Biden to grovel before Khashoggi's murderer/the Butcher of Yemen in exchange for lower gas prices.

[Schiff for Senate]

Crazy idea: He could also keep two campaign promises, kill two birds with one stone, and transition to renewable instead of bootlicking for dictators and human rights violators.

[Schiff for Senate]

Imagine being this much of a cuck.

Biden just fell massively in my eyes. Like I said, I want GMac to enter right now and explain how this is okay. Because I'm trying and failing to rationalize this disgusting about-face. What Biden did here is utterly disappointing, shameful and pathetic.

[Schiff for Senate]

A long, Noble, and bipartisan tradition of kowtowing to one of the world's greatest sponsors of terrorism and violators of Human Rights.

One of the additional benefits of finally going all-in on Renewables will be having so much more leeway tell the house of Saud to sod off.

This is 1000% correct and what I was going to say.

I would expect the GOP to decide it's better to resort to bootlicking to the House of Saud to avoid transitioning to green energy.

But seriously? Biden? He's chosen to break a campaign promise and bootlick for anti-human-rights dictators, rather than use this as an opportunity to transition to renewable?

Disappointing. Pathetic. It seems netiher side is interested in transitioning to renewable. At least the GOP is honest about it - they've made it clear the fate of the planet is of little interest to them. Biden, OTOH, just proved he's taken environmentalists for a ride all along with his empty rhetoric. He has little interest in actually transitioning to renewable, otherwise he'd have used this as an opportunity to do that instead of bootlicking to the House of Saud after promising not to. These people are dictators, yet apparently a supposedly pro-renewable energy president has chosen to go and beg them for oil after promising he wouldn't instead of taking this golden opportunity to transition to renewable.

I unironically want GMac to enter the thread right now and explain away this behaviour. Because this is simply unacceptable and I want some explanation for this behaviour. GMac always has some way to rationalize what Biden does; hopefully he can do it this time to, otherwise my assessment of Biden just plummeted.

[Schiff for Senate]

There are a ton of other sources for cheap gas—Iran, Venezuela—and gas we are currently exporting for some reason that could be used by our people. Going to the Saudis and begging as the leading superpower and the only thing keeping them in power is more pathetic than building up our relations elsewhere.

Brandon's representatives already went on bended knee to Maduro.

The sane solution would be to thaw relations with Iran, a country far less bad than Venezuela or Saudi Arabia, but this is America and being stupid is what it does best.

The sanest solution would be to kill two birds with one stone and transition to renewable. But I guess that's a no-go, right, Biden?

[Schiff for Senate]

Instead of doing this, Biden could keep 2 campaign promises and kill 2 birds with one stone and use this to move towards renewable energy. But no. I guess it's worth it to resort to bootlicking for human rights violaters and terrorists if it means we can continue using dirty energy and don't transition to renewable. Because God forbid we did that, right, Biden? It doesn't matter that you promised you'd do that and promised you wouldn't bootlick the House of Saud, right? You just took environmentalists for a ride all along. Utterly shameful and disgusting about-face.

[Schiff for Senate]

There are a ton of other sources for cheap gas—Iran, Venezuela—and gas we are currently exporting for some reason that could be used by our people. Going to the Saudis and begging as the leading superpower and the only thing keeping them in power is more pathetic than building up our relations elsewhere.

Brandon's representatives already went on bended knee to Maduro.

The sane solution would be to thaw relations with Iran, a country far less bad than Venezuela or Saudi Arabia, but this is America and being stupid is what it does best.

The sanest solution would be to kill two birds with one stone and transition to renewable. But I guess that's a no-go, right, Biden?

The sanest solution would be to develop our own energy resources

Exactly what I said. Our own RENEWABLE energy resources. No more fossil fuels.

[Schiff for Senate]

There are a ton of other sources for cheap gas—Iran, Venezuela—and gas we are currently exporting for some reason that could be used by our people. Going to the Saudis and begging as the leading superpower and the only thing keeping them in power is more pathetic than building up our relations elsewhere.

