TAMUallen said:
No Spin Ag said:
TAMUallen said:
No Spin Ag said:
BusterAg said:
No Spin Ag said:
docb said:
fc2112 said:
Over the last months, we've seen non-stop news stories about the price of gas going up and how Trump is responsible for it.
But now that the price has gone down. $0.50 per gallon in the last 2 weeks, the stories about the price of gas heavy evaporated.
Gee, nobody is there, huh?
Well diesel was around $3 a gallon. It's still high as **** so I don't know what you are talking about. Should I be happy that it's in the high $4 range?
Per Trump's maga, if prices are one penny lower than they were under Biden, even if higher than they have been during Trump's second administration, the answer is a resounding yes.
And if grocery prices are higher since Trump has been in office, it's something to be proud of because 'Merca (maga, really) being back, so having less money, if because of Trump, is a good thing.
Gotta love American politics, que no?
And, yes, gas is even down a dime in the LBK. I'll be happy about lower prices when they get back down to where they were before Trump started his war with Iran, that we've supposedly won, yet our military is still fighting and the entire planet is being affected by.
But, yes, the media needs to talk about gas prices being alittle lower than their highest in Trump's second administration.
One way for Trump to have kept gas prices down would have been to drop off a pallet full of unmarked $100s to the Iran government and allowed Iran to develop a nuke.
You like that strategy better?
I like strategies that don't raise my prices. I'm simple that way.
Also, according to the Google, Iran has never had a nuclear weapon, and we were told last summer that mission accomplished when Trump bombed their facilities and told us that threat was done.
I just want prices to go back down to where they were back before he invaded, when Iran having nukes he eliminated last summer. Again, simple.
Are you now joking and just acting simple?
What part of what I said was untrue?
This would be a good example then of how simple you sounded.
We have no evidence that they have yet attained nuclear fission or fusion bomb capabilities. However, to say they couldnt produce weapons with nuclear materials in them, i.e. dirty bombs, would be one hundred percent incorrect. Regardless, to be more simple, it isn't a question of if they would attain nuclear bomb ability but when if left unchecked beyond the initial strikes
Even more simple is being so near sighted that you cant realize what rebuilding is after something has been struck
That and in negotiations they admitted they were on the path to build a nuclear weapon.
That was destroyed for the near future but they admitted they would not give up the ability to build a nuclear weapon in the future.
This from the regime that calls for intifada killing ALL non-believers. Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindu, Atheists, Zoroastrian.
This from the regime that is sponsoring the genocide of 100,000s Christians in northeastern Africa currently
Look at the orators in our republics; as long as they are poor, both state and people can only praise their uprightness; but once they are fattened on the public funds, they conceive a hatred for justice, plan intrigues against the people and attack the democracy.
-Aristophanes