MemphisAg1 said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

Frok said:

---

Well we used to blame the president when it was a democrat, but now that the Republican president causing high prices we justify it.

To top it off Ben Shapiro had a whole segment about how grocery prices aren't that bad.

Republicans are going to get wiped out at midterms.

---

Having less money because of the higher cost of groceries caused by the actions of this current administration aren't that bad?

I mean, if everyone had his net worth of more money than most will make in a lifetime, then sure, prices aren't that bad. In the really real world though, that isn't the sentiment of most.

But, hey, I'm sure there's not one conservative upset about higher gas and grocery prices. Not one.

---

I think it's important to try and be factual/accurate and not emotional when dealing with a topic like inflation that is a numbers-driven topic.

Gas prices in states that haven't been infected with blue-policy stupidity aren't bad. I'm still buying gas for $3 and change. Not a big deal. California is $2/gal higher than Texas, but that increment is due to their ongoing war against fossil fuels. Other NE and NW states mimic CA to a similar but lesser degree. That's on them for gas.

With food at home, Trump's tariffs haven't been that impactful. His broad tariff war -- which I oppose -- is translating into higher prices for manufactured goods due to higher costs for raw materials and machinery where he is trying to force onshoring of production instead of letting manufacturers buy cheaper foreign components. His immigration policy -- which I support -- is impacting food at home by reducing the cheap foreign labor supply in the US. I'll gladly pay more for food to keep our borders secure and ensure legal immigration.

For food away from home, that cost is getting ridiculous in many blue states because of their stupid labor policies, including $20/hr minimum wage BS. The Dems keep trying to force every job to have a "living wage" when they forget that many jobs like fast food are temporary, starter jobs and not meant to support a family.

There's a lot of moving parts when it comes to inflation. Trump owns some of it. Some of it I support and some I don't. The Dems own a lot of it with their state policies. Just imagine what they'll do when they regain federal control. We already saw it under Biden. I shudder to think of what it looks like under Newsom.

---

Agreed.

And, honestly, just the fact that you can say that Trump owns some of it deserves much props because there's too many people on the right who will do whatever they can to not even say that.

Biden screwed the pooch, hard. Trump hasn't helped, and Newsome, god help us all if he gets in.

You guys still haven't convinced us that voting for the communist candidate would make things better.

Ain't nobody perfect. Well there was one guy but they crucified him.

That's not the point. I havent seen anyone say "if Kamala had won we'd be better off". It's the complete reluctance to criticize Dear Leader, and the constant reframing of criticism as just being about who you voted for that is so frustrating.

If you're married, I'm sure you think there are some things your spouse could do better, or things you criticize them for. That doesn't mean you should divorce or you picked a bad spouse. If someone tells you their spouse is perfect and they have no flaws or moments worthy of criticism, you've not found someone who just picked right, you've found a liar.

Less Evil Hank Scorpio said:

---

That's not the point. I havent seen anyone say "if Kamala had won we'd be better off". It's the complete reluctance to criticize Dear Leader, and the constant reframing of criticism as just being about who you voted for that is so frustrating.

If you're married, I'm sure you think there are some things your spouse could do better, or things you criticize them for. That doesn't mean you should divorce or you picked a bad spouse. If someone tells you their spouse is perfect and they have no flaws or moments worthy of criticism, you've not found someone who just picked right, you've found a liar.

---

Neither is voting communist in the midterms going to help.

techno-ag said:

---

Less Evil Hank Scorpio said:

---

That's not the point. I havent seen anyone say "if Kamala had won we'd be better off". It's the complete reluctance to criticize Dear Leader, and the constant reframing of criticism as just being about who you voted for that is so frustrating.

If you're married, I'm sure you think there are some things your spouse could do better, or things you criticize them for. That doesn't mean you should divorce or you picked a bad spouse. If someone tells you their spouse is perfect and they have no flaws or moments worthy of criticism, you've not found someone who just picked right, you've found a liar.

---

Neither is voting communist in the midterms going to help.

---

If Kamala had won there wouldn't be tariffs or a war in Iran. So pretty much everything would be cheaper. Seems like that might count as better off.

techno-ag said:

---

You guys still haven't convinced us that voting for the communist candidate would make things better.

Ain't nobody perfect. Well there was one guy but they crucified him.

---

Kamala? Why does that always have to be the measuring stick. If so it's pretty sad that low of a bar has to be used.

If anything could be used it would be the Republican Primary. But there was also no real Republican Primary. And Trump was pre chosen because of his campaign promises etc.

But the Republican Primary is where a selection should come from not choosing between parties.

amercer said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

Less Evil Hank Scorpio said:

---

That's not the point. I havent seen anyone say "if Kamala had won we'd be better off". It's the complete reluctance to criticize Dear Leader, and the constant reframing of criticism as just being about who you voted for that is so frustrating.

If you're married, I'm sure you think there are some things your spouse could do better, or things you criticize them for. That doesn't mean you should divorce or you picked a bad spouse. If someone tells you their spouse is perfect and they have no flaws or moments worthy of criticism, you've not found someone who just picked right, you've found a liar.

---

Neither is voting communist in the midterms going to help.

