To be fair, neither republicans nor democrats can do jack shit about gas prices. Well, it is technically possible they could do a little but it would basically amount to some variety of using the government's muscle to somehow push gas prices down which would in turn hurt corporate profits which is not something either party has a stomach for anyways.
They could if we nationalized oil refinement, but of course neither Republican or Democrat would be for that in any major way
What exactly do you mean by nationalizing it? As in, the government taking ownership? What I had in mind roughly, though I have no idea if its feasible, practical or smart, is something like forcing US oil companies to first meet local demand and only export what's left after that. I know some countries do this sort of thing with other products and it appears to work. But of course, at the expense of those sweet overseas profits (and also overseas consumers). The government taking ownership of the oil is 110% a bad idea IMO. By current republican standards (and to a large degree democrat standards) either is pretty much communism and an attack on private businesses. Although at least in this case nationalizing oil actually is socialism.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
So like, going cold turkey on russian energy?
--- Double Post Merged, ---
...do you believe in global warming?
The issue here is that the entire economy revolves around fuel. You could say the US lost 3-8% of it's supply with banning Russian imports, yet prices didn't only increase 3-8% did they? It's price gouging, and I think it's immoral for something like this to have that kind of profit-motive. This shouldn't be a thing that happens, and I doubt anyone is fine with it unless they're AnCap or something.
Yes. Or at least do the next best thing, which is strongly taxing that energy.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
They are. Honestly, the only thing that keeps Ukraine from recovering all the territory right now is that they cannot fight back against some of the russian aircrafts, at least not in a good way. Or against long range missiles.
It depends? I don't think it's necessarily unreasonable that prices increase by more than what the supply decrease. Depends on the market. That doesn't rule out price gouging of course.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
Don't get me wrong, I support sanctioning russia into a fifth world country. As far as I am concerned that's cheap, easy and effective warfare. Or at least cheaper, easier and more effective than actual warfare (no one seems to be able to win wars nowadays). But this kinda reads like kamikaze. I mean, sure, the russian's economy would be tanked. But... there's a timer on the EU economy being tanked into the third world as well. Which regardless of the war is a fairly desirable goal for putin's obsolete empire game.
--- Double Post Merged, ---
Let me say it this way: If Putin thought he could force the EU into the third world, he would.
That is the point. He cannot do it for long and the time is even shorter if the ramp up sanctions. THat is why i believe Russia cannot keep going until the effects on us (with the energy embargo) become really bad. They have trouble to keep going right now.
Idk, the status quo of unmitigated profit while everyone gets fucked at the pump with no serious initiative for energy alternatives is preferable?
IMO this is absolutely preferable to nationalized oil. What country with nationalized oil has actually progressed? With nationalized oil everyone still gets fucked at the pump and the government absorbed trillions of dollars ripe for corruption.
Well... I think laying that at the feet of them having nationalized refineries and nothing else is kind of myopic, lol
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
Nothing you say makes sense or is even remotely correct. You also seem to be one of those republicans that'll criticize Dems for something they didn't do or had nothing to do, but when a Dem or a left criticizes republicans with actual proof, you cry and say we should all get along.
I am not sorry I offended you!
they are the government, cannot leave themselves! lol
I don't take you seriously at all for you to offend me, don't worry about it.
I know that's a lie, but dont worry about it. I know she was only picked because of her **** and ******. Just like Kamala harris.
All 3 of Trump's Supreme Court picks were picked solely because of their potential less-than-friendly opinion towards a certain landmark decision from the 1970s that the majority of the people in this country have no interest in relitigating. And of the 3 only one of them was considered to have the qualifications to even hold the position of Justice in the first place.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
Pay more for food... or... starve?Curious to know what everyone's plan for rising food costs is.
I agree with you, they were both picked because they're both competent and know how to do their jobs, unlike Trump and his picks.