Talk about politics here.
Probably quite a quiet thread at the moment I expect.
Politics Discussion: Cynicism Always Warranted
- This topic has 998 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 2 months ago by
.
Author
-
-
Yeah, if you talk about someone and begin your sentence with “Nothing against…”, you have something against someone.
3 users thanked author for this post.
-
Yeah, if you talk about someone and begin your sentence with “Nothing against…”, you have something against someone.
Similar to “I’m not a racist, but…”
3 users thanked author for this post.
-
(Originally posted by Lorcan some while ago, I believe. Seemed appropriate to repeat.)
5 users thanked author for this post.
-
Yo, my county of Northrhine-Westfalia just voted and it turns out we were missing like 2% or something for us to have an SPD-Green coalition that could’ve made big changes that would’ve made everything better. Instead, we’re probably going to get a CDU-Green coalition that will have some green policies as window dressing to the same fucking neo-liberalism as always.
And yes, this is just a county, we have SPD-Green-FDP nationally, which is slightly better and they are making some progress, but… Jesus fuck man, we had catastrophic floodings in this county last year and the CDU has been fighting to keep the coal mines alive. Public transport has all but collapsed while oil prices are skyrocketing, because CDU politics invested everything into cars and nothing into more sensible forms of transportation. And so fucking on. What the fact has to fucking happen for more people to vote social-democratic again?
3 users thanked author for this post.
-
With great power comes no responsibility.
5 users thanked author for this post.
-
What the fact has to fucking happen for more people to vote social-democratic again?
A saying I have had heard a lot is “You have to hit bottom before things get better.”
so applying that saying the answer to your question is:
or 
-
The latest from Partygate:
Going to be interesting to see how this one gets explained away and why the Met didn’t consider it a breach of the lockdown rules.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
A glimpse of the GOP mindset and how they view their fellow citizens of color.
If you click that link to the Vanity Fair article, he also wants to defund Planned Parenthood.
Republican Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana: "Our maternal death rates are only bad if you count black women — If you correct our population for race, we’re not as much of an outlier as it’d otherwise appear.”
via @VanityFair — @GOP #GOP #Republicans pic.twitter.com/PtrrO5YzL6
— Marketing & Sales Advisor to Global Tech Companies (@RobShiveley) May 21, 2022
3 users thanked author for this post.
-
The latest from Partygate:
Going to be interesting to see how this one gets explained away and why the Met didn’t consider it a breach of the lockdown rules.
It’s simple, every single politician who broke their own lockdown rules or went around maskless while saying others had to wear masks or didn’t socially distance while they made others do it needs to be put to death. (After a fair trial of course.)
-
It’s simple, every single politician
who broke their own lockdown rules or went around maskless while saying others had to wear masks or didn’t socially distance while they made others do itneeds to be put to death.(After a fair trial of course.)Fixed that for you.
3 users thanked author for this post.
-
In the stocks, pelted with rotten cake in regular ambushes without warning.
Followed by being banned from being on any board of any company. Plus banned from being a landlord. Banned from journalism. Banned from management consultancy. If a lawyer, disbarred.
Finally, in any official publication of any kind, if a minister, they will be referred to as the Right Dishonourable. For MPs, a Dishonourable Member.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
The latest from Partygate:
Going to be interesting to see how this one gets explained away and why the Met didn’t consider it a breach of the lockdown rules.
Dave, come on, this is clearly a work event.
Johnson works at a brewery, right?
3 users thanked author for this post.
-
Johnson works at a brewery, right?
I’m not sure his organisational skills stretch that far.
3 users thanked author for this post.
-
I’m more hacked off by those defending Johnson. Johnson’s proved himself to be a perpetual, infinite moral void with no rock bottom to hit.
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
I’m more hacked off by those defending Johnson. Johnson’s proved himself to be a perpetual, infinite moral void with no rock bottom to hit.