---

If Kamala had won there wouldn't be tariffs or a war in Iran. So pretty much everything would be cheaper. Seems like that might count as better off.

---

She definitely would have given Z the help necessary to beat the Orcs

Tariffs IMO were a bad idea but at least Trump ran on that so people were expecting it
Trump not delivering on ending the Ukraine war was his biggest mistake
With a little more help the Ukes might have forced Putin out and without Putin the situation in ME is probably more manageable

amercer said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

Less Evil Hank Scorpio said:

---

That's not the point. I havent seen anyone say "if Kamala had won we'd be better off". It's the complete reluctance to criticize Dear Leader, and the constant reframing of criticism as just being about who you voted for that is so frustrating.

If you're married, I'm sure you think there are some things your spouse could do better, or things you criticize them for. That doesn't mean you should divorce or you picked a bad spouse. If someone tells you their spouse is perfect and they have no flaws or moments worthy of criticism, you've not found someone who just picked right, you've found a liar.

---

Neither is voting communist in the midterms going to help.

---

If Kamala had won there wouldn't be tariffs or a war in Iran. So pretty much everything would be cheaper. Seems like that might count as better off.

---

Tarrifs, probably, but you have no idea what Kamala would have done to **** up the economy. We also would still be paying for USAID idiocy, straight white males would still be actively discriminated against in the work place, Trans insanity would be on over drive, etc.

How about the Isreal hostages? Any chance in hell Kamala gets that done?

Maduro?

Tarrifs have also resulted in better trade agreements with some of our most critical partners.

The Iran war was a massive risk, but so was doing nothing. I would much rather Trump's team manage that decision then knee pads.

Quote:

---

We also would still be paying for USAID idiocy, straight white males would still be actively discriminated against in the work place, Trans insanity would be on over drive, etc.

How about the Isreal hostages? Any chance in hell Kamala gets that done?

Maduro?

---

amercer said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

Less Evil Hank Scorpio said:

---

That's not the point. I havent seen anyone say "if Kamala had won we'd be better off". It's the complete reluctance to criticize Dear Leader, and the constant reframing of criticism as just being about who you voted for that is so frustrating.

If you're married, I'm sure you think there are some things your spouse could do better, or things you criticize them for. That doesn't mean you should divorce or you picked a bad spouse. If someone tells you their spouse is perfect and they have no flaws or moments worthy of criticism, you've not found someone who just picked right, you've found a liar.

---

Neither is voting communist in the midterms going to help.

---

If Kamala had won there wouldn't be tariffs or a war in Iran. So pretty much everything would be cheaper. Seems like that might count as better off.

---

That's just not true. Kamala would have favored a continued (open borders) invasion and nuclear Iran alike. And, she's a dimwit at best, who now is out of the closet in favor of court packing, 52 states, and functionally eliminating any guardrails in the republic vs. leftist-islamic rule. Things she would have supported as POTUS.

Laying down to China/Canada/Russia/Ukraine/Hamas etc. on trade/war would not have made things cheaper long term, any more than our current debt/bond market challenges have made things cheaper, by any means.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

Frok said:

---

Well we used to blame the president when it was a democrat, but now that the Republican president causing high prices we justify it.

To top it off Ben Shapiro had a whole segment about how grocery prices aren't that bad.

Republicans are going to get wiped out at midterms.

---

Having less money because of the higher cost of groceries caused by the actions of this current administration aren't that bad?

I mean, if everyone had his net worth of more money than most will make in a lifetime, then sure, prices aren't that bad. In the really real world though, that isn't the sentiment of most.

But, hey, I'm sure there's not one conservative upset about higher gas and grocery prices. Not one.

---

I think it's important to try and be factual/accurate and not emotional when dealing with a topic like inflation that is a numbers-driven topic.

Gas prices in states that haven't been infected with blue-policy stupidity aren't bad. I'm still buying gas for $3 and change. Not a big deal. California is $2/gal higher than Texas, but that increment is due to their ongoing war against fossil fuels. Other NE and NW states mimic CA to a similar but lesser degree. That's on them for gas.

With food at home, Trump's tariffs haven't been that impactful. His broad tariff war -- which I oppose -- is translating into higher prices for manufactured goods due to higher costs for raw materials and machinery where he is trying to force onshoring of production instead of letting manufacturers buy cheaper foreign components. His immigration policy -- which I support -- is impacting food at home by reducing the cheap foreign labor supply in the US. I'll gladly pay more for food to keep our borders secure and ensure legal immigration.

For food away from home, that cost is getting ridiculous in many blue states because of their stupid labor policies, including $20/hr minimum wage BS. The Dems keep trying to force every job to have a "living wage" when they forget that many jobs like fast food are temporary, starter jobs and not meant to support a family.

There's a lot of moving parts when it comes to inflation. Trump owns some of it. Some of it I support and some I don't. The Dems own a lot of it with their state policies. Just imagine what they'll do when they regain federal control. We already saw it under Biden. I shudder to think of what it looks like under Newsom.

---

In just looking at a map of current prices, most of the lower prices seem to be in states that are close refineries. California is obviously an exception and I won't deny that their policies have definitely influenced that.

