Ed Franks
@edfranks.bsky.social
PhD: Econolytics/RAND
MS: Biochemistry/MIT
BS: Chemistry/UCSD
MA: Theology/Fuller Seminary
⬆︎Reagan/Hayek/Hume/Locke/Z⬆︎
⬆︎TULIP/Calvin/Cromwell/Owen⬆︎
⬇︎Putin/Marx/China/Quds/Hamas⬇︎
____________________________________
MS: Biochemistry/MIT
BS: Chemistry/UCSD
MA: Theology/Fuller Seminary
⬆︎Reagan/Hayek/Hume/Locke/Z⬆︎
⬆︎TULIP/Calvin/Cromwell/Owen⬆︎
⬇︎Putin/Marx/China/Quds/Hamas⬇︎
____________________________________
Reposted by Ed Franks
Perhaps?! Can you show provide documentation that supports this claim? I do seem to recall loose talk and claims in the context of ensuring EU that they'd suffer no harm (?), but it was a very generalized claim, as if not to be taken too seriously, b/c it would not be necessary, 2 to 3 yrs ago?
November 2, 2025 at 11:20 AM
Perhaps?! Can you show provide documentation that supports this claim? I do seem to recall loose talk and claims in the context of ensuring EU that they'd suffer no harm (?), but it was a very generalized claim, as if not to be taken too seriously, b/c it would not be necessary, 2 to 3 yrs ago?
Yes, perhaps, esp for Biden, but I thought the point was not necessarily to promote the sale of US oil to the EU but rather to reassure the EU that the US would subsidize the cost as necessary so that there would be no change in the net cost of energy for the EU, whatever the source of their oil?
November 1, 2025 at 9:10 AM
Yes, perhaps, esp for Biden, but I thought the point was not necessarily to promote the sale of US oil to the EU but rather to reassure the EU that the US would subsidize the cost as necessary so that there would be no change in the net cost of energy for the EU, whatever the source of their oil?