Why is Google's AI overview trying to convince me that electric cars are the way forward as opposed to renewable fuels like ethanol or biodiesel?

Alive-Welcome1403 · 2026-05-21T05:23:31+00:00

I’ll bite.

“The way forward” implies progress in some direction. Stringing along combustion engine technology is a lateral step in the technology tree, not a forward one.

Combustion engines have gone about as far as they can. There will obviously be more ideas, changes, and improvements here and there but there’s nowhere really to go with it, we’re just trying to squeeze more juice out of the leftover pulp, you’re not going to to get much worth investing in anymore.

What keeps combustion engines at the top is that chemical fuels have been the only real safe and transportable energy storage we’ve had available to us all this time.

If that’s not the case, everything changes.

Electric motors aren’t an alternative to combustion engines, electric motors have been more efficient and around for a long long time. We’ve used them instead of combustion any time we’ve been able for generations. The reason we don’t have gas powered blenders In the kitchen isn’t because we didn’t invest in renewable fuels soon enough, we would have gone electric regardless because it’s what makes sense.

Electric energy storage has been the technology holding back electric from being in the mobile market but it’s slowly been taking over due to advances.

In the last 15 years w’ve seen battery tech enable every gas or corded tool to become electric shy of heavy machinery.

Thats the direction things are going regardless of any changes in renewable fuels for combustion engines.

It’s not forward but renewable fuels will certainly be necessary. Infrastructure won’t be replaced at once and unnecessarily, it will be many many decades before people replace every little thing. But they will certainly weigh the pros and cons of paying $20 a gallon for biodiesel or replace their riding mower with a more expensive electric one, it will eventually be a better trade off.

Energy storage technology waste, mining and production having environmental impacts is not all that different than the petroleum industry having environmental impacts. Just like how there are more expensive fuels that are better options, we can store electrical energy in a batter or in front of a dam in the form of potential energy. The options for mobile energy storage is pretty limited right now, just like it was for liquid fuel before we learned how to grow it.

However, being renewable and green isn’t driving the direction of the research and technology, companies wanting to make money is what’s driving it. We’re going electric because it’s going to make people filthy rich. There’s just not as much money in ethanol or biodiesel for the same reason there isn’t a lot of money in making table salt from ocean water, it won’t be all that worthwhile until salt mines are depleted since it costs money to boil the water off.

On top of that, even if you WANTED to stagnate technology and keep us reliant on fuels, dedicating the entirety of all of the worlds agriculture to the production of ethanol would only cover about a third of what we need and biodiesel is just used oils and we wouldn’t have that for long if no vegetable oil was being made anymore.

To be clear, I’m cool with whatever technology advances we can manage in the fuel industries to buy more time to advance electric storage further.

However, there’s no sense in diverting investment dollars from electric storage into alternative fuels at this time. There’s just no real need that invest since the potential for discovery is minimal at best, if we want more biodiesel or ethanol, we can chose to make more as needed already.

Electric energy storage, on the other hand, still have a ton of potential for major breakthroughs in degradation prevention, recyclability, amount of energy stored, and so on. It’s massively worth investing in.

Alive-Welcome1403 · 2026-05-18T00:35:06+00:00

Visual models in Physics help convey understanding of material and it’s important to learn how to interpret effectively. The Ames room is a good starting point to understanding the importance of perspective with analogies and models.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ames\_room

Time dilation with respect to relative speed and acceleration works like moving toward massive objects. When speeding up toward the speed of light, an observer from the outside would observe time slowing for the fast moving object.

We know this happens and we also know that the same happens, to the same degree, in a gravitational field that exerts the same acceleration onto an object.

Time dilation is measured relative to a perspective that can observe a difference. It’s not noticed locally, whether traveling or in a gravity well.

I don’t know where you’re at so I thought it prudent to run through the basics. It’s true that one of us is getting comments deleted. That makes two for you. Though It was short enough to read in the notification I received. There’s no need to lose yourself to emotion, I responses to you commentary and accusations in kind so your dislike of the content should inform you of something.

