- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
| Favorite team: | LSU  |
| Location: | Definitely NOT an admin |
| Biography: | I'm 5'2 and 300lbs of sexytime |
| Interests: | Poodles and Jello (but not always together) |
| Occupation: | Being THAT guy... |
| Number of Posts: | 60655 |
| Registered on: | 10/25/2008 |
| Online Status: | Not Online |
Recent Posts
Message
quote:
Democrats are not motivated and will become less so as we get closer to the election.
I disagree. They are constantly getting a healthy diet of TDS from the media, which is feeding the dissatisfaction they get when they go to the gas pumps.
Along with that, the party holding the Oval and both chambers of Congress usually loses at least one chamber during mid-terms.
Trump needs to settle this Iran thing asap to get pump prices down low enough to say prices are lower this year than last year, meanwhile all the Dems have to do is keep the DSA quiet.
0
quote:
BREAKING: David Seymour Leibowitz, a Biden-appointed judge in Florida, just ruled that laws criminalizing non-citizen voting in U.S. elections are unconstitutional.
Yes, you read that correctly...
He needs to be impeached, and I don't say that lightly.
I don't even have a law degree and I know that while Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 states:
quote:
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof;
It also states:
quote:
but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
This means that Congress has explicit power to override or supplement those state rules at any time. The Supreme Court has described this as a broad “override” authority that can include regulations on voter registration processes, ballots, counting, anti-fraud measures, and other procedural aspects of federal (congressional) elections. see: Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc.)
With that as our foundation, federal criminal law (18 U.S.C. § 611) prohibits non-citizens from voting in elections for federal office.
If that isn't enough, the voting rights amendments (15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th) prohibit denying or abridging "citizens" the right to vote on specific grounds (race, sex, poll taxes in federal elections, age 18+). These are restrictions on both federal and state power. The specific use of the word "citizens" is because it has always been understood that only citizens can vote. If this turns out to not be the case (see: Kelo), then by the very wording of those Amendments non-citizens can be discriminated against in voting on any/all of those grounds.
Whichever way he wants to play this, non-citizens being barred from voting in federal elections is both implicitly and explicitly constitutional.
re: Trump is making Nuclear Energy Great Again
Posted by Bard on 10/2/26 at 6:19 pm to Lsujacket66
NEGA, please.
re: Do you support Trump employing a "boots on the ground" policy/strategy in Iran?
Posted by Bard on 10/2/26 at 6:12 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
So more than special forces/ops, air, and/or naval campaigns.
In that case, no. With all the tech and firepower we have, we should be able to pick off not just anything that comes off shore from Iran, but zero in on the origin point and blast it as well. Exhaust them of their arms while also shutting off their income, right now we seem to only be focused on one half of that equation.
re: Labor market faltered in September as jobs increased by just 29,000.
Posted by Bard on 10/2/26 at 12:21 pm to CamdenTiger
quote:
we are going into recession, so the Fed has to let it run hot, and not hike, to save the economy imo
The economy is essentially in UBI mode and has been since the GFC (and especially since COVID). If you look at a deficit-to-GDP-growth ratio, it's something like $1.40 of deficit spending for every $1 in GDP growth.
quote:
Perhaps OP should try that if it is so easy and undetectable. If it is that easy there should be no risk, right?
Voter fraud doesn't exist. We can all go home now.
quote:
There's only one US refinery that can handle Venezuelan crude and that's the Chevron refinery in Pascagoula.
What about this?
quote:
Valero was the largest US recipient of Venezuelan crude in July, with a total of 282,000 b/d at three refineries — its 290,000 b/d Corpus Christi and 385,000 b/d Port Arthur refineries in Texas, and its 215,000 b/d St Charles plant in Louisiana, EIA data show.
Citgo took the second-largest amount of Venezuelan crude in July with 112,000 b/d, while PBF Energy was third at 84,000 b/d.
Other US refiners and trading companies that took Venezuelan crude in July included Phillips 66, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Marathon Petroleum, Pemex-owned Deer Park Refining, and Atlantic Trading and Marketing, according to the EIA data.
quote:
But you only get to be on the voter roll one time. One person, one vote.
Unless you are using information from those who haven't been removed from the voter roles even though they are dead and/or no longer live in the area.
re: BLS Jobs Report 29k added UE up to 4.2%
Posted by Bard on 10/2/26 at 11:35 am to JimEverett
quote:
My initial thought, though, is still raise the rate. The Fed cannot be concerned with fiscal policy.
Agreed, but for me it's because those two things aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. The Fed has a "dual mandate": achieving maximum employment and achieving stable prices.
Inflation is too many Dollars chasing too few goods. When the federal government is projecting to spend at least $1.5T+ in deficit for every year for the forecastable future, that's fiscal policy and it impacts the "stable prices" part of the Fed's mandate.
The problem though is that with the economy so addicted to high levels of deficit spending, cutting back to any meaningful level (for example, holding the line at "only" $1T in deficit spending) would work against the "maximum employment" mandate. That problem becomes even worse once you start looking at the level of consumer debt and how much of our consumerism runs on that continued use and accrual of debt and debt vehicles.
In other words, in our current environment the Fed has no choice but to be concerned with fiscal policy.
re: Airports about to get less busy?
Posted by Bard on 10/2/26 at 11:08 am to Yaboylsu63
quote:
TSA will now share all info with ICE, effectively making it impossible for illegals to travel through the US via airport.
