# a Divided Country and cheating democrats



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

We are indeed a divided country and it gets worse when the democrats back republican candidates that they think will be easier to beat 

Ads from Democratic groups boost the Republican candidates that may be easier to beat

How long before they run a fake republican who changes parties day 1 in office to get a bigger majority

I honestly think we are going to see a major revolt at some time in the near future or some collapse that pits the right and left against each other...but this will be bad since it will not be north versus south... it will be neighbor v neighbor...


----------



## Real Old Man (Aug 17, 2015)

It will be more like the revolution


----------



## Chipper (Dec 22, 2012)

Yep blow the bridges and lock them in their utopia cites. After a couple weeks and food is gone maybe they will figure it out. Don't hold out much hope though.


----------



## SigInt (4 mo ago)

An actual revolt is pretty unlikely (and not something to be desired - something that destabilizing would motivate China to make a push for the mainland from the Pacific) but civil unrest is almost inevitable. Your sentiment and the fact that it's common among the older generation proves it: a democratic system can't survive without an unquestioned faith in the legitimacy of its proceedings. The generations growing up through this will likely be the ones to actually do things given that the "real" economy is long dead and career paths that were once popular for their social mobility (i.e., law, medicine, etc.) now lack either that social mobility or the meritocracy that made them accessible to the underclasses. Today's children will be left with nothing other than debt: no money, no house, no family, no nation. This, coupled with a large skepticism for the democratic system they grew up in, will likely push people over the edge to action.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

SigInt said:


> Today's children will be left with nothing other than debt: no money, no house, no family, no nation.


You've already been told, you will own nothing and be happy. Courtesy of Klaus Schwab and associates.


----------



## paraquack (Mar 1, 2013)

But at least their democrat overlords will have plenty of money!


----------



## Kernalll (7 mo ago)

We don't have a democracy, its a constitutional republic. Also, if we keep the dems in their cities, it should only take 3 missed meals. Usually only takes 3 until people will go animalistic and riot.


----------



## SigInt (4 mo ago)

Kernalll said:


> We don't have a democracy, its a constitutional republic. Also, if we keep the dems in their cities, it should only take 3 missed meals. Usually only takes 3 until people will go animalistic and riot.


And a constitutional republic is a form of representative democracy - your point is relevant when discussing the electoral college and why the popular vote is not the end-all-be-all, but no so much in discussions of macro trends. What's occurring on the right as a whole, but predominantly in the younger generations, is a (reasonable, given recent history) skepticism for democratic systems on the whole, including constitutional republics.


----------



## Esffemt (2 mo ago)

Maine-Marine said:


> We are indeed a divided country and it gets worse when the democrats back republican candidates that they think will be easier to beat
> 
> Ads from Democratic groups boost the Republican candidates that may be easier to beat
> 
> ...


If you honestly think one side is better/superior than the other when it comes to Republicans and Democrats, then you are honestly blind on politics as far as it would be useful for a discussion for something like this. Both sides are liars, cheaters, deplorable and don’t care about you, your rights, your freedom…


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

Esffemt said:


> If you honestly think one side is better/superior than the other when it comes to Republicans and Democrats, then you are honestly blind on politics as far as it would be useful for a discussion for something like this. Both sides are liars, cheaters, deplorable and don’t care about you, your rights, your freedom…


I know that one side is pro life, better on security, better for business, better for taxes, better for prices on things I purchase, better for freedom when it comes to guns...

if you can not see the differences between the dems and the repubs.. you are the problem!!!!

seriously, if they are all the same - how do you choose to vote????

NO SIR... they may all lie and cheat.... but my cheaters are pro gun, pro life, pro business, pro security, pro military .....


----------



## Real Old Man (Aug 17, 2015)

Esffemt said:


> If you honestly think one side is better/superior than the other when it comes to Republicans and Democrats, then you are honestly blind on politics as far as it would be useful for a discussion for something like this. Both sides are liars, cheaters, deplorable and don’t care about you, your rights, your freedom…


No both sides are not equal. Sure folks do tend to lie on occasion, but the left is bound and determined to erase the constitution and divide the population into the elite (including the deep state) and the serfs (we that don't toe the party line). Think I'm wrong just look at the USSR, Cambodia, Venezuela or Cuba.


If that's ok with you then so be it. It's not for the rest of us


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

Real Old Man said:


> No both sides are not equal. Sure folks do tend to lie on occasion, but the left is bound and determined to erase the constitution and divide the population into the elite (including the deep state) and the serfs (we that don't toe the party line). Think I'm wrong just look at the USSR, Cambodia, Venezuela or Cuba.
> 
> 
> If that's ok with you then so be it. It's not for the rest of us


it is posts like this that that piss me off when I can not hit the like button 10X...


----------



## Esffemt (2 mo ago)

Maine-Marine said:


> I know that one side is pro life, better on security, better for business, better for taxes, better for prices on things I purchase, better for freedom when it comes to guns...
> 
> if you can not see the differences between the dems and the repubs.. you are the problem!!!!
> 
> ...


FYI the last Republican in the White House passed more gun laws than the previous two democrats combined. Was famous for saying take guns first, due process second, nomination for the ATF a very saunch and outspoken anti gun person, really sounds pro gun…. Now let’s break down some of the other points. Better on security, what security? If you are talking about the border, then I see that you don’t believe that people should have the right to freely travel, believe in artificial constraints and constructs created as barriers for people to travel. News flash, we wouldn’t be in America if that sort of thing had existed when people fled the Church of England. Neither party can claim to be better for business, unless you mean of course corporate welfare (which outspends welfare for people by the way but that’s another story). Better for taxes again, both sides can’t claim that unless you mean for the very specific groups of big corporations and the top 1% of the population. Neither side also has any control over prices you pay in a store for anything, but if your referring to inflation that’s thanks to both parties again. Neither can pass a balanced budget, both spend money recklessly, not to mention their flailed trickle down economic plan. As far as pro life, that should be a personal decision, if you want he be cool, but you shouldn’t decide to trample on someone else’s decision and rights, when you do your just as bad as democrats on gun control. The fact that you admit they all do the same thing but you ignore that because of some ideal that one party is better than the other is being a hypocrite.


----------



## Esffemt (2 mo ago)

Real Old Man said:


> No both sides are not equal. Sure folks do tend to lie on occasion, but the left is bound and determined to erase the constitution and divide the population into the elite (including the deep state) and the serfs (we that don't toe the party line). Think I'm wrong just look at the USSR, Cambodia, Venezuela or Cuba.
> 
> 
> If that's ok with you then so be it. It's not for the rest of us


They are both equal in what I said. I can see that and it’s easy to see. It’s not ok for either party to do it, best way I can describe it is the democrats and republicans are different sides of the same coin.


