Leading from behind... AGAIN.
-
White House press secretary Jen Psaki said the White House will sanction Russian President Vladimir Putin in coordination with its European allies.
"In alignment with the decision by our European allies, the United States will join them in sanctioning President Putin and Foreign Minister Lavrov," Psaki told reporters during a press briefing Friday.
The move comes one day after the U.S. rolled out its second tranche of sanctions that targeted other Russian elites and their families, but omitted top Russian government officials like Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.
-
-
I'm curious what the opinion of hardcore "America First" advocates is.
Russia provides us and the rest of the world with oil - inflation will go up further with heavier sanctions.
The purely America First move here would be light to no sanctions - no?
@xenon said in Leading from behind... AGAIN.:
I'm curious what the opinion of hardcore "America First" advocates is.
Russia provides us and the rest of the world with oil - inflation will go up further with heavier sanctions.
The purely America First move here would be light to no sanctions - no?
Bullshit.
-
@xenon said in Leading from behind... AGAIN.:
I'm curious what the opinion of hardcore "America First" advocates is.
Russia provides us and the rest of the world with oil - inflation will go up further with heavier sanctions.
The purely America First move here would be light to no sanctions - no?
Bullshit.
@Jolly said in Leading from behind... AGAIN.:
@xenon said in Leading from behind... AGAIN.:
I'm curious what the opinion of hardcore "America First" advocates is.
Russia provides us and the rest of the world with oil - inflation will go up further with heavier sanctions.
The purely America First move here would be light to no sanctions - no?
Bullshit.
Well - please explain what the "America First" stance should be in this sort of situation. I'm genuinely curious.
I'm not saying you're a purist "America First" person, or that anyone here is.
What I'm saying is that I don't understand what the America First stance on this issue would be.
-
@Jolly said in Leading from behind... AGAIN.:
@xenon said in Leading from behind... AGAIN.:
I'm curious what the opinion of hardcore "America First" advocates is.
Russia provides us and the rest of the world with oil - inflation will go up further with heavier sanctions.
The purely America First move here would be light to no sanctions - no?
Bullshit.
Well - please explain what the "America First" stance should be in this sort of situation. I'm genuinely curious.
I'm not saying you're a purist "America First" person, or that anyone here is.
What I'm saying is that I don't understand what the America First stance on this issue would be.
@xenon said in Leading from behind... AGAIN.:
@Jolly said in Leading from behind... AGAIN.:
@xenon said in Leading from behind... AGAIN.:
I'm curious what the opinion of hardcore "America First" advocates is.
Russia provides us and the rest of the world with oil - inflation will go up further with heavier sanctions.
The purely America First move here would be light to no sanctions - no?
Bullshit.
Well - please explain what the "America First" stance should be in this sort of situation. I'm genuinely curious.
I'm not saying you're a purist "America First" person, or that anyone here is.
What I'm saying is that I don't understand what the America First stance on this issue would be.
Energy independence for one.
-
@Jolly said in Leading from behind... AGAIN.:
@xenon said in Leading from behind... AGAIN.:
I'm curious what the opinion of hardcore "America First" advocates is.
Russia provides us and the rest of the world with oil - inflation will go up further with heavier sanctions.
The purely America First move here would be light to no sanctions - no?
Bullshit.
Well - please explain what the "America First" stance should be in this sort of situation. I'm genuinely curious.
I'm not saying you're a purist "America First" person, or that anyone here is.
What I'm saying is that I don't understand what the America First stance on this issue would be.
@xenon said in Leading from behind... AGAIN.:
@Jolly said in Leading from behind... AGAIN.:
@xenon said in Leading from behind... AGAIN.:
I'm curious what the opinion of hardcore "America First" advocates is.
Russia provides us and the rest of the world with oil - inflation will go up further with heavier sanctions.
The purely America First move here would be light to no sanctions - no?
Bullshit.
Well - please explain what the "America First" stance should be in this sort of situation. I'm genuinely curious.
I'm not saying you're a purist "America First" person, or that anyone here is.
What I'm saying is that I don't understand what the America First stance on this issue would be.