They’re no different than Trump supporters. After everything that man has done, he’s still “their man”.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
Offline
I just listened to a podcast episode that talked about how Kissinger worked with the Nixon campaign to sabotage peace negotiations in the Vietnam War so that Nixon would have better chances to win the Presidency. (And apparently the Humphrey campaign even knew about it, but they were too scared of the consequences to publicly reveal and prosecute it.)
Kissinger killed millions of people so he’d get a job in the Nixon administration.
What I’m saying is, I currently have a lot of sympathy with that statement above. Nothing ever changes. The worst of them always get away with everything.
3 users thanked author for this post.
-
This woman is great, what a speech.
3 users thanked author for this post.
-
I’m more hacked off by those defending Johnson. Johnson’s proved himself to be a perpetual, infinite moral void with no rock bottom to hit.
He’s so moral that he’s endlessly delaying a windfall tax on the power companies just so that he’s got something in the bag to distract people once the Sue Gray report is published.
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
-
-
-
I’m more hacked off by those defending Johnson. Johnson’s proved himself to be a perpetual, infinite moral void with no rock bottom to hit.
He’s so moral that he’s endlessly delaying a windfall tax on the power companies just so that he’s got something in the bag to distract people once the Sue Gray report is published.
…
Sue Gray Report launched.
…
Rishi Sunak to announce windfall tax on energy firms
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
And now it comes out that the Gray report was edited.
Keep Johnson, ditch Johnson, I’m not sure it matters as the entire cabinet is complicit in this.
Like a rank kipper stuck in a radiator, this is going to stink all the way to the next election.
3 users thanked author for this post.
-
My favourite comment around the whole silly imperial thing was where an Australia saying ‘we measure everything in metric apart from dildo size’.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
My favourite comment around the whole silly imperial thing was where an Australia saying ‘we measure everything in metric apart from dildo size’.
Of course – the official unit of measurement for dildos is the Johnson.
-
Ranking the five Democrats most likely to win party nod if Biden doesn’t run
Same as it ever was.
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
-
In a better world, Beto O’Rourke would be the Democratic nominee; unless, of course, he’s already the new governor of Texas (which would be an EVEN BETTER WORLD!!).
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
I expect Harris will get the nomination, but Warren would still be the best choice.
Warren is an absolutely terrible choice. On June 22nd, she will be 73. She is way too old. It’s bad enough Biden will turn 80 this year.
The Dems need youth. They need someone in their late 40s/early 50s or thereabouts. The problem is, they really don’t have any young charismatic people who could carry the ticket in 2024.
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
-
-
The Dems need youth. They need someone in their late 40s/early 50s or thereabouts. The problem is, they really don’t have any young charismatic people who could carry the ticket in 2024.
They also need somebody who is up for big systemic reforms in the right way, which none of the younger candidates have proposed – Warren and Sanders are the only ones, and Sanders isn’t a realistic option.
I do agree that someone younger would be preferable, but not if they wouldn’t do jack shit with their presidency, which is what I would expect from Harris, but also from Buttigieg and Klobuchar.
‘s too bad that Ocasio-Cortez isn’t quite there yet.
Everyone needs to let go of Warren and Sanders as presidential candidates. They are simply to old. Trump was in his 70s during his tenure and Biden is approaching 80. If your candidate is a Baby Boomer, you’re backing the wrong horse.
At best, Warren and Sanders could be mentors to younger Dems. But really, it’s going to take the younger Dems finding there own voice and path. I truly hope the recent actions by Republicans and conservatives can light a fire under the ass of the Left. I think it will happen to a degree but I hope it’s more.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
Right now the brightest young(ish) stars the Dems have are Stacy Abrams and AOC. Newsome had a chance to be that guy, but he made some really dumb unforced errors during Covid. Beto also had a chance, but his presidential run was a mess (maybe he can recapture some of his 2018 mojo this year, but it’s unlikely he can win in Texas). The governor here in CO (Polis) is pretty popular, but I’d find it hard to see him on a national stage. It’ll be interesting to see how Val Demmings does against Rubio in FL.
