HeloDude

Iran is claiming responsibility for the attack. https://apnews.com/article/iran-missile-attack-erbil-iraq-us-consulate-7a4ea6281fe6191a4e4b640c58c7fd49

The government will rarely ever be successful in “taking something away from you” that you already own. That being said, they’ll raise taxes on gas to dissuade you from owning it. Or your state will raise the cost of renewing your tags but will give a large discount on EV tags. Also, the government will require new gas cars to be able to get current gas mileage + a new X miles to the gallon in 5 years. On and on. They’ll just make it more difficult for you to keep your vehicle and will incentivize you to buy a new EV with taxpayer money (“cash for clunkers” anyone??), or most likely, future taxpayer’s money. And just like I was against cash for clunkers, I was against the auto bailout as well. But there’s no way the government was going to let those union jobs fail. None of this will be done to directly help people, rather it will be done in the name of “fighting climate change”…and yet the elites will still have whatever they want to drive, their private jets, etc because they can afford it. As for the infrastructure piece, we can definitely argue that one—I’m all for new nuclear power plants, but the left in recent times hasn’t been as for it, so that’s not helping. Also, the GOP says they’re for it, but doesn’t really do much to get it done. But are vehicles infrastructure? Do EV’s cause any significant benefit to reducing wear/tear on roads?

Dude, you can’t discuss EV’s and oil/gas vehicles and how one is better/worse and how one is going away/not going away without discussing the politics because it’s far from a free market. And worse, when I asked you why it was then needed for the government to interfere (incentives for EV’s and stricter regulation for oil and gas vehicles), your response is that humans aren’t good at making their own decisions. I have no doubt that technology will evolve/improve our lives since that has been going on since the beginning of humanity. However this notion that “humans can’t make their own decisions” means that the technology currently is not ready to stand on its own merit. The government is once again trying to pick winners and losers, and so your argument of how great something currently is doesn’t hold water because if it was then people would naturally be attracted to it without the interference. That all being said, I’m excited to see what the future brings wrt electric vehicles and when oil/gas engines have lost their place, then so be it. But let’s not pretend that this is happening on its own.

Solid post—thanks for the info.

I sometimes wonder if they actually believe what they’re saying.

Not interested when your response is “well, I know better than other people and that’s why”. And if EVs use different roads than what gasoline cars use, please let me know!

So you don’t trust people to make their own decisions and thus believe that decisions need to be made for them…as long as you like those decisions. Spoken like a true progressive and/or elitist. If EVs were so great they would sell themselves without taxpayer incentives. The left has sold out to the environmentalists and the Dems are now trying to spin their policies as actually being for fossil fuels even though you can’t swing a dead cat without easily finding evidence to the contrary.

So then why the need to provide monetary incentives for the electric car industry and only have further restrictive regulations on oil and traditional vehicles? I don’t recall the government making VCRs more restrictive to make the way for DVD players?

Oh supply vs demand always reigns supreme. But…it’s almost as if restrictive regulations also have a strong part in the game when it comes to production/prices. Hell, one of the leading contenders for the Dem’s 2020 nominee said he was against all new fracking and wanted to rapidly end existing fracking. Oh and he’s now the Transportation Secretary.

So your post was intentionally misleading. It’s almost as if the left is suddenly trying to make the argument that Biden and his policies are better for oil production than Trump was during his term. I guess that’s what happens when you have high inflation/gas soon to be over $5 a gallon and you’re trying to tell the American people that your policies are actually good for energy prices even though Biden and the left are literally on record saying how they want to drastically reduce fossil fuel production. I know you want to say this has nothing to do with politics, but the truth is that this has everything to do with politics. The high inflation wasn’t an accident…and originally the left was saying it was a good thing and not to worry because it was “transitory”. But hey, just go buy an electric car if you don’t like the high gas prices… https://nypost.com/2021/11/29/buttigieg-slammed-for-urging-electric-car-buying-to-counter-gas-prices/

Just curious as to why you think US oil production in 2019 was 12.29 millions of barrels per day but was only 11.18 in 2021 and is only forecasted to be 11.85 in 2022? I mean, if Biden is “Domestic Oil King 2024”, wouldn’t he so far have the highest year ever?

How it started… https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/biden-energy-sec-granholm-laughs-boosting-oil-hilarious How it’s going… https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/granholm-energy-executives-produce-more-russia-ukraine But yeah, it’s all Russia’s fault.

Paper from Stanford written in 2018 says about 10 years. No time like the present to start. https://large.stanford.edu/courses/2017/ph241/park-k2/

7.9% inflation and the House (with a majority of Republicans in favor) just passed a $1.5 trillion spending bill for just 6 or so months of federal spending. But yeah…it’s all about Russia/Ukraine, or something. Clearly things need to be a lot more painful here in the US before enough people agree that we need to stop the bleeding/adjust course.

If big blue hasn’t gotten it by now, they’re never going to get it. Stay in or get out…just do what’s best for you and your family and don’t expect a whole lot of positive changes.

I’m literally quoting the President… https://www.foxnews.com/media/biden-excoriated-twitter-insinuating-blocks-legislation-jim-crow-2-0

I’m much more concerned that you’re saying such positive things about a Nav… I kid I kid…but seriously 😉

Really? Progressives literally think that requiring an ID to vote is “Jim Crow 2.0”.

