Last edited:
The Biden Presidency
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
after forming his think tank and discovering the joys of pragmatism, he has never tweeted about ICE - not even news stories - since 2019.
Tom Fitton has gained weight.
Last edited:
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
UN: The planet is fecked we need to act now
USA: We need to make gas cheaper
USA: We need to make gas cheaper
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Not sure what the problem with that statement is, or how it is against Biden’s tweet. It would be amazing to shut off all fossil fuel usage today, but no rational climate activist is calling for that. As we (hopefully) move swiftly to eradicate the use of fossil fuels there will be a need for the continued use of gas for transportation and cheaper prices will help everyone, especially low income families.
Whilst I understand the point about low income families, gas prices in the US are insanely low and people need to be disincentivised from their overuse of cars. It is by no means exclusive to the US, of course, but it’s definitely bad there.
The national average price for a gallon of fuel is $3.18, here in the UK we are currently paying approx $7.
Again I’m not saying it’s just a US thing, and the UK is also bad, but if fuel cost that little over here it would be even worse.
QUOTE="berbatrick, post: 27607146, member: 56313"]
[/QUOTE]
Should Russia's policy be dictated by american pump prices?
The messaging around this at a time when also trying to formulate policies around decarbonisation due to the climate emergency is at best incoherent and in reality its piss poor
Not that i'm an advocate of encouraging low pump prices in America as its probably one of the reasons that they have never gone for particularly fuel efficient cars but if the Biden admin do genuinely feel that's something worth setting fire to the world for the least they could do is push American producers to make up the shortfall instead of trying to strong arm sovereign nations through press releases - I thought that was supposed to stop after trump?
[/QUOTE]
I mean fundamentally is it really any of the USA's business what opec+ countries choose to do with their resources?
Should Russia's policy be dictated by american pump prices?
The messaging around this at a time when also trying to formulate policies around decarbonisation due to the climate emergency is at best incoherent and in reality its piss poor
Not that i'm an advocate of encouraging low pump prices in America as its probably one of the reasons that they have never gone for particularly fuel efficient cars but if the Biden admin do genuinely feel that's something worth setting fire to the world for the least they could do is push American producers to make up the shortfall instead of trying to strong arm sovereign nations through press releases - I thought that was supposed to stop after trump?
Last edited:
I don't think you can compare gas consumption in the UK to that in the US. The size of the country, and the relative lack of mass transit (a WHOLE other topic) means that the dependence of individuals on using cars can not be compared. Simply put the US economy would grind to a halt without gas powered cars and trucks. I am heartened by the inclusion of 80+ billion dollars in the new bipartisan infrastructure plan for the installation of 500K+ charging stations. It is things like this that will drive a movement away from gas to electric.
You can't disincentivize people from using cars without offering a valid alternative though. It's bad in cities, especially in suburbia, but impossible in rural areas. Also, higher prices don't work all that well as a disincentive. If that big infrastructure contains a lot about public transport, cycling, and walking infrastructure - then we're talking.
@nimic shared a super interesting YouTube channel the other day, that speaks to a lot of this. Here is it's introduction video:
Every county tries to negotiate/strong arm other countries to secure better pricing for itself and its people. Besides, OPEC has played the game before by slashing production to elevate prices.
I don't necessarily disagree with your point about low gas prices discouraging the move away from fuel efficient cars. The switch of Americans from American brands to Japanese brands was in a major part driven by the fuel crisis in the early 70's.
creating an alternative to car-based living is something neither US party offers, including the party that believes in Science and puts Climate "at the center of everything it does", one of the many reasons we're fecked.
My stance above regarding the OPEC statement was not defending Biden, or the majority of Democrats, who have repeatedly proven they give zero fecks about climate issues when actually pressed to make decisions. My stance is based on the reality that even if they did give a feck we would still need a transition period where gas vehicles/power plants/etc. remained the dominant and primary. The inclusion of charging stations, as minimal as it is in the grand scheme of things, is at least something. Of course the chances that survives the house intact are depressingly low. There is also a bunch of climate provisions in the reconciliation bill, but those are likely going to get neutered as well.
sure, it can't happen overnight, but if external events encourage it (i.e. higher oil prices), then fighting them shouldn't be a priority? crude oil prices are still some way off from the highs during bush/iraq war, it's not like it's totally unaffordable.
Sure, but think about it for a minute. The people who are most likely to feel some pressure/pain from "high" gas prices are likely people who would not be able to afford current alternative fuel vehicles anyways. A dollar jump in gas would make me grumble, but I could afford it an would continue on. For someone making minimum wage that is likely 10% of their after tax hourly wage (boy was that depressing statement to write....). That is the type of pain that may cause someone to seek alternatives, but it is going to be put upon those who likely don't have the means to do so.
Edit: To clarify, I think there needs to be pressure, and lots of it, brought to bear on the US population to turn them to alternatives, but I do not think the way to do it is by advocating for ideas that will hurt those least able to quickly make the change.
What Biden has done here is disgraceful, and his silence (cowardice?) doubly so. This is like the Kurds but on a much grander scale.