Brandon's representatives already went on bended knee to Maduro.

The sane solution would be to thaw relations with Iran, a country far less bad than Venezuela or Saudi Arabia, but this is America and being stupid is what it does best.

The sanest solution would be to kill two birds with one stone and transition to renewable. But I guess that's a no-go, right, Biden?

The sanest solution would be to develop our own energy resources

Exactly what I said. Our own RENEWABLE energy resources. No more fossil fuels.

My 2001 dodge dakota doesnt run on solar and unicorn farts. No more green only policies.

There are plenty of cars that do. Just because you choose to drive a car that doesn't run on renewable energy doesn't mean there aren't any such cars. You can continue driving your Dodge Dakota. But we need to start moving towards green energy, and your owning a Dodge Dakota doesn't change that in the slightest. And how can there be 'no more green only policies' when there haven't been any green only policies to begin with?

There are a ton of other sources for cheap gas—Iran, Venezuela—and gas we are currently exporting for some reason that could be used by our people. Going to the Saudis and begging as the leading superpower and the only thing keeping them in power is more pathetic than building up our relations elsewhere.

Brandon's representatives already went on bended knee to Maduro.

The sane solution would be to thaw relations with Iran, a country far less bad than Venezuela or Saudi Arabia, but this is America and being stupid is what it does best.

The sanest solution would be to kill two birds with one stone and transition to renewable. But I guess that's a no-go, right, Biden?

Transition to renewable. A worthwhile investment (if done with the encouragement of government, not indiscriminate subsidies) but it doesn't solve the problems of today.

Fair enough, your point is good. At least we agree on two important things:
a.) Biden doesn't need to and shouldn't be bootlicking to the House of Saud.
b.) We need to begin investing in and transitioning to solar energy.

You're right that it won't happen today and for now we do need to continue using fossil fuels. But ASAP, we should be at least starting to transition. Biden could've used the high gas prices as a pretext to at least start that transition, to make a case about how renewable energy would be more stable and wouldn't result in these problems. Instead, he hasn't done that, but has in fact chosen to go to the House of Saud begging for more oil. Utterly pathetic.

[Schiff for Senate]

Imagine being this much of a cuck.

Biden just fell massively in my eyes. Like I said, I want GMac to enter right now and explain how this is okay. Because I'm trying and failing to rationalize this disgusting about-face. What Biden did here is utterly disappointing, shameful and pathetic.

Well, we have to get oil from somewhere, and there's not that many countries producing oil.  We're not getting it from Russia, obviously.  NATO countries are already completely out of oil.  The only other options are basically Venezuela, Iran or Saudi Arabia.  We already tried Venezuela and that doesn't seem to be working out, so it's either Iran or Saudi Arabia.  Iran is a far worse country than Saudi Arabia, and also a huge liability at this point in time since they're currently actively trying to assassinate Americans as revenge for the Soleimani strike.  So if you start flooding Iran with American oil execs trying to set up import operations, they may all just end up being kidnapped and held for geopolitical ransom.   Also Iran is on Russia's side.

Biden wanted to solve this problem with massive investment in renewables, but Congressional Republicans wouldn't let that happen.  So he's stuck going with the least bad option.

As much as I'd like to see Saudi Arabia treated like an absolute pariah, as Biden pledged during the campaign, that's simply not going to be feasible as long as we (A) are dependent on them for oil, and (B) are dependent on them as a logistical hub for middle east operations.  Now Biden has scaled down our presence in the middle east so we've made good progress on (B).  And we were making pretty good progress on (A) too until Russia invaded Ukraine and global supply of oil collapsed.

I don't really know what else you guys want him to do because the fact is that oil has to come from somewhere and if we can't get Saudi Arabia to give us more, eventually some European nation is going to fold and start importing from Russia again, and Putin will win.  I'm not happy about this but I'd rather see this happening than see Putin get what he wants.  It's not like this is something Biden wanted to do -- Biden wanted to replace our fossil fuel dependence with renewable energy, and ostracize Saudi Arabia.  But now he's stuck because of events that has conspired beyond his control.

