Incredible. The only one, “twisting shit into a narrative that suits your agenda” is you trying to paint all-time high gas production as a win, somehow. But whether or not it’s a win is irrelevant to the point being discussed, as is the “trillion dollar investment” that I “suspiciously” left out.
Maybe you need a refresher on the conversation so far. One person said that Biden promised to reduced drilling, then failed to keep that promise. Then someone else incorrectly said that they wanted to reduce drilling, but couldn’t because of the courts. So I presented a clip of Harris bragging about increasing gas production as an accomplishment of the administration. Now, you seem to have completely lost the plot, ignoring both the claim that they wanted to reduce gas production but were stopped, and the fact that Biden promised to reduce it in the first place, and are suddenly taking a completely different tact.
Why don’t you take issue with the person claiming that they wanted to reduce it, but couldn’t? They’re spreading misinformation to deny one of the Biden administrations “accomplishments,” and claiming that he was trying to do a bad thing, are they not?
Of course, it’s plain why you don’t do that, because facts don’t matter at all to you, it’s all about partisan loyalty. If one person says that Biden wanted to do a good thing by cutting gas production, but couldn’t, you’re fine with that, because they’re loyal to your team. If someone else says that they increased gas production, which is a good thing, you’re fine with that too, because they’re also on your team. The fact that those two positions are completely contradictory doesn’t seem to phase you at all.
Some of us believe in a single, observable reality, as opposed to holding every position that supports your agenda as simultaneously true in direct contradiction of reason and evidence.
Myabe you need a refresher on the conversation so far. The initial point was increase in drilling on federal lands and not overall gas production for the country. You are quite a bit cherry picking and mixing apples with oranges in this conversation.
Well its nice we are getting back to the initial subject but drilling is permitted on the lands and that predates the administration. It has been democratic administrations that have restricted drilling in large swatches and republican that have lifted those restrictions. Once its allowed the permits are just about who does it and they can delay somewhat but not disallow them if they do everything according to the law.
The only person who deviated from the initial subject was Rhoeri, who appears to be on your side despite the two of you believing directly contradictory things. You could’ve responded to my first comment if you weren’t interested in that deviation.
So to make sure I understand your position, you’re saying that Harris was lying when she said “we have also increased gas production to historic levels,” because her administration had nothing to do with it, and in fact opposed it, correct? Before investigating further, I want to clearly establish what your position is, and whether you are willing to acknowledge facts even when they are inconvenient for your team. If you’re putting party before truth, then there’s no point in discussing anything.
I don’t believe its a lie but it is a misrepresentation. She could be pointing out their policies did not result in less production despite republican fear mongering and like many things they can’t just stop it across the board. At best they can set policy to incentivize clean energy (like the ombudsman bill) or disincentivize fossil fuel production by increased regulation or taxation. But yes they did not really have any direct influence on how much gas companies produced domestically outside of that so it was a misleading brag.
Alright, so if Kamala “misleadingly bragged” about doing the opposite of what you say her position is, then at that point it seems like you’re suggesting that she’s keeping her real positions secret. I would be much more inclined to suspect a politician of being less environmentally friendly in practice than they are while campaigning, because that’s where the money is. I have to say I’m pretty incredulous to the idea that Kamala is secretly to the left of what she claims, as it sounds like cope.
But it is true that Biden was blocked by courts from preventing drilling on public lands. But, as usual with these “hands are tied” sorts of claims, there’s more he could’ve done, and the president is not nearly as powerless as his supporters make him out to be. If Biden declared a national climate emergency, he would have the power to shut down fossil fuel projects without congressional approval. There was also new legislation on the topic which could have influenced the level of gas production. And there’s also plenty of stuff he did to make the situation worse, such as supporting a tar sands oil pipeline through indigenous lands.
The top comment’s position that this level of commitment is woefully insuffient to address the crisis is correct. Environmental concerns have taken a backseat to appeasing oil companies and attempting to keep prices low. The Democrats want to talk out of both sides of their mouth on this, if you’re an environmentalist, then Biden’s doing everything he can to limit drilling, but if you’re more concerned with gas prices, rest assured that they’re drilling more than ever. Generally, when politicians do that, the corporate-friendly narrative is the one they’ll actually follow through on.
Seems like a stretch in your first paragraph. It is a common thing you saw with politicians even way back. Again its more of a see we aren’t going to tear everything down before we can compensate with adequate non fossil fuel solutions. I do think biden did what he reasonably could (your second paragraph) but I agree with your last paragraph in that is woefully insufficient but that same statement would apply to everything every government or entity is doing. We won’t nearly do enough vs where we are at and basically can’t at this point without causing all sorts of other problems. More action should have been taken earlier. Here is the rub though. The democratic action is still productive while the republican is destructive. The past we need to change to not be where we are at is reagan, gingrich, bush, trump. How hard it is going forward is going to depend on how much we view going backwords as preferable to going forwards to slowly.