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

Esffemt said:


> FYI the last Republican in the White House passed more gun laws than the previous two democrats combined. Was famous for saying take guns first, due process second, nomination for the ATF a very saunch and outspoken anti gun person, really sounds pro gun…. Now let’s break down some of the other points. Better on security, what security? If you are talking about the border, then I see that you don’t believe that people should have the right to freely travel, believe in artificial constraints and constructs created as barriers for people to travel. News flash, we wouldn’t be in America if that sort of thing had existed when people fled the Church of England. Neither party can claim to be better for business, unless you mean of course corporate welfare (which outspends welfare for people by the way but that’s another story). Better for taxes again, both sides can’t claim that unless you mean for the very specific groups of big corporations and the top 1% of the population. Neither side also has any control over prices you pay in a store for anything, but if your referring to inflation that’s thanks to both parties again. Neither can pass a balanced budget, both spend money recklessly, not to mention their flailed trickle down economic plan. As far as pro life, that should be a personal decision, if you want he be cool, but you shouldn’t decide to trample on someone else’s decision and rights, when you do your just as bad as democrats on gun control. The fact that you admit they all do the same thing but you ignore that because of some ideal that one party is better than the other is being a hypocrite.


Proverbs 26:4


----------



## Real Old Man (Aug 17, 2015)

Esffemt said:


> They are both equal in what I said. I can see that and it’s easy to see. It’s not ok for either party to do it, best way I can describe it is the democrats and republicans are different sides of the same coin.


So you're okay with all the inflation, censor ship of free speech, the ballot stuffing that took place in 2020&2023 , the vaccine mandates, the locking up of political prisoners for two years without trials, and the supply shortages and the like. I guess you are one of those folks that have been pandered to and just love can't do without all the free goodies from the government


----------



## Esffemt (2 mo ago)

Maine-Marine said:


> Proverbs 26:4


That goes both ways…. Just because I can see the corruption you refuse to see doesn’t make me a fool, but I can see how that would confuse you.


----------



## Esffemt (2 mo ago)

Real Old Man said:


> So you're okay with all the inflation, censor ship of free speech, the ballot stuffing that took place in 2020&2023 , the vaccine mandates, the locking up of political prisoners for two years without trials, and the supply shortages and the like. I guess you are one of those folks that have been pandered to and just love can't do without all the free goodies from the government


Did I say that? No, now as far as censorship, both sides do that, and unless the federal government does it, it shouldn’t matter to anyone, unless your trying to say you prefer taking rights away from private businesses owners. As far as locking people up for two years without trial, where have you been? That’s been happening for years already thanks to the justice system being overwhelmed by nonsense laws created by government as a guise of “safety”. And both parties are guilty of election fraud. I don’t have any free “goodies” from the government. I just believe that people should be free to do as they want with their land, their property, their bodies without government interference and control, something most people have seemed to stop caring about and demand they be treated like a child by the government and get permits for everything they do, from getting married to dying.


----------



## Real Old Man (Aug 17, 2015)

Esffemt said:


> FYI the last Republican in the White House passed more gun laws than the previous two democrats combined. Was famous for saying take guns first, due process second, nomination for the ATF a very saunch and outspoken anti gun person, really sounds pro gun…. Now let’s break down some of the other points. Better on security, what security? If you are talking about the border, then I see that you don’t believe that people should have the right to freely travel, believe in artificial constraints and constructs created as barriers for people to travel. News flash, we wouldn’t be in America if that sort of thing had existed when people fled the Church of England. Neither party can claim to be better for business, unless you mean of course corporate welfare (which outspends welfare for people by the way but that’s another story). Better for taxes again, both sides can’t claim that unless you mean for the very specific groups of big corporations and the top 1% of the population. Neither side also has any control over prices you pay in a store for anything, but if your referring to inflation that’s thanks to both parties again. Neither can pass a balanced budget, both spend money recklessly, not to mention their flailed trickle down economic plan. As far as pro life, that should be a personal decision, if you want he be cool, but you shouldn’t decide to trample on someone else’s decision and rights, when you do your just as bad as democrats on gun control. The fact that you admit they all do the same thing but you ignore that because of some ideal that one party is better than the other is being a hypocrite.


Lordy you have a real warped understanding of reality. Illegal immigration is just that against the law. We've got enough criminals we don't need to bring in any more. The major lock downs stemmed from democrat executives. The current administration is working with Big tech to silence anyone who disagrees with the government line of BS. And it's the current administration that has locked up almost five hundred political prisoners without trial.

And to say that republicans are just as bad is delusional to say the least.


----------



## Real Old Man (Aug 17, 2015)

Maine-Marine said:


> Proverbs 26:4


Sounds like this gent has serious concerns on things he really believes exist. Love the sinner hate the sins committed


----------



## SigInt (4 mo ago)

Real Old Man said:


> So you're okay with all the inflation, censor ship of free speech, the ballot stuffing that took place in 2020&2023 , the vaccine mandates, the locking up of political prisoners for two years without trials, and the supply shortages and the like. I guess you are one of those folks that have been pandered to and just love can't do without all the free goodies from the government


Inflation and supply chain problems are not the fault of the democrats nor the republicans. Inflation like this is the inevitable result of having a debt-centric economy, and supply chain problems are the price of having a highly efficient transport system to begin with. 

When you have a debt based economy, you're locked in to a cycle of perpetual growth with a total collapse being the alternative. You need to look no further than a chart of the USD's purchasing power over the last century to see why this may be a problem (spoiler: banks have to print more and more money to keep up, screwing over the majority of people who are not able to purchase appreciating assets). Sure, democrats pass massive spending packages that no doubt contributes to inflation, but so do republicans. Both parties are merely acting logically in a system that does not disincentive them from doing so. In fact, all politicians are of the asset-holding class, so inflation actually makes them richer, incentivizing politicians across the isle to spend recklessly. 

Likewise supply chain issues are readily understood by anyone who understands efficiency. Suppose you have a transport system that is highly efficient: supplies leave rapidly and are likewise processed rapidly once they arrive. The problem is that a breakdown at any stage, whether departures taking longer or processing taking longer, leads to a buildup directly proportional to the speed of goods arriving at that step and the set-back time at the now delayed step. These backups cannot just go away; many of these supplies are necessary for basic functioning of society at worst and are the means by which a private company survives at best. Thus, the backups _must_ eventually be processed. But by the time they are, additional backups have formed, and this cycle will continue unless a subsequent increase in efficiency is achieved (a tall order coming off of a global economic crisis). 