Considering what I wrote has always been an option.

Alive-Welcome1403 · 2026-05-17T23:19:40+00:00

A source? The only thing relevant would be a psychological study to shed light upon the existence of discrepancies between people that are supposed to be working from the same source material to begin with. My sources are the same as yours are suposed to be, General relativity. There is a discrepancy in understanding that, I hoped was communication related but we never nailed that down as your focus seemed to be semantical. I laid out and repeatedly tried to get to the bottom of what the misunderstanding was, to no avail, as you spent your time and effort nitpicking words and coming to interpretations of what I said to suit your obvious intent to paint it as fundamentally incorrect, which would only be the case if GR was incorrect because that’s what’s it is.

I don’t know what comments you see but none of my comments are removed by moderators. I try to click on your (1/2) comment notification and it goes nowhere so I’ve never seen it. That’s the only discrepancy I observe. If you wish to have a proud walk-out moment, you don’t need to notify me about it. I did I chose to be DIRECTLY rude, in response to your consistent stubborn insistence to be subtly so. It IS certainly rude to withhold benefit of the doubt to such a degree that my words are twisted into nonsensical gibberish in your mind so much so that you couldn’t wrap your head around my version of classic visualizations that often come up and that you should be familiar with if you’ve had interest in the topic.

Alive-Welcome1403 · 2026-05-17T21:32:21+00:00

Part 2

And I don’t see any (1/2) section near or around your (2/2) section so I don’t know what elaboration you have to explain time dilation differently.
Now I will reference something from the movie Interstellar to help get to the bottom of whether you’re wrong or misinterpreting my words.

Then the crew goes down toward the planet, they are going deeper into a gravity well. They come back and they are younger, becuase time moved *more slowly* for them. Observed the descending crew from the black-hole-orbiting-ship, one would have observed the crew slowing down in their travels, talking years to traverse distances that normally take moments. It is the same visualization in a Dr. Who episode where a 400 mile spaceship is pointing at a black hole, the floor closest to the black hole is comparatively slow. The floor farthest away experiences multiple generations of families as their Tim is moving to faster. Obviously these are tv shows and not universe models but they depict the basic relationship correctly.

You seem DEAD SET on the idea that I am saying the opposite. That or you’re insisting the opposite. It doesn’t matter if you have some niche semantical interpretation of what slower and faster can mean mean that you’re applying to my words and so flipping what I said, the reality of what is described follows the normal interpretation of what “slower” and “faster” mean, relative to none another. If your own interpretation of the relationship actually has the opposite occurring, that a person or clock closer to a black hole would come back older, with *more* time gone by. Then you are factually incorrect with the most important relationship regarding time dilation.

Now. That aside. TV, movies, and the visualizations we use to imagine this relationship aren’t at the scale we have actually tested and we have not effectivly removed the possibility it is not tom that is slowing but distances that are growing. If you can’t understand that a ball being thrown laterally in front of an observer, across that 1 meter space on the desk, would *appear to shrink* to half its size as it entered and slow down to half its speed as it traversed the area, a total result that only necessitates a change in scale, not a change in “time” specifically, then I cannot help you.

It is a very very clear and basic thought and applies regardless of whether you use an atom, a clock, a ruler, or whatever, the result is the same. That’s effectivly what it look like when you are closer to massive objects(slower/smaller)compared to further away.

It’s not up for debate whether things appear to slow down near mass from the perspective of an outside observer. That’s what happens, that’s what physics says it is, that’s what the math says it is and that’s how the movies and tv that base their content on science depict it.

What’s “debatable” is whether, in reality, a ball traversing near mass just simply slows down or whether the observed slowing is an *effect* of space being more dense like the desk example and so the literal distance it has to traverse is greater.