I live in Kansas which hasn't voted for a Democrat President since LBJ. Gas today for regular unleaded was $3.87 a gallon and diesel was $4.89.That's high no matter how you look at it. I am blessed that I can afford the higher prices at the pump but that isn't the case for everyone. Gas is one of those inelastic goods that people will need regardless of who is in office. When you are living paycheck to paycheck or even close to that, the increased cost quickly adds up. It's also right in your face as you stand at the side of your vehicle.

Regardless of the reasons for the increase, it's something that Republicans need to have an answer for and I haven't see too many convincing arguments so far.

100%

since we like to point to gasoline futures those are up 10% this morning

sts7049 said:

---

since we like to point to gasoline futures those are up 10% this morning

---

Yes it has ticked up to $3.04.

Not exactly a dramatic move.

Is 5% dramatic?

$5.29 in WA state...

OP = the new "Jim Cramer of gas prices".

$2.98 at Valero in Rosenberg.

Forecast is pretty good.

EIA also expects “crack spreads” to collapse and result in an 80 cent a gallon drop in refinery spreads by Q1 2027 pic.twitter.com/zqS3AVSdz7

— Latinx Adjacent Doctor PhD (@TonerousHyus) August 11, 2026

that doesn't happen if the strait doesn't return to normal flows

Equinox said:

---

$2.98 at Valero in Rosenberg.

---

The OP was right yet again! Man the socialists must really hate this thread.

your little football spikes are so cute

nortex97 said:

---

Forecast is pretty good.

EIA also expects “crack spreads” to collapse and result in an 80 cent a gallon drop in refinery spreads by Q1 2027 pic.twitter.com/zqS3AVSdz7

— Latinx Adjacent Doctor PhD (@TonerousHyus) August 11, 2026

---

So if prices are forecast to go down with the problems with the SOH being the same, why did they ever need to go up on the first place?

I'm all for them going down, but info like that makes one have questions.

sts7049 said:

---

your little football spikes are so cute

---

And they happen so often!

techno-ag said:

---

sts7049 said:

---

your little football spikes are so cute

---

And they happen so often!

---

So is gas or diesel cheaper now?

8/9: Gas was $3.399 at a 7-Eleven on 711 W Martin Luther King Jr Blvd in Austin, and I paid $3.199 after I received 20 cents off per gallon from the 7-Eleven rewards app.

Iraq2xVeteran said:

---

8/9: Gas was $3.399 at a 7-Eleven on 711 W Martin Luther King Jr Blvd in Austin, and I paid $3.199 after I received 20 cents off per gallon from the 7-Eleven rewards app.

---

I am not surprised that you were able to realize a savings of twenty cents per gallon on gasoline at 711 W Martin Luther King Jr Blvd in Austi through participation in the 7-Eleven Rewards Program. It is worth noting that Big Gulps represent an excellent value proposition. Convenience stores of this type generally derive the majority of their profit margins from in-store merchandise sales, with fuel typically functioning as a loss leader.

$3.399 by me now

Diesel still expensive. But a few on here think if something goes up by 100% and then you get a 30% discount it's a good deal.

amercer said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

Less Evil Hank Scorpio said:

---

That's not the point. I havent seen anyone say "if Kamala had won we'd be better off". It's the complete reluctance to criticize Dear Leader, and the constant reframing of criticism as just being about who you voted for that is so frustrating.

If you're married, I'm sure you think there are some things your spouse could do better, or things you criticize them for. That doesn't mean you should divorce or you picked a bad spouse. If someone tells you their spouse is perfect and they have no flaws or moments worthy of criticism, you've not found someone who just picked right, you've found a liar.

---

Neither is voting communist in the midterms going to help.

---

If Kamala had won there wouldn't be tariffs or a war in Iran. So pretty much everything would be cheaper. Seems like that might count as better off.

---

Counterpoint: her laugh was annoying.

AggieVictor10 said:

---

amercer said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

Less Evil Hank Scorpio said:

---

That's not the point. I havent seen anyone say "if Kamala had won we'd be better off". It's the complete reluctance to criticize Dear Leader, and the constant reframing of criticism as just being about who you voted for that is so frustrating.

If you're married, I'm sure you think there are some things your spouse could do better, or things you criticize them for. That doesn't mean you should divorce or you picked a bad spouse. If someone tells you their spouse is perfect and they have no flaws or moments worthy of criticism, you've not found someone who just picked right, you've found a liar.

---

Neither is voting communist in the midterms going to help.

---

If Kamala had won there wouldn't be tariffs or a war in Iran. So pretty much everything would be cheaper. Seems like that might count as better off.

---

Counterpoint: her laugh was annoying.

---

No argument there.

Edit: removed double post.

Iraq2xVeteran said:

---

8/9: Gas was $3.399 at a 7-Eleven on 711 W Martin Luther King Jr Blvd in Austin, and I paid $3.199 after I received 20 cents off per gallon from the 7-Eleven rewards app.

---

Uh.... Huh huh.... Huh huh.. you said 'crack spreads'

Uh huh huh huh... Uh .... Huh huh

$4.59 Queen Creek, Arizona today.