placeholder

Have the Democrats driven up the cost of fossil fuels? The Real Reason Big Oil Won’t Save the U.S. from High Gas Prices After years of losses prompted "capital discipline", oil companies are returning soaring profits to investors, not spending it on riskier new drilling projects. https://www.google.com/search?q=investors+demand+fossil+fuel+companies+cut+back+on+drilling&oq=investors+demand+fossil+fuel+companies+cut+back+on+drilling&aqs=chrome..69i57.12775j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Big Oil Is Not Dancing To Government Tunes. Period. Doing a 180-degree turn and redirecting more money to oil and gas exploration would definitely make some investors unhappy. FT: Banks want oil companies to keep returning cash to shareholders instead of investing it in new production. A turnaround in energy company spending strategies cannot be expected in the short term. https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Big-Oil-Is-Not-Dancing-To-Government-Tunes-Period.html

She saved a dress from the incident which supposedly has semen stains on it. Trump claims he never met her.

Actually, the link was already posted by someone else and then I extracted a quote from it. Right here in this thread.

Renewables have saved 230 million tonnes of CO2 emissions so far in 2022 https://www.euronews.com/green/2022/10/06/rise-of-renewable-energy-has-prevented-230-million-tonnes-of-co2-emissions-so-far-this-yea#:~:text=Renewables have saved 230 million tonnes of CO2 emissions so far in 2022,-Workers install solar&text=Renewables met all of the,a report from Ember shows.

What guesses are being taken? Trump explicitly an interview with Carroll to justify has claim that she enjoyed being raped. In the interview itself she said exactly the opposite.

The Democrats are the party of the rich? They're the ones who mostly favor tax breaks for billionaires? Are you reporting from an alternative universe?

Actually, it's going to be a jury that's going to render a verdict. Do you think that they should all be judges? And it's utterly ridiculous to invoke the need for a judge on a simple matter of fact. What don't you understand about the fact that Trump cited a specific interview and got the facts about it wrong?

And hate sounds like hate to those who hate hate. The difference between you and me is that I know that my statement has no evidentiary or analytic value. And self respect would keep me from offering such a comment seriously.

Actually, you don't have to do anything. Think of it like granola. Once it was weird European food. Then it became hippy food. And now it's the Staff of Life.

Trump specifically cited and misrerpresented what Carroll had said in an interview. What could be plainer than simpler than that?

And the participants mostly didn't have degrees in climatology either.

I think at this juncture it might be useful to note what the subject of this thread is: Six more Bidens may have gained from family business schemes: Comer This accusation was entirely based on Suspicious Activity Reports being filed on them. As pointed out previously, these are just precautionary reports filed by banks. Not by law enforcement agencies. Only 4 percent of them end up being investigated by law enforcement. And only a fraction of those result in criminal prosecutions. The odds against these reports being significant are huge.

As I quoted to you, Trump explicitly based his allegation on a colossal misunderstand of what Carroll said in an interview. That's more than enough information to note his allegation was false.

So, did Biden legitimately win the 2020 Presidential election?

Please. When someone makes an outlandish statement like that, it incumbent upon them to prove it. As is often pointed out to right wingers, it's impossible to prove a negative. If Trump claimed she enjoyed watching snuff films, would she have to prove that wrong? Very dubious that a jury is going to swallow the kind of guff that Truff spouts.

Well, based on her interview with [CNN’s] Anderson Cooper, I believe that’s what took place. And we can define that … I think she said that rape was sexy – which it’s not, by the way.” What Carroll had described is that she prefers to use the word fight, not rape because some other people “think rape is sexy”.

"thuggish looking"? Really?

If you had read the linked to Guardian article, you wouldn't have to ask these questions.

This is kind of a clueless comment. You just criticize someone for making a predictions in the case of Trump as a way to bolster their argument, and here you go making predictions about Robert Kennedy as a way to bolster your argument. Double standards much?

How would I know what? That it was wasn't you who wrote "Today they can move freely"That's why I wrote "Perhaps... Anyway it's a question that only you can provide the answer to. Did you write that?

I was going to answer because you said so. But maybe that wasn't you?Perhaps, somebody hacked into your account and wrote "Today they can move freely."?

According to people who've worked with him, it's not clear he has much in the way of reading skills.

Once again deflecting from the actual science. You've got nothing.

It's a relatively recent concept. Give it time

You'll be shocked to learn that xylophone is using the same kind of argument Trump supporters use when they predict a Trump victory as proof of the validity of their arguments. Not that you would know about such a thing. One does hope, though, that unlike those supporters, who claim Trump wins even when he loses, xylophone will have the good grace to concede the error should events prove it to be one.