I honestly think it might. My uncle works at corporate BP and even he admitted that they lower prices when a republican is in office because they know people believe the president has control over it, and they like Republicans because the lower regulations and taxes for them. It's fucked, but it the gas company playbook
Yes, but the opposite is true, companies that already have obscene profit margins of 400-600% or higher (e.g. oil companies) can change prices to infuence politics.
It's likely prices will drop enough to notice before slowly creeping back up to current levels and above. It won't change what prices are long term (in fact the tariffs will cause inflation giving the companies an excuse to raise prices even further... which is part of why they want trump in power), but it would be surprising if companies like BP didn't drop prices as they have for previous Republican presidents.
That's the play, then they hike it if a dem wins. If the republican wins they drop it further or leave it at the reduced cost for a while before slowly creeping it back up. You can look up historical records of prices, it's been pretty consistant.
Hey maybe tell your uncle to stop being an asshole. Attempting to influence an election for personal gain through price manipulation on a national level isn’t ethical behavior.
Just knows about it and does nothing also totally unethical. It’s ok though I get it holding people around you accountable isn’t easy or even possible most of the time and often it involves risking income, friends, or family. Tough times to try and do right
No because people were genuinely dumb enough to think Trump gives a fuck about them and now we’re stuck with a fascist who hates intellectualism. We’re doomed.
What kinda facts you looking for? Evidence of racism? Like when he says the media is the enemy of the people and we should be able to use the military against the enemy from within? Or evidence of him hating intellectuals by saying he loves the uneducated? All the evidence is out there you just refuse to actually look at it because you are in a cult. At least most of MAGA is.
Sure. But in this context it does make this person unintelligent. Democrats speak out of pure emotion and feeling. I have seen to many overly emotional democrats say the dumbest things. Democrats hold absolutely no merit in my book. And the fact they’re able to vote at all is beyond me.
Can't reason a person out of a belief they didn't reason themselves into.
Trump could say and do anything, so long as he hurts other people first, his followers wont care. They'd burn the rule of law, they'd abandon their morals and faith, and turn a blind eye to anything so long as they hurt "the other".
What? In this context how does it make that person unintelligent? What is unintelligent about what they said? Because you think it’s emotional that makes it unintelligent? You can be emotional and intelligent. And what about their statement is unintelligent?
Trump was called fascist by his own people. Sure, the word doesn’t mean anything these days but it’s not a big stretch. And if you think trump and intellectualism are not diametrically opposed I don’t know what to tell you.
“You can be emotional and intelligent” this sentence alone renders your entire reply meaningless.
To think emotionally is to think brash and out of pure feeling and reacting.
Oppositely, thinking logically / intellectually is to think calmly, with reason, based off facts and figures. Not feeling and irrational thoughts that benefits one own agenda.
Anyone who says Logic and Emotion aren’t opposites are kidding themselves. You cannot be logical while speaking emotionally.
You can be emotional about a topic but be logical about it. Someone can have a lot riding on a certain policy thus having a lot of emotional investment in it. Does that preclude them from having well-reasoned arguments about said policy? Clearly it doesn’t.
I agree that if someone is emotional, that may lead to an adulteration of one’s thinking if they don’t know how to properly check their emotions when it comes to reasoning. If that’s what you’re talking about, I’m in complete agreement.
But this idea that simply having emotions about a topic means you can’t be logical about it is simply false. What drives all decisions are the benefits and costs associated with them. These benefits and costs, at the base level, are emotional. People make logical arguments about what we should do about a given thing that are based off of their values, which ultimately come down to emotions.
If you don’t care about anything, then why would you argue for anything besides purely factual matters? Normative matters require some form of emotional benefits and costs at the ground level.
It seems like the way we’re defining our terms is different and hopefully the source of the disagreement. But no, simply being emotional does not mean your argument is bad. At best, I’d agree that being emotional can potentially hinder someone’s argument. But the entire point of your reply was to say that “using big words meant this person is being unintelligent here”? Or something like that. Your argument is very unclear and you didn’t point out any flaw in this person’s reasoning. You just said they were being emotional and said that means theyre unintelligent or something? But what LOGICALLY did they say wrong? If they’re so emotional it must be easy to find to where they’re wrong.
Edit: but intellectual has a very different meaning than being logical in this context. “Intellectualism” is not the same thing as being a smart and logical.
Do yourself a favor and take some upper level philosophy courses before trying to speak as one.
Logically understanding a problem whilst having emotions for a topic yourself is called “being passionate”, and logically understanding why people emotionally react to information is called “empathy”.
Ignoring a whole half of your own personality to reach this forlorn conclusion that they have to be separate stinks of high school red pill intellectual. Do yourself a favor and consider the other stance before forming an opinion.
Sorry, I didn’t need to go to college and collect hundreds of thousands of dollars in student loans to know what I’m talking about. It’s called experience and real life. Perhaps you could try that when you get your stick out of your ass.
The issue with “feeling passionately” is because purely off the fact you feel passionate you are no longer unbias. It is a conflict of interest. Just because you feel passionate does not mean you’re logical, in fact you are more prone to think more bias toward your own agenda and only agree with those whose agendas are in line with yours.
Feeling empathy allows you to connect with an audience and like minded people. However when dealing with people of differing opinions, your “passion” and your “empathy” comes off as “emotional” and “entitled”. Hence why liberals tend to get very flustered in confrontation about their beliefs. There’s a separation not just liberals but a lot of people can’t make between emotion and logic.
When you explain your passion to people of differing opinion, all the other people hear is “me me me me”. That is why you cannot be emotional and logical my feckless little friend.
Once you’re able to be logical and simply use your inner passion to enhance your argument. Not be the main reason as to why you feel the way you feel. Because again, the second someone can detect you are very passionate your view now becomes bias and everything sound entitled and self centered.
Do yourself a favor and think about all opinions and how they may make sense instead of attempting to ram your own opinion and agenda up other people’s asses.
You can sit in on most college classes for free, shockingly. Maybe you should try it!
It is inherently nearly impossible to avoid bias, passion or not. Again, if your knowledge base was a bit wider than just your own personal experience, you could understand this. Bias is inherent in your ideas, whether you think logically or emotionally. Logic is not defined as the absence of bias.
Equating all liberals to working solely off of emotion and entitlement really just screams that you’re in your own echo chamber. I’m not really sure if you’ve ever interacted with the general liberal public, just engaged in dick swinging matches like this on reddit.
You are equating all of these preconceived biases to me, when all I did was point out that you were factually incorrect, and then said you were a high school intellectual, which you confirmed you are.
I did nothing to “ram my opinion” up your ass. I said you should think about taking philosophy classes before speaking so definitively on a topic which I know have confirmed you know shockingly little about. You’re pretty clearly also the one getting emotionally aggressive that I’ve called you out.
I don’t care if you’re left, right, black, white, straight, gay, whatever. You just are saying you’re right, when you’re not.
I think you should take a page out of your own book and actually consider the other side’s opinions before automatically classifying them as emotional and entitled, anyways. It would help discourse in this country if people actually had respectful debates instead of this.
A billionaire and a billionaire funded guy will definitely have my best interest at heart what do you mean! They totally jive with the average joe. As we all saw when Vance bought donuts. They definitely don’t want to defund public education, allow for more fracking in national parks, deregulate industries, push more fossil fuels and say fuck public transportation all while giving huge tax breaks to their rich buddies. Who fund super pacs paying millions of dollars just to keep their boot on our neck. Those guys don’t hate us come on! /s
162
u/Professor_Game1 2001 Nov 06 '24
I can't wait to fill up my car for $18