PS before some Republican shows up saying "lol just drill more" or "muh keystone pipeline" that's a proposal that would take years to show dividends, by which point the war in Europe would almost certainly be over and Biden would likely be out of office.  So that's not a real solution it's just a cheap talking point taking advantage of ignorance.

Accolades to you - wow - just wow. You were somehow able to take even this and rationalize it to the extent that I get why Biden did this now. You have a great skill of defending Biden through and through. I commend you. I know I've said it before - but I mean it very seriously: You should be Biden's Press Secretary. You really know how to defend him and rationalize what he does no matter what, and you do it so well that (I think) most reasonable people feel compelled to agree with you. It is a great skill. You could've taken the easy way out and just criticized Biden like all the rest of us have, but instead you've written a long, well-reasoned, logical post that really makes what Biden did sound reasonable and the best option.

[Schiff for Senate]

Disgusting. Biden promised us that he would distance the United States from Saudi Arabia, a known sponsor of terrorism and abuse of human rights. The fact that he had to bend to their will because of oil suggest that the United States doesn’t make enough of it’s own energy. The United States needs to be massively investing into green technologies that will help save our future from the inevitable climate catastrophe, not bowing to the will to give oil a continuous run.

Well Santander also made a good point that should be obvious but which a lot of us (myself included, to be sure) have forgotten - we can start investing in and transitioning to green energy today, but it won't yield energy immediately, which is what's needed to lower prices at the gas pump. For our most immediate energy needs, we unfortunately do still need to rely on fossil fuels. We're talking about prices at the gas tank. Right now, we need a tangible solution, which means foreign oil, unfortunately, since the alternatives would take very long. It's an ugly truth, and we absolutely should be doing more to transition to green so we can soon enough drop fossil fuels and eventually move entirely to green energy. But GMac (and Santander) made very solid points. We need energy ASAP. Right now, it will need to be fossil fuels. We can't get green energy into use immediately like we liberals want and thankfully, we can't immediately do more drilling, like right-wingers want. Neither will immediately lower gas prices or immediately occur - both will take some time. So we need foreign oil. It would have to be from Venezuela, Iran or Saudi Arabia. All of them are horrible places with terrorists and human rights abuses/violations, but we still need to get oil from one of them, and fast. We already tried Venezuela. GMac's point is that this leaves just Iran and Saudi Arabia, and while both of them are utterly deplorable, it is a much safer option to take it from Saudi Arabia than from Iran.

So I guess he's right, right now Biden really has no choice but to take the oil from Saudi Arabia. It's the only way to reduce gas prices immediately. We can't both attack Biden for high gas prices and attack him when he comes up with the best solution, even if that solution is very bad in many respects. But I DO want Biden to use this opportunity to make a hard pitch for renewable energy and start investing in it now. For now, we need to use fossil fuel energy either way, but the sooner we begin the transition, the sooner we can actually start relying on green energy. So THAT's where the criticism of Biden should really be, not his taking oil from Saudi Arabia - as GMac outlined, there was really no better alternative right now.

[Schiff for Senate]

Accolades to you - wow - just wow. You were somehow able to take even this and rationalize it to the extent that I get why Biden did this now. You have a great skill of defending Biden through and through. I commend you. I know I've said it before - but I mean it very seriously: You should be Biden's Press Secretary. You really know how to defend him and rationalize what he does no matter what, and you do it so well that (I think) most reasonable people feel compelled to agree with you. It is a great skill. You could've taken the easy way out and just criticized Biden like all the rest of us have, but instead you've written a long, well-reasoned, logical post that really makes what Biden did sound reasonable and the best option.

