2020 PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES: Joe Biden vs Donald Trump

[bolverk 29397]

2 minutes ago, zork said:

I posted it mainly for the video of what was discussed, upthread, for those that didn't see it live. 

There was no need, and you'd known it had you read the last few pages instead of relying on drive-by bullshit. @SizzleChest posted the entirety of the quote as well as the subsequent exchange:

 

[Huckleberry 32694]

You guys should be used to this by now. This is what zork does. Next he'll be by to say "sorry guys it wasn't malicious I'm just dumb."

Zorked.

[G650 14086]

23 minutes ago, immamac said:

after sleeping on it the biggest haymaker that biden through last night that landed squarely and hard enough to knock trump down to the canvas for a short 3 count was his "Abraham Lincoln over here" comment. It was perfectly timed, delivered and had the right amount of oompf behind it to just totally stun him to the point where he didn't even know what just happened and started defending his record against abraham lincoln.

Personally,  I think "I'm Joe Biden" was the best

[zork 629]

3 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

You posted a misleading "quote" hoping people were too lazy to listen to the video. He didn't say what it says he said. 

 

3 minutes ago, bolverk said:

There was no need, and you'd known it had you read the last few pages instead of relying on drive-by bullshit. @SizzleChest posted the entirety of the quote as well as the subsequent exchange:

 

 

1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

You guys should be used to this by now. This is what zork does. Next he'll be by to say "sorry guys it wasn't malicious I'm just dumb."

Zorked.

why would I say that?

[Dahobbs 17437]

1 minute ago, zork said:

 

 

why would I say that?

Go fuck yourself you lying fuck. 

[Pancho 44454]

So I keep reading on this board about the oil comment and hurting Biden.  I haven't really seen any news outlets bring this up except for 1 tweet by The Hill and just now an Opinion piece from WaPo. The opinion piece basically said that while Trump probably will use it as something to pounce on Biden similar to "zomg her emails," Biden's response just isn't the gold nugget Trump is looking for.  Even the replies to the tweet (which I know mean nothing) are all saying "who cares" or even oil companies already know this. 

Surprisingly, the fox news station that shows Maria Baritoneono at my gym didn't even have a segment on this. 

I wasn't too convinced he was going to win Texas anyway, but I'm starting to believe this website might be overblowing the comment.  I also don't believe trump goes the rest of the way flub-free.  

[DigglerontheHoof 21052]

Sacks, zorks  et al’s bar for trump to jump over and impress them is a buried cable.

[bolverk 29397]

5 minutes ago, zork said:

 

 

why would I say that?

That's the type a thing a normal, self-deprecating human would say, if he/she were posting in good faith. Give a mea culpa, make a joke about oneself, etc. So, yeah, why *would* you say that?

 

[Tuco 5076]

9 hours ago, burntorangebongos said:

This right here is on tape. This right here is an evil said out loud. Maybe republicans like Jeff Sessions and Rob Rosenstein thought this was good policy to deter immigration, but it was evil and this fucking clown was sold to do it and he is so dumb he says this out loud as if it is GOOD. If you are going to perpetrate evil to further your world view, don't include clueless transactional idiots in the plan, fuckers!!!!  This right fucking here is why they have to go:

 

 

Fuck.  Fuck him.  Fuck anyone who supports him. 

[TexEx15 17456]

 

[Dahobbs 17437]

7 minutes ago, Pancho said:

So I keep reading on this board about the oil comment and hurting Biden.  I haven't really seen any news outlets bring this up except for 1 tweet by The Hill and just now an Opinion piece from WaPo. The opinion piece basically said that while it Trump probably will use it as something to pounce on Biden similar to "zomg her emails," Biden's response just isn't the gold nugget Trump is looking for.  Even the replies to the tweet (which I know mean nothing) are all saying "who cares" or even oil companies already know this. 

Surprisingly, the fox news station that shows Maria Baritoneono didn't even have a segment on this. 

