U.S. Politics

Status
Not open for further replies.

Pegasus

Executive Member
Joined
May 17, 2004
Messages
7,085
Are you incapable of answering the question? Then just admit you were talking kak and you have nothing to back it up with and lets move on.
Using pipelines lowers cost and increases supply.
Do you disagree with that?
 

jack_spratt

Expert Member
Joined
May 21, 2018
Messages
4,057
Using pipelines lowers cost and increases supply.
Do you disagree with that?


BNSF Railway transports oil/gas from Canada to US.

Buffet is a major investor in BNSF Railway. Over 77%

Warren Buffet is a major fundraiser for the Dems.
 

tetrasect

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Messages
1,995
Using pipelines lowers cost and increases supply.
Do you disagree with that?

Yeah, building new pipelines would lower costs and demolishing existing pipelines would increase cost.

They are doing neither, so costs will remain as they are now (they will NOT increase).
 

Pegasus

Executive Member
Joined
May 17, 2004
Messages
7,085
Yeah, building new pipelines would lower costs and demolishing existing pipelines would increase cost.

They are doing neither, so costs will remain as they are now (they will NOT increase).
If input costs increase, or supply decreases will the price not increase?
 

Pegasus

Executive Member
Joined
May 17, 2004
Messages
7,085
Unrelated.
Sure.

If there is an expectation that there will be a steady availability of a commodity at a lower price for a period into the future and this is changed, then there will be no effect on the price.
Is that correct?
 

greg0205

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
23,575
Oh...

EseMxkMXUAEQpUk


EseMxwmXYAIsvUM
 

greg0205

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
23,575
Just here, sippin' my tea, reading Trumpists on MyBB talk about majorities...

...as the Hawaii and Texas GOP fully embrace the baby blood drinkin', anti vaxxin', flat earthin', 9/11 inside jobin' and fake moon landin' demographic.

giphy-downsized-large.gif


Good times.
 

tetrasect

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Messages
1,995
Sure.

If there is an expectation that there will be a steady availability of a commodity at a lower price for a period into the future and this is changed, then there will be no effect on the price.
Is that correct?

Yes, because expectations "that prices might come down in the future" being shattered, is not the same as prices increasing.

Do you really think energy companies lowered their prices before the pipeline was even built? :ROFL: :ROFL::ROFL:
 

tetrasect

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Messages
1,995

One of Trump's final acts will allow former aides to profit from foreign ties​


In the final hours of his presidency, Trump revoked the ethics pledge he’d signed four years earlier, which, among other things, had barred those who’d served in his administration from lobbying for foreign governments and political parties for the rest of their lives.

With those restrictions gone, former Trump administration officials will be free to represent foreign powers — exactly the kind of swamp-like behavior Trump had promised to eradicate in his 2016 campaign.

 

Cray

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 11, 2010
Messages
26,105
Yes, because expectations "that prices might come down in the future" being shattered, is not the same as prices increasing.

Do you really think energy companies lowered their prices before the pipeline was even built? :ROFL: :ROFL::ROFL:
Yup. because the one thing we know about oil companies is their humanitarian side and how they always pass savings onto the customer, even before the savings have been realized...
 
Last edited:

2021

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2012
Messages
9,511

One of Trump's final acts will allow former aides to profit from foreign ties​


In the final hours of his presidency, Trump revoked the ethics pledge he’d signed four years earlier, which, among other things, had barred those who’d served in his administration from lobbying for foreign governments and political parties for the rest of their lives.

With those restrictions gone, former Trump administration officials will be free to represent foreign powers — exactly the kind of swamp-like behavior Trump had promised to eradicate in his 2016 campaign.


Rules for thee but not for me?

This paints Trumps intentions going forward pretty clear.
 

daelm

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
1,348
Number 3, in an incidental series.
___________________________

"calling the capitol rioters 'domestic terrorists' is a political decision by the Democrats."

this one is interesting, in the sense that it forms part of an interlocking conspiracy theory that rests on your acceptance of no 2 (that the media is left-wing). accepting that, you will also be required to accept that the Democrats direct the (left) media to demonise the right. calling the rioters 'terrorists' is one of the things they direct them to do, though there are many, many other demands they make, like moving the stock market, and specifically the price of commodities, to make Joe Biden look good. (or bad? i can't tell.)

it's worth noting that this dynamic of control will be reversed in other arguments, where it is also the case that "the left" directs the Democrats to do things. apparently, it is very, very confusing in the headquarters of the global conspiracy and I am always astonished that we manage to advance our cause as much as we do. our opposition must be simply awful, which is not unlikely considering that they all take Red Dawn as both their manifesto and their training manual.

we should start with definitions.


"The FBI defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government ... in furtherance of political or social objectives.” The State Department uses similar language, and Merriam-Webster also invokes a political motivation — it was the word of the day Tuesday — defining it as “the use of violent acts to frighten ... as a way of trying to achieve a political goal.” Yet none of those is the end-all, be-all, says Maria Haberfeld, a professor of police science at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York. “There’s no agreed-upon definition,” she says. “It’s changed over the years so many times.”

