will be Canada’s best market. But there’s also no need to sit around and wait for the political circus in Washington to pause long enough to recognize the attractiveness of the opportunity Canada is offering. Given the state of absurdity that has the U.S. capital in its grip, there’s no telling how long that could take.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/12...__lsa=ae5b9af2

Because it would take a significant amount of time and laying pipeline to get to the Canada coast, it was theorize that Harper could be bluffing, but apparently he wasn't and we are paying for it.

[kurai]

why would harper be bluffing?

the goal is to maximize profit by escaping existing refinement bottlenecks - this increases the demand, and thus the market value of albertan crude

this is accomplished by connecting the growing crude supply to new refineries
- this will happen if/when keystone xl is completed
- this will happen if/when any other export strategy is developed

either way the goal is to remove the price "discount"

[Roy Karrde]

why would harper be bluffing?

the goal is to maximize profit by escaping existing refinement bottlenecks - this increases the demand, and thus the market value of albertan crude

this is accomplished by connecting the growing crude supply to new refineries
- this will happen if/when keystone xl is completed
- this will happen if/when any other export strategy is developed

either way the goal is to remove the price "discount"

Because of the significant problems that the Gateway Project pipeline will run into, from Canada's very stringent environmental concerns, to having to cross the tribal lands of the "First Nation people" which are against the pipeline, to a multitude of other problems. It was believed that it would be much easier for Harper to go through Keystone to get to refineries, than struggle to get the Gateway Project done and spite the U.S. Remember Canada has no pipeline in place right now to get the oil from the oilsands to the west to be shipped to China

[kurai]

to "spite the U.S."? it has nothing to do with emotion or allegiance: whichever route is the most profitable will be taken

are you sad that the price of albertan crude might increase because of the future pursuit of non-continental buyers rather than strictly from the easy access to gulf coast refineries that xl promised? this was inevitable, and was already being developed. nothing restricts the sale of albertan crude to the united states other than the benefit of proximity.

the problem with your initial premise is that you have somehow connected 'obama's damage' to the loss of discounted crude. but without damage you also have the loss of discounted crude. that's the whole point of keystone xl - to capture the oversupply in a profitable manner. why would canadian suppliers have any interest in it otherwise?

[Roy Karrde]

to "spite the U.S."? it has nothing to do with emotion or allegiance: whichever route is the most profitable will be taken

are you sad that the price of albertan crude might increase because of the future pursuit of non-continental buyers rather than strictly from the easy access to gulf coast refineries that xl promised? this was inevitable, and was already being developed. nothing restricts the sale of albertan crude to the united states other than the benefit of proximity.

the problem with your initial premise is that you have somehow connected 'obama's damage' to the loss of discounted crude. but without damage you also have the loss of discounted crude. that's the whole point of keystone xl - to capture the oversupply in a profitable manner. why would canadian suppliers have any interest in it otherwise?

I already answered you, this does not exist in a bubble, the route to China and the route to the U.S. does not cost the same or face the same difficulties. The route going to China not only causes Harper to pay a steeper political price, but also takes longer to complete. Thus why it was considered a bluff. How ever apparently Harper sees Obama's actions a slight to Canada by his comment ( “Look, the very fact that a ‘no’ could even be said underscores to our country that we must diversify our energy export markets,” ).

Not everything is about profit, especially when it comes to the economic and political hurdles that Harper has to go through to have the oil pipeline go completely through Canada and not through the U.S.

And I will remind you, that Canada did not meet with China for plans on shipping oil to their country, until the Keystone Pipeline stalled.

Canada is now looking to Asian countries to market its abundance of oil, natural gas and minerals as plans to build the proposed Keystone XL pipeline have stalled with the U.S. administration.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper will travel to China next month to discuss selling Canada’s bounty to the rapidly growing nation.

The preferred initial plan was to build the $7 billion Keystone pipeline to deliver Alberta’s oilsands crude to refineries in Texas on the Gulf of Mexico.

Harper reasoned that the U.S. government would prefer to deal with a friendly neighbor to help meet its energy needs while creating thousands of jobs.

With widespread opposition by U.S. environmentalists, the Obama administration has delayed its decision on whether to approve the project proposed by energy giant TransCanada Pipelines.

The new plan would market to China and Asian countries through the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline that would transport Alberta’s oil and natural gas to British Columbia for shipment by tankers.