You very obviously do not understand what America First means. It means that when an agent of America sits down to negotiate with agents of other countries,the agent for America should put America's interests first. For example, the US, France, and Germany sit down to negotiate a deal. The German should put Germany's interests first, the French guy should put Frances interests first, and the American should put America's interests first. It IS the most common sense way of negotiating there is.
How does this apply to the situation under discussion? You say "Russia provides us and the rest of the world with oil. But you didn't even think to ask why. Here's why: two years ago Russia did NOT provide us with a single drop of oil. America has more oil reserves than anyone in the world. Two years ago we were exporting oil. Then Biden took over ( well.. Obama took over. Biden is just a stooge) on day one he drove a stake through the heart of our petroleum industry, then went to Russia and Iran and started buying oil instead of producing it here. He killed the pipeline here, but opened up the Russian pipeline to Europe. When it became clear how badly he had fucked up, he didn't open up US oil production, he went to OPEC and begged them to pump more oil. Do I really need to explain to you that not a single bit of that put America's interests first?
Now he says "bad russia!! You invaded Ukraine, so the US is going to put TOUGH HARSH SANCTIONS on you..... except we won't put any sanctions on your oil industry, you can keep on pumping...."
At EVERY. FREAKING. STEP. Biden put America last. Had he put America First, Russia wouldn't be selling us or Europe oil in the first place. America would still be energy independent. Gas would still be less that 2 bucks a gallon. Iran wouldn't be building a bomb proof nuclear weapons factory, Russia wouldn't be in Ukraine, and China wouldn't be acting like they are.
But now that Gomer Pyle is in the White House, we can all sit around and watch the world fall apart comfortable in the knowledge that Trump isnt writing mean tweets.....
-
@xenon said in Leading from behind... AGAIN.:
@Jolly said in Leading from behind... AGAIN.:
@xenon said in Leading from behind... AGAIN.:
I'm curious what the opinion of hardcore "America First" advocates is.
Russia provides us and the rest of the world with oil - inflation will go up further with heavier sanctions.
The purely America First move here would be light to no sanctions - no?
Bullshit.
Well - please explain what the "America First" stance should be in this sort of situation. I'm genuinely curious.
I'm not saying you're a purist "America First" person, or that anyone here is.
What I'm saying is that I don't understand what the America First stance on this issue would be.
You very obviously do not understand what America First means. It means that when an agent of America sits down to negotiate with agents of other countries,the agent for America should put America's interests first. For example, the US, France, and Germany sit down to negotiate a deal. The German should put Germany's interests first, the French guy should put Frances interests first, and the American should put America's interests first. It IS the most common sense way of negotiating there is.
How does this apply to the situation under discussion? You say "Russia provides us and the rest of the world with oil. But you didn't even think to ask why. Here's why: two years ago Russia did NOT provide us with a single drop of oil. America has more oil reserves than anyone in the world. Two years ago we were exporting oil. Then Biden took over ( well.. Obama took over. Biden is just a stooge) on day one he drove a stake through the heart of our petroleum industry, then went to Russia and Iran and started buying oil instead of producing it here. He killed the pipeline here, but opened up the Russian pipeline to Europe. When it became clear how badly he had fucked up, he didn't open up US oil production, he went to OPEC and begged them to pump more oil. Do I really need to explain to you that not a single bit of that put America's interests first?
Now he says "bad russia!! You invaded Ukraine, so the US is going to put TOUGH HARSH SANCTIONS on you..... except we won't put any sanctions on your oil industry, you can keep on pumping...."
At EVERY. FREAKING. STEP. Biden put America last. Had he put America First, Russia wouldn't be selling us or Europe oil in the first place. America would still be energy independent. Gas would still be less that 2 bucks a gallon. Iran wouldn't be building a bomb proof nuclear weapons factory, Russia wouldn't be in Ukraine, and China wouldn't be acting like they are.
But now that Gomer Pyle is in the White House, we can all sit around and watch the world fall apart comfortable in the knowledge that Trump isnt writing mean tweets.....
@Larry said in Leading from behind... AGAIN.:
@xenon said in Leading from behind... AGAIN.:
@Jolly said in Leading from behind... AGAIN.:
@xenon said in Leading from behind... AGAIN.:
I'm curious what the opinion of hardcore "America First" advocates is.