I wasn't too convinced he was going to win Texas anyway, but I'm starting to believe this website might be overblowing the comment.  I also don't believe trump goes the rest of the way flub-free.  

I agree, it has been overblown here. Energy companies in Texas should be looking at Biden's plan and salivating. That is a lot of money that they are in a prime position to capture as Texas continues to lead in renewable energy. Those companies, at least the smart ones, are already preparing for that inevitable transition. Getting government money to do what you want and need to do anyway? Yes please. 

Edited October 23, 2020 by Dahobbs

[zork 629]

5 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

Sacks, zorks  et al’s bar for trump to jump over and impress them is a buried cable.

[UpperWestside 6134]

8 hours ago, Dr. Beeper said:

I’m not gonna get into a global warming debate. I’ll just say that a shrinking but still large industry domestically and the jobs therein will trump global warming any day of the week when paired with the abundant nature of the resource and the cost. Particularly in this hurting economy. I’m just saying, there are more opportune times to have the renewables debate. Like, when oil is at $100/bbl and shalecos still aren’t really making money and being bailed out by a functioning A&D market.

And that will happen again, and sooner than people think. This industry was dead in ‘82, ‘86, and ‘99, and probably more dead than it is now. It then went on a 15-year run featuring $147 crude. Probably best to have that argument then, when, you know, it’s economic. 

This would be an example of a take that is not good. First sentence out front in it should probably tell ya.

Edited October 23, 2020 by UpperWestside

[BradInATX 9208]

13 minutes ago, Pancho said:

I'm starting to believe this website might be overblowing the comment. 

[elfenix 34171]

Agreed but that percentage of energy consumption will remain very large until we are dead. 

And that's the goddamn problem my dude.

[Tuco 5076]

1 hour ago, Dr. Beeper said:

Agreed but that percentage of energy consumption will remain very large until we are dead. 

You're either pretty damn old or whistling past the grave yard.  California is banning the sale of gas powered in 2035.  Certainly many will buy cars out of state and license in them in Cali, but it will definitely drive a huge market for selling electric.  I assume Europe won't be far behind California.  The percentage of gasoline powered vehicles will change drastically over the next 20 years, which means the difference in our energy consumption will as well.  I'm sure there were people in 1910 who thought airplanes were a passing fad.  

 

[Gatorubet 30083]

I’m backing out of Texags politics for libs.  My last post.  Have fun jerking each other off.  

[Neonmoon 38127]

 

[Dahobbs 17437]

Just now, Dr. Beeper said:

Taking politics and economics out of the equation (bear with me), it’s impossible to remove dependence on oil.  It’s not logistically possible. 

Watch it happen. Oil will continue to be needed for some industries. But it's share of energy generation and transportation is going to plummet surprisingly quickly. 

[Mo Horn 8807]

My son is interviewing for an attorney position with BP, so he did some research. They are committed to being carbon neutral by 2050, and have a clear plan on how to get there with benchmarks along the way. Oil companies know the writing is on the wall. There will always be a need for oil and petroleum products, but they also know alternative energy is inevitable. 

[gmr548 16491]

Otherwise we are unnecessarily spending more $ in a terrible economy. 

High unemployment in an economy in need of stimulus with rock bottom interest rates is far and away the best time to make a large scale public works investment like this, but okay.

[UpperWestside 6134]

10 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

Trump said

The kids in cages are treated very well. 

Immigrants who obey laws are idiots 

Brought up Biden’s dead son

Gaslight highlights include:

The market will crash with Biden

We are rounding the corner

Fauci was wrong a lot 

Biden is a criminal controlled by Russia 

Joe is not from Scranton 

 

 

This was only close if you ignore reality 

The constant lying and just general negativity coming out of his mouth 24/7 is something that I will be glad to see gone in January. 

[SydneyCarton 47846]

21 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

 

God fucking damnit. 