Environmentalists’ concerns about the Gateway project, proposed by Enbridge, are being reviewed at National Energy Board hearings under way in Kitimat, British Columbia.

http://www.theledger.com/article/201...s-Bounty&tc=ar

[Dark Sage]

You know, I'm rather sick of this pipeline balony.

The GOP would have us believe that this environmental time bomb called the Keystone Pipeline would have reduced gas prices and made us less dependent on foreign oil.

Both are misconceptions. We'd still be dependent on foreign oil. It would simply be coming from a foreign country other than Saudi Arabia.

And FYI, the pipeline's primary purpose was to export oil from the Gulf overseas, not to us. More than likely, China still would have gotten the lion's share.

The Republicans are keeping their hopes up that gas prices will skyrocket in a few months, and the blame will fall on Obama's lap. If you ask me, they're taking a two-part gamble that will irrevocably hurt them if either assumption doesn't occur.

[Roy Karrde]

You know, I'm rather sick of this pipeline balony.

The GOP would have us believe that this environmental time bomb called the Keystone Pipeline would have reduced gas prices and made us less dependent on foreign oil.

How is a environmental timebomb? We have other pipelines running from us to Canada.

Both are misconceptions. We'd still be dependent on foreign oil. It would simply be coming from a foreign country other than Saudi Arabia.

Yeah damn the Republicans for wanting us to change sources from Saudi Arabia to a much more terrorist friendly and radical country of Canada. I mean those f'ing Canucks are surely using the oil money to fund moose suicide bombers.

And FYI, the pipeline's primary purpose was to export oil from the Gulf overseas, not to us. More than likely, China still would have gotten the lion's share.

FYI by putting it on the market it would help oil prices, unlike China which would probably keep it for themselves.

The Republicans are keeping their hopes up that gas prices will skyrocket in a few months, and the blame will fall on Obama's lap. If you ask me, they're taking a two-part gamble that will irrevocably hurt them if either assumption doesn't occur.

Much like the Democrats hoped that more Americans would die in Iraq in 2006 to hurt Republicans? Or they hoped the economic crisis would get worse in early 2008 to hurt Republicans?

[Dark Sage]

If Canada is so nice to us, then why are they taking the President's move as a "slight" and sending their business elsewhere? They obviously intended to sell their oil to China all along, because they pay more.

Come to think of it, this whole thing might cause Obama to loose votes in Texas... OTOH, I doubt he'll aggressively campaign there.

[Roy Karrde]

If Canada is so nice to us, then why are they taking the President's move as a "slight" and sending their business elsewhere? They obviously intended to sell their oil to China all along, because they pay more.

If they intended to sell it to China all along, why did it take for the pipeline to stall before they even began to talk with China?

Come to think of it, this whole thing might cause Obama to loose votes in Texas... OTOH, I doubt he'll aggressively campaign there.

Yeah.. because Gas Prices only affect Texas and building the pipeline would skip all the other states too.

By the way I am curious, before you were all for the Keystone Pipeline, and said you were going with the GOP for it. And now suddenly you are against it now that it has become a political liability. What gives?

Roy, that is one of the few issues where I would say, go along with the GOP. I happen to think that the pipeline would benefit the country in the long run.

http://www.pokemasters.net/forums/sh...&postcount=342

[kurai]

I already answered you, this does not exist in a bubble, the route to China and the route to the U.S. does not cost the same or face the same difficulties. The route going to China not only causes Harper to pay a steeper political price, but also takes longer to complete. Thus why it was considered a bluff. How ever apparently Harper sees Obama's actions a slight to Canada by his comment ( “Look, the very fact that a ‘no’ could even be said underscores to our country that we must diversify our energy export markets,” ).

Not everything is about profit, especially when it comes to the economic and political hurdles that Harper has to go through to have the oil pipeline go completely through Canada and not through the U.S.

And I will remind you, that Canada did not meet with China for plans on shipping oil to their country, until the Keystone Pipeline stalled.

total gibberish

you have even cited an example of a west coast pipeline yourself, the proposal for which originates 7 years ago. but yes, surely "Canada did not meet with China for plans on shipping oil to their country" even though that initial agreement was struck in 2005... the same year in which keystone xl was first proposed.

and harper is the one bluffing? he was not even prime minister when this 2005 agreement went through - and there is no "political price" to be paid, given his majority control of the government. the only avenue for challenging progress on this proposal would be on a constitutional basis... and that is not a challenge to harper at all (that is not how canadian politics work - he is untouchable until 2015).

you cite "the economic and political hurdles that Harper has to go through to have the oil pipeline go completely through Canada and not through the U.S." - but the hurdles are actually the exact same in both instances. the entire reason that "harper" is involved is that the federal government is guaranteed constitutional oversight of interprovincial and international undertakings. this oversight serves as the basis for the negotiated development of privately owned infrastructure - this is where the profit motive comes in.

