Unearthed video reiterates Harris’ previous support for fracking ban. Harris also expresses support for 'Green New Deal.'

I have to take some umbrage with the title of the thread. Is it "unearthed" if the video has been up on the shows YouTube channel for years now, and public, where anyone can see it? Hard to call that "unearthing" something.

Vambram said:

Most cities don't have the desire, or the ability, to give millions upon millions of dollars worth of resources to homeless and/or vagrant people.

Click to expand...

So in your opinion it's better for the cities not to do anything? The resource cost of not addressing homelessness is most likely overall more taxing to the areas than doing so, it just shows up elsewhere.

childeye 2 said:

Well, I haven't heard an actual policy on fracking. I just saw her say she stands by Biden's policy.

Click to expand...

I understand that and as VP she should support her president but now she is running to be president and says her core values haven't changed, to support allies with energy we have to produce more fossil fuels yet climate change is an existential threat. So at the expense of the whole world, we will provide more energy to our allies. To me, it makes no sense.

We all know Vance's record on abortion and his core value is 100% pro-life he even supported 15-week gestation and criminal offenses after that nationwide. Now that he is picked as VP he now supports Trump's abortion plan of letting the states deal with it. Let's say he then runs for president afterward. Should he not be asked why he now supports abortion in some states and why his core values seem to have changed?

Since I don't reside in a political party I would want answers but I guess I think differently so I'll end this hear.

Laodicean60 said:

I understand that and as VP she should support her president but now she is running to be president and says her core values haven't changed, to support allies with energy we have to produce more fossil fuels yet climate change is an existential threat. So at the expense of the whole world, we will provide more energy to our allies. To me, it makes no sense.

We all know Vance's record on abortion and his core value is 100% pro-life he even supported 15-week gestation and criminal offenses after that nationwide. Now that he is picked as VP he now supports Trump's abortion plan of letting the states deal with it. Let's say he then runs for president afterward. Should he not be asked why he now supports abortion in some states and why his core values seem to have changed?

Since I don't reside in a political party I would want answers but I guess I think differently so I'll end this hear.

Click to expand...

Don't go away. This is just getting good. I mean we've worked to arrive at some understanding of one another, but it's still not resolved.

I see the question as a loaded question. "Should he not be asked why he now supports abortion in some states and why his core values seem to have changed?"

I don't think Vance's core values have changed just because he supports giving the state the authority to regulate abortion differently. But explaining how that is so, will probably not satisfy a query which is intent on looking for an either/or answer. More than likely it will be viewed as making excuses, or not being transparent, or flip flopping.

This is the problem, there exists two primary dichotomies that we reason upon. One that deals with absolutes which is usually recognized as a positive/negative or sometimes a North/South dichotomy. The other deals with degrees which is usually called a left/right or east/west dichotomy. So, the problem is that some questions are asked using absolutes of North/South, and when answered in a left/right format it looks like it's contradictory when it isn't.

For example, if you had to choose between yes fracking and no fracking, it's two absolutes positive/negative, right? But the actual situation requires that if you don't frack, then in the short-term people freeze during the winter, but if you do frack you allow water and air to be contaminated, and in the long-term people get sick and even their DNA is altered.

Either way it's bad. The answer is we need cleaner energy, and we should be working towards that direction, but it won't happen overnight.

Don’t forget Harris sponsored the Green New Deal

hislegacy said:

Don’t forget Harris sponsored the Green New Deal

Click to expand...

As opposed to coming out of the Paris Accord? I think that's why people will be voting for her. As opposed to the other one who thinks that wind farms kill whales and who thinks he'd get electrocuted if a boat with a battery sinks.

Bradskii said:

As opposed to coming out of the Paris Accord? I think that's why people will be voting for her. As opposed to the other one who thinks that wind farms kill whales and who thinks he'd get electrocuted if a boat with a battery sinks.

Click to expand...

I would vote for him over Harris and her radical left position.

.