In short, you'd be dumb to blame the libs for your economic woes, you'd be a lot smarter to blame the economic requirements of a technologically advanced society.


----------



## Esffemt (2 mo ago)

Real Old Man said:


> Lordy you have a real warped understanding of reality. Illegal immigration is just that against the law. We've got enough criminals we don't need to bring in any more. The major lock downs stemmed from democrat executives. The current administration is working with Big tech to silence anyone who disagrees with the government line of BS. And it's the current administration that has locked up almost five hundred political prisoners without trial.
> 
> And to say that republicans are just as bad is delusional to say the least.


Define what makes them a political prisoner, be specific especially when you want to take this tough on crime approach that you are, because I’m pretty sure that entering a secure facility such as the capital building, especially when the vice president is there is a crime. It seems funny that you choose to ignore the fact that there are thousands of others waiting for trials that have been waiting just as long if not longer than two years, is that because you don’t care or believe in double standards? I guess you missed the part where I said I didn’t agree with the lockdowns but at the same time, I am going to assume your choosing to ignore the 19 republican controlled states that issues forms of lockdown orders as well. As far as censorship, the last administration was just as guilty of that as well, especially when they were sued over removing press credentials, and more than once for blocking people on twitter, again either your willfully ignoring that or want to create a double standard. Everything you mention applies to both parties equally.


----------



## SigInt (4 mo ago)

Real Old Man said:


> No both sides are not equal. Sure folks do tend to lie on occasion, but the left is bound and determined to erase the constitution and divide the population into the elite (including the deep state) and the serfs (we that don't toe the party line). Think I'm wrong just look at the USSR, Cambodia, Venezuela or Cuba.
> 
> 
> If that's ok with you then so be it. It's not for the rest of us


I'll quote my post from the "Preparing for Socialism" thread since it applies nicely to this. You reference leftist authoritarian regimes, which are things we certainly want to avoid, but say nothing of rightist authoritarian regimes. To a non-religious moderate looking at someone like Marjorie Taylor Greene, they would be worried about the fascist regimes of the past (Germany, Italy, Spain, etc., none of which had the liberties we all love) with equal disdain that you likely feel for people like Bernie Sanders, AOC, etc. But both sides miss the fundamental mark: the threat that both sides (rightfully) fear is authoritarianism, which can be present regardless of the economic flavor (left or right) it takes on. If you want to talk about things like "the democrats being the deep state," and then ignore Mitch McConnell being a member of the republican part, then I think you're missing a pretty significant amount of information to be talking about the shadowy workings of the US government. 



SigInt said:


> I believe you're confusing socialism for authoritarianism.
> 
> There is no real threat of America becoming a socialist state despite what Twitter checkmarks may want; global economics demand efficiency above all else, and the inefficiencies that would come with a socialist America would be intolerable by global capital at large. There's a reason that China, Cuba, and Russia all implemented "limited" "private enterprise" after their communist revolutions: you need an economy to operate efficiently to compete with other nations on the modern global stage. America can hardly centrally plan its infrastructure, so I'm not really worried about a centrally planned economy being in effect for more than a few days.
> 
> ...





SigInt said:


> The distinction has extreme significance since your insistence that it is socialism (a left wing ideology) rather than authoritarianism completely blinds you to authoritarian pushes that come from the right as well. I agree that the erosion of the second amendment is a massive threat - but I also remember that it was the Trump administration that arbitrarily ordered the ATF to classify bump stocks as machine guns, effectively eliminating any hesitation they had with regards to arbitrarily redefining terms. I also remember that Reagan was one of the most effective anti-gun politicians in recent history.
> 
> On a separate issue, consider policing. The right openly support police even in instances where constitutional rights are obviously violated, and often make legislative pushes to immunize police from being responsible for violating the rights of citizens. Is that not a threat? What good are your rights if the police do not legally have to recognize them? This is decidedly an authoritarian threat stemming from the right - not today's left.
> 
> ...


----------



## Real Old Man (Aug 17, 2015)

SigInt said:


> Inflation and supply chain problems are not the fault of the democrats nor the republicans. Inflation like this is the inevitable result of having a debt-centric economy, and supply chain problems are the price of having a highly efficient transport system to begin with.
> 
> When you have a debt based economy, you're locked in to a cycle of perpetual growth with a total collapse being the alternative. You need to look no further than a chart of the USD's purchasing power over the last century to see why this may be a problem (spoiler: banks have to print more and more money to keep up, screwing over the majority of people who are not able to purchase appreciating assets). Sure, democrats pass massive spending packages that no doubt contributes to inflation, but so do republicans. Both parties are merely acting logically in a system that does not disincentive them from doing so. In fact, all politicians are of the asset-holding class, so inflation actually makes them richer, incentivizing politicians across the isle to spend recklessly.
> 
> ...


Yes there was some republican inflation due to excessive spending, but the current inflation is clearly due to the current administration s really great large spending packages and Joe's war on fossil fuels. With regard to the shortages it's directly tied to the major lock downs of school and the need for the industry to shift from large bulk institution packages to a lot more smaller ones aimed at the family level to serve the children not in school. That tp you couldn't find in Wally world was probably locked up in those closed schools.

So yeah the blame for this mess does fall squarely on the shoulders of the Dems


----------



## Esffemt (2 mo ago)

Real Old Man said:


> Yes there was some republican inflation due to excessive spending, but the current inflation is clearly due to the current administration s really great large spending packages and Joe's war on fossil fuels. With regard to the shortages it's directly tied to the major lock downs of school and the need for the industry to shift from large bulk institution packages to a lot more smaller ones aimed at the family level to serve the children not in school. That tp you couldn't find in Wally world was probably locked up in those closed schools.
> 
> So yeah the blame for this mess does fall squarely on the shoulders of the Dems


Wow. This is hilarious, explain to me how schools, not even open (so not using/ordering) that get the cheapest one ply sold in bulk, would cause why is sold in stores to vanish. That makes absolutely no sense. Think about what your saying. Your saying that because they had to shift from bill to non bulk, that caused the shortages. That makes no sense given that for the most part all of those bulk products are made in the same plants as non bulk products. What you are suggesting is a reach at best.