FYI by putting it on the market it would help oil prices, unlike China which would probably keep it for themselves.

you are suggesting that china is somehow able to "exist in a bubble"

how curious

(chinese oil imports also are a part of global supply and demand - your suggestion is ridiculous)

If they intended to sell it to China all along, why did it take for the pipeline to stall before they even began to talk with China?

factually incorrect

the government stance is always to allow the development of private industry to maximize private returns

the easier path might have been keystone xl but it was not the only one pursued
and it never was going to be the sole export strategy

[Roy Karrde]

total gibberish

you have even cited an example of a west coast pipeline yourself, the proposal for which originates 7 years ago. but yes, surely "Canada did not meet with China for plans on shipping oil to their country" even though that initial agreement was struck in 2005... the same year in which keystone xl was first proposed.

and harper is the one bluffing? he was not even prime minister when this 2005 agreement went through - and there is no "political price" to be paid, given his majority control of the government. the only avenue for challenging progress on this proposal would be on a constitutional basis... and that is not a challenge to harper at all (that is not how canadian politics work - he is untouchable until 2015).

you cite "the economic and political hurdles that Harper has to go through to have the oil pipeline go completely through Canada and not through the U.S." - but the hurdles are actually the exact same in both instances. the entire reason that "harper" is involved is that the federal government is guaranteed constitutional oversight of interprovincial and international undertakings. this oversight serves as the basis for the negotiated development of privately owned infrastructure - this is where the profit motive comes in.

Are you honestly telling me that with all the environmental concerns in Canada, and all the trouble it would take to convince a native tribe to allow the pipeline through, that Harper wouldn't pay a political price? As you said, that is total gibberish

you are suggesting that china is somehow able to "exist in a bubble"

how curious

(chinese oil imports also are a part of global supply and demand - your suggestion is ridiculous)

I would suggest China would be far less likely to allow refined Canadian oil to go to the global market, and more likely to stay within their own country as they grow a greater need for oil.

factually incorrect

the government stance is always to allow the development of private industry to maximize private returns

the easier path might have been keystone xl but it was not the only one pursued
and it never was going to be the sole export strategy

If that was the Government's stance, why did it take for the Keystone Pipeline to stall before they inked the deal with China?

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/0...n-oil-uranium/

[Dark Sage]

That was before the GOP forced him to make a decision too early,mknowing that he'd have no choice but to say no. They purposely wanted it to be his fault.

Yeah damn the Republicans for wanting us to change sources from Saudi Arabia to a much more terrorist friendly and radical country of Canada. I mean those f'ing Canucks are surely using the oil money to fund moose suicide bombers.

You know Roy, remarks like that are also hurting the GOP more than they know it.

In 2004, the vast majority of Muslim Americans voted Republican. But in 2006, the GOP had lost many of their votes, and by 2008, they had done nearly a complete 180, and were now supporting the Democrats.

Why? Anti Muslim attitudes, which the GOP, intentionally or not, are spreading.

Iran's government supports terrorism, that I can believe, but Saudi Arabia is not Iran. Need I remind you of Iran's failed plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador a few months ago, which was foiled?

[Roy Karrde]

That was before the GOP forced him to make a decision too early,mknowing that he'd have no choice but to say no. They purposely wanted it to be his fault.

He had every chance to say yes, again he didn't want to hurt the Environmentalists by saying yes, so he practiced a play he loves to do "Kick the can down the road"

You know Roy, remarks like that are also hurting the GOP more than they know it.

In 2004, the vast majority of Muslim Americans voted Republican. But in 2006, the GOP had lost many of their votes, and by 2008, they had done nearly a complete 180, and were now supporting the Democrats.

Why? Anti Muslim attitudes, which the GOP, intentionally or not, are spreading.

Iran's government supports terrorism, that I can believe, but Saudi Arabia is not Iran. Need I remind you of Iran's failed plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador a few months ago, which was foiled?

