No political statement on this thread.

If we start seeing drilling close off the shores of the Bay area, how will it effect Tampa development. Would we see oil companies building towers in Tampa like Houston and Dallas?

Doubt it. Halliburton is moving to Dubai. They should NOT drill off the coast of Florida. It's not even a political issue. I remember in the 80s when there was an oil spill. There were ashtray style buckets at the hotels to get the oil off your feet. It absolutely destroyed the water quality and hurt tourism for many years.

So are we willing to destroy the tourist industry for what the experts say is at most 47 days worth of oil supply or so BP or Exxon will throw up a little office in town?

Oil rigs seen in the distance are not exactly a tourist draw. It's not politics, it's the truth.

Total Lies...

There would be absolutely no visible oil rigs offshore. NONE.....that is a fact.

The oil spill mentioned before was from a ship that was in our waters and hit another ship. IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH DRILLING!!!

All major oil spills in U.S. waters were from shipping, not drilling. The 80s spill was a SHIP!!!!! STOP SHIPPING IF SPILLS ARE REALLY THE CONCERN.

So shipping the oil into our port is OK but drilling hundreds of miles off shore isn't?

I think that it would be a complete assinine thing to let them do. That would be like paving over the Everglades for an amusement park or a cookie cutter subdivision. One it is not needed for our area, secondly It would hurt tourism, the beaches and like things that go on there, the wildlife in our area would be affected. I am willing to risk the environment for a shady oil company...any one of them! I do not want an office building if it means compromising any of the above.

As for CWAT212, look at the oil rigs near Louisiana. They are not that far off land. All you need is a pocket of petro and deep enough water. Yes that ship was of human error.

On another note, Dallas is not close to the water, Houston is, but protected enough to where it would not be affected.

Another view of this is... http://gom.rigzone.com/rita.asp

1. If they start drilling for oil off the coast of Florida, you will not be able to see the rigs from the shore. Go to Galveston or elsewhere along the Texas shore and see for yourself. There are zillions of oil rigs off the Texas shore, but you can't tell when you go to a Texas beach.

2. I doubt it would add much office space to Tampa. Most of the companies that would engage in drilling are already based in Houston or elsewhere in Texas. They might open a few satellite offices in Tampa, but probably not a big deal.

People look at my findings...I have something good for once.

I think that it would be a complete assinine thing to let them do. That would be like paving over the Everglades for an amusement park or a cookie cutter subdivision. One it is not needed for our area, secondly It would hurt tourism, the beaches and like things that go on there, the wildlife in our area would be affected. I am willing to risk the environment for a shady oil company...any one of them! I do not want an office building if it means compromising any of the above.

As for CWAT212, look at the oil rigs near Louisiana. They are not that far off land. All you need is a pocket of petro and deep enough water. Yes that ship was of human error.

On another note, Dallas is not close to the water, Houston is, but protected enough to where it would not be affected.


What the hell are you saying?
Louisiana, Dallas, Houston... Do you read things before you type? I will let you do some research. HOW FAR OFF THE COAST OF FLA WILL THE RIGS BE ALLOWED? How far is the horizon?

So how tall will YOU have to be to see the OIL RIGS....(hint, pythagoras theorem which is a2+b2=c2)

People look at my findings...I have something good for once.


Thanks, but what are you talking about?

What I was saying is that I think that its stupid to put a rig off of the coast of Florida.

The law was changed to bring them within 45 miles of the coast, not 100 miles. You might not see them from the beach but if you're sitting in your highrise condo you will.

When (not if) a hurricane comes through the gulf, you're telling me not a single drop of oil will be spilt when that rig gets hit? You're out of your damn mind.

My biggest problem with the gulf drilling is that years ago when they proposed drilling off the Florida Coast the oil companies claimed that the Gulf of Mexico was the end all be all of our oil supply and that we would not have to come within 125 miles to drill. Now all of the sudden they want to come closer. And the next time they stack the deck with political lapdogs how do we know it won't turn into 20 miles? 5 miles?