----------



## SigInt (4 mo ago)

Real Old Man said:


> Yes there was some republican inflation due to excessive spending, but the current inflation is clearly due to the current administration s really great large spending packages and Joe's war on fossil fuels. With regard to the shortages it's directly tied to the major lock downs of school and the need for the industry to shift from large bulk institution packages to a lot more smaller ones aimed at the family level to serve the children not in school. That tp you couldn't find in Wally world was probably locked up in those closed schools.
> 
> So yeah the blame for this mess does fall squarely on the shoulders of the Dems


Inflation takes time to develop: if the fed prints a bunch of money (like it did for far too long by keeping interest rates so low) it takes a while for the market to price that in to the value of the USD. I'd like to direct your attention to the now infamous M1 money supply with this in mind:









Notice the exponential jump in 2020. This was caused by two things: 1) a redefinition of assets included in M1 and 2) the massive government spending that occurred during 2020 to keep the US economy afloat during COVID. Now ask, who was in political control then? Trump was president, the senate was split, and the democrats had a very narrow margin in the house. Now ask, who is responsible for this spending? This is worth asking because this *COVID spending* _*is what caused the current inflationary crisis*_, and that spending was only necessary because of the US economy being centrally built on debt. Much of this was bipartisan. That is simply a fact. Your argument that _*it is the current administration's fault completely fails: this administration's fed is the first in a long time to create a deflationary environment. *_The federal reserve has only begun to hike interest rates. This takes a good deal of time to take effect, and even when it does people will still be pissed off because that will mean a loss of jobs when companies make less money. This is the main economic dilemma currently at work right now: the federal reserve had to try and find a (purely theoretical) middle ground between hyperinflation (which would be the death of America as a country via currency death) and a major recession (on par with or surpassing 2008). So no, however politically inconvenient it may be, the current inflationary crisis is not caused by Ukraine spending, but the inevitable inflation 1-2 years from now will be. 

Believe me, I really hate this administration, but you're completely wrong on some of these economic issues. 

I also can't help but find it entertaining that you concede that schools are an important aspect of growing the economy (especially colleges, since many students prop up many small towns' entire economies), yet would likely be against paying off any amount of student loans (which, under your own reasoning, would be a strong investment to jumpstart the economy since it would fuel institutions financially so that they can buy more while also freeing students from debt to increase consumer spending). 

That last part was a bit mean-spirited, but I couldn't help myself. You're missing the mark on industry, though. The problem of industry was largely uncoupled from schools: the problem was that industry effectively shut down. Most modern industry ships product globally, but the rest of the world shut down far harder than the US did. With no places to accept the product, no money was made. Hence the increased federal spending to keep those companies alive. I'm sure schools were relevant for a small minority of companies, but small minorities of companies don't always paint the macro picture of economics (excluding banks)


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

The Fed has been printing money since its inception. It has an effect on inflation. It is not the driver of our current stint, from what I can see.

The driver for our latest inflation is two-fold.
1. A year of world-wide lockdowns which crippled the supply chain. Production came to a halt for basic goods. Trying to wind that back up is not an overnight ordeal. Delays in supply cause an imbalance in price as demand remains steady or increases.
2. Day 1 of the Biden administration saw an overt attack on oil production/refining in the U.S. Oil is the lifeblood of this country, and Joseph Robinette Biden single-handedly shut down the new Keystone XL pipeline by revoking their cross border permit. He proceeded to impact new drilling permits as well. When the cost of energy rises, the cost of EVERYTHING rises.

It could be argued that the constant and massive influx of illegal aliens (government's official term, yes apparently people can be illegal) into this country, following president Houseplant's lax border policies, is causing an increase in demand for goods, further exacerbating the problem with an already weak supply chain.

And for any sticklers, yes, I oppose the "free travel" of anyone who isn't allowed to be on the property they attempt to enter. You put up fences, lock your doors, and call the police if someone breaks in to your home. If "free travel" through your property isn't legal, "free travel" for illegal aliens through the U.S. should also not be legal. This is consistent. Everyone knows it to be true.


----------



## Esffemt (2 mo ago)

Kauboy said:


> Joseph Robinette Biden single-handedly shut down the new Keystone XL pipeline


This pipeline would have zero effect on US oil production or capacity. The fact that people don’t understand the basics of this pipeline boggles my mind. If you want to use it to hack your position then you should know more about it. Let’s discuss the physics first, building a 28 inch pipeline that hooks into a 17 in pipeline will not boost carrying capacity of the original Keystone pipeline. Then there is the fact that the intention of this pipeline system is for export mainly, especially given that large tankers can’t access Canadian harbors. Then there is the fact that the oil the US mainly refines isn’t the same as what is carried by the keystone, that oil is more caustic, requires more refining, different refinery equipment and is more costly to refine, which would lead to increased costs of productions. All of this is factual information.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Esffemt said:


> This pipeline would have zero effect on US oil production or capacity. The fact that people don’t understand the basics of this pipeline boggles my mind. If you want to use it to hack your position then you should know more about it. Let’s discuss the physics first, building a 28 inch pipeline that hooks into a 17 in pipeline will not boost carrying capacity of the original Keystone pipeline. Then there is the fact that the intention of this pipeline system is for export mainly, especially given that large tankers can’t access Canadian harbors. Then there is the fact that the oil the US mainly refines isn’t the same as what is carried by the keystone, that oil is more caustic, requires more refining, different refinery equipment and is more costly to refine, which would lead to increased costs of productions. All of this is factual information.


So you're saying that the Keystone pipeline would not have affect the oil production here at all? I would have been just a drop in a large bucket, is what I'm reading.


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

Esffemt said:


> This pipeline would have zero effect on US oil production or capacity. The fact that people don’t understand the basics of this pipeline boggles my mind. If you want to use it to hack your position then you should know more about it. Let’s discuss the physics first, building a 28 inch pipeline that hooks into a 17 in pipeline will not boost carrying capacity of the original Keystone pipeline. Then there is the fact that the intention of this pipeline system is for export mainly, especially given that large tankers can’t access Canadian harbors. Then there is the fact that the oil the US mainly refines isn’t the same as what is carried by the keystone, that oil is more caustic, requires more refining, different refinery equipment and is more costly to refine, which would lead to increased costs of productions. All of this is factual information.


Stop drinking the koolaid and back away from the liberal, business hating, white people are the cause of everything bad table....


----------



## SigInt (4 mo ago)

Kauboy said:


> The Fed has been printing money since its inception. It has an effect on inflation. It is not the driver of our current stint, from what I can see.


