World, Writing, Wealth discussion

I looked for the thread where we discussed the possibility of Trump running and couldn't find it. Several of you had mentioned Tulsi Gabbard, whom I had never seen or heard for some reason. Well, I saw and listened to her today, and she's great! I'd vote for her for president, although the old guys who run the party probably wouldn't like to see her on the ballot for pres. Maybe vice president, though? 150% improvement over Kamala :-)

Wonder if you'll have a geriatric heavyweights showdown or young prodigies or a mix :)

Kamala Harris will have a clip go viral when she loses it after journalists ask her if she's being dropped from the ticket five hundred times.

Nancy Pelosi will get primaried by a political noob who asks San Franciscans how many of them have stepped in human feces that morning.

Joe Biden will blame Putin, the Double Plus Hyper MAGA Congress, Corn Pop Jr., and his leaky Depends.

WikiLeaks will release Epstein/Maxwell's client list. Two ex-presidents, fourteen senators, and numerous congresspersons will be named.

AOC will continue to be an embarrassment.

Scout wrote: "Several of you had mentioned Tulsi Gabbard, whom I had never seen or heard for some reason. Well, I..."

I voted for her in the 2020 primaries. She was the only Democrat in the field who might have unified the country. She had some far left positions that were unpalatable, but mostly she was centrist enough for conservatives, and independents didn't have to hold their noses to vote for her the way they did for Biden. And I would say she feels like she's moved more toward the right since then.

Hopefully the 2024 field won't be as crowded as these races have become. If Trump decides to run again, he's popular enough that almost no other Republican has even a slight chance against. The only hope for the Never-Trump Republicans is to rally around a single candidate early in the race. If they have to choose among 20+ Anti-Trump candidates, Trump won't even have to waste his time and money on the primary race.

It would be fun to watch the meltdowns if he were to win another term, but the age thing is kind of a put-off. I don't doubt he'll be more capable from '25-'29 then Biden is now, but I think we're ready to turn the page on Baby Boomer leadership in general. The generational shift in leadership needs to happen now.

I think the only other Republican would be Florida's governor Ron DeSantis. He's a fighter and a Trump-style conservative, but he's a lot better at picking his fights and a lot more measured about fighting those battles. He manages to be likeable.

I also think it will be the Democratic field that will be the messy fight. If by some chance Biden survives the next 2 years and actually runs again, you will see a lot of Democrats lining up to challenge him. Biden is the only one who thinks he'll be a serious candidate in '24. You'll see candidates coming out of the woodwork to be the nominee, and I wouldn't be surprised if Hillary makes one more attempt. We very well could see a Trump-Clinton rematch.

Interesting post, JJ. I'm a big DeSantis fan. He's got a far broader appeal than Trump and is far more politically astute. IMO, the Republicans and Democrats would be mad to wheel out the old guard in the next presidential election.

Obviously a few hurdles and big news stories to overcome before it could happen, but my dream ticket would be DeSantis and Gabbard. Go on, Tulsi, take a leap of faith. That dream ticket would appeal to all voters bar progressives and result in a landslide.

I don't trust Gabbard. When her name comes up in some articles that allow comments, the comments are very negative from people who followed her a lot closer. She was very liberal, then had a very unsuccessful run for president, is not in congress anymore, has had her association with WEF scrubbed and all of a sudden is all over the place like she is auditioning for something.
I think DeSantis is the real deal, a real results guy. But I don't think he and Trump would run against each other and I don't think Trump, if he runs, would pick DeSantis for VP because most of the time the ticket doesn't have both from the same state.
Outlier might be Mike Pompeo - I've heard some of his interviews lately and he's very sharp. At one time I thought Nikki Haley had potential as Trump's VP but I think their relationship cooled a bit.

I like Mike & Nikki

I'd like to hear more from you, Barbara, about Gabbard. I was just going with my gut feeling from hearing her speak one time. I don't really know anything about her. She just seemed to be a logical person, which you don't find often in politics these days.

I do hope Trump doesn't run again. He has too much baggage, and too many undecideds won't vote for him. Did you guys hear about the January 6th broadcast yesterday on the major national networks? The Dems are trying to sink him as a candidate, and it was a very one-sided and professionally produced broadcast, with no opportunity for a Trump defense. A hatchet job, basically. How do they get away with this? Because Democrats are in power and can do whatever they want with the blessing of the major networks. Something is very wrong in this country when people of the opposing party have no voice.