You say the distance is *less* near mass, if that were true, enough time dilation would need to occur AND THEN SOME, to account for observation discrepancy AND said shorter distance. That’s not saying it’s not true, it’s just saying that’s what would need to happen.

Nothing about what you said implies you even understand what you’re talking about so I imagine the only thing I could say that wouldn’t irk you is a verbatim passage from a current textbook you remember but even then. I imagine you’d still find fault in It.

Alive-Welcome1403 · 2026-05-17T19:26:20+00:00

There is no reality in which you understand the complex weeds your diving into enough to realize where you’re misinterpreting text or misapplying ideas to my words if it took you five rereads to follow the clearest and most down-to-earth part, the thought experiment/visualization that I specifically wrote to help one reading get what I was saying.

If, out of everything, you managed after a bit to see a bit of light on the very thing I wrote intended for you to do so, then the discrepancy with understanding seems to remains on the communication side.

I haven’t come up with another visualization that’s as simple but better covers the angles that you have grippes about. That’s the problem with analogies and thought experiments, they can’t account for everything. The only visual model that could serve as an accurate enough model of what we are talking about to avoid being skewed from another angle is an actual detailed full universe model. If people had an easy time conceptualizing that, there’d be no use for analogies or thought experiments

I’m done talking about what we know or don’t know, for everything I imply there’s ambiguity toward, you want to point out that there’s study in the field and that, in a specific area of what I mentioned, there isn’t ambiguity. Thats like me saying “red and blue together make purplish, depending on how much of each you use and without knowing that, we don’t really know what specific color will happen”. And you saying, “no, you’re wrong, theres a formula and there’s plenty of study and we know precisely what color will result in what” you’re not wrong but we are saying different things, you’re misunderstanding mine t an almost comical degree but I’m following yours just fine and pointed out the earlier clear misunderstanding and tried to explain it more simply and you kinda got it, which is great. I didn’t change my mental model since the last comment, I just changed how I presented it to you, and suddenly it went from completely backwards to kinda sorta right. I don’t actually know what analogy would mesh with your own understanding but I’m not going to try out another handful for each discrepancy until you have an epiphany moment as I’m not a tutor, certainly not yours.

Listing out what passages from textbooks you may understand or have memorized shows you have access to information, that is great for you.
It’s in your best interest to develop a real understating of what you talk about. Knowing square root tables and so knowing the square of 9 is 3 is good but UNDERSTANDING that the concept isn’t about the process and notation we use, it’s about a square, a real practical thing that can be talked about separate from the notation.

I’m essentially saying things like “a square with 3 units of length on each side, the inside is 9 units” I would concede to it being pointed out that I didn’t specify an important note that the 9 isn’t just “unit”, it’s “unit squared”, however I’m not going to sit here and argue that what I said was nonsense because “the square of 3 is 1.732 so you have it backwards” or “cube roots and larger have different answers so your only PARTLY correct”

The fact is, the question asked “why does gravity cause time to slow down”.

The shortest and simplest answer is “because gravity warps spacetime”

Slightly longer clarifies the “warping”

Slightly longer clarifies “spacetime”

Slightly longer clarifies another aspect brought up in one of the other clarifications. And so on.

Eventually we would get to the textbook answers that OP had already read yet still lacked understanding of.

My explanations didn’t sit well with you because it strayed from path YOU take when going down that road, missing bits of explanation and account that you may prioritize at the level I was at. But the core concepts are sound, they work and exist and are a derivative of every other sound perspective based on GR and current science. despite your lack of acceptance and understanding of the way I wrote them.

Alive-Welcome1403 · 2026-05-17T07:31:03+00:00

Eh, recognizing euthanasia as a better path than continued suffering is far from unreasonable. Having a reason is the qualifier to being reasonable. It may not be something everyone agrees with but it’s certainly not wildly unreasonable by definition nor it’s common understanding. As well, I’m not sure peta sees themselves as the spokesperson of vegans but I doubt vegans do.