Furthermore, when are the oil companies going to start paying the impact fees they promised to pay when they started drilling in the gulf? They won't so long as Bush is president.

Furthermore, cwat212, perhaps you shouldn't ask politically charged questions and then proceed to GET EXTREMELY UPSET when people don't give you the answer you want to see. I don't want oil rigs in our oceans because the oil is not there in the quantities justifiable for the potential loss of our main source of revenue, tourism.

I would hate to see drilling anywhere near Florida. It would ruin the natural beauty and tourism industry in the long term. Most of the pollution that occurs is not from shipping accidents, which are horrible and get a lot of attention, but from the constant small amounts of oil and other chemicals that spill into the ocean from the rigs under normal operation.

I do not want any type of drilling off of Florida's coast. It would be a huge mistake, and would further hurt the ecosystem in Florida.

I would hate to see drilling anywhere near Florida. It would ruin the natural beauty and tourism industry in the long term. Most of the pollution that occurs is not from shipping accidents, which are horrible and get a lot of attention, but from the constant small amounts of oil and other chemicals that spill into the ocean from the rigs under normal operation.
Thank you for so eloquantly explaining what I was trying to say.

..The law was changed to bring them within 45 miles of the coast, not 100 miles. You might not see them from the beach but if you're sitting in your highrise condo you will.

Furthermore, cwat212, perhaps you shouldn't ask politically charged questions and then proceed to GET EXTREMELY UPSET when people don't give you the answer you want to see. I don't want oil rigs in our oceans because the oil is not there in the quantities justifiable for the potential loss of our main source of revenue, tourism..

First, I did NOT ask a politically charged question and Second, I did not get upset. I replied to yours and other remarks.

AGAIN> you WILL NOT SEE THE RIGS EVEN IF YOU ARE IN A HIGHRISE ON THE BEACH. 400 + FEET WOULD BE THE HEIGHT TO EVEN BE ABLE TO VIEW THE RIGS. YOU DAMN SURE COULD NOT SEE THEM WITH THE NAKED EYE!

Here are some facts. NOT your scare tactics:
1. Standing on a hill or tower of 100 ft height, the horizon is at a distance of 12.25 miles.
2. Standing on the ground with h = 5 ft 7 in (5.583 ft), the horizon is at a distance of 2.89 miles

When I am fishing off the coast at 9 miles I cannot see the high rises on Clearwater beach or St. Pete. That is less than the 45 miles that the rigs will be so they will never be seen from the shore. NOT even with a telescope. The curve of the earth prevents it and that my friend is a FACT.

This is not me being political but you being an alarmist. How come there seems to be a huge tourist industry in TEXAS, ALABAMA, MISS, LA and others....They all have rigs off their coasts...Some closer than our 45 miles.

Also, the 45 mile distance will only apply to the panhandle. The shelf off of TB is much further out. Stop trying to scare people. YOU CANNOT ARGUE WITH FACTS SO YOU CALL ME POLITICALLY CHARGED AND UPSET.

Nothing you have said is true. if you really cared about the issue you would do some research, read the facts and then maybe then you will have a point that should be realistically considered.

OH, Also, oil companies will not drill in the area if there is no OIL so then you do not have to worry about it.. Unlike our Gov't they will not throw money away.

[QUOTE=emoore625;13057293]

When (not if) a hurricane comes through the gulf, you're telling me not a single drop of oil will be spilt when that rig gets hit? You're out of your damn mind.

QUOTE]


Are there currently rigs in the gulf? Rigs off the U.S. gulf coast and Mexico's gulf coast?
Have we not had hurricanes in the gulf recently? Can you think of any major storms? Can you tell me the amount of spilled oil that has been a problem to any of the other tourist areas in the gulf? - Mexico, Texas, Miss, La, Alabama, FLA....any oil spills, ANY? Please help me understand.

1. Standing on a hill or tower of 100 ft height, the horizon is at a distance of 12.25 miles.
2. Standing on the ground with h = 5 ft 7 in (5.583 ft), the horizon is at a distance of 2.89 miles


where did you get these calculations from?