These "hearings" are going to backfire massively. Everyone has seen their gas prices more than double since Biden took office. We're seeing store shelves that are emptier now than they were back in the spring of 2020 during the covid inspired panic. Mothers are struggling to find ways to feed their babies because of the baby formula shortage. Workers who started seeing their wages rise at the end of Trump's term now see it all wiped out from Bidenflation.

Instead of working on any of these problems affecting real Americans, the Democratic controlled Congress is still focused on Trump. It's focused more on their own security over the security of law-abiding Americans dealing with out of control crime thanks to the Democrats' soft on crime policies. It's not a question of if Democrats lose the House, but how big the Red Wave will be.

BTW, don't know if it came across anyone's radar, but the courts ruled NY's Democrat-drawn congressional maps unconstitutional and assigned a special master to redraw them. The new map makes many districts more competitive, and several Democratic reps have been scrambling because they've been double bunked with each other. Republicans will pick up a few seats just because they control the process in a few states that picked up representatives after the census. Democrats needed to draw out Republican districts in states like NY and MD to mitigate that, and they lost the ability to do it in NY. Not sure about MD, but that one is or was being litigated too.

For those who blame Biden on the gas prices, what should he have done? The only reason they are that high is the shortage thanks to sanctioning Russian oil. Do you want no sanctions and cheaper gas.

For those who say the US should produce more for itself and forget about climate change, do you forbid exports? Unless you do, any additional production will be dumped on the world market for higher prices, As it is, the US still has the cheapest oil anywhere in the world outside the "naughty" countries.

Ian wrote: "For those who blame Biden on the gas prices, what should he have done? The only reason they are that high is the shortage thanks to sanctioning Russian oil. Do you want no sanctions and cheaper gas..."

All he had to do was nothing. We were energy independent in 2019 and became a net exporter of oil.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/energy/ti...

January 20, 2021: One of Biden’s first actions was to revoke approval for the Keystone XL pipeline and impose a moratorium on oil and gas leasing on federal lands and waters. Roughly 25% of U.S. production comes from federal areas. The Keystone XL cancellation confirmed to many policy-watchers Biden’s willingness to use one of climate activists’ favorite tactics – blocking "midstream" pipelines – to restrict "upstream" production.

February 26, 2021: Biden updates the "social cost of greenhouse gas emissions," dramatically altering the way the U.S. government calculates the real-world costs of climate change. The move could reshape a range of consequences, from whether to allow new fossil fuel leasing on federal lands and waters to what sort of steel is used in taxpayer-funded infrastructure projects. The administration plans to boost the figure it will use to assess greenhouse gas pollution's damage inflicts on society to $51 per ton of carbon dioxide – a rate more than seven times higher than that used by former president Donald Trump. But experts say it could reach as high as $125 per ton once the administration conducts a more thorough analysis. This would apply to any new oil and gas lease sale, raising producers’ costs to deliver new supplies.

June 1, 2021: Biden proposed eliminating a slew of tax benefits for oil, gas and coal producers in favor of electric vehicles and other low-carbon energy alternatives as part of his $6 trillion budget for the next fiscal year. It proposed repealing: the pass-through exemption from corporate income tax for partnerships that derive at least 90% of gross income from natural resources; use of percentage depletion for oil and gas wells; expensing of intangible drilling costs; capital gains treatment for royalties; enhanced oil recovery credit; $3.90 per barrel credit for marginal oil wells; expensing of exploration and development costs, and other tax incentives. Eliminating these tax provisions imperils U.S. energy security by raising costs for domestic producers and would increase America’s reliance on foreign energy supplies.

October 29, 2021: Biden and Democrats propose a "methane fee" in the proposed budget bill. The fee would start at $900 per ton in 2023 and increase to $1,500 in 2025. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, and industry has been working to reduce fugitive emissions of it on its own. The industry has also embraced executive regulatory efforts to reduce methane emissions, including support for the Global Methane Pledge, which requires a 30 percent cut in methane emissions by 2030, one of the Biden administration’s priorities for the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow. But the fee structure would effectively serve as a tax on natural gas production, which is counterproductive to energy security and economic growth in the U.S.

November 17, 2021: Biden sent a letter to Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan encouraging an investigation into oil and gas companies and retail gasoline prices. The move infuriated oil executives, who Biden portrayed as scapegoats for rising inflationary pressures on Americans. In four months, it marked the second time that the White House requested a probe into retail fuel prices, even though gasoline prices are set in a global commodity marketplace and were only following market trends in crude and refined product prices. The surge in crude oil and gasoline prices reflects tightness in supply amid a rapid demand recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic.

