20 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Is it possible the many millions of nonsensical hate on Trump threads have become a bit old hat, and are being essentially ignored by sane rational beings?

If Pedro shouted "LOBO!! LOBO!!" over a million times, I seriously doubt Papa would still come running over after the first few hoaxes.

How many threads full of utterly deranged and deluded tantrums can a normal person read before deciding Jeez these guys are NUTS!!?

I think you misspelled a word above;

"Is it possible the many millions of nonsensical hate love on Trump threads have become a bit old hat, and are being essentially ignored by sane rational beings?"

Edited Friday at 10:51 AM4 days by scottiejohn

7 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

That type of statement is neither convincing, nor credible.

Ok, it cost $X to fill his vehicle up today. How much did it cost previously?

The trucking sector was making windfall profits during covid. Now that the sector stabilized, and while the logistic companies are not charging those high rates, there is still a shortage of drivers. The drivers are paid a rate that reflects the shortage. Also, even though operating expenses increased, transport charges have kept pace.

You offer a simplistic view that is not accurate of the logistics operating environment. The cost of fuel is only one factor.

The cost of regulation, of fees, of insurance has usually increased more under a federal democrat administration and similar complaints would be made. They were unfair when directed against the democrat administrations and are just as unfair when directed at the current administration. European and Canadian truckers have been paying much higher fuel costs than US drivers, yet they manage to earn reasonable incomes.

You've somehow actually conceded the central point while trying to dismiss it: fuel is not the only cost, but nobody claimed it was. The relevant question is whether a large rise in diesel costs materially squeezes trucking economics.

The trucking industry's own research says it does. The American Trucking Associations explicitly describes fuel as a fleet's second-largest operating expense, and says higher diesel prices raise transportation costs; ATRI's latest figures show total operating cost reached a record $2.336/mile in 2025, while non-fuel costs rose 4.2%. More importantly, ATRI says carriers faced rising costs and stagnant freight rates, with average truckload operating margins still below 1% in 2025.

So asking “how much did it cost previously?” is perfectly legitimate—but your answer doesn't refute the point; it is precisely how the effect should be quantified. Nor does invoking COVID “windfall profits” establish that today's costs are insignificant: ATRI's 2025 report found truckload carriers had an average −2.3% operating margin in 2024, with non-fuel operating costs at a record high.

The rest is largely non sequitur and unsupported attribution. A driver being paid a market rate does not make higher fuel costs disappear; for an owner-operator, fuel comes directly out of the economics of each mile, while for a carrier it affects the cost base and therefore rates, margins, or both. And “there is a shortage of drivers” is not a magic mechanism that guarantees drivers can simply pass every increased cost through to customers. ATRI's 2026 data describe carriers cutting truck counts by 2.4% and leaving about 10% of trucks unseated while rates remained stagnant.

The comparison with Europe and Canada is equally weak: the fact that businesses can operate with higher fuel prices doesn't demonstrate that an additional fuel-price shock has no economic effect—it merely demonstrates that trucking economics adapt to different cost and revenue structures.

Finally, the claim that “regulation, fees and insurance usually increased more under a federal Democrat administration” is an entirely separate empirical proposition, for which no evidence is supplied, and it does nothing to rebut the immediate observation about diesel.

In short: “fuel isn't the only cost” is true but irrelevant; the question is whether a substantial increase in one major cost matters when margins are already thin. The industry's own data say that it does.

1 hour ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Is it possible the many millions of nonsensical hate on Trump threads have become a bit old hat, and are being essentially ignored by sane rational beings?

If Pedro shouted "LOBO!! LOBO!!" over a million times, I seriously doubt Papa would still come running over after the first few hoaxes.

How many threads full of utterly deranged and deluded tantrums can a normal person read before deciding Jeez these guys are NUTS!!?

The deluded rantings of trump insanity sufferers do grow quite stale and boring

7 hours ago, SiSePuede419 said:

Did you say please and thank you to the Boss today?

Trump's Poptop ❓

It creeps me out when they say Vance "has a relationship" with Peter Thiel.

I've said before, Vance will have 2028 in the bag if he grows out his hair, gets a poodle perm, wears white hightops and puts on about 100lbs. Such is the power of the meme..

We know he watches them and finds them funny before anyone gets butt hurt and calls them mean

https://youtube.com/shorts/wsByoesKUxQ?si=vrEHlmC_vBg_ylsU

7 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

The deluded rantings of trump insanity sufferers do grow quite stale and boring

yet another poster that gets one word wrong!

"The deluded rantings of trump insanity sufferers supporters do grow quite stale and boring"

Just now, scottiejohn said:

yet another poster that gets one word wrong!

"The deluded rantings of trump insanity sufferers supporters do grow quite stale and boring"

Got it. You have no creative juices left, you rely on trump supporters to think for you.

2 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Got it. You have no creative juices left, you rely on trump supporters to think for you.

That is impossible as Trump supporters cannot think on their own!

