(04-05-2017 10:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Call it nepotism, or not nepotism, bottom line is HRC would never have even been considered for the NY Senate spot had she not been First Lady first., even though her only real accomplishments in that "office" were the failed healthcare initiative and standing by her man.

Without the Senate experience, she would never have been appointed SecState, and without both those, never have been a nominee for President.

(04-05-2017 09:16 PM)Barrett Wrote:  

(04-05-2017 07:56 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(04-05-2017 07:05 PM)Barrett Wrote:  So if Person A is the beneficiary of nepotism (i.e., he gets a position by a family member appointing him to said position, what I'll call the Original Nepotism), and thus becomes more of a public figure and has more name recognition, and by virtue of the name recognition has some form of advantage in an election, and at least partially due to that advantage garners enough votes of the electorate to win office some 10 years later, we are saying that the elected position was essentially given to the person by nepotism? And that such 2nd or 3rd wave achievement is equivalent on the Nepotism Index as someone who receives Original Nepotism? No consideration for intervening causes or achievements?

Neither Senate electin was 10 years from the appointment. Hillary was appointed in 1993 sometime. I thought her Senate election was in 2000, but may have confuses that with 2002.

Kennedy ran in 1966 for Senate

Okay, so 7 years later (I was mainly thinking of HRC, not RFK, as she is the more relevant figure in a discussion about Trump). I stand corrected. With that correction incorporated into my question, am I to understand that your answer is yes?

Also, does your answer change when the Original Nepotism actually works to a person's detriment? Hillary Clinton's attempt at healthcare reform as First Lady was not successful. But do you view that as still meaning that she became the U.S. senator for the State of New York based on . . . nepotism? That that event (her being made senator) should be properly characterized as an instance of nepotism? If so, then I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on what nepotism means.

(04-06-2017 08:56 PM)Barrett Wrote:  Despite my many disagreements (and admitted profound distaste for Trump), I agree with and applaud his decision re: military strikes against Syria.

(04-08-2017 03:27 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-06-2017 08:56 PM)Barrett Wrote:  Despite my many disagreements (and admitted profound distaste for Trump), I agree with and applaud his decision re: military strikes against Syria.

For being such an obvious anti-semite and an obvious Putin stooge, Trump sure is hiding it well.

(04-08-2017 04:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-08-2017 03:27 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-06-2017 08:56 PM)Barrett Wrote:  Despite my many disagreements (and admitted profound distaste for Trump), I agree with and applaud his decision re: military strikes against Syria.

For being such an obvious anti-semite and an obvious Putin stooge, Trump sure is hiding it well.

I'll remember this post for when the final reports are released from our intelligence agencies to see how well it ages. There is still too much smoke around his campaign/admin for me to think this one air strike completely debunks any connection.

Heck, Trump did give Russia a warning about the attack before the US Congress (not saying he should not have informed Russia)...

(04-09-2017 09:32 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-08-2017 04:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-08-2017 03:27 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-06-2017 08:56 PM)Barrett Wrote:  Despite my many disagreements (and admitted profound distaste for Trump), I agree with and applaud his decision re: military strikes against Syria.

For being such an obvious anti-semite and an obvious Putin stooge, Trump sure is hiding it well.

I'll remember this post for when the final reports are released from our intelligence agencies to see how well it ages. There is still too much smoke around his campaign/admin for me to think this one air strike completely debunks any connection.

Heck, Trump did give Russia a warning about the attack before the US Congress (not saying he should not have informed Russia)...

Considering not just the airstrike sir.

Have you also considered Russia's main economic driver, and how Trump is handling the EPA on certain issues, and how Trump is handling other issues in that arena?

Interesting that the obvious Putin stooge is looking and taking action, and amazingly aiding in other actions to break the back of Russia's main economic driver. Kind of an odd resume overall for a stooge or lackey, imo.

(04-09-2017 09:32 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-08-2017 04:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-08-2017 03:27 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-06-2017 08:56 PM)Barrett Wrote:  Despite my many disagreements (and admitted profound distaste for Trump), I agree with and applaud his decision re: military strikes against Syria.

For being such an obvious anti-semite and an obvious Putin stooge, Trump sure is hiding it well.

I'll remember this post for when the final reports are released from our intelligence agencies to see how well it ages. There is still too much smoke around his campaign/admin for me to think this one air strike completely debunks any connection.

Heck, Trump did give Russia a warning about the attack before the US Congress (not saying he should not have informed Russia)...

Considering not just the airstrike sir.

Have you also considered Russia's main economic driver, and how Trump is handling the EPA on certain issues, and how Trump is handling other issues in that arena?

Interesting that the obvious Putin stooge is looking and taking action, and amazingly aiding in other actions to break the back of Russia's main economic driver. Kind of an odd resume overall for a stooge or lackey, imo.

(04-09-2017 10:03 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-09-2017 09:32 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-08-2017 04:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-08-2017 03:27 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-06-2017 08:56 PM)Barrett Wrote:  Despite my many disagreements (and admitted profound distaste for Trump), I agree with and applaud his decision re: military strikes against Syria.

For being such an obvious anti-semite and an obvious Putin stooge, Trump sure is hiding it well.