I would encourage you to take another look. Myself and many others in the market pointed out in 2020 that if ~50% of all USD in circulation was printed within 8 months, there was no way out of that situation without some massive inflation. Come late 2020, the fed claimed it was transitory inflation, and come late 2021, they finally admitted that it was a real inflationary crisis. As for this conversation, it just remains for me to point out that _you can't double your money supply in a single year and then claim that is not a significant contributor to inflation. _This was not just "the fed printing money as always" (the fact that is something you seem comfortable with is slightly cause for concern), this was the fed doing its best Weimar Germany impression. 

The fed itself disagrees with you: if they believed that their money printing had not contributed to inflation, they would not be doing quantitative tightening nor raising interest rates since neither of those things would easily impact key commodity prices like oil, which you claim to be the _primary_ drivers of inflation. 



Kauboy said:


> The driver for our latest inflation is two-fold.
> 1. A year of world-wide lockdowns which crippled the supply chain. Production came to a halt for basic goods. Trying to wind that back up is not an overnight ordeal. Delays in supply cause an imbalance in price as demand remains steady or increases.
> 2. Day 1 of the Biden administration saw an overt attack on oil production/refining in the U.S. Oil is the lifeblood of this country, and Joseph Robinette Biden single-handedly shut down the new Keystone XL pipeline by revoking their cross border permit. He proceeded to impact new drilling permits as well. When the cost of energy rises, the cost of EVERYTHING rises.


Both 1) and 2) are certainly contributing factors to current inflation, but they certainly are not the main driving force. For example, supply chains have been slowly improving, but during the same time period inflation has been consistently above trend (with the only exception being the recent CPI report - which is a heavily manipulated figure, and the continued price hikes in everyday expenditures shows how useless it is outside of stock valuations). Furthermore, oil has actually been decreasing in price (currently $77.95 per barrel) since its June peak ($121.11 per barrel), but again, inflation has only been consistently high. The Biden regime has certainly made absolutely baffling policy decisions on oil, which _has _contributed to inflation. But to say that Biden's idiotic energy policies are the main driving force behind it simply doesn't add up. What _does_ add up is the fed diluting the currency by half a few years ago, compounded by international conflict and poor domestic policy centered on oil. 

My point is that, even if Trump had won the presidency and issued good energy policies, you'd still be paying 2x for groceries as opposed to 2.5x.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

SigInt said:


> I would encourage you to take another look. Myself and many others in the market pointed out in 2020 that if ~50% of all USD in circulation was printed within 8 months, there was no way out of that situation without some massive inflation. Come late 2020, the fed claimed it was transitory inflation, and come late 2021, they finally admitted that it was a real inflationary crisis. As for this conversation, it just remains for me to point out that _you can't double your money supply in a single year and then claim that is not a significant contributor to inflation. _This was not just "the fed printing money as always" (the fact that is something you seem comfortable with is slightly cause for concern), this was the fed doing its best Weimar Germany impression.
> 
> The fed itself disagrees with you: if they believed that their money printing had not contributed to inflation, they would not be doing quantitative tightening nor raising interest rates since neither of those things would easily impact key commodity prices like oil, which you claim to be the _primary_ drivers of inflation.


I've heard a number of experts in the financial world say the same thing.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Esffemt said:


> This pipeline would have zero effect on US oil production or capacity. The fact that people don’t understand the basics of this pipeline boggles my mind. If you want to use it to hack your position then you should know more about it. Let’s discuss the physics first, building a 28 inch pipeline that hooks into a 17 in pipeline will not boost carrying capacity of the original Keystone pipeline. Then there is the fact that the intention of this pipeline system is for export mainly, especially given that large tankers can’t access Canadian harbors. Then there is the fact that the oil the US mainly refines isn’t the same as what is carried by the keystone, that oil is more caustic, requires more refining, different refinery equipment and is more costly to refine, which would lead to increased costs of productions. All of this is factual information.


I'm not sure where you get your numbers, but I have a strong guess on where you get your opinions...
The "export limited" portion would be a 36" pipe connecting to the Cushing expansion which is 34". The intent would be to get more synthetic crude from Alberta down to refineries in Texas. Along the way, the pipe would also pick up US-produced oil from Montana.
The original Keystone pipe and the proposed "XL" pipe would both come from the exact same location in Hardisty, Alberta. The synthetic crude produced there, following the bitumen "upgrading" process, is no different in refining than any other light sweet crude. This would be the same stuff Oklahoma and Texas refineries have been running since the Keystone expansions were completed.
The speculation that this pipe was primarily intended for export from the U.S. was a democrat fear tactic back in 2013. There was no actual evidence to support this claim.
It's an export pipe from Canada, for sure, ensuring an ally-provided source of oil for the U.S.
The XL pipe was expected to add over half a million barrels of crude capacity per day, bringing total Keystone capacity to 1.1 million barrels.

Any change to the production/refining of oil always leads to market fluctuations. With the XL, and expected higher capacities, being scrapped, the market reacted.


----------



## Real Old Man (Aug 17, 2015)

inceptor said:


> So you're saying that the Keystone pipeline would not have affect the oil production here at all? I would have been just a drop in a large bucket, is what I'm reading.


That young fellow isn't telling the whole story. A keystone pipeline already exists and runs thru the US all the way to the gulf coast. It currently provides about half a million barrels s day to us refineries in Illinois (I think) and to us refineries on the gulf coast . I would imagine that keystone would have a future phase to replace the smaller line with a large one.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

SigInt said:


> I would encourage you to take another look. Myself and many others in the market pointed out in 2020 that if ~50% of all USD in circulation was printed within 8 months, there was no way out of that situation without some massive inflation. Come late 2020, the fed claimed it was transitory inflation, and come late 2021, they finally admitted that it was a real inflationary crisis. As for this conversation, it just remains for me to point out that _you can't double your money supply in a single year and then claim that is not a significant contributor to inflation. _This was not just "the fed printing money as always" (the fact that is something you seem comfortable with is slightly cause for concern), this was the fed doing its best Weimar Germany impression.
> 
> The fed itself disagrees with you: if they believed that their money printing had not contributed to inflation, they would not be doing quantitative tightening nor raising interest rates since neither of those things would easily impact key commodity prices like oil, which you claim to be the _primary_ drivers of inflation.
> 
> ...


I never claimed to be comfortable with the Fed printing money. I'll thank you to keep your assumptions about me to yourself.
I clearly stated, and you quoted, that this printing is having an effect on inflation. We simply disagree on the proportions.
The global supply chain being egregiously impacted for over a year grossly outpaces the printing of money, in my estimation. We can disagree on this too.


