People breakdown somewhere between using government rebates to put solar panels on an upper-middle class home with two Prius divers both making above 6 figure incomes, and making it harder for someone in Africa to buy heating oil so he can heat a can of beans over the trashcan called a stove.
1 Billion Barrels of oil is speculation? lol
Pulled from the 2015 10k filing out of Exxon. The 2016 version won’t be published til later this month/early next month so we won’t know the growth/decline until then.
ExxonMobil’s net acreage totaled 1.1 million offshore acres at year-end 2015, with 2.9 net exploration and development wells
completed during the year. In 2015, ExxonMobil acquired deepwater acreage in Block OPL 247. The deepwater Erha North
Phase 2 project started up, and development drilling continued on the deepwater Usan project in 2015.
Your assertion doesn’t make sense. It’s the same tired logic the left used against GWB. We went into the middle east for oil! We aren’t banning travel from these countries because of oil!
I think he meant because you asked “you know this or speculate” that Rex/Exxon has dealings with Nigeria. It’s not speculation, they openly do business in/with Nigeria.
Pretty much. I didn’t draw any conclusions as to why they weren’t on the ban list. But if I were to, it would more than likely be related to:
“Nigerian immigrants appear to be especially successful when it comes to attaining advanced degrees. The data shows that 17 percent of all Nigerians in the country have a master’s degree, and 4 percent have a doctorate. To put that in perspective, the same data reveals that only 8 percent of native-born whites hold master’s degrees, and 1 percent have earned doctorates. As with the other data set, Asian immigrants come closer to matching the Nigerians, with 12 percent holding master’s degrees and 3 percent having doctorates.”
I’ve given up on the logic behind the country selections for the ban. I can’t begin to wrap my head around it. This sounds like as good a reason as any tbh.
Cuz Obama. Only good answer
I can’t bring myself to accept that because it’s clearly a scapegoat answer. BEST case that answer means Trump left off Saudi Arabia because Obama didn’t have them on there, which would mean he didn’t actually think about the list, he just copied it (god that’s a terrifying thought).
Well, Obama probably left the Saudis off because of the Saudi lobby…and not wanting to anger our “allies.” I say fuck the Saudis personally, but Obama probably did it out of a diplomatic move.
If Trump truly wanted to “ban muslims” they would have been on there, so, if we say he didn’t just copy the list, then he did something for his base and when questioned about it, could defer to Obama.
Sounds like a smart plan if I were Bannon (who seems to be truly running the show). I mean Trump didn’t know the executive order he signed moved Bannon to the White House NSC…lol
The crazy thing about this is it suggests Priebus & others who undoubtedly spend a lot of their time explaining things to Trump in simple English chose not to tell him about Bannon and the NSC – or didn’t themselves know. Either way it’s very interesting.
Edit: or they did explain it to him but he wasn’t paying attention. Until recently, I never would’ve thought I’d unjokingly say that about a president…
It sounds like they didn’t know:
“A report in in the New York Times, which paints a picture of chief-of-staff Reince Priebus trying to assert greater control, says he has set in place a set of checks and processes before new policies and Executive Orders are issued.”.
Original article is behind a paywall of course.
But at least Priebus is trying to fix it.
I’m glad Preebs is around to compete for influence with the self-described Leninist alt-right tabloid mogul. I do get the feeling, though, that if he is forced to choose between Priebus & Bannon, Trump chooses the latter.
The biggest problem I have is Trump’s list undermines the credibility of the entire list. When you put out a ban that makes such little sense that the “best” answer is “This is Obama’s list” AND have it signed by a guy who will readily say Obama didn’t do anything right, the remaining options are pretty scary.
The ban clearly didn’t target terror countries, the ban clearly (whether accidentally or not) didn’t ban any country Trump has dealings in, the ban rollout was a complete and utter failure by any metric, etcetcetc.
You would think he would have wanted his first BIG action and major campaign promise to be successful, but all evidence points to the opposite.
