Um….not always.
When a refinery shuts down, whether for scheduled maintenance, necessary repairs, or strategic supply and demand price rigging, gas prices just go up instantly. The oil and gas company doesn’t lose money from the down time, often they make more money because of it.
Look at Enron, that’s exactly what they did for years, intentionally created planned energy shortages and price gouged.

Somehow I feel like the information she’s relaying is not the reason for the post….or votes.

Exactly the non-answer know nothing twaddle I expect from you, even when you are warned against such stupid vapid nonsense that only indicates you have absolutely no clue what you’re talking about, as usual, and are just regurgitating propaganda as best you can, which is pretty damn bad because you clearly don’t understand it.

Prices will go up….by 1/1400 of one cent per gallon? Little boy, you are such a troll with nothing to say….and you’re undoubtedly wrong as usual.

In total under Biden 180 million barrels have been released, most over the summers when prices spike. Under 16 days worth over 730 days. In Oct he announced the final release…10-15 million barrels, through the end of the year. .8 - 1.2 days worth over 90 days. Barely over 1% of demand maximum. If you think that dramatically changes prices at the pump, you’re dumber that you sound….which is unbelievable.

Meanwhile, oil company profits have tripled from pre pandemic levels after a few oil companies had 2 bad quarters in 2019- 2020. They recovered their losses and then some in 2021, 2022 they raked America over the coals, intentionally creating shortages while their profits skyrocketed.

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/wrapup-global-oil-giants-rake-massive-profits-third-quarter-2022-10-28/

Tapping the strategic petroleum reserve was never about lowering prices, it was about showing he was trying everything to lower them as they rose worldwide faster than in America. It was a political show to stop the Cons from claiming he was doing nothing as they blocked every legislative move he tried. It would never make a noticeable difference by itself.

What will happen to gas prices, I expect they’ll continue to fall precipitously like they have since June because 1) our supply has returned to close to normal and 2) we are in winter, when natural gas price rises and gasoline drops EVERY SINGLE YEAR. Duh.

The quality of your trolling has depreciated noticeably since your numerous political and financial losses piled up. What’s wrong? Are your handlers too busy preparing their defenses, and looking for new networks, to spoon feed you today’s fabricated Con positions?

Imagine thinking the US would not intervene when China takes Taiwan...

At best the US could field 500k troops offshore without weakening other strategic locations.

China's paramilitary has 20,854,000 troops, as of 2018...
If they decided to do conscription that will probably add another 30 - 40 million.

Good luck taking that on without a draft to bolster the US numbers.

The US haven't won a war since they lost to rice farmers in Vietnam. Must be your achilles heel considering you lost against goat farmers in Afghan. Hope you do better against something more equipped that farmers...

Which POTUS started the war(s) in the first place? W. Bush. Which POTUS send billions upon billions of free military hardware to prop up a corrupt, coward, incompetent, puppet government? Trump.

Biden will own the absolutely hasty pull-out, though Biden ISN'T incorrect about unavoidable chaos. That's because the US -- AGAIN like most other American war adventures -- just pack up & left. In war, you either win, lose or negotiate an armistice to avoid a bloody and chaotic aftermath. You can't have an armistice with the Taliban because it wasn't - isn't - even a government entity. Biden was honest about the miscalculation about the speed of Afghanistan's fall to the Taliban at least. He said Intel couldn't imagine it'd be a matter of weeks but thought something like 90 days+? But that means crap because Intel said fall to the Taliban it WILL (i.e., an eventuality). So why the haste, where's the logistical & humanitarian planning? There is no justification for that strategic lapse. The major international criticism (100% valid IMO) is how Biden/America abandonned its own and allies' citizens & Afghan aides in a war torn country with little planning & time to get them out of the country BEFORE the military leave. And leaving all those military hardware intact to the Taliban? What the hell? I mean, what are the generals doing? Is American reverence of its President so total that you can't pushback and buy some time to plan for a better outcome? Or are they really THAT incompetent? What this fiasco shows is that Biden/Pentagon cares nothing BUT the military personel. That is f---ing it, no more, no less.

