US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[August]

Originally Posted by eddie

Like listening to August crying like a baby about Benghazi isn't it! Over and over again!

Oh c'mon now Eddie, the truth is it's you and your fellow liberals who have been the ones crying like babies for the past 13 months now and Benghazi is a significant part of the reason why.

You see your candidate could claim that it didn't matter, your party could try and laugh it off but it actually did matter, over and over again, millions of times all across the country with every ballot check mark for Donald Trump.

[vienna]

Gee, I guess all those ballot checks for candidates other than Trump, you know, the majority of the votes, must mean something, like, I guess, they didn't buy the Trump-GOP hogwash, any more than anyone is buying the idea Trump is a great president. The only reason the GOP and the Trump apologists hang on so tenaciously to the tired and disproven Benghazi dead horse is the fact they have precious little to bring to the table, they have no real solutions to problems, they have no real viable plans, they lack the support of the majority of voters and citizens, they are watching whatever support they did have whittle away daily and, perhaps, they are desperate to deflect attention from their various shortcomings. It is interesting how Trump and the GOP keep bring up Clinton; if you're looking for a broken record, they have an LP with only one song. Instead of rehashing old tropes and rerunning the same show, it would be nice if they actually presented actual viable plans and goals the real life voters and citizens are concerned about; I mean when you have to change Congressional voting rules to eke out a skin-of-the teeth passage of a tax bill you won't even let people read before they vote and it is replete with hand written revisions and then you bully it through in a flailing attempt to get it passed with out even the most cursory review, it says you have done something you have little or no faith in and you are ashamed to actually let it be seen in the clear light of day; all in all a weak, sad and pathetic example of governance: shall we call it "The GOP Way"?...








<O>

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by vienna

The last time the US pissed off the Arab states:

Oil Embargo, 1973–1974 --
<O>

Does not compare. Situation today is totally different. We maybe must fear an American oil embargo more than an OPEC embargo today.

Since decades Western ME policy was crippled by the notorious fear of that the Arabs might be pissed about something, and that precious Islamic sentiments might be pissed about something, that that we should not risk the wrath of the pissed part of the world. We didn't risk it, allowed stagnation, self-paralysis, petrification of our political thinking that way - and for some reason they nevertheless despise us and are pissed because of us. So what is the difference if the outcome is the same? They are pissed if we do and they are pissed if we don't. Lets stop pampering them.

I have stopped caring for whether they are pissed or not. Their world is a garbage bin. Voices from the garbage bin telling me about rights and precious sentiments and civilisation I do no longer listen to. Enough is enough. Keep the lid on this garbage bin, it stinks of rotten centuries and foul dogmatics

[u crank]

Originally Posted by vienna

The only reason the GOP and the Trump apologists hang on so tenaciously to the tired and disproven Benghazi dead horse is the fact they have precious little to bring to the table....

It does come up a bit. So does this.

Gee, I guess all those ballot checks for candidates other than Trump, you know, the majority of the votes

[Rockstar]

I seem to remember that we've been alerted before by someone here that Texas is the one buying up and controlling all oil.

[vienna]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Does not compare. Situation today is totally different. We maybe must fear an American oil embargo more than an OPEC embargo today.

...

Certainly Germany must fear an American oil embargo. Remember, it was not just the US on which the Arab oil states slapped an embargo; nations believed to be sympathetic to the US and/or Israel also had the tap turned off. If there is an oil embargo over the Jerusalem matter, it would most likely be as encompassing as in 1973. So, then, what happens? The tap is turned off and our allied nations turn to the US to take up the slack; the US might have enough to sustain for a while, but only if it severely curtails exports overseas. In any case, the oil companies will undoubtedly seize on an embargo to seriously jack up the prices at the pump and to industries; in 1973, an oil company gas station in my neighborhood went from selling regular gasoline for US$0.29.9/gal to US$0.89.9 in a period of 24 hours; I don't expect anything less if there is an embargo again...

