-------

 

 

 

 

Why is he doing this knowing damn well he could blow up the deal? 

Are Democrats really tying a small investment of $300b over 10 years (this is less than half of what the Pentagon gets in the span of one year ) to...... locked-in contracts that say the US has to maintain a certain level of oil and gas usage until 2032??? When that....... is counterintuitive to the point of such investments? 

 

 

I find it hard to be fatalist about climate change but why are politicians doing this to us? 

 

Climate terrorist jumped out

Giving the fossil fuel companies more land?? Every year lasting a decade?
Liberals really need to stop acting like they care about any issue. The evil **** you support says otherwise. 

13 minutes ago, Illuminati said:

Climate terrorist jumped out

And this isn’t even the first time. He’s voted against the Green New Deal before. 

 

30 minutes ago, A Bomb said:

Giving the fossil fuel companies more land?? Every year lasting a decade?
Liberals really need to stop acting like they care about any issue. The evil **** you support says otherwise. 

No offense but, making people pay $6/gallon at the gas pump by restricting supply doesn’t make anyone more green. It just makes them vote Republican, who don’t even believe in climate change. 
 

It’s called an energy “transition” for a reason. 

9 minutes ago, Kassi said:

No offense but, making people pay $6/gallon at the gas pump by restricting supply doesn’t make anyone more green. It just makes them vote Republican, who don’t even believe in climate change. 
 

It’s called an energy “transition” for a reason. 

Yes, very intellectual of you to support a giveaway to the same companies that are the one price gouging. Record profits AND more resources to devastate the landscape. The only thing offensive is your intellectual dishonesty or ignorance. Idc which is it. The end result is the same. Tragic. 

9 minutes ago, A Bomb said:

Yes, very intellectual of you to support a giveaway to the same companies that are the one price gouging. Record profits AND more resources to devastate the landscape. The only thing offensive is your intellectual dishonesty or ignorance. Idc which is it. The end result is the same. Tragic. 

US oil companies have essentially no control over the price of gasoline set by the global market. Total available supply is what determines gas prices. Basic supply and demand. 
 

The only thing US oil companies could really do is turn their businesses into charities by selling gas cheaper than the going market rates. But then all that would do is create gas lines all across the country since more people would buy more gas at a cheaper price. And oil companies couldn’t really change the amount of gas able to sell. 

39 minutes ago, Kassi said:

No offense but, making people pay $6/gallon at the gas pump by restricting supply 

Restricting supply that would only occur from deciding to..... put $300b to climate change efforts and not the trillions we have been needing for years on years? 

 

"It's called a energy TRANSITION for a reason"

 

I can't believe Don't Look Up was a documentary 

23 minutes ago, Communion said:

Restricting supply that would only occur from deciding to..... put $300b to climate change efforts and not the trillions we have been needing for years on years? 

Correct. Years and years in which Republicans have mostly been in control and blocking progress.
 

So that’s something we want to avoid perpetuating by not scaring away the locals from climate politics with high gas prices. Duh.  

What a weird and disingenuous misrepresentation.

I’m sure Bernie wants to add more to the bill and make it better but can we please sign this **** and get something done before the end of Biden’s term thanks

4 minutes ago, Kassi said:

by not scaring away 

"If you want to SLOW the comet down, you just have to accept we also have do things that make the comet FASTER."

 

puking/crying/shitting/etc. over the hopelessness of capitalism 

26 minutes ago, Communion said:

"If you want to SLOW the comet down, you just have to accept we also have do things that make the comet FASTER."

 

puking/crying/shitting/etc. over the hopelessness of capitalism 

Do you not see the hypocrisy in arguing that Americans have to go without (i.e. bear high gas prices) in order to advance climate initiatives, while also advocating that Bernie force through expansion of Medicare while we're trying to advance climate initiatives?

 

In the first scenario, voters make a direct correlation between climate policy and freezing in the winter. While in the second scenario, the status quo on Medicare remains and voters only get to experience the upsides of climate policy.

 

So what's the truth? Do we advance climate legislation at some cost to voters or not? 

 

This is misleading and you know it 

2 minutes ago, Buddy said:

This is misleading and you know it 

Then what is his objective here? 

3 minutes ago, Kassi said:

Then what is his objective here? 

These package deals are ******* ridiculous because half the time there are aspects within them that Bernie and other "progressives" adamantly disagree with. 

6 minutes ago, Kassi said:

Do you not see the hypocrisy in arguing that Americans have to go without (i.e. bear high gas prices) in order to advance climate initiatives, while also advocating that Bernie force through expansion of Medicare while we're trying to advance climate initiatives?

 

In the first scenario, voters make a direct correlation between climate policy and freezing in the winter. While, in the second scenarios, the status quo on Medicare remains and voters only get to experience the upsides of climate policy.

You can’t argue with people who survive on bad faith, ignore him

23 minutes ago, Kassi said:

arguing that Americans have to go without

Why are you knowingly proposing a false binary? You've done this now three posts in a row.

There doesn't have to be a price increase on the consumer-side if Dems held energy companies accountable.