It is simple mathematics but here is a source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon

Please in the future ask others to prove their statements also. ie: emoore's statement that we will see the rigs which is a couple down the thread. THIS STATEMENT IS NOT TRUE IN ANY WAY.

Thank you.

To calculate the horizon (in perfect conditions, this would be with a telescope and a vacuum) the formula is d = sqrt(1.5h) where h is your height in feet and d is the distance in feet. There's a slightly more complicated version that is completely accurate and used for satellites and what not. And then another slightly more complicated formula to calculate the distance that takes the Earth's curvature into account. Wikipedia has a pretty good (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon) wrap up and it looks like cwat used their examples.


If you are in a 400 ft tower on the coast the horizon will be ~24 miles. But that's to an object at sea level. I'm not sure how tall oil platforms are, but let's say they are 200 ft. In that case the maximum visibility is ~41 miles.

(It's actually all surprisingly easy. I found that out one night when tasked with programatically calculating the distance between sets of lat/long pairs. Since a computer is doing the work I went ahead and had it take the curvature into effect even though the distances didn't necessarily warrant it.)

However this is all a fairly useless exercise since it does not take the atmosphere into account. These numbers are accurate only with no air and perfect optic equipment.

Update: looks like cwat beat me to the explanation.

What are you CEO of Exxon? Why are you so testy?

If you are not getting upset then WHY ARE YOU TYPING IN ALL CAPS?

I tell you what's a fact. 4 Floridians have come forward in this board saying they are against drilling off the coast. Period. Last I checked, the people vote for their elected representatives, not Shell, Exxon, BP, Occidental, or even Ewing Oil for that matter. We say whats going on.

I don't care if I can see the rigs or not. I don't want rigs in the Gulf. We had two hurricanes two years ago that wrecked quite a few rigs in the gulf, Rita and Katrina (ever heard of them?). The little oil that is found in the gulf (and it is little) caused gas prices to spike $1 a gallon and the oil companies go out and make record profits for the next quarter. Just what we need, more excuses for the Cartel to line the pockets of the oil company executives.

Here's some storms for you that went through the Gulf in the last 5 years. Just to jar your long term memory.

2006 Alberto
2005 Arlene, Cindy, Dennis, Katrina, Rita, Tammy, Wilma
2004 Bonnie, Charley, Frances, Ivan, Jeanne, Matthew

As someone who sat in a bunker in Pensacola during Ivan, don't even talk to me about lack of storms. You are foolish to think that a hurricane won't it. It's not a matter of if, it's when.

No Oil spills??

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9365607/
http://www.nrdc.org/media/pressreleases/050915.asp
http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/general/default.aspx?oid=124188

Nah, never happens. Get your head out of the sand.

What are you CEO of Exxon? Why are you so testy?

If you are not getting upset then WHY ARE YOU TYPING IN ALL CAPS?

I tell you what's a fact. 4 Floridians have come forward in this board saying they are against drilling off the coast. Period. Last I checked, the people vote for their elected representatives, not Shell, Exxon, BP, Occidental, or even Ewing Oil for that matter. We say whats going on.

I don't care if I can see the rigs or not. I don't want rigs in the Gulf. We had two hurricanes two years ago that wrecked quite a few rigs in the gulf, Rita and Katrina (ever heard of them?). The little oil that is found in the gulf (and it is little) caused gas prices to spike $1 a gallon and the oil companies go out and make record profits for the next quarter. Just what we need, more excuses for the Cartel to line the pockets of the oil company executives.

Here's some storms for you that went through the Gulf in the last 5 years. Just to jar your long term memory.

2006 Alberto
2005 Arlene, Cindy, Dennis, Katrina, Rita, Tammy, Wilma
2004 Bonnie, Charley, Frances, Ivan, Jeanne, Matthew

As someone who sat in a bunker in Pensacola during Ivan, don't even talk to me about lack of storms. You are foolish to think that a hurricane won't it. It's not a matter of if, it's when.

No Oil spills??