And its not just the citizen buying gas; there is a sort of 'ripple' effect; if you ship any product by any means requiring oil-based fuels, your cost will go up and your prices for shipping will go up accordingly; if you manufacture anything that has oil-based components, your costs will go up and your product prices will go up accordingly; if you are in retail and have inventory shipped to you and if that inventory consists of any oil-based product, your costs will go up and the prices you charge your customers will go up accordingly; if you are a consumer faced with suddenly higher prices, you will feel the pinch and seek higher wages to offset your higher expenses; if you are an employer, well, you can either increase wages to keep employees or lay off staff in order to cut costs. An embargo is never a simple matter; it has long reaching tentacles. As someone who lived through and vividly remembers the mess of the last embargo in 1973, it is never a simple 'them/us' equation. One other thing I also remember: while consumers in the US were struggling to deal with gas shortages and the effects of those shortages, US oil companies were eagerly selling US oil to overseas buyers mainly because they could get a far better sale price than selling in the US domestic market: I somehow don't think the US oil companies are going to be any more fired up with an "America First" spirit now than they were then...

Originally Posted by Rockstar

I seem to remember that we've been alerted before by someone here that Texas is the one buying up and controlling all oil.

Yep, that would be me. I didn't notice the perceived trend of oil company behavior until Obama put the kibosh on new oil drilling leases a few years back. The oil companies were already sitting on a surprising large number of existing, unused, unexploited leases, a great many of them in the state of Texas. Obama actually rescinded some of the unused leases, sort of saying use the leases you've got and if you won't use them, well, then you lose them. The question that came up in my mind was, why are the oil companies seek even more leases when they aren't actively using the existing leases? The fact the oil companies were seeking leases in states outside of the Texas/Oklahoma area was interesting; it was almost like "We want to drill oil, just not Texas oil". If you put the whole situation together, logically, what you get is an apparent effort by oil companies to deplete sources outside of Texas with the apparent intent to be the 'last men standing' when it come to oil supplies. If you also take into account the fact the oil companies have aggressively sought sources outside of the US other than the Arab states, such as that Canadian pipeline for instance, in lieu of exercising their existing unused leases, it does make one wonder...

The situation brings up another interesting question: if the goal of the US energy policy is to make the US energy independent from OPEC and other foreign oil states, why are the oil companies sitting on so much stock and continuing to seek foreign oil source? Shouldn't they be do what the GOP chanted a while back: "Drill, baby, drill!!"?...

Gaining the enmity of the Arab states will not only open the US and its allies to embargo; as stated, things are different nowadays from 1973: back in 1973, there was not an extensive and roughly organized Islamic terrorist threat. We not just lose our oil, we might also gain increased terror acts...







<O>

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by vienna

Yep, that would be me. I didn't notice the perceived trend of oil company behavior until Obama put the kibosh on new oil drilling leases a few years back. The oil companies were already sitting on a surprising large number of existing, unused, unexploited leases, a great many of them in the state of Texas. Obama actually rescinded some of the unused leases, sort of saying use the leases you've got and if you won't use them, well, then you lose them. The question that came up in my mind was, why are the oil companies seek even more leases when they aren't actively using the existing leases? The fact the oil companies were seeking leases in states outside of the Texas/Oklahoma area was interesting; it was almost like "We want to drill oil, just not Texas oil". If you put the whole situation together, logically, what you get is an apparent effort by oil companies to deplete sources outside of Texas with the apparent intent to be the 'last men standing' when it come to oil supplies. If you also take into account the fact the oil companies have aggressively sought sources outside of the US other than the Arab states, such as that Canadian pipeline for instance, in lieu of exercising their existing unused leases, it does make one wonder...

The situation brings up another interesting question: if the goal of the US energy policy is to make the US energy independent from OPEC and other foreign oil states, why are the oil companies sitting on so much stock and continuing to seek foreign oil source? Shouldn't they be do what the GOP chanted a while back: "Drill, baby, drill!!"?...

Gaining the enmity of the Arab states will not only open the US and its allies to embargo; as stated, things are different nowadays from 1973: back in 1973, there was not an extensive and roughly organized Islamic terrorist threat. We not just lose our oil, we might also gain increased terror acts...