[SydneyCarton 47846]

13 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

Taking politics and economics out of the equation (bear with me), it’s impossible to remove dependence on oil.  It’s not logistically possible. 

Well, first I'd make you define "Dependence." And I'd make you do it in an extensive and detailed fashion.

Are we ever giving up jet fuel? Probably not, no. Plastics? Unlikely. Energy generation? Yeah, absolutely. Cars/trucks, absolutely. 

7 minutes ago, Mo Horn said:

My son is interviewing for an attorney position with BP, so he did some research. They are committed to being carbon neutral by 2050, and have a clear plan on how to get there with benchmarks along the way. Oil companies know the writing is on the wall. There will always be a need for oil and petroleum products, but they also know alternative energy is inevitable. 

This. 

[Red Five 40632]

The "Abraham Lincoln here" line was hilarious, and dotard's response was bizarre. "Why did you just say his name out of nowhere??".

Um you compared yourself to him like 10 seconds ago moron. 

[Longhorn94 2427]

Yeah Trump thought he misspoke. It was glorious watching Trump realize that instead Joe was clowning him...

[DCA_HORN 725]

My son is interviewing for an attorney position with BP, so he did some research. They are committed to being carbon neutral by 2050, and have a clear plan on how to get there with benchmarks along the way. Oil companies know the writing is on the wall. There will always be a need for oil and petroleum products, but they also know alternative energy is inevitable. 

Well they are already 20 years into this campaign. But hey they have a plan. Alternative energy is of course going to continue to increase and should. However this country will be powered by natural gas for a very long time. The biggest challenge for the electric cars to be powered is the grid.

[elfenix 34171]

25 minutes ago, Mo Horn said:

My son is interviewing for an attorney position with BP, so he did some research. They are committed to being carbon neutral by 2050, and have a clear plan on how to get there with benchmarks along the way. Oil companies know the writing is on the wall. There will always be a need for oil and petroleum products, but they also know alternative energy is inevitable. 

there's a big fucking asterisk attached to that.

[Eastwood 4394]

3 minutes ago, DCA_HORN said:

 

 

Well they are already 20 years into this campaign. But hey they have a plan. Alternative energy is of course going to continue to increase and should. However this country will be powered by natural gas for a very long time. The biggest challenge for the electric cars to be powered is the grid.

I worked wind farms for just over 4 years and worked a couple BP projects. Natural gas is not only the main source of energy in the US, but it is also the back-up power for wind farms when they aren't producing enough power on their own. All the massive refineries in the nation have their own power generation that is also run on gas turbines. Replacing natural gas as the main source of power in this nation isn't happening in the next 50 years.

[Mo Horn 8807]

5 minutes ago, DCA_HORN said:

 

 

Well they are already 20 years into this campaign. But hey they have a plan. Alternative energy is of course going to continue to increase and should. However this country will be powered by natural gas for a very long time. The biggest challenge for the electric cars to be powered is the grid.

 

The grid and battery development. The current distance between charges for a Tesla is around 350 miles, depending on driving speed. So still a lot of work to be done for sure. 

[Huckleberry 32694]

2 minutes ago, Eastwood said:

I worked wind farms for just over 4 years and worked a couple BP projects. Natural gas is not only the main source of energy in the US, but it is also the back-up power for wind farms when they aren't producing enough power on their own. All the massive refineries in the nation have their own power generation that is also run on gas turbines. Replacing natural gas as the main source of power in this nation isn't happening in the next 50 years.

You're right but you're also talking past the fact that the debate exchange was specifically about oil. 

Natural gas will hold on to its share of energy consumption longer than oil will, imo.

[Eastwood 4394]

1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

You're right but you're also talking past the fact that the debate exchange was specifically about oil. 

Natural gas will hold on to its share of energy consumption longer than oil will, imo.

