Does Kamala Harris and the Democrat party want you to have high energy costs?

SHHHHH...you're awfully close to getting anti regulation crowd to demand regulation!

 

While that exact method hasn't been mentioned, it was asked what biden is doing to bring energy prices down.
Like they perhaps want to force the oil producers to ramp up production to reduce profits, so they can have cheaper gas.

We are at all time highs today in our oil producing. And the highest producer in the world.

It's WEIRD, how threads like these even get started.
When a simple internet search and 30 seconds shows, we are the worlds largest producer of crude.

 

Simple answer is yes. Worse, they want you to be entirely dependent on government services they control for you to access it.

 

They get started because they are given their talking points by Trump and Fox News. Even in the face of Biden's record setting production of crude oil (13.3 million barrels per day in late December), Fox news decided they would attack Biden for seemingly turning his back on his own climate agenda. Even when Biden does something they deem as good, they can't report it as good news.

 

That might be the simple answer. But it isn't the correct answer.

Just look at USA and world oil productions. All time highs.

 

Well, fox lies and their lost lawsuit proves it

 

The question you're not answering is, is there enough? Is there enough to make it cheap enough for all to benefit from it. Simple answer is no. Worse, democrats are actively trying to induce more scarcity to increase the price of participation. Even worse yet, is that they are trying to pull options off the shelf to ensure yet more scarcity, and even more dependence on the rarity of the energy that they can then control and parse out. It's immoral. It uses the power of government to subjegate the people instead of enriching the people. It's antithetical to the claims of being for the every day person. Clearly a calculated lie designed to fool folks. And isn't that what y'all tell us you are most against? Seems to be the real problem.

 

they settled the lawsuit. what they did was to make allegations they could not prove. that is different than lying but since they couldn't prove the allegations, a lawsuit was properly filed and they settled it. But the fact remains that most of the MSM constantly lies. As you know I understand a great deal about firearms and firearms laws. NBC, ABC, and CBS constantly lie about guns, gun use and gun laws. Does that damage anyone to the point they could sue? probably not at this point. But pretending only fox lies is incorrect

 

Got a Poll
Please link

 

Trump wants you to have higher energy costs, why, cause it's great for the oil and gas industry......

 

nope, we have plenty of US oil and the prices have gone up, not down like Republicans claimed they would

we still set the price by the global market and US Oil wants prices higher rather then lower

Trump cares more about the oil and gas industry then the consumers

 

Why is that the question?

Is there shortages going on?

What is cheap enough? Who determines what is cheap enough in a free market society?
IMO, profits, determine what is cheap enough.

We are at all time highs, in USA, with democrat admin. And you post absolute BS about inducing more scarcity?

LOL. Absurd.

 

You know little about firearms laws, except how you'd like them to be.
You even have admitted to arms infringement. As long as you agree with them. There's many arms you agree need to be infringed.

Which is totally against the 2A.

 

I forget more about firearms laws in a day than your posts demonstrate you have ever known. It is a common tactic of gun banners to claim that if a pro gun advocate supports a holding that says the second amendment doesn't protect nukes, the gun banner says that is the same as not protecting AR 15s

your silly argument fails to understand that the second amendment deals with bearable arms. the other protection against FEDERAL intrusions is the tenth and perhaps the ninth.

 

There you go, get your beliefs seen in print, like how you agree with 2A infringements, and you make it about gun banners.

Which is completely off topic. I am not for gun banning. But you know that. You just need a knee jerk reaction to cover up for you infringement beliefs.

WEIRD.
.
But you and I are in the same camp about infringements. I don't want guns banned? How about you?

You are consistent on one thing, you don't know actually what a gun banner is, except anyone who disagrees with your line in the sand about infringements.

 

what infringements do I like? I don't want any federal gun control laws because they violate the tenth and second amendments.

 

Guns are not the only arms that can or can not be infringed.

Guns are just 1 of the many arms there are.

 

true, but democrats are not yet trying to ban poleaxes or flails and pretending that stuff like nukes or triple A is covered is a non-starter and frivolous argument