<O>

Vinnea sure has a lot of time to think out loud when he types, uh?

Your post reminds me of a question I've had for a long time about oil companies ... What does net profit mean? Doesn't it include all expenses taken out like looking for oil, equipment. drilling, transportation and the refining and the retail stations too?

Look at the graph on this link (they won't let me copy it over)

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...on-net-income/

This statistic depicts the 2017 ranking of the global top ten oil and gas companies based on net income. The values are based on the 2017 Financial Times Global 500 list. The Russian company Gazprom was ranked first, with a total net income of approximately 16.53 billion U.S. dollars.

Exxon Mobil is the second one on the list at 10.5 billion dollars in net profits.

Maybe I'm off a little on profits vs income, but still that is a lot of money ... money that investors feel comfortable investing in.

[ikalugin]

Oil embargo by arabs would be amusing, especially if it goes together with an increase in tensions with the west, as this would:
- increase our oil/gas sales revenue.
- increase our arms sales revenue.

[Catfish]

I wonder how the Saudi's reaction will be, after Trump's idea with Jerusalem.

[Jimbuna]

An oil embargo will only benefit those with sufficient reserves in the long term.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

An oil embargo will only benefit those with sufficient reserves in the long term.

Which is why I am against the increasing of our domestic oil production. When you have a resource that is as valuable and critical as oil and there is a finite supply, it is in our best strategic interest to use foreign sources first.

When the foreign sources start getting low, we will have our domestic supplies.

You don't want to be the first country to run out of oil, you want to be the last.

[em2nought]

oopsie again

[eddie]

Originally Posted by em2nought

oopsie again

Just like all the lies coming out of Trumps mouth,lol Should change the name of the White House to Trumpsters dumpster, there is so much BS and garbage coming out of the there! Time to dump Trump into a garbage scow!

[vienna]

Pots & Kettles:


Fox News issues correction on Roy Moore accuser yearbook ‘forgery’ headline --

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/36...rgery-headline


No, Roy Moore accuser didn't admit she forged his signature in her yearbook --

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...forge-yearboo/








<O>

[u crank]

CNN, MSNBC and CBS has a bad day. And not their first. As bad as Fox News can sometimes be, I now have zero faith in the accuracy and especially the intent of both CNN and MSNBC.

FRIDAY WAS ONE of the most embarrassing days for the U.S. media in quite a long time. The humiliation orgy was kicked off by CNN, with MSNBC and CBS close behind, with countless pundits, commentators and operatives joining the party throughout the day. By the end of the day, it was clear that several of the nation’s largest and most influential news outlets had spread an explosive but completely false news story to millions of people, while refusing to provide any explanation of how it happened.

https://theintercept.com/2017/12/09/...what-happened/

If you go to CNN's website you have to go to the politics section and scroll almost to the bottom of the page to find a correction on the article. I guess they don't see it as to big a deal.

Surely anyone who has any minimal concerns about journalistic accuracy – which would presumably include all the people who have spent the last year lamenting Fake News, propaganda, Twitter bots and the like – would demand an accounting as to how a major U.S. media outlet ended up filling so many people’s brains with totally false news. That alone should prompt demands from CNN for an explanation about what happened here. No Russian Facebook ad or Twitter bot could possibly have anywhere near the impact as this CNN story had when it comes to deceiving people with blatantly inaccurate information.

It is troubling to say the least. Here you have three major news outlets breathlessly reporting an inaccurate story almost with glee. Proven wrong this of course just gives the current WH more ammunition to push the 'fake news' line. You would think they could learn from past mistakes and be certain that they have it right.

The more serious you think the Trump/Russia story is, the more dangerous you think it is when Trump attacks the U.S. media as “Fake News,” the more you should be disturbed by what happened here, the more transparency and accountability you should be demanding. If you’re someone who thinks Trump’s attacks on the media are dangerous, then you should be first in line objecting when they act recklessly and demand transparency and accountability from them.