March 12, 2022: Congressional Democrats propose to tax top U.S. oil producers and importers and direct the collected money to Americans, an effort they said will curb profiteering in an era of high gasoline prices. The "windfall profit" legislation would put a 50% tax, charged for a barrel, on the price difference between the current cost of a barrel of oil and the average cost for a barrel between 2015 and 2019. Lawmakers contend it would raise an estimated $45 billion a year at $120 a barrel of oil. The measure proposed by Biden’s Democratic party completely ignores the reality that oil prices are set in a global commodity marketplace, not by individual companies.

March 21, 2022: Biden’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) proposes landmark climate rules. If finalized, the rules would fundamentally overhaul how publicly listed companies divulge detailed information about their climate risks and mitigation strategies. Large companies that do business in the U.S. would be required within three years to lay bare their contributions and vulnerabilities to climate change – including, in some cases, the greenhouse gas emissions associated with their customers and suppliers. The move is designed to divert investment away from fossil fuel producers, even though investors are already planning for the energy transition using their own environmental, social and governance (ESG) standards.

While many of these were proposals that didn't or haven't yet gone into effect, markets react regardless. And yes, while it would take years for the pipelines to become operational, the markets also react to future events. Keystone, for instance, was already priced into the market. When Biden cancelled the project, it's future production had to be priced out of the markets. That doesn't even consider we've lost a year and a half on the project, so even if he reverses course, the completion date is now further away than when he took office.

And because he's relying more heavily on the foreign markets, we're taking away more oil from other buying nations, and stressing the market even further. Putin and his war isn't responsible for turning us from a net exporter to a net importer. It is not Putin's fault - it's not because of Ukraine - that we're drawing more oil from Saudi Arabia or Venezuela or Canada - oil that could have gone to Europe to help alleviate their shortage from Russia.

Yes, but if the price surges to $X above the $Y it was, why won't the US companies raise their prices by $(X-Y)? The only way to stop that would be to put export restrictions on. Is that what you are suggesting? There is no way the US could make up for the totality of Russian oil production, which is about 11.2 million bbl/day. Take all that out of the market and prices must rise.

AOC wouldn't answer the question when asked if she would support Biden in 2024.

https://www.thepioneerwoman.com/food-...

Ian wrote: "Yes, but if the price surges to $X above the $Y it was, why won't the US companies raise their prices by $(X-Y)? The only way to stop that would be to put export restrictions on. Is that what you a..."

I'm not sure you actually read that. The world didn't just lose Russian oil from the market, it lost the American oil when Biden killed production. Not only that, but you added American demand to the foreign markets further stressing the supply.

And I never said there wouldn't have been consequences, but if we were still producing today like we were the day Biden took office, the US would be in a position to mitigate the strain on Europe's supply instead of being a competitor for foreign oil.

It is true Biden killed SOME domestic oil productions but as far as I am aware, it was a very long way short of 11.2 M bbl/d. Certainly, Biden's cutting production did not help, but his sanctions, in my opinion, are the real cause of the current price rise. Biden's cancelling of product ion, etc operated for quite some time prior to Ukraine with no serious changes, at least win the price here.

JJ, thanks for all the time you put into researching and presenting how Biden killed American oil production. Ian obviously didn't read or didn't understand what you wrote. In a recent statement, Biden showed no remorse for the financial stress he's put on average Americans, seemed pretty happy with how things are going. And in a more recent statement he urged the oil industry to build more refineries so that we can refine more FOREIGN OIL. What the actual hell?? This guy.

Scout, how much US oil production did Biden kill? As opposed to expansion with a certain pipeline? What was the price of oil a week before he made his statement, and what was the price of oil for the weeks following?

I don't understand why he wants to build more refineries, and I am sorry but I did not know he was going to.

The other night I had a few beers with a friend from LA and another mate of ours. As I'm too distant to offer my prediction, I'll substitute it with that of someone on the ground.
I like his Absurdistan stories about LA. Although he's a bit overdramatic, they somewhat portray the reality. He says most progressive organizations are stuck with internal fighting. Nothing can't be achieved through their incapacity. It's always that someone is "insulted", "infringed", "discriminated" or "unfairly treated". A top executive himself, he says most employers, when interviewing candidates now, primarily look at how not to ruin their biz from the inside when hiring someone. It's virtually impossible to fire someone belonging to "minorities" without being accused of discrimination even if a CEO is say black and gay. Having dem president, house and senate, they actually manage to achieve very little due to internal discord.
Now his prediction - Trump again in 2024. He has little doubt he'd run, for he won't put his ambition aside and that Dems would be humiliated.
For the background, he equally can't stand Trump nor Dems.