But yeah, Warren and Sanders really should be mentoring some young candidates to take the reigns.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
Pete Buttegieg has become a national presence thanks to his position in Biden’s cabinet; he could be a strong contender in 2024 with the right backing and a smart platform. Not sure if his status as a married gay man would be a strength or a weakness in the polls; among Democrats and Liberals I would think it is a strength.
No disrespect to Kamala Harris, but during her first 17 months as VP she has not come across as strong presidential material. Nobody hates her, but no one seems to particularly love her either.
-
-
-
Problem is JFK was also full of shit.
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
You need a JFK. Someone who inspires people with joy and pride.
Problem is JFK was also full of shit.
Both of those statements are true to a certain extent, but Arjan is correct in suggesting that Kennedy inspired people. His inaugural address included the famous “Ask not what your country can to for you…” line that did inspire young Americans to get involved in efforts to improve the nation and the world, from joining the Peace Corps to supporting civil rights/women’s rights/gay rights to staging sit-ins and protest marches against the Vietnam War and other causes. All of which scared the conservatives of both parties so much that within 10 years we had witnessed the assassinations of JFK, RFK, and MLK Jr., and the end of the movement.
The Democratic party — in fact, the entire country — needs to be inspired to put us back on the right path, but I really fear it’s too late. The Democratic majority is too diverse, with each faction pushing its own agenda (clean energy, BLM, LGBTQ+ rights, Roe v Wade, gun control, immigration reform, student debt forgiveness, etc), rather than trying to work together on a central platform with broad appeal; while the Republican minority are laser-focused on keeping themselves in power by using fear tactics and diversion to control the narrative.
-
-
-
Problem is JFK was also full of shit.
It’s a complicated situation.
JFK – and even Nixon to an extent – was a “New Deal” president basically trying to follow up on the promises of FDR’s administration. Domestically, FDR wanted a new social contract that protected the financial stability of the working class, limited the effects of poverty and improved social mobility. Internationally, FDR wanted the colonial powers to give their colonial holdings full independence and democratic sovereignty. That’s the simplified version of the deal he made with the allies for the US to support and finally enter the war.
Looking back, we can criticize how late the US military actually entered the war though America was providing a lot of support for the war effort, but before 1940-41, not many people in the United States would have considered England or France to be fighting for freedom considering they still ruled colonies around the world, and the only people supporting Russia were Reds but few people knew about the Holodomor, Gulags or Stalin’s purges at that time.
Now, breaking the colonial system would certainly be good for America since it would free up the world market to American produced goods, but it would also essentially free up all these nations dominated by European powers from Africa to the South Pacific. Of course, FDR died so the European powers dragged their feet until the nations basically won their independence on their own. However, the Cold War also meant that a new kind of imperial drive grew up with some aligning with the Soviet Union and others with the United States. So instead of a peaceful transition to independent and democratic nations around the world, we saw civil wars usually ending up in either a military run police state like South Korea or communist dictatorship like North Korea. Many nations even in Europe were arguably less free than they were before WW2.
JFK did want to end the cold war, protect civil rights, improve conditions for common people domestically and abroad. However, he definitely had opponents in government, and especially the CIA. Pentagon and FBI had completely contrary aims to his own. The CIA and US Military wanted more direct opposition to communism leading to Kennedy’s biggest regret The Bay of Pigs (and maybe ending in his own assassination) and the FBI was directly opposed to the Civil Rights movement considering it mostly a communist led strategy for political sabotage.
I used to think JFK was more an actor than a politically adept executive, but studying his administration, he was actually quite capable at the actual governing of a nation. The problem he faced was that his opponents were more numerous, ruthlessly committed to their goals and had more experience.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
Everyone needs to let go of Warren and Sanders as presidential candidates. They are simply to old. Trump was in his 70s during his tenure and Biden is approaching 80. If your candidate is a Baby Boomer, you’re backing the wrong horse.