What we're witnessing in Afghanistan is arguably a collective American sin, not just Biden's. Most Americans want out, like it should've happened yesteryear. The US have been propping up its GDP by using endless wars to feed the mouths of the military industrial complex to sell hardware abroad. It's an addiction whether the Dem/GOP likes it or not. This is just another sad but typical American war history repeating itself again. It's America's military modus operandi. Want to apportion blame? Don't just blame it on Biden, there's plenty to go around: from the WH to the Senate, Pentagon and down to the "Almighty American Military Prowess' Sure Win" mentality in its people are all to blame.

Oh, rest assured that Republicans couldn't do better. Why? Because it's built into the American military DNA: arrogance & ignorance. That breeds blindness, making Intel useless - or worse - counterproductive because of the inherent lack of situational/cultural awareness. It's not really a political mistake, rather a huge military blunder.

It's a f---ing war crime to start a war and not knowing how to end it already. It's made worse that America collectively *think* it can "nation build" a vastly different (culturally, economically, socially, judicially... etc.) , and far away country by basically propping up a corrupt, dependant, puppet government and then leave, knowing (or EVEN worse, NOT knowing) the eventual outcomes. What a pathetic, cruel and deadly joke.

Such nonsense.
Biden did not approve, nor is he helping build this pipeline. He chose to not sanction one Swiss company helping build the last 90 miles, but is still sanctioning Russian companies involved, and is likely to block it's certification and insurance (by banning any insurer from using international or US banking) without guarantees the Ukrainian pipeline won't be abandoned.
He decided not making Germany go dark was a better plan, not alienating a long term ally and strategic partner that we are trying to repair our severely damaged relationship with.
He also decided putting Russia in bed with the Chinese, their other option for selling their gas, was not a smart move.
He is clear, he is against this pipeline and is still sanctioning many Russian companies involved in it's construction.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/18/politics/us-nord-stream-decision/index.html

Those grapes must be really sour today @bobknight33, they've got your yummy tears flowing like a firehose....keep em coming. So yummy, you guys.

Edit: I'm curious why America SHOULD hold veto power over international projects approved by all involved countries on other continents. Should we stop pipelines because Putin says so? He could stop hacking them and just tell us to quit. It seems ridiculous that we are telling Germany they can't have more natural gas, and telling Russia they can't sell it.
For clarification, I'm against it for ecological reasons, yes gas produces less CO2 than coal and oil, but produces way more methane which is >25 times more destructive per molecule in the short term. 11 billion could have built any number of wave/tidal generation facilities that run 24/7 without a new source of greenhouse gases.

"State Patrol troopers strategically deflated tires to keep vehicles from being used in attacks, and so we could tow the vehicles later for collection of evidence if necessary,"

I would thing a strategically placed, fairly large mirror would correct a fair amount of the problem. Suppose that starts getting into "too expensive" territory pretty quickly though, with inevitable vandalism and whatnot.

I agree there has been a F load of change in personnel. The real question is does this turnover occur in in business life?

If so then one could consider Trump as some kind of dickhead to work for .

If not then what is the reason for the difference?


I think there is much more going on behind the scenes. Why would one have a military General as your chief of staff?

With Obama's top level FBI as example --
Comey -- fired
McCabe- Fired
James Baker, general counsel -- Fired
James Rybicki Chief of staff -- Fired
Perter Strozk -- Fired
Lisa Page -- ???

If Hillary was elected not of their wrong doings would have come to light. All gunning to get Trump. Still that is just the FBI.


No wonder Trump is cleaning house so much. Some bad guys found? Some paranoia?
There isn't a day goes by without something big occurring.

There is still 3 big reports to come out.
Mullers findings.
The 2nd OIG report and Huber's findings

AG Jeff Sessions appointed John Huber will be the ‘top federal prosecutor’ who will be investigating FISA abuses . Huber's staff is over 400.


Also Guantanamo Bay, Cuba-- Expanding like mad...

$14 million to expand the prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. This is a "strategically critical time-sensitive expansion project". DOD justification states the "current trial support facilities are incapable of handling the large number of personnel .
https://insidedefense.com/insider/pentagon-expand-gitmo-after-trump-orders-it-remain-open

The place can hold some 2300 prisoners, currently Gitmo is currently holding 41 prisoners.. Also the 137th, 428th, and 514th was deployed this month to Gitmo for a year . Rotating people out - possible, but some 500 troops for 41 prisoners?

