Shale Oil Fiasco

[James Gautreau + 86]

White woman hated Hillary Clinton. Hated her. Didn't matter she was a woman. Didn't matter Trump was a pussy grabber. Anyone but her. 

[Guest]

We will see buddy. By the way haha, I love how casually you said ''his only issue are blacks'', lovely stuff.

He just may be a racist and he had racist policies in NY and so has issues with a whole group of people based on skin colour, but aside from that he's great at business and I'd vote for him.

Imagine your (presumably) Democratic reaction if Trump said that. I presume Warren and co would be all over it yeah? When racism comes from a Dem it's fine. Welcome to the circus shitshow of the USA folks.

TDS IS NOT A MYTH.

Edited December 15, 2019 by Guest

[James Gautreau + 86]

TFS is not a myth either, and it affects a whole hell of a lot more people. TDS has it's origins in fact. How could people back this guy who was an abject failure at everything he ever tried except as an TV entertainer. How could that be? 

[Guest]

5 hours ago, James Gautreau said:

How could people back this guy

I'll go out on a limb and say because the alternative was / is verging on evil.

But that's just my thoughts from England. I am sure you will get a few US responses. 

What's more worrying is that Dems can't believe they lost and are still asking your question 3 years later to themselves. You lost, like Remainers did. It happens. 

Edited December 16, 2019 by Guest

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

16 minutes ago, James Gautreau said:

But everything ordinary people use like what is contained in a typical Walmart is made in China. 

Or America, from petroleum that is mostly being produced in the "shale field fiasco." Take away that "stupid" shale oil and see what those items cost. We're talking about anything plastic, drugs, tires, and a whole lot more. And take away the shale oil and natural gas by-product and then back off and calculate how many people would have frozen to death during the Thanksgiving storm, or wouldn't have gotten their emergency operation. For decades we were held hostage by Saudi Arabia: had they not needed protection they would have raised the price of a barrel of oil to $300. I realize this thread has come unraveled, and we're actually debating a bombastic Republican president who owns the Senate along with the Supreme Court, along with a record stock market run and unemployment never seen since the Second War--running against a weak Democratic candidate (Biden) who can't hold a fluent stream of thought and may have a son with a bad history in Ukraine. Mr. Trump and just about everyone else in power is convinced that the US needs the Saudis, but not the Chinese. Today this is just about turned around. Who doesn't need a population of 1.5 billion people to buy American oil, soybeans and pigs and cattle, and iPhones, even if they swipe a little intellectual property? For Pete's sake, what have we gotten from the Saudis recently? Let's see: 9/11, the killings in Pensacola, Ashamco. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

35 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

Nah he loves the power and limelight too much? Plus still a lot he wants to achieve or continue doing I imagine?

You overlook that his wife is not happy with his being President.  She does not like it one bit. Now, if you were married to Melania and faced the prospect of her dumping you, would you continue blindly doing what you were doing?  Because I sure wouldn't. 

Next up, remember that Trump only prevailed in 2016 because of the electoral college vote distribution, not because of the popular vote..He would need to take Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin, at least, to b e re-elected.  those were razor-thin States n 2016.  an he do it again?   Answer:  unlikely. 

Trump hates to lose.  He does not do deals where he thinks there is this possibility of loss, he has never done that.  He is not the big risk-taker that you all seem to think he is.  He got rich only because Manhattan real estate went on this big upward swing as floor rents soared, otherwise he would have been flat broke.  It is the losses carry-forward that are sitting on his tax returns that keeps him from showing them, because those losses allow for no tax payments today.  I doubt the Trump Organization paid any taxes last year, not with those losses.  Are there embedded capital gains in those buildings?  Sure there are.  But those do not show up until a sale, and Trump does what any smart person would do:  need some cash, refinance the mortgage and take cash out.  Those buildings are his ATM Machine and allow him to buy golf courses and the rest of the nonsense, plus pay for Melania, who is a high-maintenance expense item. 

Because Trump hates to lose, he will not run.  That way he does not lose.  Who will run?  Probably, Pence.  I predict a Pence Administration would be far worse than a Trump Administration, for the average American and definitely for the rest of the planet, but I won't get into that debate here. Is there some democrat that can beat Pence?  I doubt it.  Is there a democrat that can beat Trump?  Unfortunately, yes, there are. And because that possibility is out there, even if not a probability but a mere possibility, Trump will end up not running again. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Jan van Eck said:

if you were married to Melania and faced the prospect of her dumping you, would you continue blindly doing what you were doing?  Because I sure wouldn't. 