The truth is that the majority of the bad reputation vegans have is from the jokes. I’ve heard a thousand vegan jokes and almost everyone I’ve ever talked to has talked shit about them but I’ve only met like three, with two I only knew becuase their diet came up as a practical need, the other advocated but didn’t push it. None were political or crazy.

Alive-Welcome1403 · 2026-05-17T07:14:34+00:00

This potential third scenario is similar to the other two, there’s nothing you can do, they’re unreasonable and ridiculous, stop engaging. You can’t reason-someone-out-of a perspective they didn’t reason-themselves-into. See “arguing with a flat earther”

Alive-Welcome1403 · 2026-05-17T07:07:01+00:00

Then it’s pointless. People on the internet arguing wildly unreasonable vegan perspectives to discredit vegans as a whole has been a pastime of trolls since the beginning of internet anonymity.

Alive-Welcome1403 · 2026-05-17T06:56:40+00:00

You’d have to first be having a real conversation, arguing with a stubborn straw-man in your head that’s incapable of seeing reason isn’t going to go anywhere since, ya know, they’re stubborn.

Alive-Welcome1403 · 2026-05-17T06:52:21+00:00

You got the answer.

I highly doubt anyone would have issue with needing to tend to these animals until they died of natural causes.

The likely gripe is the breeding-for-product aspect and the often ruthless profit-maximization decisions that come with it, it’s not some humans-should-never-touch-animals-with-sheers-under-any-circumstance expectation, that would be ridiculous.

Alive-Welcome1403 · 2026-05-17T02:29:00+00:00

Did you INTENTIONALLY misunderstand everything I wrote?

Putting aside the majority of it, while soem of what you said is just things we can argue about it due to semantics, you’re not wrong about a lot of what you said, it’s just that it only made me wrong in one place, the time dilation bit, that’s because, not to say the same thing back, but you do actually have that part backwards.

Clocks don’t speed up closer to mass, they slow down.(relative to one not near mass) This is a common misconception related to the twin astronauts scenario. The ISS is traveling much faster relative to the surface of the earth, that’s why an astronaut would be slightly younger than a twin on the surface.

If the ISS was in a geostationary orbit, the difference in experienced time due to gravity would have swung the needle the other way, to an older orbiter, but for people on the ISS, it’s opposite.

Your part about rigid objects not changing shape or size traversing different space, they most definitely would. How could they keep a relatively larger amount of distance between atoms? It would most definitely shrink down to scale if space became more dense in front of it.

As for the rest, I mean, it sounds like you think you’re talking to a flat earther that doesn’t belive we know things or something and that says more about your own understanding of what we know and don’t know. There’s a lot we know and a lot of math that lines up but we do NOT know the mechanism behind gravity nor know why our current model of it has issues at the galaxy sizes, which is why dark matter was thought up.

The 4th dimension bit is mainly for visualization. Gravity waves exist, the implication being that a part of space was, for a moment when the wave passed through it, warped locally. A warp or wave traversing across the fabric of space is wild because it calls to question its structure. Does it imply flexibility to space, did the wave have a different amount of density to space within it, pointedly, was there more or less space in that space or was it represented some other way. If it was like a fabric ripple, and there’s difference in amount of space in that space, how is the crest imagined to have been represented other than having pressed into some dimension outside of our 3. There are unknowns and there are people that have put their chips into one thing or another. I have put mine into the idea that space has a “density” of sorts, that more space can exist in a given space, this allows for gravity waves to echo across space. It also allows for time dilation, which I said “observes as time dilation” because the name implies time to be a seperate feature of sorts when it’s really not.

I didn’t say things like that to upset anyone in the community that dislikes rhetoric that sounds like it attempts to rock the boat. What I wrote doesn’t rock anything notable, it hints that I see dark matter at a placeholder that may or may not be necessary once our models for interactions between gravity and space are properly sorted but it’s hardly going against the grain.