Russia provides us and the rest of the world with oil - inflation will go up further with heavier sanctions.
The purely America First move here would be light to no sanctions - no?
Bullshit.
Well - please explain what the "America First" stance should be in this sort of situation. I'm genuinely curious.
I'm not saying you're a purist "America First" person, or that anyone here is.
What I'm saying is that I don't understand what the America First stance on this issue would be.
You very obviously do not understand what America First means. It means that when an agent of America sits down to negotiate with agents of other countries,the agent for America should put America's interests first. For example, the US, France, and Germany sit down to negotiate a deal. The German should put Germany's interests first, the French guy should put Frances interests first, and the American should put America's interests first. It IS the most common sense way of negotiating there is.
How does this apply to the situation under discussion? You say "Russia provides us and the rest of the world with oil. But you didn't even think to ask why. Here's why: two years ago Russia did NOT provide us with a single drop of oil.
2 years ago the US imported around 200,000,000 barrels of oil from Russia.
The Brad
-
@Larry said in Leading from behind... AGAIN.:
@xenon said in Leading from behind... AGAIN.:
@Jolly said in Leading from behind... AGAIN.:
@xenon said in Leading from behind... AGAIN.:
I'm curious what the opinion of hardcore "America First" advocates is.
Russia provides us and the rest of the world with oil - inflation will go up further with heavier sanctions.
The purely America First move here would be light to no sanctions - no?
Bullshit.
Well - please explain what the "America First" stance should be in this sort of situation. I'm genuinely curious.
I'm not saying you're a purist "America First" person, or that anyone here is.
What I'm saying is that I don't understand what the America First stance on this issue would be.
You very obviously do not understand what America First means. It means that when an agent of America sits down to negotiate with agents of other countries,the agent for America should put America's interests first. For example, the US, France, and Germany sit down to negotiate a deal. The German should put Germany's interests first, the French guy should put Frances interests first, and the American should put America's interests first. It IS the most common sense way of negotiating there is.
How does this apply to the situation under discussion? You say "Russia provides us and the rest of the world with oil. But you didn't even think to ask why. Here's why: two years ago Russia did NOT provide us with a single drop of oil.
2 years ago the US imported around 200,000,000 barrels of oil from Russia.
@LuFins-Dad said in Leading from behind... AGAIN.:
@Larry said in Leading from behind... AGAIN.:
@xenon said in Leading from behind... AGAIN.:
@Jolly said in Leading from behind... AGAIN.:
@xenon said in Leading from behind... AGAIN.:
I'm curious what the opinion of hardcore "America First" advocates is.
Russia provides us and the rest of the world with oil - inflation will go up further with heavier sanctions.
The purely America First move here would be light to no sanctions - no?
Bullshit.
Well - please explain what the "America First" stance should be in this sort of situation. I'm genuinely curious.
I'm not saying you're a purist "America First" person, or that anyone here is.
What I'm saying is that I don't understand what the America First stance on this issue would be.
You very obviously do not understand what America First means. It means that when an agent of America sits down to negotiate with agents of other countries,the agent for America should put America's interests first. For example, the US, France, and Germany sit down to negotiate a deal. The German should put Germany's interests first, the French guy should put Frances interests first, and the American should put America's interests first. It IS the most common sense way of negotiating there is.
How does this apply to the situation under discussion? You say "Russia provides us and the rest of the world with oil. But you didn't even think to ask why. Here's why: two years ago Russia did NOT provide us with a single drop of oil.U
2 years ago the US imported around 200,000,000 barrels of oil from Russia.
Please don't let the facts get in the way of a massive rant.
I was only joking
-
I have no deep knowledge of America’s oil policy vis a vis Russia.
But just looking at the graph phibes posted
Seems imports from Russia began about say the year 2001 (bush prez) peaked about 2009 (Obama prez) and started declining and swung up again in 2017 (you know who was prez) until 2022 and declining again.
