The Donald Trump thread

Leonard D Neubache

Owl
Gold Member
iop890 said:
I'll never stop calling Rafael 'the Canadian Anchor Baby' Cruz a rat.

When Trump is president and Hillary is in jail dead I'll still be calling Lyin' Ted Cruz a rat.

When I'm 80 years old I'll be telling my grandchildren stories about the foolish El Rato that scurried down from the frozen land of leftist exiles, which was then a country called Canada, and thought he could stump the God-Emperor(Praise be!).

A billion years from now when the Earth is a deserted dry wasteland this post will be discovered by Imperial Archivists from the Galactic Empire of Trump and our distant descendants will know that Ted Cruz was a rat.
:laugh:
 

Leonard D Neubache

Owl
Gold Member
What's the Trump advert situation like over there at the moment. Is he still sitting on his media money?

It seems like he's doing the complete opposite of what most campaigns do, which is to advertise until the public become completely jaded and desensitised. Is he winding up for a last minute blitz that captures the imagination of the public close to polling day?
 

Thomas More

Hummingbird
^^^This is what I expect. I saw an article somewhere on Google News today saying he's ready to start some serious advertising buys.

It makes sense. He can have the strongest impact with a blitz of ads in the final weeks.
 

The Lizard of Oz

Crow
Gold Member
Dusty said:
By the way, some may have noticed I refer to him as "Mr Trump" now rather than "Trump." I noticed Fisto is doing that now too. I figure for all he is doing for this country, this show of respect is appropriate.
I disagree -- it's an affectation which is not necessary in any way.

Trump is just Trump, or T if you're being affectionate. One loves him but the fawning Mr. should be reserved for use by his glorious West Virginian butler or his deliciously La Cosa Nostra crew of beefy surrogates on the tube.
 

budoslavic

Peacock
Gold Member
A very good opinion piece written by Andrew Stein.

Party Loyalty Can’t Make Me Vote for Clinton
A lifelong Democrat, I’m backing Trump because he can shake up our politics and revive the economy.

By ANDREW STEIN
Sept. 21, 2016 6:50 p.m. ET

I have been steeped in the Democratic Party all my life. My father, Jerry, was a New York City Democratic chairman and power broker, and I grew up in and around the Democratic Party. When I was a young man, former senators and Democratic presidential and vice-presidential nominees Herbert Humphrey and Estes Kefauver stayed at my apartment and we would proudly discuss the great traditions of the Democratic Party.

My father was a pallbearer at St. Patrick’s for Bobby Kennedy’s funeral. When I was young, Robert F. Kennedy and John F. Kennedy were (and remain) my political heroes. Four years ago, former New York Gov. and liberal lion Mario Cuomo spoke at my father’s funeral. I think his son, current Gov. Andrew Cuomo, is a very effective leader.

I was elected five times to the New York state Assembly as a Democrat. In 1977, I beat David Dinkins and Robert Wagner Jr. in the election for borough president of Manhattan, and then was elected twice as City Council president.

With this background it is very hard for me not to support the Democratic nominee for president this year. But I believe my party has become the party of the elites and moneyed class and has deserted its historic mission as the party of the working class and disadvantaged.

Given my level of discomfort with the current leftist orientation of the Democratic Party, I am now supporting Republican nominee Donald Trump for president. I urge my fellow Democrats to vote for Mr. Trump. I have known him since the early 1970s and have seen his deep concern for people, and how effective he has been while working on behalf of the average citizen.

Donald Trump is no racist. On the contrary, he offers the best hope for rebuilding our inner cities and creating better education and jobs for those trapped in poverty and lacking hope. When a hurricane devastated Puerto Rico in 1984, I asked Mr. Trump to provide a 727 airliner to bring critical supplies to the island. He did so and without publicity. I asked him to rebuild the Wollman Skating Rink in Central Park because the city couldn’t complete it in 10 years. Mr. Trump did it in under six months and under budget.

While he has made some controversial and provocative statements, I strongly believe he will bring needed change and vitality to our nation and shake up our political system, which is in a state of crisis. He is for strong pro-growth policies like reducing the marginal and corporate tax rates and eliminating thousands of job-killing and business-stifling regulations, the biggest of which is ObamaCare.

Mr. Trump is also for rebuilding the military, which has been decimated by Obama’s dangerous cuts and sequestration. He is a strong supporter of Israel and will not abandon our allies in the Mideast and around the world. Unlike Hillary Clinton, he will not allow tens of thousands of immigrants who cannot be vetted properly to come to the U.S.

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is the personification of the establishment and status quo. She voted for the war in Iraq and supported the Iran nuclear deal, two of the worst, and most-dangerous, mistakes in American foreign policy during my lifetime.

Everywhere in the world America’s position is far worse now thanks in large measure to her actions as secretary of state. The whole saga of her private unsecure emails and server and the appearance of massive pay-for-play at the Clinton Foundation are also profoundly troubling.