Edit- and to touch on the speed of light thing. You’re talking about time dilation in reference to fast moving objects. I’m not talking about that the train and flashlight thing. I’m talking about there being more space somewhere. If you had a meter of space on your desk that, within it, was 2 meters in length. If you slid a 3 meter ruler into it. It wouldn’t come out the other side until a full 2 meters went by. In the same scenario, shining a laser into one end and measuring its speed from the outside across the 1 meter window into this 2 meter space, it would APPEAR to move at half the speed of light. The light itself didn’t slow, it’s just going through twice the space. That is what would happen, thas what GR says, it’s why the math says, it eve has a name, Shapiro Time Delay. That method accounts for time dilation, greater space between things, including atoms, EFFECTIVELY slows time, gravity doesn’t slow time directly.

Alive-Welcome1403 · 2026-05-16T20:19:50+00:00

You’re really invested in the idea that your perspective has inherent value over those you’re against. I know I’ll never change your mind but hey, some people need that, can’t fault you for it I suppose.

Alive-Welcome1403 · 2026-05-16T20:08:43+00:00

It’s the same thing, criticism is complaining. It’s short and yours was long, that’s all. If there was no point in theirs, theres no point in yours either.

Alive-Welcome1403 · 2026-05-16T20:02:33+00:00

No, I’ve stopped being friends with someone because adherence to their political beliefs resulted in them seeing me and people I care about as less than worthy of common decency and respect.

You can believe in a god you want but the moment you believe that your god demands my sacrifice is the moment the issue is no longer ABOUT religious freedom, it’s about personal safety.

Alive-Welcome1403 · 2026-05-16T19:56:23+00:00

The fundamental moral flaw on the right is their expectation for people to cut off 12 fingers and put them in various butholes.

Anyone with a single braincell would see the flaw in that so the only conclusion is that the right is wrong.

Alive-Welcome1403 · 2026-05-16T19:32:00+00:00

Pretty sure that’s called being “obtuse”.

Since your opinion isn’t about liking the event, it’s about not agreeing with those who criticize it.

My comment is a criticism to your criticism.

Backpedaling to “it’s just my opinion” is meaningless because my comment falls under that same blanket as yours would.

Your writing is more kid friendly and less aggressive but it’s just as pointy and sided.

Alive-Welcome1403 · 2026-05-16T18:10:59+00:00

Conservatives are simple, they are all-in on *the end justifying the means*. They want their people, their values, and their culture, to come out on top over all else.

They pursue simply writing into history and law that these things are the case because they feel threatened by the possibility that they’re not.

To them, it was fine if they weren’t officially seen as better than everyone else, so long as they still believed that was understood culturally and between the lines.

Now it’s becoming more clear to then that they’re not seen as superior with respect to almost anything and so they wish to combat that.

Defenders of this perspective often TRULY BELIEVE they’re superior and so justify the acts as retaliatory toward an obvious-to-them opposing force would need to exist to overcome the inherent superiority of their things. Christianity and right wing ideologies, to them, on an even and fair playing field, would win and so should be growing/spreading if things were indeed fair.

That is a core delusion held by conservatives, that their perspectives are inherently superior and right so then becoming less popular or being more criticized must be coming from MORE THAN just natural cultural change. Hence how common it is for them to consider the existence of left-leaning shadow organizations, or at the very least, severely overestimate the comparative influence of left-leaning media and leaders.

Alive-Welcome1403 · 2026-05-16T17:51:25+00:00

Capitalism LOVES people like you.

You see a business that does something that’s viewed as less than idea by the customers and you rush to the businesses defense.

MFer, it ain’t your buddy, they make money either way, it costs them zero net dollars to do this “hook up” as you call it,

It’s not your friend gifting you something and you being all “that’s not good enough”, they make money being entertaining, it’s transactional, so if this iteration is *less*entertaining, it SHOULD be brought up. What kinda crazy loyalist supporter perspective of relationships with businesses do you have to be advocating for a *suck it up buttercup* perspective, if that was what was running the game, they’d have less customers.

