Just got gas at 3.559...
- Thread starter Damocles
- Start date
Isn't that the truth
Poor lyin'. Really thought they were onto something. Again, I find it funny that the MAGA squad only mines talking points - like "trump's doing awesome - look at the price of eggs" - thinking it's a "winner".Let them eat eggs
Lyin can spew talking points and memes all day. I'm looking forward to the day that Lyin's brave enough to defend what they post.
Indeed. Like I said... I wish I didn't think that was cheap... I mean, one year ago I would be outraged at that price. LOL
It's down to $6.29 here in California. They need the taxes to pay for ballot dumps.
Good point, grocery prices are sharply down.
Remember Biden's $12 a dozen eggs? Now they are a paltry $1.79.
Beef and cheese are down too.
I cant, it seems The Sleepy PP has some crazy control so when he claims he is attacking Iran and making an agreement on the same day... that keeps the price low.
It proves that markets are a scam. They don't want Red and Blue to agree on how much it cost to fill your tank every week.
Grok can.
Grok: Oil futures are down significantly today (June 12, 2026), by roughly 3-4%.
Current benchmarks (as of midday trading):
- WTI Crude futures: Around $84–86 per barrel (down ~3.5–3.8% today).
- Brent Crude futures: Around $87–88 per barrel (down ~3.4–3.9% today).
This drop follows optimism around potential US-Iran ceasefire/de-escalation progress, which could ease Strait of Hormuz shipping disruptions. Prices had been elevated earlier in 2026 due to geopolitical tensions.
No, the spot price is not averaging $150 a barrel.
Recent daily spot prices and near-term averages are well below that:
- Recent WTI spot (early June 2026): In the mid-to-high $90s.
- Monthly average (May 2026): Around $100 per barrel.
- Current levels (futures/spot proxies): $84–88 range.
$150 would be near all-time highs (last seen briefly in 2008); current prices reflect a pullback from recent peaks above $100 amid the earlier conflict.
Prices fluctuate quickly, so check live sources like CME, Bloomberg, or EIA for the absolute latest.
Grok is lying to you. Everyone knows the Trump crime family is making billions of dollars manipulating the markets. Spot oil will be at $200 a barrel before midterms.
QP!
Verified User
It is only HOPE that Trump could get the US out of this that has kept the prices where they are now, but REALITY of inventories running out does not care about HOPT or FEELINGS on this topic and a significant price spike is dangerously close...
Which is why Iran feels they can play the game of chicken and out wait Trump as they know Trump is desperate to end this before the above becomes reality.
QP!
Verified User
See my above post.
No one can say for certain, as they note, but the thinking is 'weeks' is better gauge than months. My bet is that the July holiday weekend, which always puts immense pressure on gas usage will be the tipping point, if it does not tip over just prior to that.
Hitchens's Razor applies perfectly here: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
@goat's statement is a textbook unsubstantiated screed—conspiracy-laden assertions with zero proof provided.
It can (and should) be dismissed on that basis alone.
Here's why it falls apart under scrutiny.
1. "Trump crime family" and "making billions manipulating the markets"
This is inflammatory rhetoric, not evidence.- "Crime family" evokes mafia tropes without legal grounding for coordinated criminal enterprise. Trump faces legal scrutiny (as do many politicians), but courts haven't established a "family crime syndicate." This is partisan hyperbole.
- Market manipulation for billions: There are reports of suspicious oil futures trading spikes minutes before Trump's Iran-related announcements (e.g., pauses in strikes causing price drops), prompting CFTC/SEC probes, Democratic senators (Warren, Whitehouse, Murphy) demanding investigations, and media coverage (BBC, WSJ, Axios, Reuters). Unusual volumes (hundreds of millions to $1.5B+ bets) occurred, and some profited.
- No public evidence directly ties Trump or his family to placing or tipping these trades. Analysts note possibilities like algorithmic trading, hedge funds reading public signals, or coincidence. Investigations are ongoing; accusations aren't proof.