Her domestic record is as bad as her international one. When Mrs. Clinton was elected to the Senate, she promised to create 200,000 new jobs in upstate New York. When she left office in January 2009, the region had a net loss of 8,000 jobs. Now she promises to create 10 million new jobs in the nation. Why should we believe that she will do that, based on her failed record in New York state?

Sometimes a break with your own party is compelled by events. This is not to say it is an easy decision politically or personally. It can be wrenching. In 1973 I was appointed by Gov. Nelson Rockefeller to be chairman of a commission to investigate patient abuse and massive Medicaid fraud in the New York state nursing-home industry—which was extensively covered by the press. The nursing homeowners were protected by the Democratic leadership in the state Assembly. I had to fight those leaders in my own party to get the needed reforms passed.

As President Kennedy once said to his trusted speechwriter and confidante Arthur Schlesinger Jr., “Sometimes party loyalty asks too much.” This is the case in this election. I believe Donald Trump will make a great president and I ask my fellow Democrats to vote for him. The future of the nation may very well depend on it.

Mr. Stein, who held elective office in New York between 1969 and 1994, is now a business consultant.
 

Wutang

Hummingbird
Gold Member
Was just at his rally in Chester. Some observations:

- First part of rally he focused a lot on African Americans. A point he made was that the biggest victims of crimes committed in the hood are ordinary, law-abiding blacks. After that he also talked a lot about women and mentioned the family/child care plan that him and Ivanka had rolled out. He also mentioned the deplorable comments and how he is for everyone in the country even people who aren't voting for him because unlike Hillary he still believes people have a right to their own opinions. Scott Adams and others had been talking for months about how Trump was eventually going to try and present an image as an unifier and he was hitting that theme hard tonight. He even brought up how it's a tragedy that a black kid can be shot while walking to the store which I thought was a bit risky since it brings up images of Traveyon Martin and we all know how emotionally charged his base can get over that.

- Thanked cops a lot and talked about we don't show them enough respect and support

- Despite that, he still again brought up how Mexico is going to pay for the wall, unfair trade deals, NAFTA, and keeping factories and plants in the United States to make sure to satisfy his base and to show he hasn't strayed from some core points. He specifically said something about how companies that insist on moving their plants abroad will be charged a 35% tax/tariff when they sell their products in the United States.

- Tele-prompter was in full effect tonight with Trump being mostly disciplined in adhering to it.

- Made a comment about how the media is saying Hillary is preparing hard for the debates and that's why she hasn't been seen in public but that he thinks she's really just sleeping :lol:

- And to chargin of Lizard of Oz, Bobby Knight was the opening act before Trump came on stage

- One protestor inside got kicked out and Trump made some sort of comment about how Sanders people have no energy cause they just leave if you ask them to leave. There was a protest going on outside as well but it was mostly quiet and unassuming. A couple of the protesters had Sanders signs, some people just don't know when to quit.
 

MongolianAbroad

Ostrich
Gold Member
username said:
A few days ago I told my friend, "when it looks inevitable that Trump is going to win a bunch of people that would never endorse him before all of a sudden will come out and support him." Looks like we are getting to that point.
Agreed, that is happening.

Jeb was my favorite, seemed like a stable, reasonable choice until I saw him perform on stage and it seemed like he didn't really want the presidency, while Trump clearly desired it. So then Trump was my favorite until he decided to make fun of the handicapped fellow and get into it with the Federal Judge, that's where I put the brakes on, and started looking at Gary Johnson.

Things could have stayed there, until the "Basket of Deplorables" thing, that didn't sit well with me at all.

Meanwhile, Obama went over to the Philippines to try to tell Duterte how to run his country. That didn't sit well with me, the Filipino people elected the man, and what he's doing is keeping his campaign promises, to follow Obama's wishes would be to betray the folks that put him in office. Whatever Obama's views on the matter, I would have preferred if he'd kept them to himself instead of fulfilling the "Arrogant American" stereotype. After all, before the incident, you didn't hear Duterte talking about how he was going to bring up our drone strikes, our regime changes, or our imprisoning folks at Guantanamo at the next meeting. Obama could have returned the favor and simply kept things cordial, but he just couldn't, he had to presume moral superiority and talk down to the leader of a nation of 100 million that's a strong ally of ours.

That wasn't cool, I think a president like Trump would have empathized more with the problems unique to the Philippines and understood that what works for us may not work for them, and that it's disrespectful to be presumptuous enough to assert otherwise. It's the same thing with the Egyptian and Russian leaders, I think Trump understands that each country has its own set of problems and we, Americans, don't have a monopoly on the solutions to those problems.

So here we are.

I suppose it's much ado about nothing, I'm from Texas and Texas isn't in play anyhow.

Still, I think you're right, Trump's gotten a lot more reasonable lately, and Clinton's "Basket of Deplorables" comment was ill advised.
 