You really don’t think that Americans are ‘that’ short sighted? We’re impatient as hell and we agree on very little of the issues being made today in the political arena…and that’s probably mostly by design by the politicians on the left and the right, but it’s true all the same. One of the few things that cuts across the majority of Americans is the economy. The left is doubling down on “green energy” vs drilling more here at home and that argument might work during better economic times, but not when the economy isn’t doing so great. Again, even Biden knows this…he wants to not completely piss off his support from green energy folks, but he’s not willing to speed up political suicide by calling for less oil/higher prices than necessary at the pump. And asking Saudi Arabia (not really what I would call a strong democracy/proponent of freedom) to pump more is a joke. The argument that Americans will happily pay $6 a gallon of ask will destroy the left in November. Unfortunately the Republicans at the federal level haven’t been that great on doing what is necessary—cutting at home spending, cutting the military, increasing personal freedom. The situation in Ukraine, while horrible, is being mostly used as a distraction here in the US. Either Russia will lose/largely leave with their tail between their legs (doubtful, at least anytime soon) or Americans will become a lot less interested come this summer.

Give it a little time man. I remember when the vast majority were for invading Iraq, even after no WMDs were found (I was one of those back then btw). I also remember when the vast majority were for forcing businesses to close 2 years ago due to a virus that the vast majority of people would survive without even needing hospital care. When the recession hits, the vast majority will not be ok with $6+ a gallon.

Spin it however you need to man. If you think I’m immoral for not wanting the US to get involved with a war on the other side of the globe, then so be it.

If Russia invading Ukraine is the equivalent to Auschwitz, then why hasn’t Europe went to war with Russia to stop them? Or were you just bringing up Auschwitz as an example of an atrocity that has nothing to do with what is going on currently in Eastern Europe? I agree Auschwitz was horrendous, but likewise so was the Armenian genocide, Rwanda, slavery in the US, on and on. I guess we should thank the Soviets and Stalin for liberating those death camps and doing the brunt of ending WW2 in Europe? And as for the atrocities committed in the USSR… I definitely don’t like what Russia is doing and I think Putin is a bad dude…but I think Xi in China is a bad dude, and I don’t like what they do either. When China invades Taiwan I won’t like that either…but I won’t be calling for ending all economic activities with China. Sorry man, but that’s just where I’m at. We do business with a lot of countries with corrupt governments and that don’t really protect freedom. Ever been deployed to the Middle East? What I would like to think the majority of us on here agree on is that the US should severely cut regulations that hamper business (oil, manufacturing, etc) in the US. If one good thing has come out of this horrible situation is that it has put the pro-big government regulation types on defense, especially the environmental leftists who the Dems can’t seem to upset. But just like Covid, when things start going worse for politicians in the US due to unpopular policies, they’ll quickly pivot away and find a new issue. Politicians aren’t nearly as pro-Ukraine as they are anti-Russia, and when Americans get really upset with negative impacts here at home, the politicians will adjust. This is why Biden won’t cut off the oil…it’s all political theater.

Ohhhhh…”we’re not there yet”. Translation—you’re not willing to sacrifice more “yet”. But you’re willing to call out others for their lack of morality if they don’t want to sacrifice what you’re willing to do so now. Sorry dude…you literally brought morality into this argument of what someone is willing to do vs not do, not me. You also said we should not do business with those countries who do business with Russia…and yet you voluntarily engage in business with those countries. I don’t care whether someone buys Russian vodka or not. And as for not wanting to buy chips made in China, are you saying you can’t live a life in the US without buying such items? Or just that the hardship would be too uncomfortable for you/your family to bear? What are you going to do when China invades Taiwan? You’re free to walk back your original morality argument if you’d like…

If that’s what you got out of my original post, then I have to explain it better…here it goes: If Ratner is going to say that his morality is superior to others because he is wants the US to do X to Russia and wants the American people to sacrifice Y due to economic sanctions (when others like me don’t desire these options), then I expect him to voluntarily sacrifice more than what is a minor inconvenience in his daily life. Ratner says that we should stop doing business with countries (ie Mexico) who are still ops normal with Russia and yet Ratner himself is not willing to make such personal sacrifices on his own. You can live a life in the US without ever purchasing anything from Mexico. If you disagree, then that’s fine…but this is the equivalent to those who want AR-15s banned in the US but is willing to get one themselves and/or hire someone with an AR-15 to provide their private security. Another example are those who want SUVs using traditional gas engines banned, but who also continues to use them until there is such a ban. If Ratner wants to play the “moral superiority” game, then he has to be willing to accept the fact that he picks and chooses as well, and thus is not better than anyone else.

I’m not the one telling people that their morals are lacking if they don’t support action against Russia for invading Ukraine. So if you’re going to ask where my personal lines are then I’m going to do the same to you. The difference is that I don’t care whether or not you support action against X country but apparently you care if I don’t support said actions. So I ask you to lead by example—be the change that you want to see happen. If you’re not voluntarily willing to sacrifice what you want the government to force us all to sacrifice, then your argument holds zero weight.