I sense a pattern
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/25/us/politics/us-china-russia-ukraine.html
Americans presented Chinese officials with intelligence on Russia’s troop buildup in hopes that President Xi Jinping would step in, but were repeatedly rebuffed.
-
@Larry said in Leading from behind... AGAIN.:
@xenon said in Leading from behind... AGAIN.:
@Jolly said in Leading from behind... AGAIN.:
@xenon said in Leading from behind... AGAIN.:
I'm curious what the opinion of hardcore "America First" advocates is.
Russia provides us and the rest of the world with oil - inflation will go up further with heavier sanctions.
The purely America First move here would be light to no sanctions - no?
Bullshit.
Well - please explain what the "America First" stance should be in this sort of situation. I'm genuinely curious.
I'm not saying you're a purist "America First" person, or that anyone here is.
What I'm saying is that I don't understand what the America First stance on this issue would be.
You very obviously do not understand what America First means. It means that when an agent of America sits down to negotiate with agents of other countries,the agent for America should put America's interests first. For example, the US, France, and Germany sit down to negotiate a deal. The German should put Germany's interests first, the French guy should put Frances interests first, and the American should put America's interests first. It IS the most common sense way of negotiating there is.
How does this apply to the situation under discussion? You say "Russia provides us and the rest of the world with oil. But you didn't even think to ask why. Here's why: two years ago Russia did NOT provide us with a single drop of oil.
2 years ago the US imported around 200,000,000 barrels of oil from Russia.
@LuFins-Dad said in Leading from behind... AGAIN.:
@Larry said in Leading from behind... AGAIN.:
@xenon said in Leading from behind... AGAIN.:
@Jolly said in Leading from behind... AGAIN.:
@xenon said in Leading from behind... AGAIN.:
I'm curious what the opinion of hardcore "America First" advocates is.
Russia provides us and the rest of the world with oil - inflation will go up further with heavier sanctions.
The purely America First move here would be light to no sanctions - no?
Bullshit.
Well - please explain what the "America First" stance should be in this sort of situation. I'm genuinely curious.
I'm not saying you're a purist "America First" person, or that anyone here is.
What I'm saying is that I don't understand what the America First stance on this issue would be.
You very obviously do not understand what America First means. It means that when an agent of America sits down to negotiate with agents of other countries,the agent for America should put America's interests first. For example, the US, France, and Germany sit down to negotiate a deal. The German should put Germany's interests first, the French guy should put Frances interests first, and the American should put America's interests first. It IS the most common sense way of negotiating there is.
How does this apply to the situation under discussion? You say "Russia provides us and the rest of the world with oil. But you didn't even think to ask why. Here's why: two years ago Russia did NOT provide 9us with a single drop of oil.
2 years ago the US imported around 200,000,000 barrels of oil from Russia.
I should have been more clear. We exported more than we imported. The net result is that we were energy independent then, and now we're not.
-
@LuFins-Dad said in Leading from behind... AGAIN.:
@Larry said in Leading from behind... AGAIN.:
@xenon said in Leading from behind... AGAIN.:
@Jolly said in Leading from behind... AGAIN.:
@xenon said in Leading from behind... AGAIN.:
I'm curious what the opinion of hardcore "America First" advocates is.
Russia provides us and the rest of the world with oil - inflation will go up further with heavier sanctions.
The purely America First move here would be light to no sanctions - no?
Bullshit.
Well - please explain what the "America First" stance should be in this sort of situation. I'm genuinely curious.
I'm not saying you're a purist "America First" person, or that anyone here is.
What I'm saying is that I don't understand what the America First stance on this issue would be.
You very obviously do not understand what America First means. It means that when an agent of America sits down to negotiate with agents of other countries,the agent for America should put America's interests first. For example, the US, France, and Germany sit down to negotiate a deal. The German should put Germany's interests first, the French guy should put Frances interests first, and the American should put America's interests first. It IS the most common sense way of negotiating there is.
How does this apply to the situation under discussion? You say "Russia provides us and the rest of the world with oil. But you didn't even think to ask why. Here's why: two years ago Russia did NOT provide us with a single drop of oil.U
2 years ago the US imported around 200,000,000 barrels of oil from Russia.
Please don't let the facts get in the way of a massive rant.