I'll remember this post for when the final reports are released from our intelligence agencies to see how well it ages. There is still too much smoke around his campaign/admin for me to think this one air strike completely debunks any connection.

Heck, Trump did give Russia a warning about the attack before the US Congress (not saying he should not have informed Russia)...

Considering not just the airstrike sir.

Have you also considered Russia's main economic driver, and how Trump is handling the EPA on certain issues, and how Trump is handling other issues in that arena?

Interesting that the obvious Putin stooge is looking and taking action, and amazingly aiding in other actions to break the back of Russia's main economic driver. Kind of an odd resume overall for a stooge or lackey, imo.

I guess the alternative could be that Putin wanted the air strike and ordered Trump to do it.

(04-10-2017 01:47 PM)WoodlandsOwl Wrote:  How many natural gas pipelines run from ports on the Med and Atlantic into Central/Eastern Europe?

You want to screw the Russians? Export LNG from the US to Europe. If you don't have the pipeline infrastructure build it.

(04-10-2017 02:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 01:47 PM)WoodlandsOwl Wrote:  How many natural gas pipelines run from ports on the Med and Atlantic into Central/Eastern Europe?

You want to screw the Russians? Export LNG from the US to Europe. If you don't have the pipeline infrastructure build it.

Now that the Obama administration is out, and was not replaced with a replacement Obama, pipelines can actually be built. And fracking regulations will be eased. And permits on Federal lands will be increased. And so on and so on.

Saw a Goldman paper and speaker at industry conference that detailed their expectations on exploration and production given the new environment. Was rather eye-popping.

I also know some people that are behind the computational and econometric aspects of drilling and forecasting. They relayed to me much the same, and laughed when I mentioned the paper and speaker. They couldn't say as much, but I would lay dollars to donuts I know who Goldman leaned on to provide at least some of the analysis power.

Some are talking about a 4 fold increase in economically recoverable reserves in the next 7-9 years in the continental US.

(04-10-2017 03:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 02:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 01:47 PM)WoodlandsOwl Wrote:  How many natural gas pipelines run from ports on the Med and Atlantic into Central/Eastern Europe?

You want to screw the Russians? Export LNG from the US to Europe. If you don't have the pipeline infrastructure build it.

Now that the Obama administration is out, and was not replaced with a replacement Obama, pipelines can actually be built. And fracking regulations will be eased. And permits on Federal lands will be increased. And so on and so on.

Saw a Goldman paper and speaker at industry conference that detailed their expectations on exploration and production given the new environment. Was rather eye-popping.

I also know some people that are behind the computational and econometric aspects of drilling and forecasting. They relayed to me much the same, and laughed when I mentioned the paper and speaker. They couldn't say as much, but I would lay dollars to donuts I know who Goldman leaned on to provide at least some of the analysis power.

Some are talking about a 4 fold increase in economically recoverable reserves in the next 7-9 years in the continental US.

Can you explain some of this?

I thought domestic production of natural gas and oil exploded under Obama, so much so that it basically upended global markets, and that it is a glut of supply in both oil and gas that has curtailed energy production because it is too expensive to produce at the given cost.

Quote:Also, what Obama regulations are you talking about? I was only aware of the ones dealing with exploration on federal lands.

Quote:And same for pipelines. Other than DAPL, which ones were being delayed that dealt with domestic energy production and refinement?

(04-10-2017 04:47 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 03:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 02:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 01:47 PM)WoodlandsOwl Wrote:  How many natural gas pipelines run from ports on the Med and Atlantic into Central/Eastern Europe?

You want to screw the Russians? Export LNG from the US to Europe. If you don't have the pipeline infrastructure build it.

Now that the Obama administration is out, and was not replaced with a replacement Obama, pipelines can actually be built. And fracking regulations will be eased. And permits on Federal lands will be increased. And so on and so on.

Saw a Goldman paper and speaker at industry conference that detailed their expectations on exploration and production given the new environment. Was rather eye-popping.

I also know some people that are behind the computational and econometric aspects of drilling and forecasting. They relayed to me much the same, and laughed when I mentioned the paper and speaker. They couldn't say as much, but I would lay dollars to donuts I know who Goldman leaned on to provide at least some of the analysis power.

Some are talking about a 4 fold increase in economically recoverable reserves in the next 7-9 years in the continental US.

Can you explain some of this?

I thought domestic production of natural gas and oil exploded under Obama, so much so that it basically upended global markets, and that it is a glut of supply in both oil and gas that has curtailed energy production because it is too expensive to produce at the given cost.

Not only has the supply curve for oil been shoved leftwards by fracking, the secondary effect is that the cost of fracking itself has been shoved leftwards. In short, fracking has put a hard cap on the upward pressure based on Saudi swing production and OPEC action. Further, the prevalence of and advances in the practice, even in the face of steep antagonism by the administration for the last 8 years, has led to a system that the cost of fracking (and the ultimate cost of extraction at which fracking and shale work is economic) is in a steep decline. Report I saw indicated that fracking was currently a viable practice to sub-45 dollar a barrel oil at the present, sub-37 dollar in two years or less given the lifting of governmental pressures on the practice.