They can only follow the MAGA tinfoil hat dictats they recieve!

2 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

That is impossible as Trump supporters cannot think on their own!

They can only follow the MAGA tinfoil hat dictats they recieve!

55555555 why do I picture you standing there in front of a giant screen shouting slogans LOL, like Winston at Goldstein during the daily hate.

1 hour ago, Yagoda said:

55555555 why do I picture you standing there in front of a giant screen shouting slogans LOL, like Winston at Goldstein during the daily hate.

Because you're having a senior moment?

4 minutes ago, BLMFem said:

Because you're having a senior moment?

I think you mean a junior MAGA moment!

1 hour ago, Yagoda said:

55555555 why do I picture you standing there in front of a giant screen shouting slogans LOL, like Winston at Goldstein during the daily hate.

That is becouse you are jealous of the fact that I picked the correct way and did not follow blindly where You were told go via your tinfoil hat earpiece and MAGA blinkers!

6 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

You do not have even a basic understanding of business finance. It doesn't matter if it is democrat or republican, because the principles of finance are the same.

Do ya think the guy with the magically expanding gas tank is gonna stop eating bananas too?

2 hours ago, NanLaew said:

Do ya think the guy with the magically expanding gas tank is gonna stop eating bananas too?

Well, the tale has grown legs so anything is possible.

4 hours ago, Roadsternut said:

You've somehow actually conceded the central point while trying to dismiss it: fuel is not the only cost, but nobody claimed it was. The relevant question is whether a large rise in diesel costs materially squeezes trucking economics.

The trucking industry's own research says it does. The American Trucking Associations explicitly describes fuel as a fleet's second-largest operating expense, and says higher diesel prices raise transportation costs; ATRI's latest figures show total operating cost reached a record $2.336/mile in 2025, while non-fuel costs rose 4.2%. More importantly, ATRI says carriers faced rising costs and stagnant freight rates, with average truckload operating margins still below 1% in 2025.

So asking “how much did it cost previously?” is perfectly legitimate—but your answer doesn't refute the point; it is precisely how the effect should be quantified. Nor does invoking COVID “windfall profits” establish that today's costs are insignificant: ATRI's 2025 report found truckload carriers had an average −2.3% operating margin in 2024, with non-fuel operating costs at a record high.

The rest is largely non sequitur and unsupported attribution. A driver being paid a market rate does not make higher fuel costs disappear; for an owner-operator, fuel comes directly out of the economics of each mile, while for a carrier it affects the cost base and therefore rates, margins, or both. And “there is a shortage of drivers” is not a magic mechanism that guarantees drivers can simply pass every increased cost through to customers. ATRI's 2026 data describe carriers cutting truck counts by 2.4% and leaving about 10% of trucks unseated while rates remained stagnant.

The comparison with Europe and Canada is equally weak: the fact that businesses can operate with higher fuel prices doesn't demonstrate that an additional fuel-price shock has no economic effect—it merely demonstrates that trucking economics adapt to different cost and revenue structures.

Finally, the claim that “regulation, fees and insurance usually increased more under a federal Democrat administration” is an entirely separate empirical proposition, for which no evidence is supplied, and it does nothing to rebut the immediate observation about diesel.

In short: “fuel isn't the only cost” is true but irrelevant; the question is whether a substantial increase in one major cost matters when margins are already thin. The industry's own data say that it does.

Cute and you will convince people who do not want to consider historical trends, or who are too uneducated or stupid to know any better. The claims of overly large increases are presented in a manner to mislead. It is dishonest.

Have you looked at diesel fuel costs over time. It has increased and fallen. The claims of price increases are out of context.

Diesel fuel is now at $6.285/US gal. Diesel fuel costs were high in 2008 at $4.73, and $4.73 in 2008 is equivalent in purchasing power to about $7.36 today. In 2022, diesel fuel peaked at $5.783. $5.73 in 2022 is equivalent in purchasing power to about $6.56 today. Based upon the historical ebbs and flows and the time value of the dollar, one can easily and accurately state that diesel fuel costs have decreased over time. I would also object to such a conclusion.

My point is that while fuel costs have increased, the claims are exaggerated and intentionally misleading. The large percentage increases mentioned reflect the low starting point of costs in 2025. US fuel costs were at historic lows in 2025 because the economy was not as strong, with a reduced commercial and consumer demand. n 2025, there were few storms in the US Gulf region, so extraction and refining operations did not shut down as often as they do in the usual weather cycles. Shutting down a US refinery has an impact upon fuel costs in the USA.

There is no denying that diesel fuel costs have increased, or that it has an impact upon domestic shipping costs. And it is common sense to understand that the Gulf war has had an impact on the cost of diesel fuel. The issue is whether or not the cost of diesel fuel has had the dramatic impact that you and others claim it has. There are forces seeking to exploit this situation to sow unresest and to chip away at social cohesion. The diesel fuel costs are just another opportunity for these political groups and foreign actors to work on causing problems in civil society. I don't like the attempts to manipulate people.