As someone who tends to vote democrat, I’m terrified at the prospect of having to choose between a Biden or Harris presidency in a primary and running either one against Trump/Desantis ticket in 2024. I’m not sure Gavin Newsome is any improvement and I really don’t think he can win a general election.
With an approval rating below 50 and nearly 40, there’s not much going for a Biden ticket at all. The only other person I’d maybe want to see in the mix is Mayor Pete, and even still, I don’t think he has enough to win a general election. Doesn’t seem like 2024 has a lot to offer Democrats.

Scout, my intentions aren’t to defend a president I don’t much care for, but gas prices are pretty exuberant across North America and Europe. Avg. price in Canada is up enormously.

Supply chain issues, consumer demand and refinery capacity to meet demand, and war in Ukraine are all factors that no global leader was really prepared for. Not just a Biden issue.

Scout wrote: "I looked for the thread where we discussed the possibility of Trump running and couldn't find it. Several of you had mentioned Tulsi Gabbard, whom I had never seen or heard for some reason. Well, I..."
Tulsi does seem to make a lot of sense in a field of liberals and never-Trumpers. I have seen her a lot on Tucker Carlson and she is now appearing on several other Fox shows. If she came off as more liberal in the past, I'm sure it is because she most likely was. I believe she has transitioned to a more centrist position in comparison to other Democrats.

Given the leaders of the two parties seem to be heading off towards the extremes, it may be difficult for a centrist to get a nomination, even if, ideally, a centrist is most likely to take votes from the opposite party supporters. It is unfortunate that by trying to ensure your clearly extreme supporters actually get out and vote, you lose the ability to take from the other side.

It comes down to a ghost that is haunting the Dems.
https://youtu.be/rU6PWT1rVUk

Maybe give this a read: "Yes, Biden Is To Blame For The Energy Crisis. Here’s Why." https://www.maciverinstitute.com/2022...

This raises the question, since Biden has stated that the US will do its part to combat the emission of CO2, are not his policies consistent with that aim?

The only way to find alternatives to fossil fuels is to raise the price of fossil fuels because no alternative can compete with them on an open market. Current consumers are doing nothing to meet the inevitable costs of rising sea levels. So the question is, do you want cheap gas now and the hell with the future, or are you prepared to do something about it?

Ian wrote: "This raises the question, since Biden has stated that the US will do its part to combat the emission of CO2, are not his policies consistent with that aim?"

He is a politician. He wants to claim responsibility for every good thing, and deny accountability for every ill.

Wages up - "I did that!"
Gas prices up - "Putin-flation!"

He's a child who wants his allowance, but doesn't do his chores.

:-) Well said, J. I'm all for eventually switching to electric cars (as long as the electricity isn't produced by fossil fuels, which it still is. Otherwise, what's the point?) I say eventually because driving up gas prices before there's an alternative available that's affordable for everyone is just torture for the middle class who still have to drive gas-fueled cars and pay these prices that are breaking their budgets. The trucks that transport goods aren't close to becoming electric, so high gas prices drive up prices on everything. It doesn't appear that Joe cares about any of that, only about some utopian future, while the people he claims to care about are going broke -- and he's made his millions doing nothing but being a politician, doesn't have to worry about paying his bills. He might as well say, "Let them eat cake." And we know how that turned out.

Eventually, prices must rise for transport because there is no way anything can be cheaper than oil, BUT if everyone goes electric, there are simply not enough critical elements, and who is going to throw away their motor vehicle?

There are means of making biofuels that are not that outrageously priced, and they do NOT involve things like corn or seed oils, i.e. they do not compete with the food system. They are not a complete answer, but they might at least keep everything else within realistic prices.

Scout wrote: "...It doesn't appear that Joe cares about any of that..."

In fairness, I wouldn't say he doesn't care, as he tries different solutions. One of the recent ones: https://www.theguardian.com/business/...
If his trip to Saud Arabia is successful in July, oil prices may go down considerably..

One of the more telling issues for the next Presidential election might be the current revelations about Trump re the Jan. 6 "riot". The news as being reported here, while obviously Dem favoured, includes people making statements who should be considered politically neutral (public servants) or even somewhat to the right. The image we see here is of a President who had no interest in the constitution, and not much interest in the truth. How will this affect 2024?

Ian wrote: "One of the more telling issues for the next Presidential election might be the current revelations about Trump re the Jan. 6 "riot". The news as being reported here, while obviously Dem favoured, i..."