- Trump's family has seen massive wealth gains (Forbes ~$6.5B net worth; billions from crypto ventures like World Liberty Financial, $TRUMP coin, licensing—often via foreign investors). Critics highlight conflicts (e.g., UAE, Saudi ties; policy favors). But this is mostly public business/crypto hype, not proven market manipulation via presidential announcements for personal trades.
- Presidents influence markets via policy/tweets (all do). Timing anomalies deserve investigation, but leaping to "crime family billions via manipulation" requires evidence the respondent doesn't offer. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof—none given.
2. "Spot oil will be at $200 a barrel before midterms"
Pure speculation, already falsified by reality. Midterms are November 3, 2026—about 5 months from now (June 2026).- Current spot/futures prices (as of mid-June 2026): WTI around $85–$91/bbl, Brent ~$87–$94/bbl. Recent highs tied to U.S.-Iran conflict/Strait of Hormuz disruptions reached ~$100–$120 in peaks, but forecasts (EIA) see declines to ~$79 by 2027 as disruptions ease.
- $200/bbl would be an unprecedented spike (far beyond 2008 or 2022 peaks). Geopolitical risks exist, but no credible analyst or market consensus predicts this baseline. It's doomer fanfiction.
Bottom Line
@goat's entire post is assertion without evidence: conspiracy framing, guilt by association, and a wild price prediction.Hitchens's Razor slices it cleanly. No rebuttal is needed beyond noting the lack of proof.
Legitimate concerns (trading anomalies, conflicts of interest, high energy prices from conflict) exist and warrant oversight, but @goat offers none.
Markets are complex; oil prices reflect global realities far more than any "crime family" plot. Extraordinary claims require evidence. This has none.
Dismissed.
I see what you did there.
"Just stealing the oil" would not meaningfully bring down U.S. gasoline or energy prices—and could easily do the opposite.
Oil is a globally traded commodity priced on international markets (WTI, Brent benchmarks). Adding a relatively small volume of Iranian crude via seizure wouldn't flood the U.S. market enough to offset broader disruptions, and the act itself would trigger massive risks.
Why It Wouldn't Lower U.S. Prices
- Iran's Output Is Modest in Global Context: Iran's crude production has hovered around 3–4 million barrels per day (bpd) pre-conflict, with exports often 1–2 million bpd (mostly to China). Even at peak, this is a fraction of global supply (~100+ million bpd total liquids). U.S. production alone exceeds 13 million bpd, with total exports hitting records. Seizing Iran's marginal barrels wouldn't shift the global balance enough to crash prices.
- U.S. Doesn't Import Iranian Oil: The U.S. has imported negligible to zero crude from Iran for years due to sanctions. Prices are set globally. Any "stolen" oil would enter the world market (or U.S. SPR/refineries), but refineries are optimized for specific crudes, and logistics (tankers, blending) add costs/delays.
- Disruption Effects Dominate: Current high prices (WTI ~$85–$90+/bbl, Brent higher in recent peaks) stem from the 2026 U.S.-Iran conflict, including Strait of Hormuz disruptions (20%+ of global seaborne oil). Seizing oil would escalate conflict, prolong closures, spike insurance/shipping costs, and deter investment—keeping supply tight and prices elevated.
- Market Dynamics: Oil traders anticipate future supply. "Stolen" barrels might provide a one-time bump but wouldn't address production declines, infrastructure damage, or OPEC+ responses. Historical seizures/sanctions show prices often rise on uncertainty.
Why This Is Highly Unlikely to Occur
- International Law and "Piracy" Label: Seizing foreign vessels or assets on the high seas without clear legal basis (e.g., beyond sanctions enforcement on specific tankers) violates UNCLOS and norms against piracy. Past U.S. actions on sanctioned Iranian/Venezuelan cargoes were narrow and contentious; large-scale "stealing" would be seen as aggression, inviting retaliation, lawsuits, and alliances against the U.S.
- Military and Retaliation Risks: Iran has mined/threatened the Strait, seized vessels in response historically, and could escalate (attacks on shipping, proxies, etc.). U.S. forces are already escorting tankers amid conflict; broader seizure operations risk wider war, higher casualties, and further supply shocks.