As opposed to what? Where’s a serious young Democratic candidate supposed to come from within the next two years?
People are sick and tired of the same old shit policies, of no change of substance being enacted. Warren is the only candidate who was able to show that they will push for substantial systemic change. That’s what the Democrats need, not another middle-of-the-road dem like Harris (or O’Rourke, from my impression (that could be wrong)) who’ll do nothing about the big issues the US is facing.
To me, the president is maybe the least important piece of the puzzle. It’s congress and the state and local governments that need the progressive lawmakers. I think there are plenty of Dems who, if president, would be willing to sign plenty of bills if congress had the votes to pass them. Certainly it would help to have a president actively pushing a very progressive agenda, but at this point, the Dems really need to focus on a few issues and voters need to be okay with having a laser focus on those to start with.
We all know there’s a lot that needs to be fixed, but like njerry said, the party needs more focus and voters need to accept a specific prioritization. It can’t be “we have to fix women’s rights, workers rights, systemic racism, climate change, gun violence, healthcare, immigration, lgbtq+ rights, the student loan crisis, voting rights, etc. right now!”. Of course we should fix all of those things, but splitting focus 25 different ways is a great way to ensure nothing gets accomplished.
Dems (and liberal voters) need to take a page from conservative playbooks and learn how to play the long game. We all want to see everything addressed and fixed immediately, but conservatives spent decades slowly chipping away at everything to get us to this point. Fixing it won’t happen because of some marginal election victories once every decade. Liberals need to show up every single election and vote out as many republicans as possible. They can’t just do it in years that the GOP has control.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
You also need rich democrats setting up think tanks and buying up the media.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
To me, the president is maybe the least important piece of the puzzle. It’s congress and the state and local governments that need the progressive lawmakers. I think there are plenty of Dems who, if president, would be willing to sign plenty of bills if congress had the votes to pass them. Certainly it would help to have a president actively pushing a very progressive agenda, but at this point, the Dems really need to focus on a few issues and voters need to be okay with having a laser focus on those to start with.
I agree to an extent, but on the one hand, Trump has certainly demonstrated that there is a lot the President can do himself. At the same time, the President provides the direction of the party, or at least that’s the way it’s perceived by the general population. If a President is (perceived to be) pushing for progress and substantial change, that’ll motivate people to go vote, not just in the Presidential elections. Well, at least hopefully. Who the fuck knows what’ll make people go vote – we’ll see what the Supreme Court’s latest decision will do with the midterms. If that doesn’t get people to give a big fuck-you to Republicans, nothing will, I suppose.
We all know there’s a lot that needs to be fixed, but like njerry said, the party needs more focus and voters need to accept a specific prioritization. It can’t be “we have to fix women’s rights, workers rights, systemic racism, climate change, gun violence, healthcare, immigration, lgbtq+ rights, the student loan crisis, voting rights, etc. right now!”. Of course we should fix all of those things, but splitting focus 25 different ways is a great way to ensure nothing gets accomplished.
Absolutely. That’s another reason why I think Warren is the best candidate. She made social inequality her focus, and tackling it with taxation and by taking on big business. Right now, that’s the big one, because if you get that done, you make real change in average people’s lives, and you get the resources to do everything else.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
Not sure if his status as a married gay man would be a strength or a weakness in the polls; among Democrats and Liberals I would think it is a strength.
I suspect it wouldn’t make any difference. In 2022 I think most people don’t care, the ones who do – probably never voting Democrat anyway. Similarly really to the concerns about Obama’s race, the people that would bother are almost all on the far right.
-
Everyone needs to let go of Warren and Sanders as presidential candidates. They are simply to old. Trump was in his 70s during his tenure and Biden is approaching 80. If your candidate is a Baby Boomer, you’re backing the wrong horse.
As opposed to what? Where’s a serious young Democratic candidate supposed to come from within the next two years?