So are you saying that none of the money going to Saudi Arabia goes to terrorism?

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/ar...5/15terror.htm
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-12-06/w...ps?_s=PM:WORLD
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/sep...rror-funding30

If you believe that Iran is the sole terrorist provider out there, or that Muslim Americans honestly believe that Saudi Arabia does not fund terrorism, then that is pretty fucking stupid. That is not a Anti Muslim attitude, that is fact.

[kurai]

Are you honestly telling me that with all the environmental concerns in Canada, and all the trouble it would take to convince a native tribe to allow the pipeline through, that Harper wouldn't pay a political price? As you said, that is total gibberish

I would suggest China would be far less likely to allow refined Canadian oil to go to the global market, and more likely to stay within their own country as they grow a greater need for oil.

Yes, I don't think you understand the circumstances. The Harper government is currently immune to criticism outside the judicial arena. A majority federal government is able to do whatever it likes barring judicial restrictions. The notion that having to "convince a native tribe" is something which the federal government has a difficulty in doing is ridiculous - this is how the entire country has been developed over the last 150 years. That is how Canada was built.

Yes, if China's demand is met by refining Albertan crude, then the demand is met. This "helps oil prices" - China does not have infinite demand. If they are refining Canadian crude, this means that they are not demanding other refined sources on the global market (ie. they do not act in a bubble). You speak of allowing "refined Canadian oil to go to the global market" - but this makes no sense.

[Roy Karrde]

Yes, I don't think you understand the circumstances. The Harper government is currently immune to criticism outside the judicial arena. A majority federal government is able to do whatever it likes barring judicial restrictions. The notion that having to "convince a native tribe" is something which the federal government has a difficulty in doing is ridiculous - this is how the entire country has been developed over the last 150 years. That is how Canada was built.

So you are saying that Harper's Government does not have to go to the voters any time in the next ten years as that is how long it will take for the West Coast pipeline to be built.

Yes, if China's demand is met by refining Albertan crude, then the demand is met. This "helps oil prices" - China does not have infinite demand. If they are refining Canadian crude, this means that they are not demanding other refined sources on the global market (ie. they do not act in a bubble). You speak of allowing "refined Canadian oil to go to the global market" - but this makes no sense.

That is unless China's oil demand some how peeks and does not continue to suck more and more crude in.

[kurai]

If that was the Government's stance, why did it take for the Keystone Pipeline to stall before they inked the deal with China?

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/0...n-oil-uranium/

The main problem is that the article you cite does not realize the actual timeline involved. The economic co-operation agreement was concluded in February, but negotiated over the last 8 years. Given that the TransChina supply deals were reached in 2005, the issue of oil importation was not just added at the final minute. China has been interested in securing a supply for Albertan crude for a long time.

[kurai]

So you are saying that Harper's Government does not have to go to the voters any time in the next ten years as that is how long it will take for the West Coast pipeline to be built.

That is unless China's oil demand some how peeks and does not continue to suck more and more crude in.

It will be too late to act by the time Harper has to face an election - and it would not matter in any case. You are projecting a ten year schedule, but the process will already be in motion by the time he has to face a campaign. And why would it be an electoral issue? Do you might suppose that an Aboriginal protest to modern infrastructure is a deciding issue in Canadian politics? It isn't. At the same time, profits and returns would be enjoyed by the Albertans for whom the project is a boon - and this is the same region where Harper's most solid support base lives.

Your second point is probably missing a word. The key is that any pipeline will be limited by physical capacity, and the current supply to the United States is already exceeding refinement capacity - this is why the price of Albertan crude is so cheap. Yes, the price of this crude will go up when a second export source is developed. It was going to go up after Keystone XL was developed - this is the whole motivation for TransCanada's proposal of the project. If you are specifically focusing on refined oil, you need to disabuse yourself of the notion that China is acting in a bubble: we are talking about a global market. Regardless of the ultimate source, rising Chinese demand would be met by increased prices on the market. There is no way to escape this - but providing an additional avenue for which Albertan supply can be sold to China acts only to temper the demand. Imagine the price increase if no such avenue existed.