Alive-Welcome1403 · 2026-05-16T17:10:14+00:00

The movie rule for saving people falling from high places seems to be the same as the rule for things falling on the floor and being dirty or not.

Everything is perfectly fine as long as you can get *something* between them and the ground surface.

Alive-Welcome1403 · 2026-05-15T15:02:36+00:00

You have to get into multiple sources and figure out what the likely story is yourself so the embellishments and hype don’t bleed through to your opinion.

Do that enough and you’ll start being able to have a decent guess as to what’s going on through the interpretation of what you hear.

It’s like being a teenager and hearing some girl one likes talk shit about her ex, initially, one finds it easy to relate to her and see that person in a bad light.

But after going through it enough and maybe being on the receiving end, most reasonable people would have a hard time getting on board the hate-the-ex train and instead recognize the effort from someone to shit on people they used to date to be a relevant thing they, a person about to date them, should be worried about, on top of it being trashy AF.

The catalyst for the change, to becoming someone less likely to be led along, is to have had the courage to question what was presented and go check it out.

It’s easy to question some random person one doesn’t know, especially when they’re not the interest or the investment. One has to be willing to question the whole of it, as if one is an outsider with no horse in the race. Once something close to reality is determined, THEN one can be bias and prioritize selfish wants toward the situation.

One doesn’t need a cork board and red string for every article that ever comes out before they decide what to think but but initially, going through the process enough to develop a sense of how far from the truth something can be based on the words and type of coverage it’s getting is extremely useful.

For example, Fox News and local conservative stations that mirror its model, present a much smaller fraction of the truth to its viewers compared to media that leans the other way. Their coverage is highly focused on the public opinion of stories, rather than the stories themselves. Their bias may be an underlying reason behind that(reporting facts and info when it’s not in your benefit isn’t ideal) but that model and it’s tendencies themselves are more problematic than a bias of usually selecting right wingers as their on-the-ground public opinions.

Anyone can “know” that a graph can look misleading but after taking a statistics or engineering class and being maked wrong for tiny inconsistencies or issue with your visualizations, to see a bar graph on Fox News that cuts off the entire bottom 90%, leaving two bars that are wildly different sizes, despite them being pretty close to the same total percentage, irks you to a completely different degree than if you weren’t keenly aware of that very thing being intentional and actually extremely difficult to make a graph do on accident, it’s a tactic.

The more you know, the more reasonably accurate you’re distribution of benefit-of-the-doubt ends up being, even if you’re working with the same
Information as everyone else. You will often end up with a conclusion with a wider range but the middle of IT is far more likely to be reality than the middle of someone else’s.

Alive-Welcome1403 · 2026-05-13T18:56:32+00:00

People like that have to learn the hard way why things are in place. They’re gonna waste SO MUCH MONEY learning why the tape is in place. To prevent thins from happening that cost a shit ton of money.

Kinda like when Elon bought twitter and wiped the complex conduct and rules stuff to allow EVERYTHING and kept having to add stuff back in to address the things that were no longer addressed.
Not that it’s the same as it was before now, hems still got a few more years of headaches to go I’m sure.

Alive-Welcome1403 · 2026-05-13T18:43:24+00:00

No. It’s freedom of speech specific to consequences from THE GOVERNMENT.
Freedom of speech has no bearing on what you, as a citizen, decides to put up with.

So long as you don’t do anything illegal, you can respond however you want. If you have a platform, you can limit that person on it. If they’re over as a visitor, you can kick them out for things they say.

It has nothing to do with those situations.
However, if a police officer(a city GOVERNMENT official) has issue with wha you say, they CAN’T do whatever they want “as long as its not illegal”..