What is so time sensitive for to handle trial support facilities are incapable of handling the large number of personnel .-- Where are these people coming from? What is coming down the pike?

Like I said above:
I think there is much more going on behind the scenes. Why would one have a military General as your chief of staff?

Really? WE sponsored a VIOLENT coup? So you take the purely Russian viewpoint.
Wiki-
After the breakup of the Soviet Union, Ukraine endured years of corruption, mismanagement, lack of economic growth, currency devaluation, and problems in securing funding from public markets.[38][39] Successive Ukrainian governments in the 2000s sought a closer relationship with the European Union (EU).[40][41] One of the measures meant to achieve this was an association agreement with the European Union, which would have provided Ukraine with funds in return for liberalising reforms. President Yanukovych announced his intention to sign the agreement, but ultimately refused to do so at the last minute. This sparked a wave of protests called the "Euromaidan" movement. During these protests Yanukovych signed a treaty and multibillion-dollar loan with Russia. The Ukrainian security forces cracked down on the protesters, further inflaming the situation and resulting in a series of violent clashes in the streets of Kiev. As tensions rose, Yanukovych fled to Russia and did not return.[44]

Russia refused to recognize the new interim government, calling the overthrow of Yanukovych a coup d'état, and began a military intervention in Ukraine. The newly appointed interim government of Ukraine signed the EU association agreement and agreed to reform the country's judiciary and political systems, as well as its financial and economic policies. The International Monetary Fund pledged more than $18 billion in loans contingent on Ukraine's adopting those reforms. The revolution was followed by pro-Russian unrest in some south-eastern regions, a standoff with Russia regarding the annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol, and a war between the Ukrainian government and Russia-backed separatists in the Donbass.



The thing to remember about Crimea is it WASN'T PART OF RUSSIA, so no it didn't hold Russia's only black sea port not ice blocked in winter, it held a Ukrainian port Russia LEASED for use by it's black sea fleet from the Ukraine.
It's utter bullshit that Russia found a democratic way to invade and annex Crimea, they militarily invaded, seized and dissolved the democratically elected government by force, created and installed a new pro Russian sham government, then IT signed fake illegal treaties with Russia in violation of international laws and multiple binding treaties.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation

Russian masked troops invade and occupy key Crimean locations, including airports and military bases, following Putin's orders.[2][3]
The head of Ukrainian Navy, Admiral Berezovsky, defects, followed later by half of the Ukrainian military stationed in the region.[4][5][6]
Russian forces seize the Supreme Council (Crimean parliament). The Council of Ministers of Crimea is dissolved and a new pro-Russian Prime Minister installed.[7][8]
The new Supreme Council declares the Republic of Crimea to be an independent, self-governing entity, then holds a referendum on the status of Crimea on 16 March, which results in a majority vote to join the Russian Federation.[9]
Treaty signed between the Republic of Crimea and the Russian Federation at the Kremlin on 18 March to formally initiate Crimea's accession to the Russian Federation.[10]
The Ukrainian Armed Forces are evicted from their bases on 19 March by Crimean protesters and Russian troops. Ukraine subsequently announces the withdrawal of its forces from Crimea.[11]
Russia suspended from G8.[12]
International sanctions introduced on Russia.

You sound distinctly Soviet or ridiculously ignorant in your misrepresentation of the situation. They militarily attacked, invaded, and seized their neighbor, so not a bit restrained, they were not invited in by the government and welcomed....or would you insist they are also exceptionally restrained for not attacking and retaking Anchorage Alaska, their only non winter ice bound port in North America, a port clearly more strategically important than Sebastopol and just as Russian?

Lest we forget that Crimea started when we sponsored a violent coup in Ukraine, right on Russia's doorstep. How provocative is that?

The thing to remember about Crimea is that it holds Sevastopol which is a strategically vital port for Russia, it is their only port that isn't ice locked during winter. We knew full well they would have to keep hold of it one way or another, and thankfully Russia found a democratic way of doing it instead of violent.

Under the circumstances I think Russia deserves credit for being so restrained.