...until a progressive wins the White House, then it's back to quietly shuffling them around the country on the taxpayer's dime.
re: BLS Jobs Report 29k added UE up to 4.2%
Posted by Bard on 10/2/26 at 10:55 am to JimEverett
quote:
The economy is growing well
That depends on how you're defining growth. For FY2025, for every $1 YoY increasing in GDP, the government is spending ~$1.43 in deficit. Prior to the GFC, the highest it got (at least going back to the 1970s) was around $1 growth in GDP for every $.55 of deficit spending.
In other words, GDP growth is addicted to high deficits.
Juice the signs up and let the thieves ride the lightning.
quote:
First, Yes, the diesel export ban would lower the price of diesel in the US because we would have more supply and the same demand.
Not exactly, because it's not as straight-forward as that. From a post I made last week:
quote:
TL;DR version - All of this would mean a quick drop in diesel prices domestically, but then spikes on the East and West Coasts. As we import a lot of our goods, the jump in international diesel prices would mean an increase on the prices of imports across the board, likely being greater than any savings we saw from increasing the domestic supply of diesel.
For the more in-depth explanation...
The East Coast (PADD 1) has to bring in ~80%-85% of its diesel from outside its region. While the majority of that comes from domestic transport, around 20% of it comes from international sources because those domestic transport avenues run around 100% capacity 24/7/365 (looking at you, Colonial). This is not only from lack of expanding transport paths (new pipelines, expanding refineries, etc) but the actual shrinking of them because of green politics.
We could just run more tanker ships, but then that runs into problems from The Jones Act. The tl;dr on it is that it mandates that any cargo shipped between two U.S. ports must be carried on ships that are built, owned, flagged, and crewed by U.S. citizens. The problem here is there is such a shortage of qualified ships and crew that it's already cheaper for PADD 1 to have imports come in via tanker from Europe than it is for it to come via tankers from PADD 3 (the Gulf Coast).
PADD 5, the West Coast, imports roughly 60%-65% of its crude oil from the international market (read: Northern Asia and the Middle East) because there are only a couple of very small (relative to demand) pipelines which run from any other PADD to PADD 5. Calling the output from those pipelines "a trickle" could be considered an exaggeration. In essence, PADD 5 is a fuel island. Some of this is green politics, some of this is the reality of the logistical headaches of running pipelines through the Rockies.
As an interesting footnote, Arizona is in a unique position where part of it is fed by the extreme end of PADD 3 (from Texas) while the other part is fed from the extreme end of PADD 5 (California). A diesel ban would likely isolate much of that state as demand from the other, larger states would take precedent.
The US produces ~20% of the diesel on the international market. Suddenly removing that from global trade is going to seriously frick a lot of countries to the point where they will gladly frick us back on the cost to us to import diesel from them under waivers, the cost of increased imports of goods (because those are going to rise and we import a shitload of goods) or both.
To look at a different aspect, ~50% of US storage for finished diesel is in PADD 3. We would see a quick drop in prices domestically but all of the other regions would see those prices spike back up shortly thereafter due to the lack of available storage and that so much of that transport and storage infrastructure is currently maxed or nearly so that we have to rely on crude imports for certain regions.
re: Oil Bros - why can't the US refine sweet crude & would diesel export ban even lower price?
Posted by Bard on 10/2/26 at 10:12 am to MightyJoeYoung
quote:
US produces mostly light, sweet crude now but all refineries are set up for Venezuelan/Canadian heavy crude. Also most fuel is consumed on the coastlines cities, but mostly produced and refined in the nation's interior.
The majority of refinement capacity is in the South with Texas and Louisiana accounting for somewhere just over half of all refinement. Green policies in the northeast have screwed them to the point where they rely on fuel from other regions and imports from overseas to account for the majority of their fuel.
quote:
Would Jones act elimimate red tape to build new refineries?
No, it doesn't deal with production. What you need to address for new refineries is the EPA and state/local coalitions banning together to keep them from being built.
quote:
Who would have suspected that a beauty supply store was funding middle eastern militants?
Using the Western promotion of the physical beauty of women to fund Middle Eastern men forcing their women to hide any physical beauty.
quote:
So to go 100 isn’t far fetched the roads are built for speed.
With the engine and the weight, I imagine you can visibly see the gas needle moving down at that speed. :lol:
I wonder if they are going to have to stop and fill up along the way? Can you imagine the photo-op of Trump getting out at the Circle K. :usa:
re: Third-worlder Fire & Chaos in France
Posted by Bard on 10/2/26 at 8:38 am to Wildcat1996
quote:
The south of France has been overrun with North Africans and Middle Eastern refugees. I'm not sure what the solution can be. The French are surprisingly racist, so these refugees have a hard time finding work and being accepted, and therefore, tend to congregate in enclaves within the cities and towns. They resent one another and low-level street violence is often the outcome.
The solution is just for everyone to...
See? A meaningless platitude makes all things better. :nana:
/sarcasm
The only real solution is for France to eject them. The fundamental issue is that the migrants come from a culture incompatible to that of the host country and are damned determined to override that host culture with their own. There's no reasoning with that mindset, you either submit to it or eject it.
re: Oh boy, We are Jane Doe has started.
Posted by Bard on 10/2/26 at 8:33 am to BoomerandSooner
So they all participated in gang-bangs but then had regrets later? :dunno:
quote:
I mean I get the slur coloreds.
Freedmen adopted "colored" as a self-designation and a marker of racial pride after escaping slavery. It wasn't considered a slur until civil rights activists told blacks it was a slur.
They should be sued, but it's probably not going to go anywhere as the pharmas working on the vax were all given coverage by the PREP Act.
Who planned this? Mobs like that don't just meet up coincidentally and start going off to that level, especially on something like education funding.
Popular
39