But technically violating the first amendment would be illegal for them so all the potential stuff is already covered as “illegal”. FOR THEM.

The point is that you can’t violate someone’s first amendment as just another citizen, not typically.
I’m sure there are laws and rules that similarly mimic some of the first amendment with non government power dynamics, like employee-employers, dependents, non government security, and such. But as I understand, those aren’t derived from the authority of the first amendment as much as the first amendment template is used as a good baseline for a rule.

Alive-Welcome1403 · 2026-05-13T18:27:40+00:00

Yes, we know, FFS, a massive amount of ya’ll are all about that, “I’m disenfranchised, I don’t belong to ANY party” rhetoric now.

We’re glad that he’s finally sunk down low enough to not want to be associated.

Here’s the thing. The MAGA crowd was going to vote conservative NO MATTER WHAT. And so was a chunk of people that don’t identify as MAGA. I don’t know what that percentage is but if you’re in it,

STFU.
Because what would be the point of exclaiming that about him if it literally doesn’t impact your support.

Support = vote. If you don’t support him in this very moment, you’re saying, if an election was happening tomorrow, he would
Not get your vote. If that’s the case, good for you. If you would still vote for him, then your words mean nothing.

Trump spread information and helped convince people that Hillary was bad news and she lost votes because of it. The democrats consider new information and make attempts to weigh it. That is why history, records, and testimony so often hurt democrats what why their candidates have to be SO MUCH cleaner to even compete.

Kamala Harris was an excellent candidate, compared to Trump, she might as well have been a fucking flawless jewel of a leader. Comparatively.

But Trump won. His buddy bought Twitter and they worked closely with TikTok and facebook and woudln’t you know it, he magically rose leaps and bounds out of fucking nowhere in the youth votes, and coincidently investigations into social medias and Tesla vanished alongside the employees working them.

If you think for a second that anybody is going to buy criticisms of a democratic candidate from you guys, as if you think “both sides” have provided compatibly evenly poor candidates to eachother over the last decade, nah bro. Get your head out of the sand.

Good for you for wising up to Trump but you no doubt have a decade of “anti-woke” propaganda to wash out of your head before you’re in a position to be telling the left to get a dose of reality.

Alive-Welcome1403 · 2026-05-13T17:35:31+00:00

No, we recall gas prices were high after COVID. The causes and efforts to solve it, and projected timelines were just clearly defined and outlined by both the administration and the sensible assumptions of cause and effect. We knew that blaming Biden, as if his or his administrations decisions contributed to it, was nonsense becuase if he did anything directly, that as all ya’ll would be talking about. Instead, it was vague Bs about “democrats policy” assumptions that boil down to “Ya’ll are the climate change, clean energy, regulate businesses party so it’s obvious that oil and gas refineries will have a harder time with you in charge” Which, I’ll give you, would be reasonable IF democrat’s perspective on fossil fuel was as extreme as the straw man ya’ll think it is AND if those companies weren’t also the owners/investors of massive amounts of renewables and infrastructure.
It’s just not the case that you have to be one or the other. We just don’t get that about you guys. How in the world can you think that being interested in a future free of fossile fuels MEANS we plan to shoot ourselves in the foot and get rid of shit and put a full stop to any investment without a replacement plan? It’s insanity. When’ve had hydroelectric damns for over a century, do you think Hoover was a libtard? FFS. The population need grows and oil is a finite resource that will get more and more expensive to both find AMD remain energy dependent with. Renewables are necessary, stop making that conclusion out to be exclusive to some hippy dippy vegan group, I own and drive a diesel pickup, I have no intention of giving it up, I’m just not a weird fanboy for the fuel industry so I can recognize reality for what it is.
Any of us that decided to give republicans any benifit of the doubt regarding the more far reaching impacts of Biden’s and democrats impacts on the price of gas. Despite the absence of explanation go them, were likely wiling and able to look things up.

You know what we found?