I don't know where you live, but you can hire or steal a truck pretty easily here in Australia (one of the most heavily regulated countries in the world). And our regulations haven't stopped recent idiots mowing down people with cars on purpose (Melbourne!!!). They're thinking of putting bollards in place in strategic locations - because you can't regulate away what we don't want happening.

Yes, some things kill at lower rates than the examples but I had to end somewhere.

Vehicle ownership is not essential. You can have public transport service everyone just fine (e.g. Singapore). Of course, some people argue that what is good for Singapore may not be suitable for themselves (i.e. it is essential in my scenario because I say it is). And you can extend that same argument to firearms (that they are essential in someone else's scenario). Firearms have a measured economic benefit, protection benefit, health benefit (active outdoor sports), military benefit, etc.

Modern civilisation works fine (I'd argue it works better) without private vehicles. Try having a civilisation without firearms - you'll have to have awfully large mobs of bobbies armed with nothing but sticks. Good luck with that

I think both results were discarded because the voter turnout was crazy low.

From my standpoint, I would prefer we give them independence. We really do not need another state and they are pretty much going to declare bankruptcy as soon as they are granted statehood. The island serves no strategic or economic purpose and we have enough states/cities that are skirting the edge of falling into insolvency as it is. Illinois, for instance, is having massive money issues and is likely to default on close to a quarter of a TRILLION dollars in pensions.

We could build in a period where people there could still move here as citizens, say 10 years or so.

Related:

Here is pretty much the same set off his album Strategic Grill Locations:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLgBPhstY9IwKeakofSMxmGVnzR-5xj8xO

The language wasn't panzified for tv and the crowd was way more into it.

RIP Mitch!

I understand, and "pollution per capita" is a logical argument. But from my point of view there are some critical problems and many flaws with following such reasoning. For example:

The US isn't the greatest emitter of Co2 per capita, but when that's brought up...the argument falls back to emissions in absolute terms. Many would say that that's hypocritical.

Wealth inequality is particularly bad in the US, with the top 20% of the population holding upwards of 88% of all wealth (while the total wealth of individuals isn't GDP, it does correlate with income flow). Doesn't this skew GDP per capita, holding the poor in the US to an unfair standard, vis a vis emissions? If it doesn't, then how is it unfair to poor, rural Chinese?

No international organizations agree on the definition of a "developing" country. Without this, aren't these types of arguments extremely subjective and open to abuse? The point being that there are very, very few "apples-to-apples" comparisons available. For example, would it be a fair comparison if I told you that China's per capita Co2 emissions exceeded the per capita emissions of the EU starting back in 2014?

But you're right...in that the US has polluted the most in absolute terms historically (with China catching up pretty fast). We didn't have a "God-given" right to do it; for most of it, we didn't even know that "it" (Co2) was a pollutant.

You're also right that as individual Americans we have more power to demand change. I understand and accept the dangers of climate change, and I very much want to do something about it. This is why I'm so frustrated with our current administration.

I just want you to understand that I'm not strictly pro-US and/or anti-China. In my opinion, climate change is giving us one resource to either take advantage of or to squander. That resource is time. And time isn't going to make accommodations for any nation, big or small, rich or poor.

This is why I'm troubled by a government like the CCP, that has plans to accelerate their emissions. We know better now (re. Co2), and so such actions on their part are unreasonably selfish. They know their actions will likely hurt or kill all of us, and yet they continue...with the hope that other nations will sacrifice so much as to be properly weakened while they themselves are strengthened.

I understand that in a perfect world, we'd have an equality of outcome. Wouldn't that be great? But we don't have the time left to make most of South America, much of Asia and virtually all of Africa economic equals. What we can do is get our own emissions down to as close to zero as possible, and help these nations build up an infrastructure using green energy. In this way, maybe we can try to foster at least an equality of opportunity energy-wise. The Chinese government has the funds to not only fully transform their own nation, but also to help to some degree in the aforementioned global initiative. But instead of being honestly proactive, they're creating a new cold-war mindset. This is not only wasting time, but also resources (both their own and those of the US in seeking to maintain their strategic edge militarily) that could be better used to help the less fortunate.

So what do we do? Well, I'm not entirely sure. But I can tell you that having other countries paint the US as a villain in this issue, and China as a saint certainly isn't helping.