• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

2020 Democratic Presidential Nominees

Best serve your country by losing in the Democratic primary ? Interesting strategy.

I think a smart move would be to try to pair up with an existing primary candidate as their presumptive VP and run a dual campaign
 
So endorse someone and not run at all.
 
So endorse someone and not run at all.

Yes, but more than a normal endorsement. I'm talking about like hitching up with Kamala or Bernie or Warren or whoever Beto finds the best candidate and actively being their #2 on the road, traveling with them when necessary for joint appearances, being their official proxy in other areas. I think in such a crowded field, having that presumptive VP going around stumping is better than just a Beto endorsement.
 
Yes, but more than a normal endorsement. I'm talking about like hitching up with Kamala or Bernie or Warren or whoever Beto finds the best candidate and actively being their #2 on the road, traveling with them when necessary for joint appearances, being their official proxy in other areas. I think in such a crowded field, having that presumptive VP going around stumping is better than just a Beto endorsement.
Beto could easily win the nomination though. Why hitch up with someone and lose when you can win yourself, it’s Beto not Bata
 
You could just Google "Saudi Arabia Venezuela oil" its not exactly a deep state conspiracy. We've been consistently "urging" the OPEC states to increase oil production for near a decade, despite current barrel prices being lower than they were 20 years ago. I'm 32 and a gallon of gas is cheaper than it was when I was 17. How could that strategy + black market nepotism + the crushing economic sanctions we've put on Venezuela not destroy their mono-economy? You were never trying to win a foreign policy argument by propagandizing Maduro eating a steak dinner. Maybe the fucking rubes fall for that.
https://theconversation-com.cdn.amp...sequence-of-saudi-arabias-oil-price-war-82178



https://www-bloomberg-com.cdn.amppr...-venezuela-tops-saudi-arabia-in-the-worst-way

https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/...-sanctions-but-saudi-arabia-is-cutting-output


Historically what socialist governments, worldwide, hasnt the US successfully strangled to death with economic sanctions, foreign allied sabotage, and military assisted coups? Cuba, China, and North Korea? 2 of those have nuclear weapons.

Bro, literally from the first article you posted literally reiterated the point I made in my post. Since you clearly didn't read I'll post it for you.
It seems the Saudis are trying to achieve two aims. The first is to drive US shale producers out of business and consolidate the Gulf state’s leading role in global oil. Producing oil from shale via fracking is expensive, around US$60 a barrel, while the cost of natural oil is no higher than US$7 a barrel. Saudi Arabia hopes the drastic decrease in oil prices, to well below US$60 a barrel, will make it unprofitable for American shale producers to drill at their current rates.
Crushing Venezuela's economy was an unintended consequence of the Saudis trying to fuck over US oil producers. Not some conspiracy of American Imperialism trying to destroy a socialist nation.
 
Beto could easily win the nomination though. Why hitch up with someone and lose when you can win yourself, it’s Beto not Bata

Yep. And you misspelled Beta. Come on.
 
Bro, literally from the first article you posted literally reiterated the point I made in my post. Since you clearly didn't read I'll post it for you.
Crushing Venezuela's economy was an unintended consequence of the Saudis trying to fuck over US oil producers. Not some conspiracy of American Imperialism trying to destroy a socialist nation.

Bro you literally didnt read the totality of the sources I provided for you, but I can provide more direct analysis that puts the pieces together for you:
From 2016:
https://www-mondialisation-ca.cdn.a...taging-venezuelas-economy-far-fetched/5544062
"Regarding the economic conditions leading up to what appears to be another round of US-backed regime change efforts, the possibility that in addition to US sanctions against Venezuela and the global manipulation of oil prices to target both Venezuela and Russia, that the US is using other, covert methods to sabotage the nation’s economy are not entirely far-fetched."

2014:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-30638770
"He (Maduro) said his country was suffering the consequences of an economic war launched by US President Barack Obama "to destroy" the oil producers' cartel, Opec.
"It is a two-year plan, which is affecting the prices of commodities and many developing economies," Mr Maduro said.
"The US wants to impose a unipolar world controlled from Washington. That is madness.""

2015:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...59ec7a93ddc_story.html?utm_term=.c0525d3d1af9

2013:
http://cepr.net/publications/op-eds-columns/us-seeks-to-get-rid-of-left-governments-in-latin-america

"Recent events indicate that the Obama administration has stepped up its strategy of “regime change” against the left-of-center governments in Latin America, promoting conflict in ways not seen since the military coup that Washington supported in Venezuela in 2002.  The most high-profile example is in Venezuela itself, during the past week. As this goes to press, Washington has grown increasingly isolated in its efforts to destabilize the newly elected government of Nicolas Maduro."

2014:
https://www.cnbc.com/2014/11/26/sau...ve-reached-consensus-ahead-of-meeting-dj.html

Gulf OPEC producers agree not to cut output: 

Among the members of OPEC, Venezuela and Iraq have called for output cuts.
“The onslaught of North American shale oil has drastically undermined OPEC’s position and reduced its market share,
...
“The idea of unleashing a price war against U.S. shale oil seems strange to me. I doubt you can win this battle as most U.S. oil producers are hedging a lot of their output, ” said a top oil executive visiting Vienna for talks with OPEC ministers."

U.S. oil producers are not in direct competition with OPEC because the U.S. is a net importer, so our oil producers can hedge production, therefore the U.S. government can leverage their OPEC gulfstate allies output against Russia, Iraq, Venezuela, Chile, China.
 
Last edited:
Shocking, communist dictators blame the US. Your whole premise that the US collaborated with OPEC in order to intentionally bring down Russia and Venezuela is wrong dude, Take. The. L.

