Democratic Politicians Wishing They Hadn’t Backed Biden

ToddNotTodd said:

Please, won’t ANYONE think of the hookers?!

Click to expand...

Yes but what of the bar tenders? There is a long string of dive bartenders and owners who will not see all their dreams come true (for a short period of time) via an influx of dirty thirsty men!

Desk trauma said:

Yes but what of the bar tenders? There is a long string of dive bartenders and owners who will not see all their dreams come true (for a short period of time) via an influx of dirty thirsty men!

Click to expand...

This is starting to sound like the backstory for a HULU Original drama.

So, what was the final figure for job losses from this EO?
Eleven-thousand, or 250? 2400?

Pommer said:

This is starting to sound like the backstory for a HULU Original drama.

So, what was the final figure for job losses from this EO?
Eleven-thousand, or 250? 2400?

Click to expand...

It’s growing with every repetition.

Desk trauma said:

It’s growing with every reputation.

Click to expand...

Historians will refer to the “canceling of the Keystone Pipeline” as the “straw that broke the camel’s back”.
That and Tan Suit.

disciple Clint said:

Or if you do not have expertise in an area respect those who do. That is not only the intelligent thing to do, it is also prudent.

Click to expand...

Seems relate to to this thread, as the people with expertise on the climate are telling us that there will be catastrophic changes if we don’t stop using fossil fuels.

SimplyMe said:

But the Keystone Pipeline is not the topic of this thread, it is not what the Congressmen were objecting to. The Keystone Pipeline is being discussed in another thread.

Click to expand...

I'm objecting to it and it is certainly completely relevant to the subject of unemployment due to EO which is the theme being addressed by those Democrat congressmen. It is in answer to your objection to part of my previous post. These are immediate job losses not future ones and due to Biden's actions and Biden's actions alone. You know the kind of dictatorial actions that avoid taking votes in Congress that Biden told us he was opposed to.

Sparagmos said:

Seems relate to to this thread, as the people with expertise on the climate are telling us that there will be catastrophic changes if we don’t stop using fossil fuels.

Click to expand...

Some people with expertise in the field are telling us that. I do not think that most are telling us anything so simplistic as that. I find it highly unlikely that a competent scientist would say that anything of the sort is inevitable. The words "may" and "will" are not equivalent ideas. I also do not think they would say that if we stop using fossil fuels climate change will not continue. So far, those experts that have gained their reputation and fortune by predicting disaster upon disaster have been relying on models that have proven to be comically incorrect most likely due to inadequacies in the programming based upon a paucity of variables contained within the model. . When one of their predictions actually comes true, I might start taking those experts a bit more seriously. They will have to start taking the climate's reaction to many more variables more seriously themselves if they are to arrive at more valid model for predicting what will happen in the future.

These job numbers are rising faster than Gamestop stocks - are we up to 50,000 jobs "lost" yet?

Zergling Rush said:

These job numbers are rising faster than Gamestop stocks - are we up to 50,000 jobs "lost" yet?

Click to expand...

I'm holding out for 100,000.

Doesn't matter what happens.... the Dems will blame Covid and Trump and the media will nod its head in agreement every hour till people get it droned into them and hate Trump even more.

Jesus preached a parable specifically about some people who let their oil run out too soon.

RDKirk said:

Jesus preached a parable specifically about some people who let their oil run out too soon.

Click to expand...

I have a pin from the early 70s that said "A country that runs on Oil can't afford to run short."
People back 45 years ago were lead to believe the world was running out of oil and we still seem to be finding more and more of it and likely there will be oil around 100 years from now and before it runs out we may see synthetic oils out that are not any more costly than the oil we run out of from the ground.
To put it simply, I don't believe that "running out of oil" is a good excuse for banning the use of it or taxing companies involved with it into oblivion or taxing it to the point that nobody but the elite (congressmen) can afford it.

grasping the after wind said:

I'm objecting to it and it is certainly completely relevant to the subject of unemployment due to EO which is the theme being addressed by those Democrat congressmen. It is in answer to your objection to part of my previous post. These are immediate job losses not future ones and due to Biden's actions and Biden's actions alone. You know the kind of dictatorial actions that avoid taking votes in Congress that Biden told us he was opposed to.

Click to expand...

So start a thread about the Keystone Pipeline, or about "job losses," as it is not the subject of this thread. The Congressmen we are talking about, at least per the story in the OP, did not object to the stopping of the Keystone Pipeline.

disciple Clint said:

except for the pipeline which would have resulted in refinery jobs and the associated spinoff jobs.

Click to expand...

Oh, what refinery jobs would have been added? We already produce more than enough oil products in refineries currently. If we need more gasoline, refineries can ramp up production and they won't have issues with not having enough crude oil -- that is not in short supply. So, exactly what refinery jobs would have been created when the current refineries already are at a capacity to meet the demand? The Keystone Pipeline was suddenly going to create extra demand for gasoline?

grasping the after wind said:

Some people with expertise in the field are telling us that. I do not think that most are telling us anything so simplistic as that. I find it highly unlikely that a competent scientist would say that anything of the sort is inevitable.

Click to expand...

. Well, I paraphrased but if you’d like it straight from them you’d have to do a lot of reading. Are you up for that?

I didn’t use language any stronger than climate scientists are.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcosc.2020.615419/full

https://www.ecowatch.com/humanity-rapid-loss-of-biodiversity-2649929188.html

I don’t debate science deniers, so I’ll leave it at that. If you don’t believe what 99% of scientists are saying, why would you believe me?

rambot said:

People can if they are flexible and adaptable and willing to move.

Click to expand...

Did you feel that way when there were so many unemployed during the great recession?

Man I brought that up.and just got hammered from the leftists on how uncaring I was and how I didn't understand the plight of the unemployed. People can't just uproot themselves and their entire families. It costs a lot of money to move and adapt.

SimplyMe said:

Oh, what refinery jobs would have been added? We already produce more than enough oil products in refineries currently. If we need more gasoline, refineries can ramp up production and they won't have issues with not having enough crude oil -- that is not in short supply. So, exactly what refinery jobs would have been created when the current refineries already are at a capacity to meet the demand? The Keystone Pipeline was suddenly going to create extra demand for gasoline?

Click to expand...

Crude oil varies enormously in its weight and sulfur content. Because US oil companies have gotten such sweet deals from OPEC over the years (deals to benefit oil stockholders, not oil consumers), US refineries have been built to refine the particular "light, sweet" crude from the Middle East and to some extent from South America and Africa. Most US crude is not the kind of crude US refineries have been built to handle. Other countries have refineries for the type of oil the US produces, so the US exports oil to them.

Bottom line: We don't use what we produce. We sell what we produce and buy what we use from others. It works for the profits of oil companies, but is a strategic mess for the nation.

In addition, for a good steward, "Are we running out yet?" is always the wrong question to ask when advised of resource waste.

A good steward conserves his master's resources, regardless how ample the supply appears to be. I suspect that Bill Gates' major domo still turns out the lights of empty rooms in the Gates' mansion...despite the fact that Gates has plenty of money to spend on electricity.