No, he does not deserve credit for contorting himself into a pretzel to kiss Biden's ass defend Biden no matter what, as if Biden will give him a job if he keeps at it. He claims that somehow Saudi Arabia is far better than Iran and suggests they aren't on Russia's side (Lavrov was literally in Riyadh today). The difference between Saudi Arabia and Iran is the former values money ahead of Islamic fundamentalism, while the latter values Islamic fundamentalism ahead of money. You wouldn't even need American oil execs in Tehran - there are existing brokers and intermediaries to do that. Actually, you wouldn't even need to bring a single drop of oil into the US from Iran to alleviate the current situation.

Please tell me how "letting Putin win" is worse than letting MBS win. If that's how we're defining the stakes, Putin has already won.

Interesting. You might be right that Iran > Saudi Arabia. I'm no Middle East expert. However, he did bring up anti-American sentiment all over Iran following Soleimani's assassination. It might be very risky to go to Iran to get oil? Again, I don't know, and both of you guys know better than I. All I know that neither option is good at all. I just don't know which is worse. I believed GMac but what you said makes sense to me too.

[Schiff for Senate]

There are a ton of other sources for cheap gas—Iran, Venezuela—and gas we are currently exporting for some reason that could be used by our people. Going to the Saudis and begging as the leading superpower and the only thing keeping them in power is more pathetic than building up our relations elsewhere.

Brandon's representatives already went on bended knee to Maduro.

The sane solution would be to thaw relations with Iran, a country far less bad than Venezuela or Saudi Arabia, but this is America and being stupid is what it does best.

The sanest solution would be to kill two birds with one stone and transition to renewable. But I guess that's a no-go, right, Biden?

The sanest solution would be to develop our own energy resources

Exactly what I said. Our own RENEWABLE energy resources. No more fossil fuels.

My 2001 dodge dakota doesnt run on solar and unicorn farts. No more green only policies.

There are plenty of cars that do. Just because you choose to drive a car that doesn't run on renewable energy doesn't mean there aren't any such cars. You can continue driving your Dodge Dakota. But we need to start moving towards green energy, and your owning a Dodge Dakota doesn't change that in the slightest. And how can there be 'no more green only policies' when there haven't been any green only policies to begin with?

This is one of the most hilariously, cluelessly privileged things I have read on this website. New cars are more expensive than ever. And the used car market is even more ridiculous.  Furthermore hybrid and electric cars are especially expensive, and the infrastructure for electric vehicles is an extra challenge especially if you don't own your own home with its own parking spot.  Soaring gas prices are already bad enough, but buying a brand new vehicle is even more expensive.  The median vehicle on the road is 11 years old. All the fancy new sensors and doodads that the government is now requiring on all new vehicles have shot prices through the roof.

Maybe try reading instead of having these knee-jerk reactions. I'm aware Teslas are unaffordable for most people (including my family, in case you think I come from an upper-class, elitist, Tesla-driving family or something). I noticed that Reactionary said his car was from 2001. When did I ask him to change that? When did I say that at all? We do need to transition to renewable. I literally clarified that I have no objection to Reactionary driving his Dodge Dakota, just as long as he wasn't using that to object to moving towards renewable. I understand that most cars used today are older and require oil/gas. Didn't object to that. We can nonetheless start moving to renewable energy. And again, like I said, it's not like eco-friendly cars don't exist. I get that they're expensive and too expensive for many of us, but it's not like cars like Tesla don't exist. I did not tell Reactionary to buy a new car - that would have been very cringey and out of line. I literally said that his driving his Dodge Dakota is perfectly all right with me. Please read the whole post in the future before responding.

[Schiff for Senate]

There are a ton of other sources for cheap gas—Iran, Venezuela—and gas we are currently exporting for some reason that could be used by our people. Going to the Saudis and begging as the leading superpower and the only thing keeping them in power is more pathetic than building up our relations elsewhere.

Brandon's representatives already went on bended knee to Maduro.

The sane solution would be to thaw relations with Iran, a country far less bad than Venezuela or Saudi Arabia, but this is America and being stupid is what it does best.

The sanest solution would be to kill two birds with one stone and transition to renewable. But I guess that's a no-go, right, Biden?