Yes, he needs to address the country asap. The silence is making it doubly bad from a PR standpoint.
This is worse than any foreign policy blunder Trump made. Cant believe I would type this.
After this and the Kurds why would anyone ever trust us again.
1975: After Saigon, why would anyone ever trust us again?
Don't worry , you can still buy trust with dollars in crates.
I initially typed that as well but deleted it. This was Trump's policy as well and the beginning of this debacle was his peace treaty with the Taliban. I am not taking any blame at all from Biden on this, he is President so he owns this. However, Trump started the ball rolling, and Biden slotted it away in the corner. They are both culpable, but Biden more so when it comes to Afghanistan. Trump is not getting a pass on the Kurds though. That was this but on a smaller scale.
Speaking of Saigon, I would bet my house on the helicopter pictures, and those of people falling from airplanes, figuring prominently in 24. This is going to haunt him for the rest of his presidency.
I agree however Biden could have reversed that decision, if he wanted to. He reversed a shit ton of orders on his first day. The fact he didn't, means that he actually shared the conviction that it needs to be done. Also, the actual imlelemtnion is fully up to Biden , and he botched it in every imaginable way.
will he run in 24?
Id always assumed he wouldn't
wouldn't he be more than 85 by the end of a second term?
12 brown people falling off a plane barely registers back home. He'd be in bigger shit if a plane landed at an Arizona air force base with 50 random Afghan refugees on board.
A shambolic decision made worse by his silence. What's his plan? Just ride it out?
They're still searching for the Mission Accomplished poster Dubya used for his speech.
My sister and brother in law spent 4 years in Kabul and are absolutely heart broken, and genuinely just feel betrayed by the West. Everyone knew this would happen.
That said, I feel like the amount of double speak here on both sides is shocking.
Trump wanted this too, explicitly. It used to be on a page of the official GOP website til they took it down last night.
The left have always been against foreign wars, and wax lyrical about the West destabilizing the complex institutions in other sovereign nations.
Well here we are. The Taliban appear to be the 'natural' rulers of Afghanistan at this moment.
Either we want the West to intervene or we don't. Both sides seem to want it both ways.
That said, I feel like the amount of double speak here on both sides is shocking.
Trump wanted this too, explicitly. It used to be on a page of the official GOP website til they took it down last night.
The left have always been against foreign wars, and wax lyrical about the West destabilizing the complex institutions in other sovereign nations.
Well here we are. The Taliban appear to be the 'natural' rulers of Afghanistan at this moment.
Either we want the West to intervene or we don't. Both sides seem to want it both ways.
So what’s the actual play here? I don’t believe for a second that CIA Analysts and US Military strategists did not predict this happening.
if your right it must be a conscious decision that the long term gain from withdrawing (political, financial and reputational) is worth the short term pain from withdrawing (politicl, financial and reputational)
the only other option is that they really didn't see it happening this way
Which is the best way of describing US foreign policy I suppose. Each party's view on the situation is driven by who is in power. The right will hammer Biden on this, conveniently forgetting that this is what rump wanted to do. Meanwhile the left will defend Biden, conveniently forgetting they hammered Trump on this just a year ago.
I don't know what the answer is or should be as I am at heart very much a non-interventionist, but I could see instances where intervention could be part of a strategy to end the suffering of the many. The greed and power lust is at the core of our nature as humans, so this question will persist until we cease to exist I suppose.
I doubt they will be bringing Afghans directly to the USA without first dropping them off at a dark site / guantanamo for several rounds of enhanced questioning first
Maybe some individual analysts , but the nature of the evacuation and the need for new boots on the ground to conduct it points to the direction that the intelligence community advised the administration that this unraveling won't happen in the time frame that it actually happened.
Who trusts the US in the first place though. I mean, it's not like trust played a role in the invasions in Iraq and Afghanistan. And after that, the US were a simple fact people have to work with; still not a matter of trust. Same for the Kurds: the US and their allies were their only allies in the region, what options did they have? Maybe you meant that there will be more apprehension in the future, but I'm sure that's already there in spades.
The US are just too strong; once they get involved, all you can do is let yourself be carried with the tide best you can and hope the wave won't crash down too badly.
What I meant was that our promises and "loyalty", if they ever meant anything, now mean nothing.
I think it will also have a detrimental effect internally as well. A close family friend was (now retired) an NCO in a Marine field intelligence team and spent a lot of time in Afghanistan. He is so upset right now as he interacted continuously with locals and feels like it was all for nothing and those people he befriended have been betrayed. From what he says he is not alone in this. This did not need to end like this.
What I mean though: I'm sure everyone involved was already very apprehensive about anything the US did. You just know they're not in it for the Afghans, or the Iraqis, or the Kurds. (I mean, the involvements were triggered by Bush, Cheney, and Trump!) But what can they do? Reject everything while the US are there already? Then what? They have no choice but to work with them, no matter their doubts. And anyway, it seems that the US met an equally selfish governing elite in Kabul, who were happy to play along for their own benefit.
It must feel so empty to have spent time there now, risked your life, lost friends, built local friendships - and to see it all disappear in smoke now in a matter of weeks.