Who operates your computer / phone for you? Your mom? Are you utterly incapable of performing a basic Google search? Of course you can't.
Who pays you to post garbage like a walking case of typhus? Welcome to politics, Muppetman: politicians change their positions on many issues as has Harris when it comes to fracking.
The truth is, political candidates often make statements to appeal to their base. Whether Harris was pandering or genuinely believed at one point that fracking should be banned, there is currently no practical way to stop it.
Fracking, which dates back to the late 1940s, sparked a U.S. oil and gas production boom when combined with horizontal drilling about 20 years ago. This surge in production has made the U.S. the worldâs leading producer of both oil and natural gas.
Most of this production happens on private land, meaning that, even if Trump believes otherwise, Harris would have no authority to end fracking in Pennsylvania on her first day in office.
New laws would be required to halt fracking, and given its significant role in U.S. energy production, it's highly unlikely Congress would pass such a law.
As a result, it's a moot point. As an energy sector expert with decades of experience in the oil industry, I still donât believe a ban on fracking will ever happen.
Finally: weren't you recently crowing about Canada's oil production in Alberta? Were you referring to the Athabasca tar sands oil production? Thanks for all the F&@in' pollution and CO2 emission, pendejo.
If Kamala wins, that's assuredly bad for America (in many respects), but good for Alberta! See, during her campaign, like many other documented issues, she's flip-flopped on the topic of fracking - claiming now to support it. Fracking is what brought energy security to America, along with many jobs and wealth in the those areas where it occurs. Her previous stance on wanting to ban fracking is undeniable. If she takes office, my bet is she will in fact ban fracking. Like stupid Joe killed the KXL on day one, she's even dumber and far more extreme.
So yeah, you go Kamala! Alberta is enjoying all-time high oil production right now, thanks to our new pipelines to our left coast. If Kamala bans fracking, investment in oil and gas exploration and recovery here will boom, along with the demand for our oil and gas, while killing investment in your own industry, impacting and affecting negatively several states.
How silly of me to think more broadly, without much thought about Canada, that Trump was the better choice for America and the world! That crazy Trump not only supports fracking, but his campaign speeches frequently contain "drill baby drill!". If I want to be a one-issue voter focussed only on the interests of Canada and Alberta, Kamala is the way to go!
Is this post a troll? Feel free to demonstrate what I'm saying is wrong.
edit: Ha! This showed up in my Xitter feed about an hour after I posted my observations here this morning:
Under Biden and Harris, the US is setting records for oil and gas production. So it seems like they've beaten Trump on that "promise" to produce more energy.
Do you have any evidence for your claim that Harris will ban fracking?
" If I want to be a one-issue voter focussed only on the interests of Canada and Alberta, Kamala is the way to go!"
Whoever is paying you to post/troll isn't getting their money's worth.
If Kamala wins, that's assuredly bad for America (in many respects), but good for Alberta! See, during her campaign, like many other documented issues, she's flip-flopped on the topic of fracking - claiming now to support it. Fracking is what brought energy security to America, along with many jobs and wealth in the those areas where it occurs. Her previous stance on wanting to ban fracking is undeniable. If she takes office, my bet is she will in fact ban fracking. Like stupid Joe killed the KXL on day one, she's even dumber and far more extreme.
So yeah, you go Kamala! Alberta is enjoying all-time high oil production right now, thanks to our new pipelines to our left coast. If Kamala bans fracking, investment in oil and gas exploration and recovery here will boom, along with the demand for our oil and gas, while killing investment in your own industry, impacting and affecting negatively several states.
How silly of me to think more broadly, without much thought about Canada, that Trump was the better choice for America and the world! That crazy Trump not only supports fracking, but his campaign speeches frequently contain "drill baby drill!". If I want to be a one-issue voter focussed only on the interests of Canada and Alberta, Kamala is the way to go!
Is this post a troll? Feel free to demonstrate what I'm saying is wrong.
edit: Ha! This showed up in my Xitter feed about an hour after I posted my observations here this morning:
I've decided to expend my energy in the real world with real people using their their real names. Too much at stake to waste my time here this election cycle. Y'all have fun!
I've decided to expend my energy in the real world with real people using their their real names. Too much at stake to waste my time here this election cycle. Y'all have fun!
Too much at stake to not waste time in a music or fitful prognostication thread though. Yin/yang, you know. lol
I've decided to expend my energy in the real world with real people using their their real names. Too much at stake to waste my time here this election cycle. Y'all have fun!
I've decided to expend my energy in the real world with real people using their their real names. Too much at stake to waste my time here this election cycle. Y'all have fun!
I believe this comment is what sparked this discussion. To your reasonable questions...I'm generally in line with the belief that the top few % could throw more into the bucket.
I dont think a proposal to tax unrealized gains is realistic (for various reasons) and that there are better ways at getting that share.
We are generally in agreement. I also don't think this will come to fruition, but for different reasons. To me, this is a lot like the 95% tax brackets in the 50's. No one paid it, or at least not very much. If you have this much money rolling in, it's better to put it to work than to give it to the government. So what the wealthy did was invest the money in new factories, new technologies, paying their employees a wage that allowed a single earner to have a family with a house in a nice suburb... All things that are not being done today as the ultra wealthy horde their piles of gold in a mountain.
Money only works when it's in motion (it's value is in our agreement of it's worth for exchange), it's not a trophy to show off. This is just a way to force that money into motion, which is exactly what government should be doing - ensuring the smooth operation of the economy.
I know some really high net worth individuals. Through my work I've met some at the very top. I interviewed for a family foundation position with one of the world's wealthiest people (you all know his name). After months of process I didn't make it (they actually canceled the project I was hoping to work on), but I never got to sit down with them personally. Through all of this I might have actually met 1 or possibly 2 of the people that would be impacted by this tax. They wouldn't remember talking to me. The idea that this is a broad impact is laughable. The idea that this is what would cause them to 'flee the country' is absurd (they do what they want regardless).