- Diplomatic and Economic Blowback: Allies (Europe, Asia) rely on Gulf oil stability. China (Iran's main buyer) would oppose it. It undermines U.S. rule-of-law claims in global trade, hurts the dollar's reserve status, and invites tit-for-tat seizures elsewhere.
- Practical/Political Realities: Managing seized fields/production requires occupation, expertise, and security—enormous costs. Domestic U.S. politics favor "drill baby drill" and deals over indefinite Middle East quagmires. Trump has referenced taking control or oil flows benefiting prices, but execution at scale is improbable.
The U.S. benefits more from stable production, exports (record U.S. exports amid disruptions), and diplomacy than risky seizures that could backfire spectacularly.
That’s relevant
Fair point. Grok will now address it.
Markets are not reacting illogically—they are pricing in probabilities, new information, and verifiable developments rather than taking presidential rhetoric at face value every time.
Trump's repeated optimistic statements about the Iran conflict (claiming progress, settlements, or that it's "over") create short-term volatility in oil and stocks, but traders have grown more skeptical over time.
This is standard market behavior, not blind faith in "this time he's telling the truth."
Why Markets Move on These Statements
- Risk Premiums Drive Oil Prices: Oil is a global commodity. The key issue in this 2026 conflict has been disruptions to the Strait of Hormuz (20%+ of global seaborne oil). Threats of closure, mining, attacks on shipping, or blockades spike a "geopolitical risk premium"—traders bid up prices fearing prolonged shortages. When Trump signals de-escalation (canceled strikes, talks progressing, potential reopening), that premium can unwind quickly, causing sharp drops (e.g., 5–15% moves in a day).
- Forward-Looking and Probabilistic: Markets don't wait for perfect confirmation. They react to changes in expected outcomes. A credible signal of lower escalation risk (even if partial) can justify selling futures contracts. This happens with any leader's announcements during conflicts—it's about anticipated supply flows, insurance costs, and tanker movements, not personal trust in the speaker.
- High-Frequency Trading and Sentiment: Headlines from the president move algos and speculators instantly. Stocks often rally on de-escalation hopes (lower energy costs, reduced uncertainty). This isn't unique to Trump; similar patterns occurred under other administrations during Middle East tensions.
The "Boy Who Cried Wolf" Dynamic and Eroding Credibility
Trump has made multiple optimistic claims (dozens reported) about the war ending, deals being imminent, the Strait reopening, etc., sometimes contradicted by ongoing strikes, Iranian denials, or continued disruptions.- Early in the conflict, markets reacted more dramatically to his statements (big drops in oil). Over repeated cycles, reactions have diminished—traders demand more concrete evidence (e.g., actual tanker traffic increases, confirmed ceasefires, or independent verification).
- Not blind belief: Markets often price in partial optimism while hedging. Oil can fall on Trump's words one day, then rebound on Iranian actions, U.S. follow-through, or satellite/shipping data showing persistent issues. This is rational Bayesian updating: each new claim is discounted based on past accuracy.
- Rhetoric serves political and psychological purposes (boosting confidence, pressuring adversaries), but traders cross-check against realities like U.S. escorts through the Strait, Iranian responses, and physical flows.
Why It Appears "Illogical"
It seems paradoxical only if you view markets as reacting purely to Trump's truthfulness.In reality:
- They are aggregating thousands of participants (hedge funds, producers, airlines, etc.) betting on outcomes with real money.
- Repeated claims create whipsaw volatility, which is frustrating and can look irrational to outsiders—but it's how uncertain environments work (see past Gulf Wars, Russia-Ukraine, etc.).
- Fundamentals still dominate long-term: U.S. production, global demand, OPEC responses, and actual resolution of Hormuz access matter more than any single speech.
Trump's pattern of optimism is noted, but reactions reflect evolving risk assessments, not gullibility.
Persistent conflict realities keep prices elevated overall despite the rhetoric.
This coming from a guy who once had a Harris Administration moniker. Weren't you Iranian last month? Socks have as much credibility as Grok.