 

You, for some reason, do not want to acknowledge that. You're framing energy corporations as gods who will never lean away from profit and so we can only act within the confines of "our actions to slow down climate change are restricted to the limits of which corporations allow us to impact or not impact their profits". 

 

Why are you lying to everyone in this thread reading? 

Why does ExxonMobile love a bill that should, in theory, spell their end? 

 

Quote

While Democrats tout their spending bill’s important new investments in clean energy — and they are important — the legislation includes language making new solar and wind projects contingent on expanding oil and gas leases on federal lands and waters. The more clean energy we build out, the more dirty energy becomes available for fossil fuel companies to extract and burn.

 

This provision was the bribe for a long-sought vote from Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), a coal magnate who is Congress’s top recipient of fossil fuel industry cash, and whose staff reportedly confers weekly with Exxon’s lobbyists.

 

Your argument is: "We either pass this $300b bill that would increase dependency on oil and gas to get some renewable subsidies OR we reach the goals that progressives [aka climate scientists] say we need that will make voters hate Democrats over $6 gas that will be an inevitable outcome of anything progressives do".

...but the entire bolded portion of this argument is a lie and a fallacy.

 

You're creating a false outcome and saying it's the only outcome possible and ignoring when people call you out. We can try and stop climate catastrophe *and* hold corporations accountable if Democrats have any kind of moral backbone; in fact, holding corporations accountable is the only actual way of achieving the former.

 

Quote

Natural resources law professor Sam Kalen told Bloomberg that this language is “one of the worst policy provisions I’ve seen,” while the Center for Biological Diversity’s Brett Hartl called it “a climate suicide pact.” Scores of climate groups demanded the language be eliminated before the bill is passed.

 

Edited August 7, 20224 yr by Communion

The OP really thought

1 hour ago, Kassi said:

US oil companies have essentially no control over the price of gasoline set by the global market. Total available supply is what determines gas prices. Basic supply and demand. 
 

The only thing US oil companies could really do is turn their businesses into charities by selling gas cheaper than the going market rates. But then all that would do is create gas lines all across the country since more people would buy more gas at a cheaper price. And oil companies couldn’t really change the amount of gas able to sell. 

Please keep those remedial economic lessons  to yourself 

In Sept. 2013 one barrel of a crude oil was 92$. Currently is it at 89$ a barrel. The avg gallon of gas was 3$ and some change. Even accounting for inflation of 20% of the almost 10 years. It would only make it 4$ a gallon. It is price gouging with them making record profits because of it. Idk how dense one person could be, but stick to yas mama’ing Pelosi. Clearly, you are out of your depth with any type actual genuine discussion or knowledge on politics 

Imagine your only politically knowledgeable contribution on a pop forum that leans gay is dick riding an incompetent dinosaur in politics. Which currently is so hated her mere presence is damaging to Democrats. The dick riding is so pathetic

12 minutes ago, Buddy said:

These package deals are ******* ridiculous because half the time there are aspects within them that Bernie and other "progressives" adamantly disagree with. 

That was the same with Bernie’s original $3.5 trillion package deal. It was so big in fact that, by definition, it had even MORE things progressives disagreed with, like tax exemptions for wealthy individuals. But he was ok with it cause it also had MORE stuff that he liked. 
 

The fact of having to compromise isn’t going to change depending on the size of the package. So that’s a moot point. There’s always going to be things progressives like and don’t like in a bill requiring the votes of at least 250 legislators, likewise for moderates. 
 

What Bernie is doing now is throwing a fit and trying to sink a bill that he couldn’t dictate the terms of negotiations on. Even tho we already tried his way. It’s counterproductive.  

9 minutes ago, A Bomb said:

Please keep those remedial economic lessons  to yourself 

In Sept. 2013 one barrel of a crude oil was 92$. Currently is it at 89$ a barrel. The avg gallon of gas was 3$ and some change. Even accounting for inflation of 20% of the almost 10 years. It would only make it 4$ a gallon. It is price gouging with them making record profits because of it. Idk how dense one person could be, but stick to yas mama’ing Pelosi. Clearly, you are out of your depth with any type actual genuine discussion or knowledge on politics 

 

  

14 minutes ago, Redstreak said:

You can’t argue with people who survive on bad faith, ignore him

Suggesting that "$6/gallon gas" is an inevitable outcome of Dems not doubling the amount of federal land they give oil companies the permission to drill on is, by definition, an act of bad faith. That's objectively not true. 

 

By all means, play the electoral game and frame Democrats as victims to Manchin, but one can't have their cake and eat it too. One can't argue that the Dems are proposing sufficient climate change funding *and* that increasing oil and gas usage *at rates faster than we are building renewable energy sources* is "the smartest path forward".

 

But that's the M.O of that user's trolling. They can't even recognize how corporatism has enabled an oligarchy that makes Congress at-odds with voters. They've go even farther and argue that, well actually, Manchin blocking renewing free school meals "was smart and amazing to limit inflation" (free school meals wouldn't impact inflation) and that "the only other option was to do something as unpopular at $6/gas" (again, untrue and completely dishonest).