People are sick and tired of the same old shit policies, of no change of substance being enacted. Warren is the only candidate who was able to show that they will push for substantial systemic change. That’s what the Democrats need, not another middle-of-the-road dem like Harris (or O’Rourke, from my impression (that could be wrong)) who’ll do nothing about the big issues the US is facing.
Unfortunately, SHE IS TOO OLD. If she were 20 years younger, we wouldn’t be having this debate.
The perception will be that she is another old person with the same old shit policies. Current US politics is littered with Baby Boomers that have been in office for decades. The perception is they are just maintaining the status quo with small changes here and there and lining their pockets. It doesn’t matter whether if it’s true or not. There needs to be a fresh infusion of youth. We need a someone who is younger with charisma that will appeal and connect to Millenials and Gen Z.
We need another Obama.
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
We need another Obama.
Well, there is another Obama…
-
Yeah, I voted Warren in the 2020 primary, but we do need younger. Granted I’d still vote for her if she was the 2024 nominee, but it’s not the right direction for Dems. If Abrams had won in 2018, I think she’d be at the top of the list. Technically, I do believe AOC could run in 2024 since she’ll turn 35 a month before the election. I feel like she and Abrams are probably the closest to Obama that the Dems have right now. I also think Jamie Raskin could be an interesting choice. People like Joe Neguse and Katie Porter are also pretty great, but don’t really have the same recognition as others do.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
-
Cue more fantasy politics, complete with fantasy efficiency:
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
Well, there is another Obama…
And he supports Trump!
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
-
-
-
So Big Dog’s facing a no confidence vote tonight, after the threshold of letters to the 1922 committee was met (presumably over the weekend, given the announcement was made around 8am this morning). This message from the head of 1922 committee caught my eye.
There’s really something in the stark language of “THE PRIME MINISTER WILL SPEAK TO US”.
I suspect Johnson will survive the vote though, though perhaps at a slim enough margin where people expect him to “do the decent thing and resign” anyway (like May did) and he of course won’t.
-
Whatever happens he will continue to stink out Parliament like a rank kipper.
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
Well, sure. Let me know if you find one in your pocket!
Malia is 24. She will be ready in approx 10 years.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
-
Even so, 148 to 211 is a pretty disastrous result.
This is an interesting way of putting it:
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
-
-
The problem with the ‘good chap’ model of government is it requires good chaps and Johnson isn’t.
I have no idea where this ends up.
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
So listening to the political analysts on The New Statesman podcast the 12 month rule is pretty toothless, the party can just change the rules (a concept Johnson is familiar with). They said that when May stepped down 6 months after her vote of confidence the thing that pushed her to give up was being told they were going to scrap the rule if she didn’t.
As most are saying this result is good for the opposition parties, his reputation is completely in the shitter and when he’s getting booed by a crowd of royalists then I can’t see any coming back. It’s bad for the country because everything is falling apart, he and his cabinet have no solutions and are incompetent of delivering any they may have.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
-
So listening to the political analysts on The New Statesman podcast the 12 month rule is pretty toothless, the party can just change the rules (a concept Johnson is familiar with). They said that when May stepped down 6 months after her vote of confidence the thing that pushed her to give up was being told they were going to scrap the rule if she didn’t.
Yeah, they can change the rules and have another leadership challenge sooner than a year if necessary (and some of the tories have been mooting that since even before Monday’s vote), but obviously there wouldn’t be much point doing that any time soon, as you’d probably get a similar result to Monday. They would probably have to wait until at least the upcoming local MP elections to see any real shift in the numbers, and even then it might not be enough.
The issue in the meantime is that there really aren’t that many ways to make him leave office. Previous PMs have seen the writing on the wall at this stage and resigned voluntarily, but it doesn’t feel like that’s in Johnson’s character.
I think it will take some kind of formal process to force him out, and at the moment the Conservative party’s internal leadership challenge process obviously isn’t sufficient.
(As that tweet I posted earlier notes, when you have so many MPs in positions where they effectively have to remain loyal, it takes a pretty massive consensus from the rest to actually force a leader out.)