OPEC brought down the prices to try to screw the US and Iran. Read the first article you posted.
 
Shocking, communist dictators blame the US. Your whole premise that the US collaborated with OPEC in order to intentionally bring down Russia and Venezuela is wrong dude, Take. The. L.

OPEC brought down the prices to try to screw the US and Iran. Read the first article you posted.
Dude take the fuckin L, you have no clue. I gave you a source with an oil industry expert in 2014 telling you that OPEC couldnt win a price war with American shale oil. What dont you understand about "net importer"? Even when America is the largest oil.producer in the whole world we still import AND export oil. It's almost as if the market is more complex than your grade school understanding.

https://articles-pennlive-com.cdn.a...errer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s

"Shale drillers have become so efficient in the last 10 years that they can produce more with less, making it easier to turn a profit.
That's largely thanks to U.S. drilling technology, which is "advancing at a speed usually associated with Silicon Valley," according to Mark Mills a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.
"Just as a new Internet ecosystem rose from the ashes of the dot-com crash, Shale 2.0 will emerge..." he said in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed .
If prices reach $40 a barrel, U.S. producers can become profitable again, while OPEC needs prices to be $80 a barrel, Mills and other analysts said.
"Owners of traditional oil wells struggle to make productivity gains of 2 to 3 percent a year. Operators in shale fields are seeing massive gains of 20 to 30 percent, year upon year," Chris Taylor, investment director of Neptune Investment Management, told The Times of London .
For example, Exxon's return on investment for every $1,000 spent in the Bakken Shale in North Dakota increased from 12 percent in 2011 to 40 percent in 2014, he said.
That's a productivity rise of 220 percent in four years. "I can't remember seeing anything like that - not since the early days of the personal computer roll-out," Taylor said.
Meanwhile, OPEC companies are squeezed and have called for emergency meetings, only to be ignored by Saudi Arabia. Venezuela on Wednesday called for an emergency meetingin hopes of driving up prices, but so far no plans have been made."

Use your brain and think about why the US has been encouraging OPEC since the recession to produce more oil. BECAUSE WE STILL BUY THEIR OIL.

From all the way back in 2008: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ak-economy-obama-effect-idUSTRE52F1FD20090316
"Before the meeting in March 2008, Washington had said even a modest output increase would help to calm oil markets, but OPEC instead kept supplies steady. In response, prices leapt to what was then a new record above $100 a barrel.
Rejecting the U.S. request, then OPEC President Chakib Khelil of Algeria shot back that the United States’ mismanagement of the economy, not OPEC, was to blame for high oil prices."


From 2014: https://www.vox.com/2014/12/2/7319307/gas-prices-falling

"....(The International Energy Agency estimates that about 4 percent of US shale projects are unprofitable if oil prices sink below $80 per barrel, as is currently the case.)
On the whole, however, the US is still a net oil importer, so this benefits the nation at large. But it doesn't affect everyone in the same way."

To finalize, the U.S. as a net oil importer benefits from low oil prices, even with the shale oil boom. Large American shale oil producers also have a unique advantage of efficient drilling methods and speculative hedging. There is absolutely nothing about US oil production preventing us from sabotaging export dependent economies.
 
Last edited:
That doesn't seem to jive with the general consensus (posted here and read elsewhere) that saudi's costs are $4-$12 a barrel and shale is closer to $30. So your quote of "OPEC needs prices to be $80" can have quite a few meanings.
 
That doesn't seem to jive with the general consensus (posted here and read elsewhere) that saudi's costs are $4-$12 a barrel and shale is closer to $30. So your quote of "OPEC needs prices to be $80" can have quite a few meanings.
Not being snarky, I highly recommend you read this to get a better understanding of US oil importing/exporting:
https://www.api.org/news-policy-and-issues/blog/2018/06/14/why-the-us-must-import-and-export-oil

Regarding your post,

The US isnt really competing with OPEC in crude oil production costs because our economy depends on low imported petroleum costs domestically, and we dont have the pipeline or refinery infrastructure to fulfill our own petroleum demands. Where we are really competing with OPEC is in refinery, natural gas, and petrochemicals:

https://ngpenergycapital.com/shale-revolution-has-direct-and-indirect-impacts-on-opec/

"The impact is indirect, when the increase in U.S. crude oil or natural gas production doesn’t compete directly with exports of other countries, either through import substitution or global competition for market share. However, the by-products of oil and gas affect OPEC members in various ways. A case in point: the increase in U.S. light crude production doesn’t reduce the imports of heavier crudes from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf emirates, yet the gain in U.S. oil and natural gas output, overall, affects three segments that are considered “strategic” in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf region—refining, petrochemicals and NGLs."
 
Washington Governor Jay Islee announces he is running. Quite a collection of candidates.
 
Hopefully his laser focus on climate change will influence the conversation.
 
Washington Governor Jay Islee announces he is running. Quite a collection of candidates.

I tend to prefer a governor because I think that's better training than being in congress and would be fine with Hickenlooper, Inslee or Bullock as the nominee. Though I doubt that happens because of a lack of name recognition. I'm afraid the left wing of the party will consolidate around Bernie early because Warren, Brown and Merkley just won't generate traction. And I think that'll cause the more traditional Dems to whittle their candidates down to 2 or 3 rather quickly. Hope I'm wrong because I think 1 of those governors with Klobuchar as veep would be a good ticket.
 
was in a dr office playing the view and they had Bernie on. sounded weirdly like a center-left candidate when the started asking about AOC
 
Back
Top