Duke Castile

Crow
Gold Member
The Lizard of Oz said:
Dusty said:
By the way, some may have noticed I refer to him as "Mr Trump" now rather than "Trump." I noticed Fisto is doing that now too. I figure for all he is doing for this country, this show of respect is appropriate.
I disagree -- it's an affectation which is not necessary in any way.

Trump is just Trump, or T if you're being affectionate. One loves him but the fawning Mr. should be reserved for use by his glorious West Virginian butler or his deliciously La Cosa Nostra crew of beefy surrogates on the tube.
When I'm speaking about someone on a forum I will normally use their last name.

When I am speaking to another person, especially someone older than me, I will call them Sir, Ma'am, Mr., Mrs. etc.

I cringed in the video with Senator Sessions when Sam said "Can you give TRUMP a message"?

I know guys like Senator Sessions. I'm from Alabama. He's the epitome of a gentleman, and I'm sure while he did listen to Sam, he didn't like the lack of respect shown.

I'm not bashing Sam, I'm glad he got his message across and that is the main point.

Now when I refer to Mr. Trump on the forum or in conversation, I use the Mr because I hold great respect for the man, and I agree with Dusty, he deserves it.

Other people can speak however they want, but I'm old school and I believe these are basic manners.
 

Last Parade

Pelican
Spaniard88 said:
So then Trump was my favorite until he decided to make fun of the handicapped fellow and get into it with the Federal Judge, that's where I put the brakes on, and started looking at Gary Johnson.
It was conclusively determined that Trump wasn't making fun of the "handicapped fellow", his action was one he had done before & after including one time mocking Ted Cruz. That correction was never reported in the mainstream media, of course.

Regarding the judge, there were compelling arguments that his parents weren't actually citizens when he was born here thus making him, quite literally, an anchor baby. Even if his parents were "naturalized", it seems logical there's an opportunity for bias based on his familial history & upbringing (not to mention his ongoing membership in various "La Raza" organizations). Attacking a judge is distasteful, I'll agree, but that is Trump's style: counterattack regardless of who you are.

Speaking of which, I am interested how those were the two moments that bothered you but you didn't cite his "feud with a gold star family", which was more damaging to his stature than either of those other incidents. I am also curious since those two were spaced out so far apart (November and June, I think).

Regarding Obama: not only did Obama go to the Philippines to shit on Duterte, but he also went to the United Kingdom and overtly threatened them if they proceeded with Brexit. And when it succeeded all he could sputter out was a "hehe just kidding guys". This week he was at U.N. earnestly promoting globalism and denigrating the rise of nationalistic populism. So yeah, he's a bit of a cunt.

While Texas isn't a concern like you said, I'm still hoping that Trump fans in uncompetitive states (whether red or blue) still come out en masse for him. Imagine he sets the record for most votes ever received in an election... that'd be yuge. 70 million votes would do it, would be great to send a message. Of course, that would break Obama's record too, and for Obama to turn over the White House to Trump instead of Clinton is just too great to think about.
 

komatiite

Pelican
Gold Member
I am getting ready for one of the biggest anti-TRUMP narrative assaults of the campaign. To this point, I don't think the media has really started to begin its attack on Mr Trump's climate skepticism yet, but I am starting to see some rumblings that indicate that the tone will begin to change. Two recent things caught my eye:

1. 375 Scientists including 30 Nobel Prize winners and even Stephen Hawking have signed an open letter that slams Trump's position as a 'denier.'

2. Mark Wahlberg is releasing a hit-piece documentary on the Macondo Deepwater Horizon BP oil spill. To be released on September 30th. Remember that the Gulf of Mexico has so much oil under it that the equivalent of 5 million barrels of oil seep out every year naturally, and although 4.9 million additional barrels were lost to the sea during the blowout, the Gulf of Mexico has a flourishing microbiological community that has broken down hydrocarbons for millions of years. I suppose I come across as an apologist for the incident when I say shit like that but it's not like it was the Apocalypse that everyone made it out to be, I was just a lot more sad to see some workers perished in the accident, I've worked rigs and it made me sick to think something like that could happen. A lot of people fucked up and I feel for them all, just realize that a corporation doesn't want to lose 5 million barrels of oil profit, so there weren't sinister motives behind this like the media seems to want you to think.

Do not fall victim to the Global Warming Hype Machine. It is a systematic effort to do two things: destroy the economies of Oil-Rich Red States, and lead to a state-controlled energy industry. I feel that the liberal brainwashing may be too far gone though, check out this Yale study from July:

72% of the American population is in some way concerned about anthropogenic global warming! Al Gore's lasting legacy will be how he and Michael Mann have convinced the country that global warming is a very real issue, one of the greatest anti-American, anti-Capitalist and anti-industrialization con jobs of all time. Even in the oil industry, half of the retards I work with believe in this garbage, because of the incredible media saturation it receives, and the fact that it is hammered into everyone in the education system.

