You literally just reposted Hakeem Jeffries quote calling for “total warfare everywhere” only a days ago. Start being responsible with your platform instead of calling for violence.
Good evening from the Coconut Tree
@KamalaHarris
Ma’am, (can we call you Ma'am?) we’ll keep this factual and review your actual record, not your reboot.
As a U.S. Senator (2017-2021), you were an original cosponsor of the Green New Deal resolution (S.Res. 59).
It directed the US to “divest from fossil fuels,” phase out oil, gas, and coal production and remake the entire economy around subsidized green mandates.
Your 2020 campaign was shorter than a Garden Gnome but managed to work in these gems:
You told the CNN town hall:
“There’s no question I’m in favor of banning fracking.”
On Jimmy Fallon’s Tonight Show:
“We will end fracking once and for all” while committing to the Green New Deal.
Your $10 trillion climate plan called for no new fossil fuel leases on federal lands, phasing out all oil & gas (even if renewables weren’t ready), a carbon fee, and doubling U.S. payments to the UN Green Climate Fund.
Before that, as California Attorney General (2011-2017), you built a reputation suing our industry.
The lawfare you pursued laid the foundation for the collapse of the California refining industry we are witnessing right now
You even sued the Obama-Biden administration to block new offshore permits off California’s coast.
Remember 2022?
As VP, national gas prices hit $5+/gallon (over $6 in parts of CA).
You told Americans those record prices were “a price to pay for democracy” for Ukraine.
But apparently the freedom of millions of Irainian citizens are not worth $3.97 a gallon now?
That seems - I don't know - selective?
Bottom line.
California still pays the nation’s highest gas prices — thanks to the taxes, mandates, and anti-production policies you championed for years.
Flying cross country (made possible by jet fuel) to North Carolina to make a video isn't going to change that.
And those are the facts - unburdened by what has been.
@DannyONEtime@OccupyLF We have a proprietary forecast model at the office but overall trend has improved overnight from when we left the office last night. Let’s hope it continues to move our direction 🤘
By the way if the replay official ever gets a chance to explain the Texas vs ASU targeting review. I would assume they would say no launch, no crouch and upward thrust, no lowering the head. Basically, none of the indicators that we're told in preseason college football broadcast meetings that officials are supposed to look for in the rule 9.14 version of targeting that applies here...which is forcible contact with the head or neck area of a defenseless player.
Now it's totally fair to debate that but I think it would have been good if that angle had been addressed more on the telecast.
By the way if the replay official ever gets a chance to explain the Texas vs ASU targeting review. I would assume they would say no launch, no crouch and upward thrust, no lowering the head. Basically, none of the indicators that we're told in preseason college football broadcast meetings that officials are supposed to look for in the rule 9.14 version of targeting that applies here...which is forcible contact with the head or neck area of a defenseless player.
Now it's totally fair to debate that but I think it would have been good if that angle had been addressed more on the telecast.
By the way if the replay official ever gets a chance to explain the Texas vs ASU targeting review. I would assume they would say no launch, no crouch and upward thrust, no lowering the head. Basically, none of the indicators that we're told in preseason college football broadcast meetings that officials are supposed to look for in the rule 9.14 version of targeting that applies here...which is forcible contact with the head or neck area of a defenseless player.
Now it's totally fair to debate that but I think it would have been good if that angle had been addressed more on the telecast.