----------



## Esffemt (2 mo ago)

Maine-Marine said:


> Stop drinking the koolaid and back away from the liberal, business hating, white people are the cause of everything bad table....
> View attachment 115054


Lmao who’s been drinking the koolaid? The one who actually took time to learn about the project and understand the physics or ones who watch a news site who admits no one would actually believe their reporters, and who’s slogan is real opinion? I mean if you have a 8 inch waterline running water to your home, and the city goes in another inlet pipe to that, that’s also 8 inch, the original 8 inch pipe isn’t going to carry more water simply because there is another source of input, it physically can’t carry more than it was already carrying. Physics be damned it isn’t possible. Not to mention any other facts such as a foreign company coming in and wanting to claim eminent domain of us citizen’s property. I mean your showing your true colors here, zero factual knowledge, zero concern about your fellow citizens property rights, zero knowledge of working physics.


----------



## Esffemt (2 mo ago)

Kauboy said:


> I'm not sure where you get your numbers, but I have a strong guess on where you get your opinions...
> The "export limited" portion would be a 36" pipe connecting to the Cushing expansion which is 34". The intent would be to get more synthetic crude from Alberta down to refineries in Texas. Along the way, the pipe would also pick up US-produced oil from Montana.
> The original Keystone pipe and the proposed "XL" pipe would both come from the exact same location in Hardisty, Alberta. The synthetic crude produced there, following the bitumen "upgrading" process, is no different in refining than any other light sweet crude. This would be the same stuff Oklahoma and Texas refineries have been running since the Keystone expansions were completed.
> The speculation that this pipe was primarily intended for export from the U.S. was a democrat fear tactic back in 2013. There was no actual evidence to support this claim.
> ...


Those numbers come from the businesses involved. For example Valero one the the companies who was going to receive the oil, told their stakeholders, that it would allow them to increase the export of products by at least 20%, and had installed equipment at the refinery to refine it into diesel fuel for export…


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Esffemt said:


> Those numbers come from the businesses involved. For example Valero one the the companies who was going to receive the oil, told their stakeholders, that it would allow them to increase the export of products by at least 20%, and had installed equipment at the refinery to refine it into diesel fuel for export…


The numbers I referred to were your pipe specs, since those were the only numbers you actually provided.
As for exports, I'll ask you to reread what I wrote. Export from the U.S. was not the "primary" intent behind the oil capacity increase the pipeline would bring.
But with an increase of 85+% capacity, it's simple deduction that previously existing exports could increase in volume and still increase domestic supply too.


----------



## Esffemt (2 mo ago)

Kauboy said:


> The numbers I referred to were your pipe specs, since those were the only numbers you actually provided.
> As for exports, I'll ask you to reread what I wrote. Export from the U.S. was not the "primary" intent behind the oil capacity increase the pipeline would bring.
> But with an increase of 85+% capacity, it's simple deduction that previously existing exports could increase in volume and still increase domestic supply too.


Let me ask you this, how can a existing 36 inch pipeline that has a maximum output of 0.7 mbpd, see an increase of 85+%, which would equal to 595,000 or more bpd OVER the maximum possible discharge rate?


----------



## Real Old Man (Aug 17, 2015)

Esffemt said:


> Lmao who’s been drinking the koolaid? The one who actually took time to learn about the project and understand the physics or ones who watch a news site who admits no one would actually believe their reporters, and who’s slogan is real opinion? I mean if you have a 8 inch waterline running water to your home, and the city goes in another inlet pipe to that, that’s also 8 inch, the original 8 inch pipe isn’t going to carry more water simply because there is another source of input, it physically can’t carry more than it was already carrying. Physics be damned it isn’t possible. Not to mention any other facts such as a foreign company coming in and wanting to claim eminent domain of us citizen’s property. I mean your showing your true colors here, zero factual knowledge, zero concern about your fellow citizens property rights, zero knowledge of working physics.


Guess you've never worked around high pressure fuel lines. Flow thru the lines are regulated not only the size of the pipe but the amount of pressure applied. Also you forgot that where the lines were to join us close to an inland refinery. I'd be willing to bet was to increase the amount up to that point and then be able to increase the amount of petroleum being sent to the gulf coast to feed both the local refinery and the off shore demand


----------



## Esffemt (2 mo ago)

Real Old Man said:


> Guess you've never worked around high pressure fuel lines. Flow thru the lines are regulated not only the size of the pipe but the amount of pressure applied. Also you forgot that where the lines were to join us close to an inland refinery. I'd be willing to bet was to increase the amount up to that point and then be able to increase the amount of petroleum being sent to the gulf coast to feed both the local refinery and the off shore demand


Hmmmm. Has the definition of maximum changed? Does it no longer mean as high as possible? Pretty sure that definition hasn’t changed anytime lately.


----------



## Real Old Man (Aug 17, 2015)

Esffemt said:


> Hmmmm. Has the definition of maximum changed? Does it no longer mean as high as possible? Pretty sure that definition hasn’t changed anytime lately.


Not if the line below the first refinery is pumping less fuel then the line north of the first refinery. Do we need to draw you a picture?


----------



## Esffemt (2 mo ago)

Real Old Man said:


> Not if the line below the first refinery is pumping less fuel then the line north of the first refinery. Do we need to draw you a picture?


So explain how a pipe line with a MAXIMUM discharge of 0.7 mbpd can do more than its maximum amount. That’s now how much it’s moving right now, that’s the maximum it was designed to carry. This should be interesting.


----------



## Esffemt (2 mo ago)

Real Old Man said:


> Not if the line below the first refinery is pumping less fuel then the line north of the first refinery. Do we need to draw you a picture?


Oh while your at your high pressure stuff, let’s discuss friction loss, you do know what that is correct?


----------



## Real Old Man (Aug 17, 2015)

You are a hoot. That pipe line may be running at full capacity north of the first refinery but once they taken what they need there is less fuel to move thru to the gulf coast. That is just simple math.


----------



## Esffemt (2 mo ago)

You still haven’t answered the question. Is it because you can’t? All you have done is deflect from answering.


----------



## Esffemt (2 mo ago)

I haven’t even touched on any other number of issues with the system, but you guys keep on thinking it’s just as simple as a pipeline will solve all the issues while turning a blind eye to plenty of other issues. I’d love to know your thoughts on us exporting almost 300 million barrels of finished gasoline last year when we were not even meeting our own demand….