The sanest solution would be to develop our own energy resources

Exactly what I said. Our own RENEWABLE energy resources. No more fossil fuels.

My 2001 dodge dakota doesnt run on solar and unicorn farts. No more green only policies.

There are plenty of cars that do. Just because you choose to drive a car that doesn't run on renewable energy doesn't mean there aren't any such cars. You can continue driving your Dodge Dakota. But we need to start moving towards green energy, and your owning a Dodge Dakota doesn't change that in the slightest. And how can there be 'no more green only policies' when there haven't been any green only policies to begin with?

This is one of the most hilariously, cluelessly privileged things I have read on this website. New cars are more expensive than ever. And the used car market is even more ridiculous.  Furthermore hybrid and electric cars are especially expensive, and the infrastructure for electric vehicles is an extra challenge especially if you don't own your own home with its own parking spot.  Soaring gas prices are already bad enough, but buying a brand new vehicle is even more expensive.  The median vehicle on the road is 11 years old. All the fancy new sensors and doodads that the government is now requiring on all new vehicles have shot prices through the roof.

Maybe try reading instead of having these knee-jerk reactions. I'm aware Teslas are unaffordable for most people (including my family, in case you think I come from an upper-class, elitist, Tesla-driving family or something). I noticed that Reactionary said his car was from 2001. When did I ask him to change that? When did I say that at all? We do need to transition to renewable. I literally clarified that I have no objection to Reactionary driving his Dodge Dakota, just as long as he wasn't using that to object to moving towards renewable. I understand that most cars used today are older and require oil/gas. Didn't object to that. We can nonetheless start moving to renewable energy. And again, like I said, it's not like eco-friendly cars don't exist. I get that they're expensive and too expensive for many of us, but it's not like cars like Tesla don't exist. I did not tell Reactionary to buy a new car - that would have been very cringey and out of line. I literally said that his driving his Dodge Dakota is perfectly all right with me. Please read the whole post in the future before responding.

I did read your whole post. The fact of the matter is that regardless of whether you say you're personally ok with him driving his truck, we are in a borderline national emergency with fuel prices right now and the idea we shouldn't do everything in our power to bring them down because ~green energy~ is absurd. We are allowed to deal with short term crises even if you think long term goals are in the opposite direction.

Okay, then the problem is that you've extrapolated too much from this one post and didn't see my other posts in the thread. I conceded that the short-term problem of high gas prices must, sadly, be solved with oil, not renewable, as renewable energy isn't immediately usable/practical, and obviously, we need oil/energy ASAP. But I also said Biden should use this is an opportunity to begin also investing in green - he should use this to highlight one of many problems with fossil fuels and use this to advocate for domestically cultivated green energy. Obviously for today's energy needs, green energy is unfeasible, but we should start investing in it today so that it is a viable and feasible option tomorrow. That's basically the core of what I've said. As I said earlier in the thread as well:

Well Santander also made a good point that should be obvious but which a lot of us (myself included, to be sure) have forgotten - we can start investing in and transitioning to green energy today, but it won't yield energy immediately, which is what's needed to lower prices at the gas pump. For our most immediate energy needs, we unfortunately do still need to rely on fossil fuels. We're talking about prices at the gas tank. Right now, we need a tangible solution, which means foreign oil, unfortunately, since the alternatives would take very long. It's an ugly truth, and we absolutely should be doing more to transition to green so we can soon enough drop fossil fuels and eventually move entirely to green energy...We need energy ASAP. Right now, it will need to be fossil fuels.

[Schiff for Senate]

Look, I don’t like Saudi Arabia more than anybody else here, but the truth is, we depend on them for oil and ignoring them would be suicide and not something we can do, especially with gas prices this high. I do not like Saudi Arabia, but unfortunately there are little options RN.

This. I've said these same things since GMac and Santander made their points, but you put it more concisely. I would add that Biden had better use this as an opportunity to at least begin the transition to renewable ASAP though.