@Doctor-Phibes said in Leading from behind... AGAIN.:
@LuFins-Dad said in Leading from behind... AGAIN.:
@Larry said in Leading from behind... AGAIN.:
@xenon said in Leading from behind... AGAIN.:
@Jolly said in Leading from behind... AGAIN.:
@xenon said in Leading from behind... AGAIN.:
I'm curious what the opinion of hardcore "America First" advocates is.
Russia provides us and the rest of the world with oil - inflation will go up further with heavier sanctions.
The purely America First move here would be light to no sanctions - no?
Bullshit.
Well - please explain what the "America First" stance should be in this sort of situation. I'm genuinely curious.
I'm not saying you're a purist "America First" person, or that anyone here is.
What I'm saying is that I don't understand what the America First stance on this issue would be.
You very obviously do not understand what America First means. It means that when an agent of America sits down to negotiate with agents of other countries,the agent for America should put America's interests first. For example, the US, France, and Germany sit down to negotiate a deal. The German should put Germany's interests first, the French guy should put Frances interests first, and the American should put America's interests first. It IS the most common sense way of negotiating there is.
How does this apply to the situation under discussion? You say "Russia provides us and the rest of the world with oil. But you didn't even think to ask why. Here's why: two years ago Russia did NOT provide us with a single drop of oil.U
2 years ago the US imported around 200,000,000 barrels of oil from Russia.
Please don't let the facts get in the way of a massive rant.
To be honest, I mistakenly assumed I could make my point without having to explain in its entirety how the oil market works. I guess I assumed too much.
-
Oil on the world commodities market is fungible. IOW, broker in country A imports a specific grade of oil from a commodity broker representing several producing sources /countries’ product and receives a blend of oil meeting those specifications from any number of third party oil producing states. Just saying.
-
@LuFins-Dad said in Leading from behind... AGAIN.:
@Larry said in Leading from behind... AGAIN.:
@xenon said in Leading from behind... AGAIN.:
@Jolly said in Leading from behind... AGAIN.:
@xenon said in Leading from behind... AGAIN.:
I'm curious what the opinion of hardcore "America First" advocates is.
Russia provides us and the rest of the world with oil - inflation will go up further with heavier sanctions.
The purely America First move here would be light to no sanctions - no?
Bullshit.
Well - please explain what the "America First" stance should be in this sort of situation. I'm genuinely curious.
I'm not saying you're a purist "America First" person, or that anyone here is.
What I'm saying is that I don't understand what the America First stance on this issue would be.
You very obviously do not understand what America First means. It means that when an agent of America sits down to negotiate with agents of other countries,the agent for America should put America's interests first. For example, the US, France, and Germany sit down to negotiate a deal. The German should put Germany's interests first, the French guy should put Frances interests first, and the American should put America's interests first. It IS the most common sense way of negotiating there is.
How does this apply to the situation under discussion? You say "Russia provides us and the rest of the world with oil. But you didn't even think to ask why. Here's why: two years ago Russia did NOT provide 9us with a single drop of oil.
2 years ago the US imported around 200,000,000 barrels of oil from Russia.
I should have been more clear. We exported more than we imported. The net result is that we were energy independent then, and now we're not.
@Larry https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1189-june-7-2021-us-net-petroleum-imports-negative-2020
Actually according to this, 2020 was the first time in 70 years that the US exported more than it imported
Imports peaked in 2005. I think the republicans were in power?
But this is a government website so maybe it’s suspect
-
@Larry https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1189-june-7-2021-us-net-petroleum-imports-negative-2020
Actually according to this, 2020 was the first time in 70 years that the US exported more than it imported
Imports peaked in 2005. I think the republicans were in power?
But this is a government website so maybe it’s suspect
@bachophile said in Leading from behind... AGAIN.:
@Larry https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1189-june-7-2021-us-net-petroleum-imports-negative-2020
Actually according to this, 2020 was the first time in 70 years that the US exported more than it imported
Imports peaked in 2005. I think the republicans were in power?
But this is a government website so maybe it’s suspect
No, it's correct. And it's what I said - 2 years ago we exported more oil than we importef.
