You're not even acknowledging or quoting from the other point of view which says the the 100 billion estimate is legit. Which I'm not defending or saying is a reasonable estimate. The book about the Clinton Foundation really is out of the news. You don't hear much about it even though the Repubs are trying to get her any way they can. Including looking at the time sheets of one of her personal assistants and trying to prove they were fraudulent over $10,000 in unreported sick or vacation leave. Even when the woman was pregnant. So I'm just giving you my opinion. I think overall the Clintons have done good things for society. Bill was a good Pres and the Clinton Foundation is a good charitable org. Hillary will have problems if she was using a private server to store classified docs. Bengazigate is a joke but the emails if classified aren't. You can search to find negatives about the Clintons and find plenty of them. But unlike most of the Repubs they care about people.
OK, I'll do some simple math that IFG should have done but didn't because it would not have helped their cause. The pipeline can handle approx. 830,000 barrels per day, subtract 100,000 barrels which will be devoted to Bakken crude and you have 730,000 barrels per day. Now Koch has 22% or so of the leased or owned land out of the top 5, figuring for smaller lease holders and owners probably drops them down to about 15% but I'll use 20% so that you don't think I am trying to downplay anything. Now if they have 20% of the reserves of oil sand then it would stand to reason they are probably going to be shipping about 20% of the oil through the pipeline. 20% of 730,000 barrels per day = 146,000 barrels per day X 365 days = 53,290,000 barrels per year, multiply that by $15 gross production profit and you get just under $800 Million Gross. At that rate it would take 125 years to make $100 Billion and that does not reflect the cost to lease or buy the land, development cost, taxes and other expenses. Now I am not an oil man but I am going to guess all those costs easily eat up 30% of the gross profit which would then put it at 178 years to hit $100 Billion. Clearly it is as politifact stated, the $100 billion figure is "sheer folly" and "absurd". Now please, take a look at IFG numbers and my numbers and see if you can figure out where IFG came up with $100 Billion. I am not going to even bother with your fandom of the Clintons, if you think they care about people then I know I can't change your mind.
I don't know about your Keystone XL numbers. Not saying they are wrong but hard to pigeon hole that kind of precise information. And they come from sources that you seem to think are legit and objective. I don't see you quoting other sources that give differing opinions which makes me think you are just trying to back up your pov. Something I do too, to be honest. It's not a bad thing. Just admit you have a bias. As for the Clintons and the Clinton Foundation. Again you aren't hearing very much about Peter Schweizer's book CLINTON CASH in recent months and you would think via allegations about her giving favor to contributors while Sec. of State would be a major topic. I couldn't find much online about it since the book came out. There is no proof of any wrongdoing (yet) or that money given to the Foundation was sidetracked into her campaign or personal accounts. But as usual with Clintons there is the appearance of impropriety.
waterboy I don't always agree with you politically, I lean dem myself- but I admire you thinking independently and your thought process. the $100 bill figure was just absurd. its like people don't realize how much money that truly is.. they know its gonna be a high number so they just throw it out there. I wish more people would think through what they read/see before just falling in line with their party's BS lines
I never said the 100 bil was an accurate figure. And said it sounded like an out of the ballpark figure. But that number is out there. Whatever the amount it's a huge amount of money for the Koch Bros. And it's kind of suspicious the almost unanimous Repub support behind it considering the amount of money and influence the Kochs have over the GOP. Their continuous denial of climate change when 97% of scientists say it's legit. (the other 3% on Big Oil's payroll just like Kraft's bought and paid for scientists). And their support of Big Oil. You don't see this on the Dem side.
You don't know about my numbers but blindly take the numbers of IFG? Go look up some of your own numbers and tell me where you think I am wrong. It is not a bias, it is not my point of view, it is fucking numbers. Tell me if you have a different figure for how much oil can be pumped through the pipeline, how much is reserved for Bakken Crude, what percentage of reserves of oil sands Koch Bros, owes. I even used IFGs number for gross production profit even though oil has dropped 25% since their report. They are not all in one area and this isn't a college thesis so I won't be giving you footnotes with all my sources. One other thing, The Koch Bros. have been involved in Canadian oil for 50 years, do you have a problem with capitalism? They have invested in it, why shouldn't they profit? Apparently they also have 220,000 acres on the market which would lower their holdings by about 15-20%. Another article I read stated they have not yet reserved any space on the pipeline, kind of hard to profit from it if they ain't using it.
Thanks, the problem with my thinking is I don't fall into any one group. I am all for capitalism with a capital C but much of the conservative viewpoints on abortion, gay marriage and similar issues I am completely on the other side from. Even the president is far right from me when it comes to gay marriage, as a Christian he is against it while I think people should be able to marry whom ever they like. Either that or he is just like every other politician that just says what he thinks people want to hear and changes his view depending upon who he is in front of.
The Republicans are going to destroy their parties chance at an election. If Biden doesn't run, Clinton is going to win in a landslide. Trump, was the worst thing that could have happened to the Republican party. He is simply not a politician, should stick to business and entertainment. I think the card will be Bush - Clinton...again. My bet is Clinton crushes. She was a weak Secretary and she will be a weak President, but the United States is crushing and will continue to crush...regardless.