An earlier Webster’s volume, the Tenth Edition Collegiate Dictionary, copyright 1994, supports her assertion. The copy on my desk that formed my interpretation years ago defines it as “the systematic use of terror, esp. as a means of coercion.” A 2003 revision added the political angle, reading: “a systematic use of terror especially as a means of gaining some political end.” The more definitive Oxford English Dictionary includes both political and nonpolitical meanings, including “instilling of fear or terror; intimidation, coercion, bullying” and “spread[ing] a feeling of terror or alarm.” "

______________________

we should also consider the composition of the capitol rioters.


"The storming of the Capitol drew extremists that included adherents of the QAnon conspiracy theory, the far-right group the Proud Boys, militiamen, white supremacists, anti-maskers and diehard Trump supporters, all gathered to stop Congress from certifying President-elect Joe Biden’s victory."

this is not a new convergence. the overlap between militias, whites supremacists, extremist evangelicals, and various anti-government groups has been a concern for the FBI and every interested analyst for years. that said, should anyone be concerned about these kinds of groups?


"In a report released last week, the Escalating Terrorism Problem in the United States, CSIS analyzes 25 years of domestic terrorism incidents and finds that the majority of attacks and plots have come from the far right. The report says “the majority of all terrorist incidents in the United States since 1994, and the total number of rightwing attacks and plots has grown significantly during the past six years”, with the far-right launching two-thirds of attacks and plots in 2019, and 90% of those in 2020. The report adds: “Far-right terrorism has significantly outpaced terrorism from other types of perpetrators.” The second most significant source of attacks and plots in the US has been “religious extremists”, almost all “Salafi jihadists inspired by the Islamic State and al-Qaida”. "

the CSIS themselves weigh in:


also from the CSIS:

1611500270799.png

this is not a new dynamic, by the way. the data below is from 2008 to 2016.


1611500574691.png

this, below, is an excellent GWU paper on the subject.


"Kerry Noble, a former member of the 1980s paramilitary group The Covenant, the Sword and the Arm of the Lord who later became a campaigner against extremist violence, said in 1999: “I’m thoroughly convinced we’re going to have another domestic terrorist act in this country that is going to be beyond our imagination, beyond Oklahoma City.”27 The triggers for such an attack are, unfortunately, very much in place: large numbers of disaffected, often traumatized former members of the military with the training and expertise to wreak enormous damage; an economy that, even on an upswing, continues to favor the few at the expense of the many, and fuels resentment; a political culture that allows room for hostility toward the government and barely veiled invective against minorities and immigrants; easy access to firearms, both legal and illegal; and a vast number of resources, many of them now online, to propagate extremist ideology."

the bolded sentence in the quote, above, is particularly interesting in light of the participation of groups made up largely of both active-service and retired members of the military and police.
______________________

lastly, we should consider what they set out to do and what they did, as far as can be determined.

to start with, they planned. not only on Parler, but everywhere. i'm not going to link the Parler stuff because anyone can find it, but the SPLC has fascinating audio.

"The law center's three-part podcast – parts two and three publish later this month – takes listeners through 83 hours of secret recordings as 100 men apply for membership. The recordings were made on an encrypted app called "Wire" by a Canadian journalist who infiltrated the group and via a separate confidential source who provided the recordings unsolicited. "We want things to accelerate, we want things to get worse in the United States," Nazzaro says in the recordings, as he interviews a potential new recruit. "Our mission's very, very simple. It is training and networking, preparing for collapse. We want to be in a position where we’re ready, we're prepared enough, ready enough that we can take advantage of whatever chaos, power vacuum, that might emerge. We want to try and fill that power vacuum and take advantage of the chaos." "


secondly, they acted. again, i'm not going to link to the events of the day because everyone can find them, but simply highlight the gallows, the guns carried, the beating to death of a capitol police officer, and so on.

thirdly, they intended a great deal more.


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/23/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-man-charged-threat



______________________

so. let's distinguish between a few things. to start, with it's clear that what occurred on January 6th is clearly domestic terrorism, despite many of the participants not being there for that reason, having been simply swept up in the momentum. that shifts us towards asking: (a) what is the reason for the decades-long failure to classify this as domestic terrorism and (b) is the recent shift towards doing so a "political act"? regarding the latter, i guess, probably yes, in the sense that politicians and lawmakers have been shocked to have missed it for so long. the DHS was planning to classify them in September.




much more interesting, though, is the former. why has this been dismissed for decades, up to and including the apparent suppression and editing of the September draft threat assessment by the DHS?

is it possible that the failure to classify these groups as a domestic terror risk is equally, if not more, a "political act"?



_
 
Last edited:

Pegasus

Executive Member
Joined
May 17, 2004
Messages
7,085
Yes, because expectations "that prices might come down in the future" being shattered, is not the same as prices increasing.

Do you really think energy companies lowered their prices before the pipeline was even built? :ROFL: :ROFL::ROFL:
Prices can increase, stay stable or decrease. In other words they can "change".

The expectation could be that prices will be stable, increase or decrease.

Once again, there are multiple pipelines. Some in progress, some complete and some planned.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top