It is interesting though that the choice of our national leadership has become so closely tied to internal tory leadership processes in recent years. Effectively just a small group of people (whether MPs in this case or the party membership in the leadership elections) hold the power to decide who is in office as PM. And not only that, but to rewrite those internal leadership processes as they see fit.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
-
-
For all that it would make for a very grubby and embarassing global mess, part of me would love to see the fat bastard physically removed from 10 Downing St, with it all on film.
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
Fucking Peter Thiel.
Fun fact about that guy: He’s one of those libertarians that hate governments so much that he went all in on one of those “Let’s just have our own country on the high sea!” kind of bullshit schemes (called Seasteading).
Also, he’s a vampire. Like a literal vampire.
Allegedly
-
-
But why would they change the rules if the majority of them support him?
I’m not suggesting they would, changing the rules tomorrow would be pointless, it would just return more or less the same result.
However as in the Theresa May case if 6 months down the line his approval has dropped even further off the cliff and even more MPs give up on him it is an option. I’m with Dave on the fact that I don’t think he is one to fall on his sword like May did then.
-
I think poor results in the two upcoming by-elections (which they’re on track to lose) will be enough to get them to try again.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
Lieu: I just thought I would recite for you what Jesus Christ said about homosexuality:
…
…
…
I yield back pic.twitter.com/KTMbtXMtnC— Acyn (@Acyn) June 8, 2022
-
-
Yeah, if those votes go against the tories it won’t be a huge surprise at this point. The (quickly forgotten – way, way back on 5 May!) recent local council elections were an indicator of how much the public sentiment has turned against them.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
I’m so pleased that Ted Lieu got overwhelming support in the Primary race this week, yielding 64% of the votes. We need his kind of courage and strength in the House.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
-
Damn, Starmer brought a flamethrower to PMQs:
He’s not Obi Wan Kenobi, he’s Jabba the Hutt.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
-
Poll: Half of Americans now predict U.S. may ‘cease to be a democracy’ someday
That day may come sooner than later.
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
What’s the over/under on the people who said “… and that’s good” vs “…and that’s bad”?
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
Poll: Half of Americans now predict U.S. may ‘cease to be a democracy’ someday
I imagine if they asked the question “Do you think the United States is a democracy now?” about half Americans would answer “no.”
As is often pointed out, few democratic governments are democracies. Most have democratic elections so they can be representative republics or parliamentary systems of some kind. On top of that, corporate power is still primarily feudal with little representation by employees or workers or checks and balances to ownership or management executive power.
I think that business-like idea has permeated government as well. The President is the CEO and the Congress is the Board while the Supreme Court is the Legal department. However, government is not supposed to be a business.
At the same time, government is not supposed to do a lot as far as its impact on society. It’s main functions are to sustain itself and maintain stability. The government reflects its citizens rather than produces better citizens. In the reporting on this January 6th hearing, there is a refrain that the peaceful transition of power is crucial to a democratic society. It’s more apt to say that a truly functioning democratic society is necessary to facilitate the peaceful transition of power. It is the result of the people’s faith in their government.
So, if government is failing, it really indicates rot in the wider society rather than is the cause of that rot. Democracy as a tool makes sense for producing better governments as it should reflect the interests of a broader segment of the people, but if people aren’t voting and financial power is unchecked, it will lead (and has likely led) to less representative government as well as more corrupt or simply incompetent governors serving narrow interests.
Then there is a vicious cycle of bad government discouraging voter interest or the interest of better candidates to attempt to run for office or serve in governmental agencies and that permeates the society – from education to the legal system to health care to industry and the environment. At this point, even if all the democratic systems remain in place, they are only theoretically democratic and the results are little different than if we had a dictatorial oligarchy running things.
At the same time a monarchy or aristocracy would produce great outcomes if everyone in the society (or simply the majority) was a moral, conscientious and wise person, but that kind of society wouldn’t even need a government.