Seems like a stretch in your first paragraph. It is a common thing you saw with politicians even way back.
Promising to be progressive and then governing to the right is indeed something that goes way back. These days, they hardly even bother with the first part anymore.
I do think biden did what he reasonably could
You can think that all you like but it doesn’t make it true. Biden could’ve stopped the tar sands pipeline and he could’ve declared an emergency to keep his campaign promise.
Also, I’d just like to point out that this guy was a reactionary his whole career and had a hand in creating virtually every problem we’re dealing with today. Democrats convinced themselves that he had this whole drastic change of heart in his 70’s and suddenly became a progressive. Of course, then when he doesn’t deliver on his promises, they’re full of excuses. The fact is that he’s buddies with the oil industry and has appointed their lobbyists to high level positions.
Why on earth would he “do everything he reasonably could?” Am I supposed to believe he’s some true believer in environmentalism as opposed to an opportunistic careerist? Come on.
So anyway…. As I was saying, you cherry-pick bullshit narratives to make it sound like you have a clue, but in the end- all you end up doing is exhausting people that have the energy to look up the bullshit you spew. Wait… was I even saying that? Hmm… well, that’s what I’m saying now. But guess what? I am not one of those people that have that kind energy, but it sure looks like others do.
Let’s read along!
Oh, and real quick… don’t think I didn’t notice how you took everything I said out of context, rewrote it, and spit it back as a bullshit narrative- but that’s okay because thats just what people have come to expect from you.
Sorry, I’m not going to read the twenty paragraphs you just wrote, my brain gets all hurty when I try to engage with something longer than ten characters. I’m still definitely very informed and worth listening to though!
Incredible. The only one, “twisting shit into a narrative that suits your agenda” is you trying to paint all-time high gas production as a win, somehow. But whether or not it’s a win is irrelevant to the point being discussed, as is the “trillion dollar investment” that I “suspiciously” left out.
Maybe you need a refresher on the conversation so far. One person said that Biden promised to reduced drilling, then failed to keep that promise. Then someone else incorrectly said that they wanted to reduce drilling, but couldn’t because of the courts. So I presented a clip of Harris bragging about increasing gas production as an accomplishment of the administration. Now, you seem to have completely lost the plot, ignoring both the claim that they wanted to reduce gas production but were stopped, and the fact that Biden promised to reduce it in the first place, and are suddenly taking a completely different tact.
Why don’t you take issue with the person claiming that they wanted to reduce it, but couldn’t? They’re spreading misinformation to deny one of the Biden administrations “accomplishments,” and claiming that he was trying to do a bad thing, are they not?
Of course, it’s plain why you don’t do that, because facts don’t matter at all to you, it’s all about partisan loyalty. If one person says that Biden wanted to do a good thing by cutting gas production, but couldn’t, you’re fine with that, because they’re loyal to your team. If someone else says that they increased gas production, which is a good thing, you’re fine with that too, because they’re also on your team. The fact that those two positions are completely contradictory doesn’t seem to phase you at all.
Some of us believe in a single, observable reality, as opposed to holding every position that supports your agenda as simultaneously true in direct contradiction of reason and evidence.
Myabe you need a refresher on the conversation so far. The initial point was increase in drilling on federal lands and not overall gas production for the country. You are quite a bit cherry picking and mixing apples with oranges in this conversation.
As was already mentioned in the top level comment, the Biden administration outpaced Trump on drilling permits on federal land.
Also, strange that you’re defending someone who thinks increasing drilling is a good thing, care to explain that?
Well its nice we are getting back to the initial subject but drilling is permitted on the lands and that predates the administration. It has been democratic administrations that have restricted drilling in large swatches and republican that have lifted those restrictions. Once its allowed the permits are just about who does it and they can delay somewhat but not disallow them if they do everything according to the law.
The only person who deviated from the initial subject was Rhoeri, who appears to be on your side despite the two of you believing directly contradictory things. You could’ve responded to my first comment if you weren’t interested in that deviation.
So to make sure I understand your position, you’re saying that Harris was lying when she said “we have also increased gas production to historic levels,” because her administration had nothing to do with it, and in fact opposed it, correct? Before investigating further, I want to clearly establish what your position is, and whether you are willing to acknowledge facts even when they are inconvenient for your team. If you’re putting party before truth, then there’s no point in discussing anything.