I just want to touch on something anecdotal for those who may read this that truly believe "The Science is Settled" because predictive models suggest things like Miami will be flooded out by rising sea levels in the next few years.

Many people espouse the ironclad credibility of 'climate models.' I have done a lot of work in petroleum reservoir simulation, which isn't exactly the best analogy for comparison to climate models, but it gives a good idea on how data can be manipulated in a model to fit a narrative. Basically, in order to predict the future value of an oil field, we will utilize predictive methods based on past history using production volumes, rock properties (porosity, permeability, fluid saturations), pressure and aquifer influence gleaned from the other wells drilled in the area. Say a production field was kicked off in 2005, and at the current time, we want to predict how much oil we will produce by 2025. Or you want to test the viability of drilling more wells. So we will fuck around with inputs using geostatistical methods such as Kriging and try to match the past decade of production with the software, and once we have a close 'history match,' we will forecast the future using this 'accurate' model using a complex conjugate gradient linear algebra-based timestepping method. Surprise surprise, the results are usually pretty poor, and it is assumed that at most 15% of reservoir models are accurate. Despite having all sorts of data points (core, drill cutting samples, well logs, production volumes, high-resolution 3D seismic imaging), it is really hard to predict future behavior for these models -- it is just hard to model all of these moving parts, even in a relatively small closed system like an oil reservoir.


Picture of a reservoir model, with well data indicated by the vertical sticks

So how the hell can a climactic model be any different? In a reservoir model, I am 'only' dealing with a couple dozen variables, meanwhile these complex open-system climate models can have up to 200 variables, a testament to all of the moving parts in our Earth such as atmospheric composition, solar activity, geological activity, oceanic variability, etc. They use the same method we use in the oil industry when making models, wherein a 'history match' of old climate data is emulated by the model, then use that model to forecast the future. Although they use the word 'Hindcasting' instead of 'History Matching.' I just don't see how all of the scientific and technological research into creating accurate models in the oil industry can be so inaccurate (where a company's ass is on the line with real money and investors), but these models pumped out by government scientists and University Professors (funded by Pro-Global Warming entities) with NO financial ramifications if they are wrong are treated as gospel. I am not trying to say that I am an authority on climate models but as an experienced petroleum reservoir simulation engineer, I have SERIOUS doubts on the validity of any history-matched climate model. In the words of Richard Feynman, Science is the organized skepticism in the reliability of expert opinion. And there is PLENTY of reason to be skeptical of the 97% of scientists who claim that the 'science is settled,' I have not even discussed The Pause wherein global climate hasn't risen in the last 20 years. It is fair to question Big Global Warming!

***

Obama's manufactured oil price fall (and I can confidently say that the price fall is manufactured because there is no other reason for him to lift sanctions on Iran and flood the market with Persian oil) will lead to two end results that benefit the leftist agenda:
-Cripple Russia Economically
-Destroy the mid-level US Shale producer. There is NO greater threat to the Green Energy industry than Shale Gas. Because of an incredible invention by a small Canadian company called Packers Plus (the ball-drop multi-stage frac), trillions of cubic feet of natural gas have been unlocked, depressing the price of gas. The end result of this is the government now has zero justification to subsidize Green Energy companies, as they are not competitive in a marketplace where natural gas is so cheap. The only way to make green technology competitive is by crushing the mid-level US Shale producer with this prolonged price crash, then as oil and gas prices skyrocket, Green Energy becomes more viable. Don't get me wrong, I fully support green energy (I have an off-the-grid cabin with solar panels!), but it has its economic limitations, and cannot replace cheap hydrocarbons in an industrialized economy in its current state. If Green Energy can get to the point where it competes with hydrocarbons organically, then let's roll. I'll switch industries and get a job doing geothermal resource exploration. But until it can compete in a free market (the Green experiment in Ontario has proven to be a total economic disaster) while being held to the same environmental standards as the oil industry is, then I will remain cynical:


I think Obama found himself in a bit of a catch-22 during his term. He hates the concept of the oil industry, as seen by the fact that he taxes major companies like Exxon at a higher rate than Apple, despite Apple having a higher market capitalization:
Apple's market capitalization of $730 billion may now be more than double that of Exxon Mobil, but when it comes to taxes paid to the US government, it's no contest: the company with record profitability that so many progressive hipsters adore and for whose products they line up with annual regularity is billions of dollars below its "fair" contribution to the US Treasury. Ironically, it is eclipsed by that other company that so many progressives love to hate: Exxon Mobil, which paid $4 billion more in tax than Apple, yet whose valuation has been cut by 15% over the past year as a result of the collapse in oil prices.
But it was this demonic industry that kept his ass alive during his term, as the new fracking technologies floated the economy when the gettin' was good. Benny Shapiro can explain this better than I can:
If I am right, and the oil price collapse is a systematic effort to cripple US Shale by the leftist US government in cahoots with their OPEC allies, then prices will eventually skyrocket again with only the heavily taxed mega-corporations (corrupted by PC culture in their own right) left standing. This will green light a massive subsidy for Green Energy, as the high price of oil and gas will provide justification for this. As such, the US government will indirectly run a nationalized energy industry.