You could have just stopped there Jan. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

7 minutes ago, James Gautreau said:

How could people back this guy who was an abject failure at everything he ever tried except as an TV entertainer. How could that be? 

Because every single one of the other candidates were far worse.  

People keep saying that the voters are stupid.  They are not.  They are disgusted, exasperated, turned off, and fed up with Beltway Washington. And that is the correct response.  Beltway Washington does nothing constructive, it sucks up huge, vast salaries, it spends astonishing amounts of money, and the American Public is just disgusted with it all.  So, they vote for someone who is an Outsider, and who is likely to seriously f$#k with the Establishment.  Middle Finger Time, folks. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

3 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

You could have just stopped there Jan. 

I am making it my Year 2020 Project to package up that Stewardess and send you a mail-order bride!

[James Gautreau + 86]

4 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

You overlook that his wife is not happy with his being President.  She does not like it one bit. Now, if you were married to Melania and faced the prospect of her dumping you, would you continue blindly doing what you were doing?  Because I sure wouldn't. 

Next up, remember that Trump only prevailed in 2016 because of the electoral college vote distribution, not because of the popular vote..He would need to take Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin, at least, to b e re-elected.  those were razor-thin States n 2016.  an he do it again?   Answer:  unlikely. 

Trump hates to lose.  He does not do deals where he thinks there is this possibility of loss, he has never done that.  He is not the big risk-taker that you all seem to think he is.  He got rich only because Manhattan real estate went on this big upward swing as floor rents soared, otherwise he would have been flat broke.  It is the losses carry-forward that are sitting on his tax returns that keeps him from showing them, because those losses allow for no tax payments today.  I doubt the Trump Organization paid any taxes last year, not with those losses.  Are there embedded capital gains in those buildings?  Sure there are.  But those do not show up until a sale, and Trump does what any smart person would do:  need some cash, refinance the mortgage and take cash out.  Those buildings are his ATM Machine and allow him to buy golf courses and the rest of the nonsense, plus pay for Melania, who is a high-maintenance expense item. 

Because Trump hates to lose, he will not run.  That way he does not lose.  Who will run?  Probably, Pence.  I predict a Pence Administration would be far worse than a Trump Administration, for the average American and definitely for the rest of the planet, but I won't get into that debate here. Is there some democrat that can beat Pence?  I doubt it.  Is there a democrat that can beat Trump?  Unfortunately, yes, there are. And because that possibility is out there, even if not a probability but a mere possibility, Trump will end up not running again. 

You're with the Mooch. He compares him to LBJ too, as LBJ realized after winning the presidency by the biggest margin in history (he's the only guy to ever get 60% of the vote), he was going to lose the next election by the largest margin ever. But I got to say, what color is the sky in your world? Mike Pence has the charisma of a statue. Nobody likes him. I think Dems could put up Rosanne Barr and  beat him. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,133]

1 hour ago, James Gautreau said:

Do you remember that minor event back in the 1930's called the Great Depression? It was started by tariffs, and escalation, and finally world trade shutdown. The stock market crash did not cause it. Tariffs did.

If you go with dumbo lame brain explanations...

The actual depression was started by the Brits/French inflating their currency to get out from under their WWI debts combined with the fact that both were not importing food anymore.  The commonwealths of both countries were likewise in massive debts as well.  The USA was not.  Tariffs in the 30's were in response to the massive devaluation of the Brits/French.  Same was true in the early 1920's when the Brits/French first tried to peddle off devalued money in lie of their debts. 

Who knew, the common known "truth" is yet again a lie peddled for their own ends.  Blaming tariffs instead of the TRUE cause: DEBT and currency manipulation. 

True, the culmination of those currency manipulations finally was felt in the 1929 stock market crash ... because the USA was a massive exporter.  When your GROSS drops by 25% or more on your exports.... profitability disappears.  Ergo: Stock market crash.  Also remember the USA was a massive exporter of AG product and Europe had stopped importing most of it as they had stopped killing each other and destroying each others farms.

End result was that in the 1930's and when WWII rolled around NO one in the USA would accept anything other than GOLD from either of them.  The end result was that the USA held all the worlds gold by the end of WWII which allowed them to change the system. 