I don’t believe its a lie but it is a misrepresentation. She could be pointing out their policies did not result in less production despite republican fear mongering and like many things they can’t just stop it across the board. At best they can set policy to incentivize clean energy (like the ombudsman bill) or disincentivize fossil fuel production by increased regulation or taxation. But yes they did not really have any direct influence on how much gas companies produced domestically outside of that so it was a misleading brag.
Alright, so if Kamala “misleadingly bragged” about doing the opposite of what you say her position is, then at that point it seems like you’re suggesting that she’s keeping her real positions secret. I would be much more inclined to suspect a politician of being less environmentally friendly in practice than they are while campaigning, because that’s where the money is. I have to say I’m pretty incredulous to the idea that Kamala is secretly to the left of what she claims, as it sounds like cope.
But it is true that Biden was blocked by courts from preventing drilling on public lands. But, as usual with these “hands are tied” sorts of claims, there’s more he could’ve done, and the president is not nearly as powerless as his supporters make him out to be. If Biden declared a national climate emergency, he would have the power to shut down fossil fuel projects without congressional approval. There was also new legislation on the topic which could have influenced the level of gas production. And there’s also plenty of stuff he did to make the situation worse, such as supporting a tar sands oil pipeline through indigenous lands.
The top comment’s position that this level of commitment is woefully insuffient to address the crisis is correct. Environmental concerns have taken a backseat to appeasing oil companies and attempting to keep prices low. The Democrats want to talk out of both sides of their mouth on this, if you’re an environmentalist, then Biden’s doing everything he can to limit drilling, but if you’re more concerned with gas prices, rest assured that they’re drilling more than ever. Generally, when politicians do that, the corporate-friendly narrative is the one they’ll actually follow through on.
Seems like a stretch in your first paragraph. It is a common thing you saw with politicians even way back. Again its more of a see we aren’t going to tear everything down before we can compensate with adequate non fossil fuel solutions. I do think biden did what he reasonably could (your second paragraph) but I agree with your last paragraph in that is woefully insufficient but that same statement would apply to everything every government or entity is doing. We won’t nearly do enough vs where we are at and basically can’t at this point without causing all sorts of other problems. More action should have been taken earlier. Here is the rub though. The democratic action is still productive while the republican is destructive. The past we need to change to not be where we are at is reagan, gingrich, bush, trump. How hard it is going forward is going to depend on how much we view going backwords as preferable to going forwards to slowly.
Promising to be progressive and then governing to the right is indeed something that goes way back. These days, they hardly even bother with the first part anymore.
You can think that all you like but it doesn’t make it true. Biden could’ve stopped the tar sands pipeline and he could’ve declared an emergency to keep his campaign promise.
Also, I’d just like to point out that this guy was a reactionary his whole career and had a hand in creating virtually every problem we’re dealing with today. Democrats convinced themselves that he had this whole drastic change of heart in his 70’s and suddenly became a progressive. Of course, then when he doesn’t deliver on his promises, they’re full of excuses. The fact is that he’s buddies with the oil industry and has appointed their lobbyists to high level positions.
Why on earth would he “do everything he reasonably could?” Am I supposed to believe he’s some true believer in environmentalism as opposed to an opportunistic careerist? Come on.
Yawn… oh! Is your manifesto over? Good.
So anyway…. As I was saying, you cherry-pick bullshit narratives to make it sound like you have a clue, but in the end- all you end up doing is exhausting people that have the energy to look up the bullshit you spew. Wait… was I even saying that? Hmm… well, that’s what I’m saying now. But guess what? I am not one of those people that have that kind energy, but it sure looks like others do.
Let’s read along!
Oh, and real quick… don’t think I didn’t notice how you took everything I said out of context, rewrote it, and spit it back as a bullshit narrative- but that’s okay because thats just what people have come to expect from you.
Least anti-intellectual liberal.
Least smug pseudo-intellectual socialist.
If you’re having trouble with numbers, try using your fingers. Hint: you only need one hand.
If you’re having trouble understanding what an exaggeration is- I’d suggest you read your own rhetoric for a quick refresher.
Maybe you’ll understand how the rest of us feel having to read that nonsense.
Sorry, I’m not going to read the twenty paragraphs you just wrote, my brain gets all hurty when I try to engage with something longer than ten characters. I’m still definitely very informed and worth listening to though!
If you’re having trouble with numbers, try using your fingers. Hint: you only need one hand.
If you’re having trouble understanding what an exaggeration is- I’d suggest you read your own rhetoric for a quick refresher.
Really walked right into that one, huh?
You are, indeed. I am happy that you have figured that much out 🫶
“I know you are but what am I?”
Why are liberals so bad at quips?