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9365607/
http://www.nrdc.org/media/pressreleases/050915.asp

Nah, never happens. Get your head out of the sand.

4 Floridians came forward. Wow you made your point. When do you understand that you make no sense.

Your first point was you didn't want to see the rigs. Now you don't want them in the gulf....well guess what? They are already there.

Your own URLs show that the spills were from STORAGE TANKS. YES, CAPS AGAIN.

MSNBC: The Coast Guard estimates more than 7 million gallons of oil were spilled from industrial plants, storage depots and other facilities around southeast Louisiana

NRDC: Same thing. 6 million from pipelines and Storage facilities.

Didn't see rigs.

Oh, went back and reread to make sure I wasn't wrong:

your msnbc link:

Offshore oil
As for oil wells in the Gulf of Mexico, Paskewich said the Coast Guard has fielded no reports of offshore spills there, though leaks could spring when the thousands of oil platforms and hundreds of miles of pipeline are restarted. Last year, Hurricane Ivan was responsible for oil spills in the Gulf, he said.

Paskewich dismissed suggestions by an environmental advocacy group that satellite photos showed some 7,000 square miles of oil floating in the Gulf, saying numerous flyovers revealed only minor sheening.

Skytruth, a group that uses satellite imagery to track environmental damage, says extensive oil slicks are visible in areas of the Gulf raked by hurricane-force winds.

“Daily overflights are being conducted to find the real truth of what’s going on,” Paskewich told Reuters. “As for now, I am confident that we have not received any reports of significant oil spills offshore.”

The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.

Only typed in caps when I was mocking you.

do you see that: NO SPILLS from offshore oil rigs. Maybe, well, didn't happen.

Thanks for the link. Made my night. More props for the storm list - No spills from the rigs in the worst storm history on record. Reasonable thought would lead to believe that they know what they are doing out there.

Please stop the scare tactics.

On the contrary but whatever, go take your pills and go to bed.

No no no, you got it all wrong. When you are proven wrong on the internet, you attack their sexuality.

On the contrary but whatever, go take your pills and go to bed.

Facts hurt don't they?

one pill down...gulp....next in a few minutes if needed. Thanks for the concern. Have a great night! Waiting for your name calling...can't...zzzzzz.

CHINA STARTS OIL DRILLING OFF FLORIDA

WHILE AMERICA TWIDDLES THUMBS, CHINESE TAP BILLIONS OF BARRELS

By Mike Blair, AmericanFreePress.net

Date: May 21, 2006

While Washington dithers over exploiting oil and gas reserves off the coast of Florida, China has seized the opportunity to gobble up these deposits, which run throughout Latin America, the Caribbean and along the U.S. Gulf coast.

The Chinese have forged a deal with Cuban leader Fidel Castro to explore and tap into massive oil reserves almost within sight of Key West, Florida. At the same time, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who controls the largest oil reserves in the Western Hemisphere, is making deals to sell his country’s oil to China, oil that is currently coming to the United States.

Meanwhile, a new left-wing populist regime in Bolivia has nationalized the natural gas industry, threatening to cut off supplies to the United States.

SLANT DRILLING

There are new reports out circulating that Chinese firms are planning to slant drill off the Cuban coast near the Florida Straits, tapping into U.S. oil reserves that are estimated at 4.6 billion to 9.3 billion barrels. This compares with 4 billion to 10 billion barrels believed to be beneath the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, where drilling is held up in Congress due to the objections of environmental groups which warn of endangering caribou. Permission to drill in the refuge, which experts are certain will not present any environmental hazard, has failed by just two votes in the Senate.

As Chinese business increases its reach around the world, it is seeking oil, which it lacks domestically.

After elections in Mexico in early July, when a new regime hostile to Washington is expected to take power, the United States might be without supplies of Mexican crude oil. The United States gets about 40 percent of its imported oil from Mexico and Venezuela.

China is eager to tap into oil reserves in the Florida Straits and then make a deal with Castro to control it. The Chinese have already reopened an abandoned Russian oil refinery in Cuba. Much of the gas refined there is believed to be destined for Freeport in the Bahamas, where the Chinese, through front company Hutchison-Whampoa, has developed a massive port facility and airfield.