EDIT: Also country after country was dropping the gold standard so they could.... print money

Edited December 15, 2019 by footeab@yahoo.com

[James Gautreau + 86]

9 minutes ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

Or America, from petroleum that is mostly being produced in the "shale field fiasco." Take away that "stupid" shale oil and see what those items cost. We're talking about anything plastic, drugs, tires, and a whole lot more. And take away the shale oil and natural gas by-product and then back off and calculate how many people would have frozen to death during the Thanksgiving storm, or wouldn't have gotten their emergency operation. For decades we were held hostage by Saudi Arabia: had they not needed protection they would have raised the price of a barrel of oil to $300. I realize this thread has come unraveled, and we're actually debating a bombastic Republican president who owns the Senate along with the Supreme Court, along with a record stock market run and unemployment never seen since the Second War--running against a weak Democratic candidate (Biden) who can't hold a fluent stream of thought and may have a son with a bad history in Ukraine. Mr. Trump and just about everyone else in power is convinced that the US needs the Saudis, but not the Chinese. Today this is just about turned around. Who doesn't need a population of 1.5 billion people to buy American oil, soybeans and pigs and cattle, and iPhones, even if they swipe a little intellectual property? For Pete's sake, what have we gotten from the Saudis recently? Let's see: 9/11, the killings in Pensacola, Ashamco. 

$200 oil is only a few months away. Would God really put enough oil on the earth for us to fry ourselves?

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

6 minutes ago, James Gautreau said:

I think Dems could put up Rosanne Barr and  beat him. 

And in 23016, the Dems could have run the Town Clerk of Hackensack, New Jersey and mopped the floor with Trump.  But no, they ran Clinton.  She of the Borg, all resistance is futile, you will b e absorbed......

Nope.  Did not quite work out that way.  The Clintonistas still run the Dem Party, and that is precisely why Pence is entirely likely to prevail.  It is not how good you are, it is how lousy the opponent is, that determines your success. 

Edited December 15, 2019 by Jan van Eck

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, James Gautreau said:

 Mike Pence has the charisma of a statue. Nobody likes him.

Well that's quite the statement when you've just told us all you'd happily vote for a racist.

You will forgive me if I value your personal opinions of candidates close to zero?

[James Gautreau + 86]

Some people think the Great Depression was caused by the gold standard. Opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one,but very few people want to get intimate with yours. All I know was things were going pretty good under Obama, a little less so under W, great under Clinton. Why the clamor for change? What was so bad? 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

I am making it my Year 2020 Project to package up that Stewardess and send you a mail-order bride!

Do you have Melania's number too? Try and fit her in the package.

Maybe she can confirm my ID here instead of a President or Mayor? 

Edited December 15, 2019 by Guest

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,133]

22 minutes ago, James Gautreau said:

Some people think the Great Depression was caused by the gold standard. Opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one,but very few people want to get intimate with yours. All I know was things were going pretty good under Obama, a little less so under W, great under Clinton. Why the clamor for change? What was so bad? 

WTO: Takes a while for a STUPID idiot decision to have effect sending your industry to a dictatorship country.  Other dumb ass decisions/lies like Iraq also have consequences that require a decade to come to fruition.  Same goes for WWI destruction/death and post WWI currency manipulation.

[remake it + 288]

Dear poster children please remember that when excreting the topic title is more about shale oil than fiasco.

[James Gautreau + 86]

Whitewater was about a real estate deal gone bad. Where did that end up? 

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

2 hours ago, James Gautreau said:

Would God really put enough oil on the earth for us to fry ourselves?

HaHaHaHa--Good One!

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

Begrudgingly, a tip of the hat to remake it for trying to wrest back this thread from TDS theatre to the topic of Shale Oil Fiasco.

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

trying to wrest back this thread from TDS theatre to the topic of Shale Oil Fiasco.

Haha the joke is the 'fiasco' of the thread itself, and the fact Doug said to me he was taking a break because of the circular arguments, then creates a thread that becomes just a circular echo chamber. Let me enlighten you ...

''Shale is shit and will fail soon''

''Nah it's great, look at these stats and technologies''.

''I don't agree with those stats. What technologies?''

There, that's the thread summed up for you all. We sorted it. Phew. 

16 pages of that pretty much. 

Edited December 15, 2019 by Guest

[James Gautreau + 86]

Hey i just come for the juicy titbits like Mike Pence will win in a landslide. 

[Guest]

Haaha I'll give you that one buddy LOL ... James so you know there is a thread ''Trump will win in 2020'' - you may enjoy it though I warn you possibly 5% is about Trump. But yeah Tom's right this is the sacred ''disagreeing about stats and questioning technologies'' thread. 

[remake it + 288]

A side note to the excellent technical debate in this thread is that over a year ago BHP sold off most of its LTO assets to BP having lost all up about $20B in its disastrous foray yet it has kept its conventional oil assets and retains this element as a key driver of profits going forward.

Edited December 16, 2019 by remake it
added "excellent technical debate"