-
-
JRCarter wrote:
Poll: Half of Americans now predict U.S. may ‘cease to be a democracy’ someday
I imagine if they asked the question “Do you think the United States is a democracy now?” about half Americans would answer “no.”
Reminds me of the movie “Wall Street” when Gekko told Fox “You aren’t naive enough to think you live in a democracy, do you?”
It has already been reported regarding the US about gaining control of swing states, suppressing votes of certain demographics, tampering with voting machines, etc. No announcement about running in ’24 has been made yet, but the set up is starting to be in place now. Some potential candidates (not mentioning names) want to take after Putin, who came in and set things up so that he is still there! I guess it all starts in most of the state elections with the midterms in November (right after the World Series). Time bomb…In school, someone said at the time that all these major social and economic issues will come to a head and society as a whole will have to decide either/or and that will determine the fate of it all. Kind of a scary thought tbh.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
Gas prices in the US have been rising and rising, with the oil companies blaming shortages and global disruptions, while the heads of these companies are raking in massive profits. It is very easy to believe (as some are saying) that the rising prices are being done at the behest of members of the Republican Party so that their candidates can blame it on the Democrats as a way to secure GOP wins in the midterm elections. And when the Republicans again are the majority in Congress and the Senate, they will vote to give tax breaks to the oil companies and their CEOs (as well as to themselves, of course).
Always follow the money.
-
Gas prices in the US have been rising and rising, with the oil companies blaming shortages and global disruptions, while the heads of these companies are raking in massive profits. It is very easy to believe (as some are saying) that the rising prices are being done at the behest of members of the Republican Party so that their candidates can blame it on the Democrats as a way to secure GOP wins in the midterm elections. And when the Republicans again are the majority in Congress and the Senate, they will vote to give tax breaks to the oil companies and their CEOs (as well as to themselves, of course).
Always follow the money.
Nah, it’s completely because of the Ukraine war. And our morons in charge marched us there.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
I saw this on Facebook:
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
I saw this on Facebook:
I am once again urging everyone to read some Naomi Klein.
-
Nah, it’s completely because of the Ukraine war. And our morons in charge marched us there.
No, it’s because of corporate greed. The war put a blip in crude oil supply, but the OPEC countries just released more of their vast reserves to keep the market operating, so prices stabilised. If you look at this chart (change it to a 1-year view), oil is currently priced higher than it was before the war but it’s well below the peak price in March. But once a petrol company puts its retail prices up, it never drops them again. Even though they could be selling petrol cheaper now than they could in March, they’re not. That’s down to them, not the war.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/cmjpj223708t/oil
4 users thanked author for this post.
-
Yeah, the war is just another excuse they use to feed their greed. I mean you can just look at oil prices back in 2008. They actually peaked higher than they are right now, but gas prices never got as high as they are currently. And when you see that oil companies are reporting record profit margins, it’s pretty clear it’s just corporate greed fueling all of this. They don’t need to charge this much. They’re just doing it because they can. And right now is a perfect time to price gouge. Higher demand post pandemic, supply chain issues, the Ukraine war and the great boogeyman of inflation give them all the cover they need to deflect.
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
Yup the last two guys are correct, the issue is global so not a US domestic issue, the prices were sky high before the Ukraine war, so it’s not that (although admittedly that doesn’t help).
What has to be fundamentally understood is oil prices are a scam. OPEC is referred to as a cartel because they are. The cost of extracting oil is somewhere around $3 a barrel and the price is manipulated up and down at their whim. This scenario should always have been a driver to move to alternative forms of energy, as well as the environmental one.
5 users thanked author for this post.
-
From the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition:
Rule 34: War is good for business.
Rule 35: Peace is good for business.
3 users thanked author for this post.
-
-
It’s not really surprising is it?
Clinton saw it and Bill Maher predicted it on his show every week. Trump himself trailed it for us in the 2016 election where when most were predicting he wouldn’t win he called the election rigged many times, until he won of course and then it wasn’t.
The hearings are more about what to about it. (Probably nothing much).
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