----------



## Real Old Man (Aug 17, 2015)

No slick. You should have done your homework better before you type. Keystone phase I. 30 inches. Phase II. 36 inches. Phase III a 36inch. No where from Canada to Texas does it drop down to 17 inches. Also the capacity of the line is 860,000 bbl and the wood river refinery has a daily capacity to run 380,000 bbl per day.. that means only 480,000 bbl per day down stream of wood river.

Facts are hedouble hockey sticks aren't they


----------



## Esffemt (2 mo ago)

Real Old Man said:


> No slick. You should have done your homework better before you type. Keystone phase I. 30 inches. Phase II. 36 inches. Phase III a 36inch. No where from Canada to Texas does it drop down to 17 inches. Also the capacity of the line is 860,000 bbl and the wood river refinery has a daily capacity to run 380,000 bbl per day.. that means only 480,000 bbl per day down stream of wood river.
> 
> Facts are hedouble hockey sticks aren't they


Yes they are. I guess you don’t understand examples as well? Let’s discuss the fact that the northern pipe also goes from a refinery to a tank farm before it continues south, so how much of that usage is replaced heading to and from the tank farm, since you failed to mention that fact as well. As you said facts are a hedouble hockey sticks aren’t they. You still have failed to answer if you know what friction loss is, as well.


----------



## Real Old Man (Aug 17, 2015)

Course I do but that still doesn't answer your error in pipe sizes. With regard to shipping fuel overseas, well this is sort of a free market society. And just for the record our refinery capacity is 17.9 mbpd and our total demand for refined fuels is only 15.9 mbpd (gas 8. Ok8, diesel 4.0, kerosene 1.7, and jp 1.4). So guess they want to make a buck.


----------



## Real Old Man (Aug 17, 2015)

Should be 8.8 mbpd


----------



## Esffemt (2 mo ago)

Your figures are wrong as a country we use closer to 20 million barrels per day, you left a lot of information out of your post to make it deliberately misleading. Also again you do under what a example is correct? Since you claim you understand friction loss (which clearly you don’t) then you’d know your whole increased pressure means more output is a fantasy, as pressure increases so does friction loss, which would actually decrease output at the end of the line. That’s fact. Doesn’t matter what the material is, what it’s flowing through, it is a understood and known physics fact.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Esffemt said:


> I haven’t even touched on any other number of issues with the system, but you guys keep on thinking it’s just as simple as a pipeline will solve all the issues while turning a blind eye to plenty of other issues. I’d love to know your thoughts on us exporting almost 300 million barrels of finished gasoline last year when we were not even meeting our own demand….


Well, at this point it's all a non-starter. Oil is being done away with and being replaced by green energy. And we all know that green energy is abundant. Why the grid can handle hundreds of thousands EV cars all charging at the same time.


----------



## Real Old Man (Aug 17, 2015)

Esffemt said:


> Yes they are. I guess you don’t understand examples as well? Let’s discuss the fact that the northern pipe also goes from a refinery to a tank farm before it continues south, so how much of that usage is replaced heading to and from the tank farm, since you failed to mention that fact as well. As you said facts are a hedouble hockey sticks aren’t they. You still have failed to answer if you know what friction loss is, as well.


Perhaps a look at the map will clear this up. The line to the refinery is a spur.





__





Loading…






images.app.goo.g


----------



## Real Old Man (Aug 17, 2015)

__





Loading…






images.app.goo.g


----------



## Real Old Man (Aug 17, 2015)

Fudge will send the map link from the house


----------



## Real Old Man (Aug 17, 2015)

Esffemt said:


> Your figures are wrong as a country we use closer to 20 million barrels per day, you left a lot of information out of your post to make it deliberately misleading. Also again you do under what a example is correct? Since you claim you understand friction loss (which clearly you don’t) then you’d know your whole increased pressure means more output is a fantasy, as pressure increases so does friction loss, which would actually decrease output at the end of the line. That’s fact. Doesn’t matter what the material is, what it’s flowing through, it is a understood and known physics fact.


But your discussion is moot since your premise that the 30 feeds a 17 is shown to be false. If anything the pressure down stream from the refinery will be less due to an equal or lesser flow of product


----------



## Real Old Man (Aug 17, 2015)

Esffemt said:


> Your figures are wrong as a country we use closer to 20 million barrels per day, you left a lot of information out of your post to make it deliberately misleading. Also again you do under what a example is correct? Since you claim you understand friction loss (which clearly you don’t) then you’d know your whole increased pressure means more output is a fantasy, as pressure increases so does friction loss, which would actually decrease output at the end of the line. That’s fact. Doesn’t matter what the material is, what it’s flowing through, it is a understood and known physics fact.


What is left out


----------



## Esffemt (2 mo ago)

Real Old Man said:


> But your discussion is moot since your premise that the 30 feeds a 17 is shown to be false. If anything the pressure down stream from the refinery will be less due to an equal or lesser flow of product


Again what do you not understand about example…. I don’t know what you don’t understand about what a example is. It isn’t rocket science to know what it is, I bet even kids in elementary school know what a example is……


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Esffemt said:


> Let me ask you this, how can a existing 36 inch pipeline that has a maximum output of 0.7 mbpd, see an increase of 85+%, which would equal to 595,000 or more bpd OVER the maximum possible discharge rate?


If you want to argue throughput, argue with the ones who projected the numbers. Tell them how they're wrong.








TransCanada, ConocoPhillips To Expand Keystone To Gulf Coast


TransCanada Corp. has announced plans to expand the Keystone crude oil pipeline system and provide additional capacity of 500,000 barrels per day from Western Canada to the U.S. Gulf Coast in 2012.



www.rigzone.com


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Real Old Man said:


> But your discussion is moot since your premise that the 30 feeds a 17 is shown to be false. If anything the pressure down stream from the refinery will be less due to an equal or lesser flow of product


I went back and checked.
Phase 1 is a 30" pipe. Phase 2 is a 36, Phase 3 is a 36.
The XL would have been Phase 4, bypassing the Phase 1 stretch, and you'd have a 36 joining to a 36.
Where our resident "expert" got 28 and 17 is anyone's guess.