I talked ad naseam about the oil comment last night. Republicans are dancing in Biden's grave in PA over it. PA isn't an oil state, it's a natural gas state. They're second only to Texas. As long as this nation needs natural gas, there will be jobs for it in PA regardless of what happens to oil.

[DCA_HORN 725]

You're right but you're also talking past the fact that the debate exchange was specifically about oil. 
Natural gas will hold on to its share of energy consumption longer than oil will, imo.

Natural gas is at this point in many parts of the country a byproduct of oil. They get lumped together by many on this board and by politicians as just meaning fossil fuels. California and New England won't allow gas pipelines and gas power plants to be built so they are stuck with rolling black outs in the west and burning fuel oil in the ne east. Everybody wants this magical solution where we just plug ours cars in and there is no emissions anywhere down the cord so to speak. Thats just not how it works and since nukes are off the table (and wind in ne) natural gas will be the power source for a long time.

[Huckleberry 32694]

1 minute ago, Dr. Beeper said:

As you know the skill transferability from exploiting crude to exploiting natural gas is damn near 100%, depending on your staff’s competence in a particular basin. So the nuance about the debate being about “oil” is irrelevant. 

From an industry and employment standpoint yes, but from a political standpoint with respect to the debate (note the thread we're in) absolutely not. In fact that transferability makes Biden's statement even less of an issue specifically because O&G jobs can and will simply migrate away from the O and toward the G.

Full disclosure I worked both oil and gas projects for 5 years then almost exclusively gas for the last 10.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Abraham Lincoln actually was a little racist. 

[Neonmoon 38127]

The whole point of transitioning from fossil fuels to renewable energy is because of global warming and pollution and nothing to do with price. News flash, the transition is already happening. BP just announced a huge investment into Offshore wind and no new exploration in new countries. The resident Oil bull saying it doesn't make sense to have this conversation at low oil prices disregards the entire point of transitioning. It may be more easier for one side to engage the conversation at a higher price, but reality doesn't give a fuck when it's convenient for one side. Global warming is not going away, and the transition isn't stopping. But Eastwood is correct, anyone on the green side who thinks we're getting rid of oil and gas for good is also ignoring reality. Energy demand isn't going away. Until renewables can supply a large percentage of demand, we have to relay on fossil fuels. Oil will always be around for jet fuel, plastics and natural gas will always be needed to supplement wind/solar/hydro because of intermittency unless that problem gets solved. 

Biden correctly answered the question and only histrionic pussies saw it anyway else. 

Here is the transcript

Trump: Would you close it?

Biden: I would transition from the oil industry, yes. 

Trump: Oh, that's a big statement. 

Biden: That is a big statement, because I would stop...

Moderator: Why would you do that?

Biden: because the oil industry pollutes significantly. Here's the deal

Trump: That's a big statement

Biden: well if you let me finish the statement, because it has to be replaced by renewable energy over time, over time, and I'd stop giving to the oil industry, I'd stop giving them federal subsidies, he won't give federal subsidies to the gas, excuse me, to solar and wind, 

Trump: yep

Biden: why are we giving it to the oil industry?

Trump: We actually do give it to solar and wind, and that's maybe the biggest statement in terms of business, that's the biggest statement, because basically what's he's saying, is he is going to destroy the oil industry, will you remember that Texas? will you remember that Pennsylvania? Oklahoma?

 

He's "shocking statement" was he's going to support the transition from the oil industry to renewables over time

OMG the horror. I'm pretty sure most progressives would think that's a pussy moderate comment that says nothing. Was anyone expecting him to say DRILL BABY DRILL, like Trump?

 

 

Edited October 23, 2020 by Neonmoon

[G650 14086]

10 minutes ago, DCA_HORN said:

since nukes are off the table

Which is unfortunate

[Dark Horse 2263]

7 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

From an industry and employment standpoint yes, but from a political standpoint with respect to the debate (note the thread we're in) absolutely not. In fact that transferability makes Biden's statement even less of an issue specifically because O&G jobs can and will simply migrate away from the O and toward the G.