Source of diesel fuel costs: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GASDESW

2 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

Cute and you will convince people who do not want to consider historical trends, or who are too uneducated or stupid to know any better. The claims of overly large increases are presented in a manner to mislead. It is dishonest.

Have you looked at diesel fuel costs over time. It has increased and fallen. The claims of price increases are out of context.

Diesel fuel is now at $6.285/US gal. Diesel fuel costs were high in 2008 at $4.73, and $4.73 in 2008 is equivalent in purchasing power to about $7.36 today. In 2022, diesel fuel peaked at $5.783. $5.73 in 2022 is equivalent in purchasing power to about $6.56 today. Based upon the historical ebbs and flows and the time value of the dollar, one can easily and accurately state that diesel fuel costs have decreased over time. I would also object to such a conclusion.

My point is that while fuel costs have increased, the claims are exaggerated and intentionally misleading. The large percentage increases mentioned reflect the low starting point of costs in 2025. US fuel costs were at historic lows in 2025 because the economy was not as strong, with a reduced commercial and consumer demand. n 2025, there were few storms in the US Gulf region, so extraction and refining operations did not shut down as often as they do in the usual weather cycles. Shutting down a US refinery has an impact upon fuel costs in the USA.

There is no denying that diesel fuel costs have increased, or that it has an impact upon domestic shipping costs. And it is common sense to understand that the Gulf war has had an impact on the cost of diesel fuel. The issue is whether or not the cost of diesel fuel has had the dramatic impact that you and others claim it has. There are forces seeking to exploit this situation to sow unresest and to chip away at social cohesion. The diesel fuel costs are just another opportunity for these political groups and foreign actors to work on causing problems in civil society. I don't like the attempts to manipulate people.

Source of diesel fuel costs: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GASDESW

"Cute" is a word you use to describe children. I ain't your bitch. I will keep biting. Engage like a grown man, not a kid.

The continuing and predictable weakness with your argument is that you keep changing the fecking question. The original observation is about a current cost shock affecting trucking; it does not require the claim that diesel is at an unprecedented real-terms level.

I looked up EIA data (https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/PET_PRI_GND_A_EPD2D_PTE_DPGAL_W.htm), and this confirms that U.S. diesel reached $6.30 per fake gallon (US Gallon, not a proper gallon) on September 14, 2026, up $2.50 from a year earlier and $2.80 from two years earlier. Yes, diesel has fluctuated dramatically before: the 2008 monthly series reached nearly $5 in July and then collapsed as the financial crisis hit, while 2022 reached almost $6. But that history does not somehow make today's increase imaginary or “misleading.”

In fact, the EIA says the present increase is being driven by elevated crude prices and tight global distillate supplies, and explicitly notes that high diesel prices can increase road and rail freight costs.

In your attempt to sound the economist, your cod inflation adjustment is also being used selectively: comparing today's price with an old inflation-adjusted peak will tell the feckers something about long-run purchasing power, but tells <deleted> all about the marginal cash cost facing the proverbial greasy cap, red-voting trucker whose fuel bill has risen sharply within the last year.

If a truck doing 2,000 miles at a fairly typical 7 mpg, so consuming roughly 290 gallons, the driver is spending $730 more per week for that mileage. Whether the carrier passes that through, absorbs it, or shares it with the driver is the economic question—not whether diesel was once expensive in 2008.

And the attempt to turn this into a lecture about “foreign actors” and social cohesion is particularly revealing because you are attempting a fast one here, attempting motive speculation for economic evidence.

If the claim is that someone has exaggerated the effect of fuel prices, then why the <deleted> don't you demonstrate the exaggeration, by specifying the claimed increase, the baseline, the truck's fuel consumption, the mileage, the fuel surcharge, and the resulting change in cost per mile. Then compare that with freight rates and margins. That is an evidence-based argument.

Saying “people are being manipulated by political groups and foreign actors” without identifying who, what they did, or what evidence connects them to the particular claim is not evidence of manipulation; it is an allegation of manipulation. You fail to understand the difference between evidence and allegation

And your concession at the end, where you admit “there is no denying that diesel fuel costs have increased, or that it has an impact upon domestic shipping costs”, actually establishes my point. The remaining disagreement is magnitude, which is an empirical question. Historical volatility does not answer it, inflation-adjusted comparisons do not answer it, and bloody insinuations about political manipulation certainly do not answer it.

9 hours ago, scottiejohn said:

That is becouse you are jealous of the fact that I picked the correct way and did not follow blindly where You were told go via your tinfoil hat earpiece and MAGA blinkers!

The new hat.

They want to give Trump another chance. 😄

2 hours ago, gargamon said:

The new hat.

Should it not be a diaper rather than a hat?

36 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

Should it not be a diaper rather than a hat?

The diaper is to hide their botched penis enlargement surgery. 🤭