[Roy Karrde]

It will be too late to act by the time Harper has to face an election - and it would not matter in any case. You are projecting a ten year schedule, but the process will already be in motion by the time he has to face a campaign. And why would it be an electoral issue? Do you might suppose that an Aboriginal protest to modern infrastructure is a deciding issue in Canadian politics? It isn't. At the same time, profits and returns would be enjoyed by the Albertans for whom the project is a boon - and this is the same region where Harper's most solid support base lives.

I believe that the protests from Environmentalists which reject the drilling of oil at all would play a pretty key part in ousting Harper's Government if they could. You seem to forget that the pipeline would go through much of Canada by then and would as such give the environmentalists a scare campaign of the pipeline bursting and creating massive ecological problems.

Your second point is probably missing a word. The key is that any pipeline will be limited by physical capacity, and the current supply to the United States is already exceeding refinement capacity - this is why the price of Albertan crude is so cheap. Yes, the price of this crude will go up when a second export source is developed. It was going to go up after Keystone XL was developed - this is the whole motivation for TransCanada's proposal of the project. If you are specifically focusing on refined oil, you need to disabuse yourself of the notion that China is acting in a bubble: we are talking about a global market. Regardless of the ultimate source, rising Chinese demand would be met by increased prices on the market. There is no way to escape this - but providing an additional avenue for which Albertan supply can be sold to China acts only to temper the demand. Imagine the price increase if no such avenue existed.

You seem to either be not understanding or misreading what I am saying. Granted it may temper some of China's demand, or it may not, we have no idea what China's demand will be in 2020. However the likelyhood of China placing extra oil on the market is far smaller than it is for the United States. As far as we know China could be in the mist of a recession by then, and could just store the oil for when the demand rises again instead of placing it on the market and allowing it to impact the global price of oil.

The fact is that by sending it to China the likelyhood that it will go onto the global market even by it's excess, to impact the price of oil, is remarkably low.

[kurai]

I believe that the protests from Environmentalists which reject the drilling of oil at all would play a pretty key part in ousting Harper's Government if they could. You seem to forget that the pipeline would go through much of Canada by then and would as such give the environmentalists a scare campaign of the pipeline bursting and creating massive ecological problems.

1) 'Environmentalists' do not form a significant political base in Canada; they are unable to secure more than a single federal election riding.
2) It does not go through much of Canada. It goes through a few provinces. The majority of Canada is therefore unconcerned.
3) There are already massive ecological problems caused by the oil sands. This has no effect on Canadian politics: since their expansion, the Conservative Party of Canada (ie. Harper's party, which supports such expansion) has only grown in electoral success. The other historically major federal party (LPC) were the ones overseeing such expansion before the CPC came to power and thus they can not complain either.

Canadian parties are not analogous to those in America. What you suggest is not actually a viable threat in Canadian politics - there is no environmental wing of another party to threaten Harper, and the organized environmentalist party itself is completely ineffective.

And why have we switched from Aboriginal political effects to environmentalism? It is of no consequence - neither have an effect on the federal election process.

You seem to either be not understanding or misreading what I am saying. Granted it may temper some of China's demand, or it may not, we have no idea what China's demand will be in 2020. However the likelyhood of China placing extra oil on the market is far smaller than it is for the United States. As far as we know China could be in the mist of a recession by then, and could just store the oil for when the demand rises again instead of placing it on the market and allowing it to impact the global price of oil.

The fact is that by sending it to China the likelyhood that it will go onto the global market even by it's excess, to impact the price of oil, is remarkably low.

The issue is not China "placing extra oil on the market". It is whether or not China is buying extra oil from the market. You propose a curious circumstance in which China purchases Albertan crude oil, and despite the profit available through refinement and resale/use, for some reason they decide to create a stockpile instead of reselling at a profit. You then suggest that this practice would not "impact the global price of oil".

It would. If China is stockpiling as a necessity of purchase quotas (of which none actually exist, but we can theoretically accept that they might) rather than using the product, its own demand is necessarily no longer at its peak. They want to refine it in order to use it: if they are no longer using it, they are not going to continue buying it at an inflated price unless they absolutely have to as a consequence of formal treaty.

This would then lead to another instance of oversupply, and thus the price of Albertan crude would again fall - exactly the circumstance we have now. It is a dynamic global market. Chinese action has an effect on prices, but so does Chinese inaction. Your proposed scenario has no bearing on market results.