Full disclosure I worked both oil and gas projects for 5 years then almost exclusively gas for the last 10.

Same, we've been cranking out Fractionators for the past 10 years until covid shit on our parade.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13546]

11 hours ago, cactusflinthead said:

 

I'm no poll or electorate junkie, but just anecdotally there's pushback even in rural Texas against O&G (or more specifically pipeline companies) from landowners and property rights advocates over imminent domain and accountability issues, even landowners who spent whole careers in O&G.

[Tuco 5076]

34 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

My contention is crude will decrease as a % of light duty transportation globally, but still comprise the majority feedstock position in every year (and oil consumption will increase every year when there’s not a black swan event like a pandemic) for the rest of our lives whether you’re 22 or 62. I am 42. 

Do you disagree?

I disagree that oil will maintain close to its percentage of energy sector for the next 40 years.  There were people saying the same shit you are about coal 20 years ago.  And, yes, cheaper natural gas is part of coal's waning, but that does not tell the whole story.  "Best available technology" for controlling NOx and heavy metals has pushed out a lot of old plants - both on the utility scale and industrial scale. I had a client on the industrial side who basically got his coal for free, but switched to gas because there was no way he was going to retrofit his stack to handle the new requirements. Evolving emission requirements definitely affect what the cut will be, and it is just plain shortsighted to believe that those emission requirements will not tilt against oil in the next 40 years.  

As far as "spending money," we need to spend money regardless.  The options are 1) let some cities/countries get flooded losing those investments, 2) spend money on mitigation efforts, like sea walls and pumping stations, 3) reduce CO2 production.  In reality, it will be a combo of the three.  The US government is already spending 100s of millions of dollars relocating residents of low lying towns in Louisiana and Alaska, abandoning the old towns.  We are already spending money on mitigation efforts.  And, we are spending money on pushing renewables.  There is a problem, and status quo is not a free solution.  I favor a revenue neutral carbon dividend so that there is some economic balance between these options on the market, rather than expecting a lobbyist controlled Congress come up with prescriptive solution that doesn't have corporate pork and loopholes.  

 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

21 minutes ago, Mo Horn said:

The grid and battery development. The current distance between charges for a Tesla is around 350 miles, depending on driving speed. So still a lot of work to be done for sure. 

We think about charging stations in the wrong way, IMO.  Instead of waiting to charge at a station, it should be a simple battery swap.  The station can charge the old battery and give it to the next person.  Battery manufacturers can "own" all the batteries and refurbish or replace batteries for the stations as they go bad.

Part of this is standardizing battery tech across manufacturers. But manufacturers all had no problems getting behind standardizing fuel.

[DCA_HORN 725]

The whole point of transitioning from fossil fuels to renewable energy is because of global warming and pollution and nothing to do with price. News flash, the transition is already happening. BP just announced a huge investment into Offshore wind and no new exploration in new countries. The resident Oil bull saying it doesn't make sense to have this conversation at low oil prices disregards the entire point of transitioning. It may be more easier for one side to engage the conversation at a higher price, but reality doesn't give a fuck when it's convenient for one side. Global warming is not going away, and the transition isn't stopping. But Eastwood is correct, anyone on the green side who thinks we're getting rid of oil and gas for good is also ignoring reality. Energy demand isn't going away. Until renewables can supply a large percentage of demand, we have to relay on fossil fuels. Oil will always be around for jet fuel, plastics and natural gas will always be needed to supplement wind/solar/hydro because of intermittency unless that problem gets solved. 
Biden correctly answered the question and only histrionic pussies saw it anyway else. 
Here is the transcript
Trump: Would you close it?
Biden: I would transition from the oil industry, yes. 
Trump: Oh, that's a big statement. 
Biden: That is a big statement, because I would stop...
Moderator: Why would you do that?
Biden: because the oil industry pollutes significantly. Here's the deal
Trump: That's a big statement
Biden: well if you let me finish the statement, because it has to be replaced by renewable energy over time, over time, and I'd stop giving to the oil industry, I'd stop giving them federal subsidies, he won't give federal subsidies to the gas, excuse me, to solar and wind, 
Trump: yep
Biden: why are we giving it to the oil industry?
Trump: We actually do give it to solar and wind, and that's maybe the biggest statement in terms of business, that's the biggest statement, because basically what's he's saying, is he is going to destroy the oil industry, will you remember that Texas? will you remember that Pennsylvania? Oklahoma?
 