That is why Clinton is probably the best choice. Capitalism will reign, probably increased opportunities for the small business guys...more competition. I think Clinton is/was a weak international leader, but not a war monger. Russia and Middle East walk all over her. I also think she will have a strong cabinet and she will be a strong domestic leader. Trump guarantees the country war. Bush has just been quiet.. so,so quiet. Christie is a slob and gambino, no one else has the resources save maybe a Biden run which is Zzzz
Trump is only leading the polls right now because of name recognition. As soon as it gets a little more serious he will start dropping. Clinton there is too much dirt, how much is real is yet to be seen but dirt none the less.
Way too early to say who the best choice is but I don't even think Clinton is the best choice of the Dems.
How am I blindly accepting the 100 billion figure when I said all along it is questionable. And even mentioned reports like in Forbes Magazine denouncing it. You read a couple of those reports and are accepting that version of the story. Here is the Forbes article which shoots it down but not completely http://www.forbes.com/sites/timwors...t-make-a-100-billion-profit-from-keystone-xl/ I do have a problem with buying Congress and using stong arm tactics to get whatever they want (in the name of libertarianism).
It is way too early...This is a early prediction. Polls say she is still leading by 30points. The real debating, marketing campaigns and posturing hasn't even started to begin yet. She has dirt and she left a lot of people high and dry, Benghazi looms. But, she has a strong team and the Democrats will rally around her as she becomes the clear leader. Biden, is the only other Dem with power, backing a major following. From here...It's going to Hillary by a mile in the Democratic race, with all the dirt.
I think she won't be weak. She is a weak candidate only because she's trying to court people on all sides of the spectrum. And not give the Repubs any sound bites they can use against her. She was a great candidate in New York when she ran for Senator even winning Conservative areas of upstate NY. She will also have Bill as her key adviser and he had eight years experience as Pres and is acknowledged by many as having a very good administration. The economy was left in good shape until Bush and Cheney and the Iraq War crushed it. So if the choice is another Bush or another Clinton: well look at the last 15 years.
UBS of Switzerland says hello, ovis aries. The Wall Street Journal on Thursday offered yet another unsavory saga of what appears to be Clinton back-scratching. After Hillary, as secretary of state, intervened to help make a deal where UBS had to turn over only a small fraction of the account information sought by the I.R.S., UBS amped up its donations to the Clinton Foundation and paid Bill Clinton $1.5 million to do some Q. and A.’s for the company. Nice work if you can get it...
I'm not saying it's not true but you're kind of saying it is true. Maybe you just want it to be true. But there's no proof of it yet. Here is what the WSJ says about UBS and Hillary: "There is no evidence of any link between Mrs. Clinton’s involvement in the case and the bank’s donations to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, or its hiring of Mr. Clinton. But her involvement with UBS is a prime example of how the Clintons’ private and political activities overlap." http://www.wsj.com/articles/ubs-deal-shows-clintons-complicated-ties-1438223492 Also for all of these allegations: was the mega money for these speeches going to charity or into her pocket. If they can prove it then she's out.
And that is probably the sole reason I am starting to lean Clinton. There is no reason for war at the moment. I agree that Bush-Cheny was was an economic failure. I don't believe there were any major security issues that required USA boots in Iraq or all the excessive spending, wasted to "stabilize" Iraq. Yes, we should have been in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan to find and eliminate Taliban namely Osama Bin Laden. Now, there is no reason to be starting wars with Russia, Middle East or "Mexico" (Trump). When I look at a map of the United States I see continental USA and all the oceans of the world. Own the Oceans and keep trade routes secure. Own the air and keep trade routes secure. Isolate ISIS, support Israel, offer assistance to NATO led security campaigns, support Europe and utilize sanctions; but more so diplomacy as our greatest weapon. If anyone dares to attack the United States of America, destroy them.
You mention a Forbes article that calls the $100 billion figure fantastical yet still decide the $100 billion number was worth putting into your post because it makes it look like the Koch Bros. are robber barons. Ooh those evil Republicans. Here is a quote from Forbes, "And the answer is that it’s not just a fabulous claim, it’s a fantastical one: the authors have confused gross income with profit." As I mentioned they have been involved with Canadian oil for over 50 years so I would expect them to try and make a profit, you seem to think there is a problem with that. Do you work for a non-profit?
Hillary is not a wimp on defense. She is more hawkish than Obama. Who I believe has not been the marshmallow that the right says he is. He's been looking for long term solutions and negotiation which takes more time and is not as dramatic but in a complicated place like the Middle East where there are many factions who hate each other the smarter path. They are trying to get Turkey and Saudi Arabia etc and maybe even Iran to fight a war in their part of the world not the U.S. And besides the air war has been pretty substantial. They aren't doing nothing militarily. Just using their brains. Or do you want to see American soldiers getting their heads chopped off on Facebook?