However, the mid-level US Shale industry is scrappy as hell, and have really streamlined their drilling efficiency, and shale oil and gas still remains competitive at $45 oil. It is a true testament to the innovative mind of the engineering brilliance in the American oil industry, despite government opposition in the form of regulatory red tape. I was at an SPE conference a while ago and a Packers Plus rep was telling me that their fastest-growing customer is Aramco -- a sign that their easy reserves are gone too, and they are now drilling long horizontal monsters of their own in the shitty, unconventional rock. That's why Obama lifted the sanctions on Iran -- the US Shale industry has held on for longer than expected, so a hopeful market flood of Iranian oil will hopefully cripple them for good, much to the chagrin of the Saudis who couldn't snuff out their American competitors alone.

***

So where does this bring us with respect to Trump? He has already established a strong relationship with Harold Hamm, a guy with a high school education who single-handedly put the Bakken Shale play on the map, becoming a billionaire in the process. Hamm basically wrote the Trump speech where he addressed the oil industry:
(This was on the same day he clinched the 1237 primary delegates and I saw him LIVE later that afternoon in Billings MT!)
It was a great speech, he has bought into the concept of American Energy Independence, wherein American energy will fuel the new dawn of American industrialization. Making America an exporter, and putting Saudi Arabia and their Wahhabi bullshit out of business. Employing Americans and even throwing Canada a bone with the Keystone XL pipeline. Cutting out these meddling government regulatory middlemen. Yes, opposition to environmental regulations makes me sound like a total industry shill, but as long as proper frac fluids/field waste disposal is required and inspection requirements for field equipment like pipelines is enforced, I don't think there will be any problems. In fact, horizontal drilling/fracking is better for the environment than drilling vertical wells, because you can drill far fewer wells (smaller surface footprint) with much higher productivity.

Trump has floated Harold Hamm as a candidate for Secretary of Energy back in July. And this week, he has edged a bit closer to putting together a truly pro-business cabinet as rumors are circulating the implementation of Forrest Lucas as Secretary of the Interior:
An oil industry executive who has spoken out against animal rights is a leading contender for Interior secretary should Donald Trump win the White House, two sources familiar with the campaign’s deliberations told POLITICO on Monday — a prospect that drew immediate condemnation from environmental activists.

Forrest Lucas, the 74-year-old co-founder of oil products company Lucas Oil, is well-known in his native Indiana, where in 2006 he won the naming rights to Lucas Oil Stadium, the home of the Indianapolis Colts football team, for a reported $121.5 million over 20 years. He and his wife have given a combined $50,000 to the gubernatorial campaigns of Trump's running mate, Mike Pence, according to Indiana state records.

Lucas’ company, California-based Lucas Oil, is a fast-growing manufacturer of automotive oils, lubricants and other additives used in everything from cars to heavy-duty trucks.

One person briefed by the Trump campaign said Lucas is a “front-runner” for the Interior secretary job. The person, who was granted anonymity to talk about private discussions, added that Trump wants a “more business-friendly and business experience-heavy cabinet.”

But environmentalists quickly excoriated the idea of an oil industry executive leading the department that oversees national parks and wildlife refuges, along with decisions about offshore drilling, fracking regulations and protections for endangered species.

"Putting an oil executive in charge of our public lands and precious coasts in places like North Carolina, Virginia and Florida is a virtual guarantee that Trump's promise to throw open season on drilling in our special places will come true if he's elected," said Khalid Pitts, the Sierra Club's national political director.

David Turnbull, the campaigns director at anti-fossil-fuels group Oil Change USA, worried that Trump's Cabinet could be full of people with ties to the oil industry. They include Harold Hamm, the CEO of Oklahoma oil company Continental Resources, who has emerged as a possible pick for Trump's energy secretary.

"Catering to an industry dead-set on continued expansion of oil and gas drilling is not only totally out of step with climate science, but it's also out of step with the majority of Americans who are calling for a swift transition to clean energy and robust action on climate change," Turnbull said in an email.

It would be nearly unprecedented for major oil executive to get the top job in the Interior Department. Current Secretary Sally Jewell was an engineer for Mobil Oil early in her career and often touts her experience fracking wells, although she is best known as a conservationist and former outdoor retail executive.

Lucas’ nomination would be a coup for the oil and gas industry, which has battled President Barack Obama’s Interior Department for years over everything from Endangered Species Act listings to access to federal lands for drilling. Trump has cultivated close ties to the oil industry, which was once skeptical of his campaign for president.

"In a lot of ways, having an oil and gas friendly person in the Interior Department is more important to the oil and gas industry than having someone friendly at the Energy Department," one industry official said.

Nominating Lucas would also break with the long-standing tradition of Interior secretaries coming from Western states.