The last time that I checked, testifying that you heard gossip about something is called hearsay. Then it was followed by actual witnesses, including the supposed source of the gossip, offering to refute said hearsay, under oath. Do you think that those witnesses will be called to testify?

Uncle Joe is setting up the board.
https://youtu.be/wtzkaI-bxiA

J. wrote: "Ian wrote: "One of the more telling issues for the next Presidential election might be the current revelations about Trump re the Jan. 6 "riot". The news as being reported here, while obviously Dem..."

They had better be called or the whole thing is a farce. However, evidence from A saying B said something is not hearsay in that it is a report on what B said. It says nothing about the truth of what B said, but it is valid that B said it.

Ian wrote: "J. wrote: "Ian wrote: "One of the more telling issues for the next Presidential election might be the current revelations about Trump re the Jan. 6 "riot". The news as being reported here, while ob..."

Except that the farce isn't about A or B. It's about C.

Well, when you only show one side, you might be accused of being biased :-) This is being seen as a trial, but there's no opportunity for the accused to respond. So it's not a trial; it's a hatchet job.

Nik, buying oil from Saudi Arabia isn't necessary if Joe would just let U.S. oil companies produce and refine our own oil as they did when Trump was pres. Up until he was elected, we were oil independent. He acts like he has no choice but to refine oil from other countries. I don't think that's true. Any proof to the contrary?

Scout wrote: "Well, when you only show one side, you might be accused of being biased :-) This is being seen as a trial, but there's no opportunity for the accused to respond. So it's not a trial; it's a hatchet..."

Are the republicans forbidden from being there, or have they voluntarily decided to excuse themselves? Has Trump actually requested to be heard?

Scout wrote: "Nik, buying oil from Saudi Arabia isn't necessary if Joe would just let U.S. oil companies produce and refine our own oil as they did when Trump was pres. Up until he was elected, we were oil indep..."

It's less about buying oil from Saudis, it's more about convincing them/OPEC to up the production for the global market in general. If they do - the prices will go down. That's the usual effect that OPEC plays with for decades - sometimes dumping oil, other times - minimizing the output to raise prices.

One of the odd things about oil prices is recently the price of Brent crude came down but the price of refined product went up. It seems to me the oil companies' record profits goes at least some way to explaining our price increases.

Ian wrote: "One of the odd things about oil prices is recently the price of Brent crude came down but the price of refined product went up. It seems to me the oil companies' record profits goes at least some w..."

What are the current refinery capacities?

The current refineries were doing fine until this crisis. I do not believe the use of oil has gone up because supply has been taken out.

An interview with one of the Republican contenders, Kristi Noem:
https://youtu.be/CjzhZKfHs2A

Ian said, "Are the republicans forbidden from being there, or have they voluntarily decided to excuse themselves? Has Trump actually requested to be heard?"

Republicans didn't excuse themselves. The panel comprises seven Democrats and two Republicans all appointed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat. This is not a bi-partisan panel, but one cherry picked by Pelosi to present one side of the issue. Trump would love to respond, but he's not been given that chance. As I said, it's a hatchet job, not a fair hearing.

Finally a liberal calls out Biden on gas prices: Jeff Bezos responded to Biden's latest attempt to deflect blame, "responding to Biden’s criticism of companies running gas stations and setting prices for consumers. “This is a time of war and global peril,” the president tweeted on Saturday. “Bring down the price you are charging at the pump to reflect the cost you’re paying for the product. And do it now.”

Bezos tweeted on Saturday night: “Ouch. Inflation is far too important a problem for the White House to keep making statements like this. It’s either straight ahead misdirection or a deep misunderstanding of basic market dynamics.”

Look like we have a surprise contender here:

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/artic...

Surprise?

An entertaining look at the current Democratic hopefuls:
https://youtu.be/IhOU9W0seC4

Trump's first wife, Ivana, has passed away.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dona...

I think what James Carville said when he was working for Clinton still applies - "It's the economy, stupid." The Jan 6 hearings are getting no traction with the public at large, Biden's world travels aren't impressing anyone - people are concerned with pocketbook issues, and those issues that trickle down to the pocketbook, whether its unregulated immigration, crime, gas prices, rising food costs, shortages, that's what people will vote for.
Trump's personality rubs some people the wrong way but he was a results person. So is DeSantis. So is Kristi Noem. And when people look at the grocery shelves and can't find baby formula and when their kids can't get off a school bus without walking a gauntlet of homeless, and multimillionaire politicians take private jets and tell us why we should make do with wind energy, oeople get fed up - they want solutions, not sermons.