Does Rex have business in Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh? If this is truly a Muslim ban as it has been portrayed, it doesn’t make sense. If certain countries are left off the list simply because of business dealings, then why ones without?
I don’t know the answer but too many people have knee jerk reactions and come to poorly drawn conclusions.
It probably stems from his campaign rhetoric that “Muslims are scary.” I don’t think it’s possible to dispute that the ban is clearly targeted at Muslim countries.
If you want to dispute whether or not the ONLY reason to select those countries is due to religion, that’s fine. Unfortunately if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and you spent a decent amount of timing telling people about your plans for the duck, you’ll be hard pressed to convince everyone they’re looking at an elephant.
Right, 10+ years of intimate and continuing relationships, with unlimited access to any and all information requested, with people’s who’s medicare withholdings are more than our salaries combined has lead me to a conclusion completely dismissed because you know the name of a logical fallacy.
It’s like… You aren’t even reading my posts…
Okay. [quote=“smh_23, post:196, topic:225882”]
and yes, the current state of affairs is a hell of a lot more grave than at any other point in your life.
Maybe we shouldn’t have made fun of Romney for knowing all this you’ve obsessively posted about for months now then?
Last time I brought this up you poo-pooed it as “scoring political points”, but in reality it isn’t. It’s pointing out what a massive fucking mistake re-electing Obama was, and how much more on point in this reality you suddenly agree with Romney about Romney was aware of.
But you know, Obama listed Climate change and went out to party with Beyoncé so we done picked a good one there.
And this right here is part of the reason I’m out of fucks to give ^.
We fucked up in not electing Romney, obviously. Because Russia is, according to you, a major issue and things are really grave. So because you’re NOW, four years too late, mouth frothing at the grave situation, and I’m sitting here like “well not point in getting all worked up over a 4 year old mistake until it comes to complete fruition” I’m “silly and craven”… Right.
It’s a semantic argument, and one you’re completely losing your mind over, further convincing me you’ve dived off the deep end on this issue. Collusion is the wrong word, you know this, yet refuse to let it go… Maybe because you see conceding any ground, what-so-ever, as some sort of knock on your greater argument. I don’t know. I do know that collusion takes effort, and in fact intelligence, understanding, cunning and skill on everyone involved, in order to accomplish. I’m only trained in how to look for it…
The reason the semantic argument matters?
Because you’re pushing the narrative of “he’s a moron”. Fine. I disagree, because the mountain of real world evidence, and plethora of examples points to people in control of their own money, which he is, are overwhelmingly anything but a moron if they continue to get richer through active investments, which he has. This does NOT mean the individual would be a FP expert, a good speaker, in-clumsy or many, many other insults. Nor does it ensure a specific dick size, which appears important to you as well. But it does mean a general level of overall intelligence well above moron.
And again, I’ll trust the numerous examples of idiots pissing away hundreds of millions of dollars, and bright people turning $30k into $30m I’ve seen with my own eyes, been reading about for the last 17 some odd years and see going on in everyday life, over the fact you say it isn’t true because “it’s a fallacy”.
But anyway… Calling someone a moron means, they shouldn’t be taken serious. Okay fine.
But then you turn around and want to claim this moron somehow colluded to completely destroy the entire fabric of trust and security in the nation, the most powerful and watched in known human history. This moron is believed to HAVE to be a moron in order to collude… blah blah blah on and on and on.
Now to us silly and craven people this entire line of reason “a moron so stupid he literally must be a savant because he stole the biggest and most powerful prize in the history of human civilization, right out from under the entire world’s nose… via collusion” has me putting the entire argument further and further into pizzagate territory.
You can call me all the names you want, call my reasoning all the names you want, but you’re ignoring the simple fact that end of the day, my reaction is the reaction you’re line of argument is getting from people. Whether or not actually reaching people is important to you is up to you.
That’s not collusion, that’s a patsy. Two very different situations, and the difference between both a civil war and hot war with Russia, or just a hot war with Russia.