It would also likely draw rebukes from animal rights groups. Lucas, who owns a ranch and serves on Trump’s agriculture advisory committee, is one of the biggest donors to groups that attack the Humane Society and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and defend animal agriculture, hunting, meat consumption, rodeos and circuses.

Another source with knowledge of the transition operation said Lucas was on a short list of about five names that are under consideration for the post, which has started to attract considerable interest from prominent “anti-conservation zealots.” Donald Trump Jr., an avid hunter, has also publicly expressed interest in the job.
Earlier this year, Lucas financed and produced a feature film called “The Dog Lover,” which portrays dog breeders and puppy mills as being unfairly targeted by animal rights groups. The movie was backed by Protect the Harvest, a nonprofit founded and chaired by Lucas, that says it’s “Keeping America Free, Fed & Fun!” In 2014, Lucas gave $250,000 to the Protect the Harvest PAC, records show.

Roger Ebert's website called the movie “shamelessly manipulative” and “a pretty bald piece of anti-[Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals] and/or PETA propaganda,” noting that the movie ends with a call to moviegoers to look into animal welfare groups before donating to them.

Animal rights supporters were quick to point out Monday that Lucas had put up hundreds of thousands of dollars into fighting an "anti-puppy mill" ballot measure in Missouri that was approved by voters in 2010.

"Forrest Lucas is a peevish advocate of trophy hunting, puppy mills and big agribusiness, and has never met a case of animal exploitation he wouldn’t defend," said Michael Markarian, president of the Humane Society Legislative Fund, which backed the measure in Missouri.

Lucas’ wife, Charlotte, who co-founded Lucas Oil, came under fire in 2014 for a Facebook post that criticized Muslims and atheists. "I'm sick and tired of minorities running our country!” she wrote, according to news reports at the time. She later apologized.

Lucas has donated more than $150,000 to a slew of Republican candidates and causes since 2006, but records do not show any donations to Trump. In an interview last year, Lucas did not sound particularly enthused about the New York City real estate mogul.

Asked if he would be comfortable with Trump getting the GOP nomination, Lucas responded: “It would be like when Obama got elected. I’d say, ‘I don’t really like it, but I have no choice and I’ll have to make the best of it.’”

A Trump campaign spokeswoman did not respond to a request for comment. Lucas could not immediately be reached and his office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Shit like this should terrify the cultural Marxists who have worked so hard to push the global warming narrative, hence my concerns that he will quickly get eviscerated for this tweet back in the day:


I think it would be risky to play the angle of full out climate denial in a stage such as a presidential debate. I can already see them putting some little girl up on the Facebook social media camera during the Anderson Cooper-hosted second debate, asking how he will mortgage the future of America by being a climate denier. Maybe Chris Wallace will make another Power Point Slide Show with all of his climate skeptic tweets.

Back in Alberta in 2012, an upstart, grassroots right-wing party was running for provincial leadership. They had a woman named Danielle Smith running against the establishment party, and she was doing great in the polls. However, her campaign turned on a dime during a town hall where she was asked about climate change, and she responded:
"We have always said the science isn't settled and we need to continue to monitor the debate,"
She lost the election in humiliating fashion, as that statement solidified her as a 'Science Denying Inbred Hick.'

Instead, if the attacks begin, I hope Mr Trump focuses on a message of economic optimism. We cannot cripple our economy by crushing the oil industry. We cannot continue buying conflict oil from Islamic nations or countries like Venezuela with horrible human rights record. We cannot handicap our own production while other developing nations such as China and India continue to pollute without remorse as their economies pass America's. We will develop responsibly, but confidently, as we lead the next generation into an American energy revolution.

***

That was a long post, but I am pretty passionate about the business, why would I bother working in a field that I have no interest in. We are in a bleak time right now in this business, and I truly feel that Donald Trump will lead to a seismic change in an industry that sorely needs it, for a resource that the country needs. And I want to add that I don't believe in the mega-corporation corporate monopoly over the industry -- I will defend the junior and intermediate sized companies to the death, because that's why I went into the oil business... I have dreams of breaking out with a couple guys I went to school with and staking out own claim. The exploration process, the sleepless nights sitting out on the rig waiting for the well logger to finish up collecting data so I can decide whether or not to call the cement truck and plug up a dry hole or calling in the completions crew to run casing, with millions of dollars on the line... It is exciting as hell and I want to get a taste of it, but the constant demonization of the industry can get demoralizing over time.

I leave you with a classic Paul Joseph Watson piece on climate change:
 

MongolianAbroad

Ostrich
Gold Member
Last Parade said:
Spaniard88 said:
So then Trump was my favorite until he decided to make fun of the handicapped fellow and get into it with the Federal Judge, that's where I put the brakes on, and started looking at Gary Johnson.
Speaking of which, I am interested how those were the two moments that bothered you but you didn't cite his "feud with a gold star family", which was more damaging to his stature than either of those other incidents. I am also curious since those two were spaced out so far apart (November and June, I think).

