Next time liberals say "That won't matter for a decade!", remember that statement is a mendacious game.
Bush was right when he promoted nuclear.
Others were right when we wanted to drill in ANWR or build Keystone.
And every single damn time, liberals say "That takes too long!"
If you go back, the person with by far the most evidence based, scientific energy policy that in hindsight also made sense was George W. Bush.
Yup. This guy.
He increased drilling for natural gas, allowed us to DECREASE our carbon output. He put us on a path that got us to energy independence (that Obama reversed). He wanted more pipelines. And he wanted the US to massively expand nuclear to third world nations (Dems opposed this).
"WHAT ABOUT GREEN TECH!"
Bush massively expanded it. Long before the Presidency he advocated a move to net zero carbon emissions in Texas.
He also was the second President to use solar panels on the White House...not that it matters.
What you are seeing with massive energy inflation and failure in American energy independence is a liberal created mess that was easily predictable. And Biden is doubling down on it...and he should be stopped.
Otherwise another decade from now, we will pay the cost...again.
Morally, ethically, scientifically, economically...Bush's policy is far better than Biden's.
This is Biden's policy. To beg and plead and finally pay off tyrannical regimes. Its pathetic and unethical.
If we are going to impose costs on people that made such policy decisions in the past that ultimately benefited Putin... Shouldn't we ask voters to consider imposing cost on DEMOCRATS too?
Mark Kelly last night was a perfect example of this.
The Obama/Biden policy for the last decade and a half has all been pro-Putin for them last decade and a half.
There may be good reasons for those policies!
But if they get that freedom, why shouldn't the Saudis?
If your position is "I refuse to increase carbon based energy production, no matter the price; even if poor people can't heat their homes, because I think climate change is THAT important..."...
That is a more ethical and moral position THAN THIS.
This position is "I care about the environment, until such time as it is a political vulnerability; at that moment, I don't care so much about global climate change, but I still will do anything not to empower American energy providers."
If anyone bans anyone for this... They really are playing a McCarthyism Fascist playbook. Censorship of that type should never stand, whatever the cost.
1. @PolitiFact ⬇️. 2. @AP: Kamala didn't say there should be racially equitable distribution of hurricane funds...but she did. 3. @GlennKesslerWP never corrected his scientifically incorrect post on fetal heartbeats.
I mean, if you are going to be another partisan leaning outlet like Fox, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, fine. But don't pretend like you are some objective fact checker.
You are just as bad as the rest of journalism.
Journalism is dying, if not dead, and our country is FAR worse off for it.
These aren't especially even close calls. These were easily provable.
These journalists decided to take the facts, then find any way possible to skew them to whatever result they wanted.
There is no reason the public should trust anyone that can't admit that.
Neville Chamberlain gets a bad rap (he was naïve, but nothing he could've stopped the march to war).
The lesson though is THE ROAD TO HELL IS PAVED WITH GOOD INTENTIONS. Musk means well, but he might actually be making war more likely, not less.
"In his account The Gathering Storm Churchill characterised Chamberlain as "an upright, competent, well meaning man" fatally handicapped by a deluded self-confidence which compounded an already debilitating lack of both vision and diplomatic experience." bbc.com/news/magazine-…