Biden’s Gas Crisis

[avromie7]

Why? If Russia dies not stop their price as you claim they will will Europe all of the sudden get oil from somewhere else?

Then Russia won't be able to sell their oil. They already sold for 25% below market price, they're just as desperate to sell their oil. Maybe $75 is too much, but there is definitely a point where they will continue to sell at a discount.

[aygart]

Anyone can see what the chart is about. Proven by the fact I have no idea what the article was.

Still wondering what your point was about the posting of the chart. A gotcha post?

Post a link to the article.

I found it interesting so I posted it. I think some of the implications are partially correct and exacerbated the situation.

[aygart]

Since you asked

https://www.rpc.senate.gov/policy-papers/democrats-fuel-high-gas-prices

There are tons of dishonest articles there full of cherry picked data.

[CountValentine]

I found it interesting so I posted it. I think some of the implications are partially correct and exacerbated the situation.

So a chart that gives the distinct impression that gas prices are going up because of what Biden/D's did is interesting?
Even when it has a major flaw when it doesn't mention the major factor the last admin caused? Ok

[CountValentine]

Since you asked

https://www.rpc.senate.gov/policy-papers/democrats-fuel-high-gas-prices

There are tons of dishonest articles there full of cherry picked data.

I have no issue with cherry-picking data because we know it is done all the time. The issue is are the facts correct.

One of the headlines says: GAS PRICES UP 40% SINCE JANUARY
That seems accurate and I have no issue with it.

[aygart]

I have no issue with cherry-picking data because we know it is done all the time. The issue is are the facts correct.

One of the headlines says: GAS PRICES UP 40% SINCE JANUARY
That seems accurate and I have no issue with it.

How about if it said Biden hiked prices by 40%?

[CountValentine]

How about if it said Biden hiked prices by 40%?

That is not supported by the facts. If it said under Biden they went up 40% then it would be correct.
If you asked me did they go up under Biden 40% I would say yes but then add my commentary.
Answer the question first then explain. Don't just explain without answering the question. 

[aygart]

That is not supported by the facts. If it said under Biden they went up 40% then it would be correct.
If you asked me did they go up under Biden 40% I would say yes but then add my commentary.
Answer the question first then explain. Don't just explain without answering the question.

If they wrote that would you consider it honest?

[CountValentine]

If they wrote that would you consider it honest?

Honest is an opinion and I like facts.
They can write it several ways to make it a fact.
Just like the tweet that was posted. Short and to the point with a fact. You thought it was lie because of incomplete facts. The facts I thought were missing IMHO only made it more clear.

[aygart]

Honest is an opinion and I like facts.
They can write it several ways to make it a fact.
Just like the tweet that was posted. Short and to the point with a fact. You thought it was lie because of incomplete facts. The facts I thought were missing IMHO only made it more clear.

You didn't answer the question. Would you consider someone who said that Biden hiked gas 40 percent as a data point to be making an honest argument?

[CountValentine]

Would you consider someone who said that Biden hiked gas 40 percent as a data point to be making an honest argument?

No because there is no fact to back it up.

[aygart]

No because there is no fact to back it up.

Now look back at the tweets I called dishonest and compare them to the chart I posted and if you are honest with yourself you will see how what I did fits very well with the standards you just set.

[aygart]

No because there is no fact to back it up.

Now look back at the tweets I called dishonest and compare them to the chart I posted and if you are honest with yourself you will see how what I did fits very well with the standards you just set.

[aygart]

This is besides the major honesty disclaimer I wrote before the chart.

[CountValentine]

Now look back at the tweets I called dishonest and compare them to the chart I posted and if you are honest with yourself you will see how what I did fits very well with the standards you just set.

So this is about gotcha?

Here is the tweet. It is a fact and not a lie.

https://twitter.com/JoshuaHol/status/1501270571019030540

Incomplete facts are just as much of a lie

[aygart]

So this is about gotcha?

Here is the tweet. It is a fact and not dishonest.

No it only became that from you making it so. You made the comparison to what I did that was inconsistent with what you argued previously and created the gotcha. I simply found the chart interesting.

That is only one of the 2 tweets. This was the less egregious one. His saying that it is comparable to now its absolutely dishonest by your standards.

[CountValentine]

I simply found the chart interesting.

A chart that gave the distinct impression of blaming Biden/D's for the raise in gas prices when you know it was a lie by your standards because it omitted a major fact was interesting? You want to talk about honesty? 
You were so honest you omitted the article.

That is only one of the 2 tweets. This was the less egregious one. His saying that it is comparable to now its absolutely dishonest by your standards.

What other tweet did I defend as being a fact and not a lie? 

[CountValentine]

If you want an honest discussion, you have both agree on simple facts.

The chart you posted we both agree a major fact was left out to make it a lie.
The tweet I referred to you have yet to say what the fact was that was omitted to make it a lie. There might be one, but you haven't said, and I don't see one.

[aygart]

Meanwhile in just this thread you exposed how your bullposts are a bunch of bunk to use only when it is convenient to you and now you showed how here you are also full of it. That isn't where I was trying to head but you chose this path not me.

Of you want to go a little further up to find the other one then go ahead. If you don't want that is also fine with me.

[CountValentine]

Meanwhile in just this thread you exposed how your bullposts are a bunch of bunk to use only when it is convenient to you and now you showed how here you are also full of it. That isn't where I was trying to head but you chose this path not me.

Of you want to go a little further up to find the other one then go ahead. If you don't want that is also fine with me.

You completely ignored what I posted and just attacked me. 

I used your standards that I showed there were no standards. You call a post a lie but say you are too tired to say why but post for hours on end. The tweet was a fact and not a lie as you called it. My goalposts didn't move.

You tried twenty gotcha questions and failed on all. Now there is some real honesty.

The chart was posted because it was interesting but omitted the article. You can't make this stuff up.