Regarding Obama: not only did Obama go to the Philippines to shit on Duterte, but he also went to the United Kingdom and overtly threatened them if they proceeded with Brexit. And when it succeeded all he could sputter out was a "hehe just kidding guys". This week he was at U.N. earnestly promoting globalism and denigrating the rise of nationalistic populism. So yeah, he's a bit of a cunt.
I purposely focused my attention elsewhere and stopped following the news, so I didn't really keep track of the gold star thing.

And on the Obama thing, that's a perfect example, I would have appreciated it if he kept his focus on America and let the Brits manage themselves.

I like how Trump isn't afraid to respect Putin as a strong leader. I'm not saying Putin's perfect, but it's nice when we can have disagreements, even fundamental disagreements, with folks and still respect where they're coming from and refrain from talking down to them.
 

philosophical_recovery

Hummingbird
Gold Member
komatiite said:
[Awesome post snipped]
Great point about the computer models. I've got a lot of experience in similar areas. It takes a LOT of computation power to capture all of the physics of a small portion of a system.

Companies have supercomputers modeling the airflow around all the junk under car hoods, for instance, because they want to make sure the radiator gets enough flow and enough cooling gets to everything else in the stream. And they're still off by some % from reality. And they may miss some things because it's always a simplification.

Modeling the climate can only use a limited data set. You have to make a conscious choice of what to include and what to not include, by the fact that you'll never have all of the variables. You can rationalize not putting in certain variables because they're "not significant". This judgement call, however, can be very wrong. Chaotic systems like the climate are very sensitive to small things. There's no way you can capture all the effects.

It's horseshit and it's always been horseshit. The climategate scandal showed a lot of the "massaging" of data being made. Not to mention the fact that billions of dollars are flowing into this make-work academic program and thus people are publishing to keep their cushy jobs.

Access to cheap power makes climate change irrelevant. Make enough power via something like nuclear, and you can transmute and do all the chemical processing of whatever substance you need. Lots and lots of power gives you air conditioning, transport, huge computation banks, energy for space travel, etc. without much consequence. There's probably also ways to use excess power to manipulate the climate locally.

Only when we start actually manipulating weather and climate locally, because we have the technology and available power, will we predict anything with real certainty. Kicking all of our existing power infrastructure in the balls, stagnating progress, and making the poor non-elite pay more for energy just delays understanding.
 

Penta Sahi

Kingfisher
komatiite said:
Here is an epic article written by some former Gawker writer at Deadspin. Basically since Gawker crashed out, the sports site Deadspin has become Gawker-Lite at Univision, eschewing sports for politics.

Archive: http://archive.is/2j2n4 (screenshots dont seem to come up, click grey squares to go to original OPs on the forums)
Original: http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/that-idiot-on-your-hunting-message-board-might-be-donal-1786882492

In short, it shows that Donald Trump Jr. is much like us, an active Forum Poster, although instead of RVF he hits up fishing, hunting, gun, and bow forums. He goes by the username of DJTJR and just likes shooting the shit with the boys and posting pics of his hunts. Here he is on "Long Range Hunting Forum" with some pics of a bighorn sheep he got, not sure why the Gawker woman is so offended because that is one of the tastiest meats on'e can eat.
http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f92/headed-ak-75927/

I like how he posts up on a forum "Introduction Thread" as a newcomer from the "People's Republic of New York" LOL!

NOTHING beats a snarky left wing woman like Ashley Feinberg talking a bunch of shit about a dude who enjoys posting on hunting forums. You stupid retard, this just makes us support Trump more!
Lots of people in that comment section saying how the piece shows nothing except that Trump Jr has hobbies and goes on forums to talk about them.

That piece really doesn't reveal anything new or juicy. What a waste of time.

As for Ashley Feinberg, she probably got a lot of lefty points for that piece, but in the end she will die fat and alone, except from her horde of cats.
 

komatiite

Pelican
Gold Member
philosophical_recovery said:
komatiite said:
[Awesome post snipped]
Great point about the computer models. I've got a lot of experience in similar areas. It takes a LOT of computation power to capture all of the physics of a small portion of a system.

Companies have supercomputers modeling the airflow around all the junk under car hoods, for instance, because they want to make sure the radiator gets enough flow and enough cooling gets to everything else in the stream. And they're still off by some % from reality. And they may miss some things because it's always a simplification.

Modeling the climate can only use a limited data set. You have to make a conscious choice of what to include and what to not include, by the fact that you'll never have all of the variables. You can rationalize not putting in certain variables because they're "not significant". This judgement call, however, can be very wrong. Chaotic systems like the climate are very sensitive to small things. There's no way you can capture all the effects.

It's horseshit and it's always been horseshit. The climategate scandal showed a lot of the "massaging" of data being made. Not to mention the fact that billions of dollars are flowing into this make-work academic program and thus people are publishing to keep their cushy jobs.