----------



## Esffemt (2 mo ago)

Real Old Man said:


> What is left out


Finished motor gas 8.795 
Distillate fuel oil 3.943
Hydrocarbon gas liquids (propane,butane) 3.410
Kerosene type jet fuels 1.371
Still gas .642
Asphalt & Road Oil .370
Residual fuel oil .31
Petrochemical feedstocks .289
Petroleum coke .269
Lubricants .104
Other petroleum products .211
Special napthas .042
Avaiation Gas .012
Waxes .006
Kerosene .005
Total is 19.728 million barrels per day. You still show zero knowledge of friction loss. As you said facts are hedouble hockey sticks.


----------



## Esffemt (2 mo ago)

Kauboy said:


> I went back and checked.
> Phase 1 is a 30" pipe. Phase 2 is a 36, Phase 3 is a 36.
> The XL would have been Phase 4, bypassing the Phase 1 stretch, and you'd have a 36 joining to a 36.
> Where our resident "expert" got 28 and 17 is anyone's guess.


Ah another one who doesn’t understand what examples are, shessh even elementary school kids do


----------



## Esffemt (2 mo ago)

I didn’t know grown adults, wouldn’t understand examples. I guess from now on all had feed you every piece of information, broken down so a kindergartener would understand it, I’ll avoid using fancy words, large words, and examples, to bring it down to a level you can understand


----------



## Real Old Man (Aug 17, 2015)

Kai it's a hopeless cause. The poor lad has just about every aspect on this part of the thread wrong. I'm tired of trying to show him the error of his ways.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Esffemt said:


> Ah another one who doesn’t understand what examples are, shessh even elementary school kids do


Examples of an INCORRECT premise are not valid examples.
There is no big pipe to small pipe connection here.
The pipe diameters are the same.
Your disingenuous "examples" are just lies you're now trying give cover to.


----------



## Real Old Man (Aug 17, 2015)

Don't try and belittle some one who was simply showing you the error in your basic premise 28" and 17" when in reality the lines you are describing are 30" and 36" respectively. If you want to discuss a real world issue you have to deal with real world facts not some fantasy you've imagined


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Esffemt said:


> I didn’t know grown adults, wouldn’t understand examples. I guess from now on all had feed you every piece of information, broken down so a kindergartener would understand it, I’ll avoid using fancy words, large words, and examples, to bring it down to a level you can understand


I'm sure we would all appreciate if the professor would dumb it down for us luddites. Though you may not wish you had. Pseudo-intellectual people use uncommon vocabulary to hide their bullshit, hoping nobody realizes the lie.
Dumb it down for us, and it may bury you.


----------



## Esffemt (2 mo ago)

Real Old Man said:


> Don't try and belittle some one who was simply showing you the error in your basic premise 28" and 17" when in reality the lines you are describing are 30" and 36" respectively. If you want to discuss a real world issue you have to deal with real world facts not some fantasy you've imagined


Says the one who can’t even get how much oil we as a country consume on a day to day basis…..


----------



## Esffemt (2 mo ago)

Kauboy said:


> I'm sure we would all appreciate if the professor would dumb it down for us luddites. Though you may not wish you had. Pseudo-intellectual people use uncommon vocabulary to hide their bullshit, hoping nobody realizes the lie.
> Dumb it down for us, and it may bury you.


I highly doubt that. I mean basic science will always win.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Esffemt said:


> I highly doubt that. I mean basic science will always win.


As long as you stick to it. But not if you conjure up random figures on a whim to support a predetermined narrative...


----------



## Esffemt (2 mo ago)

You mean like Real Old Mans numbers on how much oil is used in the country per day? I mean .7 mbpd is what is listed as the maximum discharge of the pipeline at the end of the last phase. That’s not some random made up number, that’s what the designer, builder, etc of the pipeline said. Friction loss is a real scientific fact, that isn’t some random made up thing. That will effect the end discharge, as pressure increases, discharge will decrease due to loss of flow from the material interacting with the surface of the pipe as it flows. It affects everything from water systems for potable water, irrigation, fire protection, sewage, oil, and so on . 🤷‍♂️


----------



## Real Old Man (Aug 17, 2015)

Esffemt said:


> Finished motor gas 8.795
> Distillate fuel oil 3.943
> Hydrocarbon gas liquids (propane,butane) 3.410
> Kerosene type jet fuels 1.371
> ...


Think that you may have gotten some of your figures wrong like on fuel oil - seems like you combined diesel with heating oil but heating oil is in mgpd not mbpd and it has to be divided by 42 before adding to the diesel. Likewise I think you may have done the same with propane and butane. Not to forget the about half the propane doesn't come from oil.


----------



## Esffemt (2 mo ago)

I used industry supplied data. If you think it’s incorrect, then take that up with the ones who provide the data to the public. Also fuel oil is a distilled fuel, it is the same as diesel fuel. For a great example is #2 fuel oil and #2 diesel fuel are one in the same. One is used for engines and taxed differently than the one used for heat, outside of that they are exactly the same thing. They all fall into the same category which is distillate fuel oils. What I didn’t do is intentionally leave out data points to try to intentionally mislead readers to make myself look better. That’s something you did.


----------



## Real Old Man (Aug 17, 2015)

Esffemt said:


> Says the one who can’t even get how much oil we as a country consume on a day to day basis…..


You forgot to mention that I did go back and capture some smaller ones that I'd not included. In your case you don't even acknowledge the basic mistakes on the pipe line itself. And to add insult to injury you talk down to us like you are god scolding Adam and Eve about an apple


----------



## Esffemt (2 mo ago)

I didn’t mention it because you didn’t do it. When I pointed out you were incorrect you asked what was left out, I provided you the list. I just went a checked at no point did you provide corrected data other than your initial misleading post. And then when you were given the list of everything you left out, rather than acknowledging you left out data your response is to say you didn’t mention I went back and did this, something there is no evidence of you even doing.


----------



## Real Old Man (Aug 17, 2015)

Esffemt said:


> I didn’t mention it because you didn’t do it. When I pointed out you were incorrect you asked what was left out, I provided you the list. I just went a checked at no point did you provide corrected data other than your initial misleading post. And then when you were given the list of everything you left out, rather than acknowledging you left out data your response is to say you didn’t mention I went back and did this, something there is no evidence of you even doing.


Oops. You are right. I wrote it up and then forgot to send it. But that doesn't negate the fact that you have some major disconnects on your numbers.


----------



## Esffemt (2 mo ago)

Where? Again I am using industry supplied data. This is information directly from them, they are putting out. Not from thin air and not leaving data points out. This is what we get and depend on from oil based on barrels per day. It’s a lot more than your “limited” data set you used to try and prove the fact we use more than we produce, and export finished product we could use domestically to ease the burden, that was just a deflection, and downright out false.


----------