He's "shocking statement" was he's going to support the transition from the oil industry to renewables over time
OMG the horror. I'm pretty sure most progressives would think that's a pussy moderate comment that says nothing. Was anyone expecting him to say DRILL BABY DRILL, like Trump?
 
 

Yes Bidens comment is pretty benign. Trump jumped on it for political purposes in important states. The government however is not writing big checks to subsidize oil like they are to solar companies.

[Neonmoon 38127]

1 minute ago, DCA_HORN said:

 

 

Yes Bidens comment is pretty benign. Trump jumped on it for political purposes in important states. The government however is not writing big checks to subsidize oil like they are to solar companies.

 

There is a reason we subsidize wind/solar more than oil. Because we want cleaner energy. It has a greater benefit to society that fossil fuels. 

[DCA_HORN 725]

There is a reason we subsidize wind/solar more than oil. Because we want cleaner energy. It has a greater benefit to society that fossil fuels. 

Yes I get it. People have this idea that the government is writing huge checks to prop up big oil though.

[Biff Tannen 45491]

1 hour ago, Mo Horn said:

The grid and battery development.

Both of which are increasing in scope exponentially.  The tech is coming along.  In the next 15 years we will see a drastic change.

[Biff Tannen 45491]

1 hour ago, DCA_HORN said:

1 hour ago, Neonmoon said:

There is a reason we subsidize wind/solar more than oil. Because we want cleaner energy. It has a greater benefit to society that fossil fuels. 

Yes I get it. People have this idea that the government is writing huge checks to prop up big oil though.

Last I checked it was billions.  With a B.

[Michael Knight 12888]

The common clay of the new west

 

 

[Mdhorn 5911]

1 hour ago, Dr. Beeper said:

Taking politics and economics out of the equation (bear with me), it’s impossible to remove dependence on oil.  It’s not logistically possible. 

We'll always need oil.  It's transitioning or even going with a hybrid model to solar that will share the load and eventually lessen the need. It's non-renewable so that day will come regardless.  And it's a pretty good avenue to fight terrorism.  

[High Plains Drifter 10970]

10 hours ago, Dr. Beeper said:

I’m not gonna get into a global warming debate. I’ll just say that a shrinking but still large industry domestically and the jobs therein will trump global warming any day of the week when paired with the abundant nature of the resource and the cost. Particularly in this hurting economy. I’m just saying, there are more opportune times to have the renewables debate. Like, when oil is at $100/bbl and shalecos still aren’t really making money and being bailed out by a functioning A&D market.

And that will happen again, and sooner than people think. This industry was dead in ‘82, ‘86, and ‘99, and probably more dead than it is now. It then went on a 15-year run featuring $147 crude. Probably best to have that argument then, when, you know, it’s economic. 

 

So we've gone from "Global warming is a myth" to "Global warming may be happening but its caused by natural reasons" to "Humans may be partially responsible to Global warming but there is nothing we can do about it" to "The effects of stopping global warming would be worse than global warming itself" to "Now is not the time to talk about it." 

Progress I guess, except everyone of those statements were incorrect (or lies) when they were said, and are incorrect (or lies) now.

 

[Loch Ness Monster 3533]

Amazing Trump who has bankrupted nearly every company of his still an 'amazing businessman'. 

Americans are dumb