Quote:Also, what Obama regulations are you talking about? I was only aware of the ones dealing with exploration on federal lands.

Should read regulations and practices. The Obama administration has used a gamut of ancillary regulations to limit the use of fracking, in addition to the regulations directly involving the practice and the products used in the practice. Have seen requirements for wetlands issues when fracking, even though the wetlands issues were addressed in the preliminary permitting and primary drilling stages. Same for ecological impact requirements etc. In many cases the various parts of various federal agencies were requiring duplicative studies and requirements for the act.

I have no problem with some of the regulations in general, but in practice the previous administration had put a very heavy finger on the practice. Have some understanding that while the specific individual requirements will necessarily be eased in the short term, the idea of 'gang-banging' a project with multiples of the same steps will be curtailed. And wouldnt be surprised if some of the major requirements that were used ancillarily will be eased -- such as methane monitoring, frack practices, and frack product ingredients.

Finally, the US regulatory system used a somewhat underhanded methodology to thwart not just fracking in particular, but oil exploration and production in general. In short, the various agencies were shown to have supplied various outside groups with not necessarily public information with the intent of having the groups sue the EPA to gain a judicial notice for or against an interpretation of a rule.

The EPA would then quickly enter into a settlement agreement with the outside group that they were acting in concert with, and at the same time cutting the those groups a big fat settlement check. Many times the EPA would then use that ruling to enforce a particular interpretation against producers, who many times would then have the option of paying a 'fine' (expensive), or trying to gain legal respite (which means the regulatory appellate process within the agency itself, then to the administrative judicial route, both of which the producer would almost certainly lose, then after that was exhausted, the producer could then (after three years and a couple of million bucks or so) use the federal courts themselves.

If you watched the Gorsuch proceedings, one of the big caterwauls was his suspicion of the the Chevron doctrine, which says that an agency's findings should be given a hugely deferential weight in any Article 3 proceeding. And this is precisely why the progressives do not want anyone messing with the Chevron doctrine, which is the outcome of the preceding paragraph.

Since Carl Icahn is a running target for this practice noted above, considering he is now a 'regulation czar' (or somefink) should give an idea of where this practice might be headed. The additional threat to that mode of operation is the Gorsuch view on the Chevron doctrine.

Sorry for the long-winded post, but a lot of stuff working behind the scenes here.

Quote:And same for pipelines. Other than DAPL, which ones were being delayed that dealt with domestic energy production and refinement?

Mariner East 2 expansion and faced strong opposition both from the state and from Federal sources.

Others include US Oil Sands, Atlantic Sunrise, Penn East, Atlantic Coast are all delayed pending either/or state actions or federal resistance.

There are probably 20-25 other projects that were rejected or cancelled in the last two years and could be revamped in light of the new administration. Of course at least some were cancelled for economic reasons, like the Oregon LNG terminal and pipeline.

But, there are a number of projects internal to operations that never saw the light of a regulatory filing in the first place that may be very viable in the new atmosphere.

(04-11-2017 03:39 PM)JSA Wrote:  Melissa McCarthy's gonna be busy:

WASHINGTON (AP) — White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said Tuesday that Adolf Hitler "didn't even sink to using chemical weapons" — a comment at odds with Hitler's use of gas chambers to exterminate Jews during the Holocaust.

Spicer was attempting to discuss the horror of the chemical weapons attack last week in Syria, which the Trump administration is blaming on President Bashar Assad.

"We didn't use chemical weapons in World War II," said Spicer, adding that "someone as despicable as Hitler... didn't even sink to using chemical weapons."

Minutes later, Spicer delivered a garbled defense of his remarks in which he tried to differentiate between Hitler's actions and the gas attack on Syrian civilians last week. The attack in northern Syria left nearly 90 people dead, and Turkey's health minister said tests show sarin gas was used.

"I think when you come to sarin gas, there was no, he (Hitler) was not using the gas on his own people the same way that Assad is doing," Spicer said. "There was clearly ... I understand your point, thank you. There was not ... He brought them into the Holocaust center I understand that."

"I appreciate the clarification. That was not the intent," he said.

(04-11-2017 06:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The Obama administration was all against cheaper energy, but all too willing to take credit for the economic "recovery" that happened basically because of cheap energy. Obama didn't cause the economy to recover--to the extent that it did recover--fracking caused it. Obama just took credit for it, even though it happened despite, not because of, his efforts. Lying SOB.

(03-22-2017 09:39 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I havent seen anything substantive confirming or contradicting the FISA claims. Have to say anything dealing with FISA warrants (aside from a single unsourced newpaper article) should be considered speculative at best given the lack of information. In my mind, any claims about the FISA warrants or pursuing them are really nothing more than hearsay at this point.

And, until tangible evidence of eavesdropping or electronic surveillance is put forth, as has been promised by the President, going to regard the claims of that in much the same light that the claim that the Benghazi outpost was run over by people po'ed by a video.

Quote:The FBI and the Justice Department obtained the warrant targeting Carter Page’s communications after convincing a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judge that there was probable cause to believe Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power, in this case Russia, according to the officials.