Access to cheap power makes climate change irrelevant. Make enough power via something like nuclear, and you can transmute and do all the chemical processing of whatever substance you need. Lots and lots of power gives you air conditioning, transport, huge computation banks, energy for space travel, etc. without much consequence. There's probably also ways to use excess power to manipulate the climate locally.

Only when we start actually manipulating weather and climate locally, because we have the technology and available power, will we predict anything with real certainty. Kicking all of our existing power infrastructure in the balls, stagnating progress, and making the poor non-elite pay more for energy just delays understanding.
Yes Nuclear, forgot to mention that. A 99% safe, emissions free energy source that has been screwed over by environmental regulation. Even Bernie Sanders wouldn't buy into it. Anything to cripple domestic productivity and prop up OPEC I guess. Another thing to add is that I guarantee that none of these left wing bloggers who bitch about the precious environment have ever stepped outside of their little Brooklyn communities and gotten a taste of the great outdoors. Instead they mock a guy like Don Trump Jr for posting forum questions on good equipment to buy for his next remote Alaska trip. I can assure you that most of these "rednecks" with interests in guns, fishing, hunting, sledding and other outdoor activities would fight a lot harder than any Limousine Liberal would for the environment, it is such a scam
 

Lizard King

Pelican
Penta Sahi said:
komatiite said:
Here is an epic article written by some former Gawker writer at Deadspin. Basically since Gawker crashed out, the sports site Deadspin has become Gawker-Lite at Univision, eschewing sports for politics.

Archive: http://archive.is/2j2n4 (screenshots dont seem to come up, click grey squares to go to original OPs on the forums)
Original: http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/that-idiot-on-your-hunting-message-board-might-be-donal-1786882492

In short, it shows that Donald Trump Jr. is much like us, an active Forum Poster, although instead of RVF he hits up fishing, hunting, gun, and bow forums. He goes by the username of DJTJR and just likes shooting the shit with the boys and posting pics of his hunts. Here he is on "Long Range Hunting Forum" with some pics of a bighorn sheep he got, not sure why the Gawker woman is so offended because that is one of the tastiest meats on'e can eat.
http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f92/headed-ak-75927/

I like how he posts up on a forum "Introduction Thread" as a newcomer from the "People's Republic of New York" LOL!

NOTHING beats a snarky left wing woman like Ashley Feinberg talking a bunch of shit about a dude who enjoys posting on hunting forums. You stupid retard, this just makes us support Trump more!
Lots of people in that comment section saying how the piece shows nothing except that Trump Jr has hobbies and goes on forums to talk about them.

That piece really doesn't reveal anything new or juicy. What a waste of time.

As for Ashley Feinberg, she probably got a lot of lefty points for that piece, but in the end she will die fat and alone, except from her horde of cats.
Mr. Trump's children are very down to earth people despite not having a typical existence.
 

Sooth

Pelican
Gold Member
Lizard King said:
Penta Sahi said:
komatiite said:
Here is an epic article written by some former Gawker writer at Deadspin. Basically since Gawker crashed out, the sports site Deadspin has become Gawker-Lite at Univision, eschewing sports for politics.

Archive: http://archive.is/2j2n4 (screenshots dont seem to come up, click grey squares to go to original OPs on the forums)
Original: http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/that-idiot-on-your-hunting-message-board-might-be-donal-1786882492

In short, it shows that Donald Trump Jr. is much like us, an active Forum Poster, although instead of RVF he hits up fishing, hunting, gun, and bow forums. He goes by the username of DJTJR and just likes shooting the shit with the boys and posting pics of his hunts. Here he is on "Long Range Hunting Forum" with some pics of a bighorn sheep he got, not sure why the Gawker woman is so offended because that is one of the tastiest meats on'e can eat.
http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f92/headed-ak-75927/

I like how he posts up on a forum "Introduction Thread" as a newcomer from the "People's Republic of New York" LOL!

NOTHING beats a snarky left wing woman like Ashley Feinberg talking a bunch of shit about a dude who enjoys posting on hunting forums. You stupid retard, this just makes us support Trump more!
Lots of people in that comment section saying how the piece shows nothing except that Trump Jr has hobbies and goes on forums to talk about them.

That piece really doesn't reveal anything new or juicy. What a waste of time.

As for Ashley Feinberg, she probably got a lot of lefty points for that piece, but in the end she will die fat and alone, except from her horde of cats.
Mr. Trump's children are very down to earth people despite not having a typical existence.
I follow them all on Instagram and I love them.

Ivankas kids birthday parties look similar to mine. Cheap paper hats, card board plates.

DJTJR goes camping and fishing with his kids all the time. I hope he takes office.

Fuck the white picket fence, 3 story mansion, 4 cars etc.
This is the new American dream:

 

Andreas

Kingfisher
This was masterful trolling by Zach Galifianakis.


He got Hillary on that chair for 6 minutes and he roasted her with non-stop references about her crimes, policies etc.
 
Top