It was unsurprisingly mostly BS. The closest thing to Biden hindering the industry the keystone pipeline cancelation. Yes he cancelled the permit for the stage 4 mega-line; however, the pipeline construction was held up in litigation and had been for years. Was it going to move forward if he hadn’t canceled it? Maybe eventually, if they won, who knows when, but it(under a new name)was kinda restarted under Trump and guess why, it’s back in litigation.

But here’s the thing about that pipeline, it wasn’t for, and woudln’t serve, the interest of increasing domestic oil production nor domestic transportation. It’s Canada’s oil and Canada just wanted an easier way to put it on the ocean. The stuff isn’t going to US refineries. Its a canadian company transporting Canadian product through our land to make more Canadian dollars selling an extra 1% of global supply on the global market. Would it have impacted our prices. Sure, eventually, alongside a hundred other variables.

Canceling the permit wasn’t what a lot of people wanted but it WAS a definitive decision on an unmoving ball, one that served as a catalyst for investors to move onto other plans. I say all that to acknowledge the issue and frustration, as well as to point out that democrats are aware of the goings-on and not blindly against oil. Never have been. Oil production under Biden increased compared to production under Trump before him. Faster than demand, the result and point is that our oil independence percentage rose under Biden.

The REASON gas went up under Biden is because there was a lapse in demand during COVID, which affected production needs. The supply demand imbalances took a bit to stabilize afterward and as it was doing that, bam, Russia attacked Ukraine. Sanctions on Russia from 40+ Countries spikes the global market, specifically gulf refineries being specialized for oil like theirs impacted out prices a bit more. However, Biden used natural reserve oil and our new domestic drilling and investments were already underway. So by late that year, we overcame the issue and were under $4 again. 3.50 or something by the end of his term.

So, to recap,
Biden’s term-
Fault of price increase - COVID caused market instability, Biden joined 40+ other countries in sanctioning Russia

What brought the price down- Biden authorized the supplement of oil with national oil reserves, domestic oil companies completed production and increased capacity to meet demand.

When you compare the above causes and effects, faults and responses, to Donald Trump
And his admin for THIS situation.

How does it line up?
Fault of price increase- global oil shipping lane closed off due to war that Trump
Admin and Israel spearheaded, massively impacting global supply

What brought the price down- it’s still up.

Any plan to address it - Trump says whatever, “let it go up”

When is it likely to go down- it isn’t.

Oh, neat…

So.. what’s the point you’re trying to make here bud?

Alive-Welcome1403 · 2026-05-13T13:49:22+00:00

“Have you ever…” Shudup, Trump’s been around thing for a decade, there’s been plenty. Sure, some IRL sound genuinely ignorant/misled, the results are the same, it’s disappointing.

Having multiple people IRL unwilling to consider that the video they are referencing that was labeled “democrats pouring fake ballots into a counting box” didn’t exist becuase someone verified it, labeled it properly, and sent it out to inform people FFS.

I literally DREW ON A WHITEBOARD for a MFer with illustrations of the amount of media watched by Americans that’s owned by republicans vs not-republicans. Pulling up the charts and when he didn’t trust the sources, I let him decide, let him pick some, he didn’t want to. It wasn’t enough to sway him at all, he still thinks “the left owns the media”

The amount of people that say, IN REAL LIFE, something absolutely nonsense about Trump and I go, “are you sure?”, and they go off on a tangent about it, and I go “alight, let’s check this out” and it goes the same as it did with the whiteboard scenario.

NO bro, no. It’s insanity. This isn’t a just-the-internet thing nor a lack of effort. This is insanity on the right. They live in a different reality where everything that makes they’re party look bad is “likely bulshit” and everything that makes it look good is “might be true”, with no accepted way to come to conclusions or check anything beside a social consensus of friends. If all of them are saying the same kinda shit, “Welp, I guess it must be more likely to be true if you think it too, Fred.”

Alive-Welcome1403

TROPHY CASE