[Roy Karrde]

1) 'Environmentalists' do not form a significant political base in Canada; they are unable to secure more than a single federal election riding.
2) It does not go through much of Canada. It goes through a few provinces. The majority of Canada is therefore unconcerned.
3) There are already massive ecological problems caused by the oil sands. This has no effect on Canadian politics: since their expansion, the Conservative Party of Canada (ie. Harper's party, which supports such expansion) has only grown in electoral success. The other historically major federal party (LPC) were the ones overseeing such expansion before the CPC came to power and thus they can not complain either.

Canadian parties are not analogous to those in America. What you suggest is not actually a viable threat in Canadian politics - there is no environmental wing of another party to threaten Harper, and the organized environmentalist party itself is completely ineffective.

And why have we switched from Aboriginal political effects to environmentalism? It is of no consequence - neither have an effect on the federal election process.

When I speak of Environmentalists I am talking about a political belief not a political party, if you honestly think this will not become a issue for those that wish to oppose Harper's policies and not rely on scare tactics of oil bursting through the pipeline then you are incredibly politically stupid.

Edit: One example would be British Columbia where opposition to the pipeline is growing more and more.
http://www.globaltvbc.com/half+of+bc...164/story.html

[kurai]

Yes. Sure.

The point is that the two historically dominant federal parties do not rely on environmentalism for gaining support. Political beliefs are inconsequential in Canadian electoral politics unless they are embodied in specific political party policies.

We should consider the second line of the article you cite: "The poll also found that an overwhelming majority of B.C. Conservative party supporters and two-thirds of B.C. Liberal supporters favour the controversial plan by Calgary-based Enbridge Inc".

Although I am apparently "incredibly politically stupid", I will offer some brief civics insight.

Canadian federal politics are entirely predicated on regional support. BC has 36 federal ridings, 21 of which were claimed through a majority of Conservative Party support. As your own source claims, an overwhelming majority of CP supporters are in favor of the pipeline. Canadian elections operate using a first-past-the-post system: in these 21 ridings, CP support is already the majority.

These ridings will continue to be won on this issue - the majority of people in them are in favor of the pipeline, and this process allows the control of the majority of ridings in the province. Indeed, this process continues to allow control of the majority of ridings across the entire country.

As your evidence has demonstrated, there is no political danger to the majority government on this issue.

[Blademaster]

Herald

HE-ALD. Jesus Christ, how do you people take each other seriously when you can't even be arsed to remember the NAMES of the people you're debating with?

Oh wait, this is Misc.. Nobody takes one another seriously here. It's all just a lighthearted clusterfuck with the odd 900-or-more-post-long pissing contest between Roy the conservative half of TPM and almost everyone else the liberal half thrown in every month or two while everyone else watches with popcorn, hot dogs, and pennants. Which occasionally get thrown from the stands.

Carry on then.

[Dark Sage]

In other news...

Romney has won the Maryland, Wisconsin, and District of Colombia primaries.

As if there's any doubt that he'll win the nomination at this point. The question is, after tonight, just how stubborn is Santorum?

[Dark Sage]

Sorry about the double post, but I had to post this. Mr. Obama made a pretty profound statement about the attitudes of the GOP in a short interview he gave yesterday, comparing them with Ronald Reagan, one of the most popular GOP Presidents of the modern era:

MR. SINGLETON: Thank you, Mr. President. We appreciate so much you being with us today. I have some questions from the audience, which I will ask -- and I'll be more careful than I was last time I did this.
Republicans have been sharply critical of your budget ideas as well. What can you say to the Americans who just want both sides to stop fighting and get some work done on their behalf?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I completely understand the American people’s frustrations, because the truth is that these are eminently solvable problems. I know that Christine Lagarde is here from the IMF, and she’s looking at the books of a lot of other countries around the world. The kinds of challenges they face fiscally are so much more severe than anything that we confront -- if we make some sensible decisions.

So the American people’s impulses are absolutely right. These are solvable problems if people of good faith came together and were willing to compromise. The challenge we have right now is that we have on one side, a party that will brook no compromise. And this is not just my assertion. We had presidential candidates who stood on a stage and were asked, “Would you accept a budget package, a deficit reduction plan, that involved $10 of cuts for every dollar in revenue increases?” Ten-to-one ratio of spending cuts to revenue. Not one of them raised their hand.

Think about that. Ronald Reagan, who, as I recall, is not accused of being a tax-and-spend socialist, understood repeatedly that when the deficit started to get out of control, that for him to make a deal he would have to propose both spending cuts and tax increases. Did it multiple times. He could not get through a Republican primary today.

