Are democrats for more drilling of fossil fuels to bring down prices or not?

Votto

Diamond Member
Oct 31, 2012
60,129
63,270
3,605

It is confusing to say the least. On the one hand, you had Joe Biden during the election promising to end fossil fuels. However, when gas prices start to go up, Biden demands oil companies start producing more fossil fuels and is on his knees to OPEC begging them not to reduce supply, but fails to convince OPEC not to reduce supply, like he fails with everything else.

Then Biden's propagandist, Pierre, also gets caught in the same trap. She first tried to act like she had no recollection that Biden had ever said he was going to end fossil fuels, even though she herself said in June that the administration still intended to end U.S. reliance on fossil fuels.

But that is just it, democrats are unable to tell the truth, for if they did, no one would ever vote for them

Ever.
 

It is confusing to say the least. On the one hand, you had Joe Biden during the election promising to end fossil fuels. However, when gas prices start to go up, Biden demands oil companies start producing more fossil fuels and is on his knees to OPEC begging them not to reduce supply, but fails to convince OPEC not to reduce supply, like he fails with everything else.

Then Biden's propagandist, Pierre, also gets caught in the same trap. She first tried to act like she had no recollection that Biden had ever said he was going to end fossil fuels, even though she herself said in June that the administration still intended to end U.S. reliance on fossil fuels.

But that is just it, democrats are unable to tell the truth, for if they did, no one would ever vote for them

Ever.
Poopeypants has allowed permits on the fewest leases and least amount of land since WW2. His idiot myna bird should be aware of that.
 
It's a question of being damned if you do and damned if you don't.

But the reality of the climate change phenomenon is dictating that we need to face the pain of dramatically reducing the use of fossil fuels.

Let's not allow this thread to turn into profanity and childish spamming in the way the cat paranormal thread ended up!
 
Poopeypants has allowed permits on the fewest leases and least amount of land since WW2. His idiot myna bird should be aware of that.
Things like the Paris Accord has made worldwide plans to end fossil fuels

This is a world problem contributing to the economic turmoil we have today.
 
It's a question of being damned if you do and damned if you don't.

But the reality of the climate change phenomenon is dictating that we need to face the pain of dramatically reducing the use of fossil fuels.

Let's not allow this thread to turn into profanity and childish spamming in the way the cat paranormal thread ended up!
At what price are you willing to end fossil fuels?

How many people must suffer and die?

What is the limit, or is there one?

I get the impression that no price is to high.

What is really puzzling is, alternatives, like nuclear power, is demonized by people like you.

It's as almost as if you want people to die and suffer.

But then, the less people the less carbon footprints

Right?
 
It's a question of being damned if you do and damned if you don't.

But the reality of the climate change phenomenon is dictating that we need to face the pain of dramatically reducing the use of fossil fuels.

Let's not allow this thread to turn into profanity and childish spamming in the way the cat paranormal thread ended up!
The consumers are ultimately responsible for reducing fossil fuel use. Sadly, most have no clue how to do it. Worse yet, our lifestyle demands more and more energy, most coming from fossil fuels. Green energy can't keep up.
 
I think the idea is to continue draining the Strategic Oil Reserves til they are empty.

If you aren't traveling by electric but then, you're fucked,
 
It's a question of being damned if you do and damned if you don't.

But the reality of the climate change phenomenon is dictating that we need to face the pain of dramatically reducing the use of fossil fuels.

Let's not allow this thread to turn into profanity and childish spamming in the way the cat paranormal thread ended up!
So why is Biden begging SA and Venezuela to increase production?
 
At what price are you willing to end fossil fuels?
A lesser price if we act now than acting later.
How many people must suffer and die?
Less if we act proactively.
What is the limit, or is there one?
We have to act proactively in order to determine how much we can reduce the pain.
I get the impression that no price is to high.
Why would you get that impression. There's a high possibility that we won't act soon enough and thoroughly enough.
What is really puzzling is, alternatives, like nuclear power, is demonized by people like you.
In fact I'm on record of saying that nuclear has to be part of the solution.
It's as almost as if you want people to die and suffer.
You're spamming and insulting and that's where I tune you and others like you, out.
But then, the less people the less carbon footprints

Right?
I'm never experienced normal and civil behaviour from you, but I took a chance because sometimes it's better to answer irrelevant spamming.

Clean it up or we're finished.
 
In September 2008, after nearly 8 years under the oil president Bush, US production dipped to 4 mbd. Since then, (remember the two candidates pissing contests to see who was going to drill more?) we tripled our output and yet oil prices were and are still controlled by OPEC. Trumpybear even went on a bent knee to them to beg for both and increase and then a decrease in production during his term.
 
So why is Biden begging SA and Venezuela to increase production?
Likely to fill America's demands for energy.
We are still far from having enough alternative choices.
Don't you know that?

I've made the point that EV's can't replace gas and diesel vehicles ever, and that they are only a partial solution until people are willing to bite the bullet and accept the inevitable turn to mass transit.

Are you interested in that conversation?
 
In September 2008, after nearly 8 years under the oil president Bush, US production dipped to 4 mbd. Since then, (remember the two candidates pissing contests to see who was going to drill more?) we tripled our output and yet oil prices were and are still controlled by OPEC. Trumpybear even went on a bent knee to them to beg for both and increase and then a decrease in production during his term.
Your conclusion must be that they were juggling the numbers for political reasons.

In fact, it was always denied by America's leaders that the wars in the ME were for oil. Imagine trying to pass that excuse off now!
 
Wouldn't be needed if we produced our own again like when Trump was president right?
Oil prices rise and fall on a global scale/market. Even if we produce more at home the global oil price must come down before there's any relief.
 
Likely to fill America's demands for energy.

Ya don't say?

In conjunction with draining our oil reserves.

Forgetting the fact that we were energy independent a couple years ago

But...

we need to face the pain of dramatically reducing the use of fossil fuels.

But, we're not really 'reducing...we are simply deferring to a suicidal plan.

You people are retarded.
 
Oil prices rise and fall on a global scale/market. Even if we produce more at home the global oil price must come down before there's any relief.
When we were producing and the Reserve was full, and prices were below $2 and we were sellers of our excess...that was not the case. Poopeypants started the whole thing by restricting our production and buying from Russia, allowing Putin to fund his war. It all starts with the US remember?
 

Forum List

Back
Top