The scary part is, I believe it.

[Roy Karrde]

Sorry about the double post, but I had to post this. Mr. Obama made a pretty profound statement about the attitudes of the GOP in a short interview he gave yesterday, comparing them with Ronald Reagan, one of the most popular GOP Presidents of the modern era.

So let me get this straight, the same bastard that has spent the last few months playing to his feminist base to the point of possibly violating the separation of church and state. Is now bitching about the GOP playing to their base during a primary election? Pot/Kettle.

Also two big thing on VP buzz, for Paul Ryan he gave the lead in to the victory speech last night and it is attracting alot of attention.

http://campaign2012.washingtonexamin...vp-buzz/463561

For Marco Rubio, he is crafting what could be the GOP's version of the DREAM Act, it seems this is designed as a key to winning over Hispanic voters, especially if he were on the ticket.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/04/0...os-to-the-gop/

[Dark Sage]

More news...

It seems unlikely that Rubio will accept an offer to be Romney's running mate, do to a statement that Rubio himself made today.

He claimed that, while he believes it is possible for Romney to win the election, he does NOT believe it is possible with him as the running mate.

He did not make any suggestions as to who it should be.

[Roy Karrde]

More news...

It seems unlikely that Rubio will accept an offer to be Romney's running mate, do to a statement that Rubio himself made today.

He claimed that, while he believes it is possible for Romney to win the election, he does NOT believe it is possible with him as the running mate.

He did not make any suggestions as to who it should be.

Yeah because that will be the first time ever that a politician has denied aspirations for a further political office before changing their mind later on.

[Dark Sage]

Tim Pawlenty, Nikki Haley, and Susana Martinez also said recently that they aren't intersted.

It seems that no A-list Republicans other than the actual nominees want to be included in the ticket.

[Roy Karrde]

Tim Pawlenty, Nikki Haley, and Susana Martinez also said recently that they aren't intersted.

It seems that no A-list Republicans other than the actual nominees want to be included in the ticket.

Yeah.. and if you don't think they will jump at the chance, then you probably would have also believed Obama when he said he wasn't interested in the Presidency in 2004.

[Dark Sage]

Romney made an odd attack against President Obama today... He said that Mr. Obama "spent too much time at Harvard".

A very odd attack, coming from a fellow Harvard gradute who spent one more year than Obama there.

But then, I'm getting used to Romney saying things that make no sense.

Edit: Here's the breakdown: Romney enrolled in a four-year program at Harvard in 1971, eventually earning a joint JD and MBA and graduating cum laude in 1975. In 1988, Obama began attending Harvard Law School. He spent three years there, eventually becoming president of the Harvard Law Review before graduating magna cum laude and receiving his JD in 1991. That's four years for Romney, three for Obama.

[Roy Karrde]

Romney made an odd attack against President Obama today... He said that Mr. Obama "spent too much time at Harvard".

A very odd attack, coming from a fellow Harvard gradute who spent one more year than Obama there.

But then, I'm getting used to Romney saying things that make no sense.

Edit: Here's the breakdown: Romney enrolled in a four-year program at Harvard in 1971, eventually earning a joint JD and MBA and graduating cum laude in 1975. In 1988, Obama began attending Harvard Law School. He spent three years there, eventually becoming president of the Harvard Law Review before graduating magna cum laude and receiving his JD in 1991. That's four years for Romney, three for Obama.

Not really a odd attack if you just take it at face value and not do a break down. I assume Romney means the reason why President Obama is so detatched from the public ( And lets be truthful, Obama is detatched from people ) is that he spent so much time around the rich liberals in Harvard.

[Dark Sage]

And Romney is a rich Conservative from Harvard.

Your point?

[Roy Karrde]

And Romney is a rich Conservative from Harvard.

Your point?

That it is the Presidential campaign? Get ready for alot of short public oriented shots at the other.

[Dark Sage]

Every member of the GOP is on Mr. Obama's back about his quote-unquote "intimidation" of the U.S. Supreme Court, calling him a "bully", saying that no self-respecting President would have done this...

I've got three-and-a-half words for those members of the GOP: The Dread Scott Case.

Was Abraham Lincoln a "self-respecting President"? I think he was.

And by the way, someone else mentioned the same three-and-a-half words recently when addressing this issue: Newt Gingrich.