With the refinery reopened and expanded it will also meet the needs of Castro.

Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) has introduced legislation to ease U.S. restrictions that prevent dealing with Cuba to drill in the Florida Straits. It is hoped that Florida regulations that prevent U.S. oil drilling off the state’s coasts could also be eased.

The irony is that Chinese drilling could be even more of an environmental hazard since China is not as concerned about or equipped to deal with any potential ecological disaster as a result of a spill, said Craig.

(Issue #22, May 29, 2006)

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/china_starts_oil_drilling.html

:2cents:

So what are we going to do? Nothing?

Well, no, actually...

U.S. oil companies are eventually going to drill closer. At least that's what I believe will occur and I'll explain why as you read along.

As far as they're concerned, they are not going to allow China to soak up their oil profits. And quite honestly, since China's already drilling off of Cuba (uncomfortably close to our shores) then there shouldn't be any reason to deny U.S. companies the option to drill even closer, as well. To deny them is against our interests which they reasonably argue, deserve an equal playing field.

U.S. oil companies are just about to lose control over their Venezuelan projects as Chavez is about to take them over. And unless they agree to his terms, those companies are going to have to find other places to drill to maintain profitability with ever-limited options.

Their proposed legislation (ahem, I mean proponents in Congress) will seal the deal by demanding that we either stop the Chinese from drilling (which we can't because they're in Cuban waters and Cuba will never agree to stop the drilling) or allow U.S. oil companies to drill closer. In the end and with a contentious compromise, the drilling will be allowed.

It's a fairly valid argument. After all, we cannot allow China to laugh all the way to the bank with our oil reserve profits while we "twiddle thumbs."

You know as well as I that one hand washes the other. The Congress passes energy legislation that calls for fewer drilling restrictions; the oil/energy companies profit considerably; and those Representatives who support the legislation get nice, hefty campaign contributions. That's how capitalism works when fused with our democratic system of government. Get used to it.

And how do the American people and the economy benefit? With few exceptions (for now), we get a steady supply of oil/gas without having to wait in long lines while being subjected to rationing. That's what you're paying for and yes, we're going to pay a lot more before all is said and done.

So, no matter what a majority of Floridians want, the oil companies will eventually drill closer to our shores. It's money in the bank, especially in these times and at these prices.

It appears to me that both sides of the argument hold water.

Let's be honest. We do not take renewable energy very seriously in this country. And if you think we do, go ahead and research for yourself Western Europe and Japan's efforts. Hell, check out Brazil. As of last year, they are totally energy independent. I've done a little research and have discovered that we are way behind in this race. I wish this wasn't the case, but it is. So why be any different here? :bash:

And since we choose to refuse to take our energy challenge as seriously, we need to drill more to meet our energy demands. And yes, some will claim that by drilling more we will reduce our demand for foreign oil. That's a laugh. We will still import just as much as ever from outside sources because quite frankly, our energy needs will outpace our supply.

It IS all about supply and demand, folks. America's energy pig is a hungry pig and she eats 24/7/365. Large, growing populations and economies require increasing supplies to meet increasing demands. It's just the way it is.

So unless we want to shut off our cars, trucks, and lawnmowers, we're going to need more energy.

And as for China's drilling in Cuban waters, I'd certainly have reason to be a little concerned if I lived anywhere along the south Florida coast, whether we allow additional drilling in the gulf, or not. They've already inadvertently poisoned our pets and contaminated our food supply; personally, I'm not that comfortable with them where drilling is concerned. But we'll deal with that catastrophy later -- it's just a matter of time.

As I see it, we tend to wait until after something goes horribly wrong before we jump in. I guess we're too condtioned to solve our problems in a reactive instead of proactive way. :(

On the contrary but whatever, go take your pills and go to bed.

That is the best you could come up with.:lol: Very lame!!!

What we really need to do is find an alternative to oil...then we wouldn't need to drill off the coast of Florida. I would rather pay $5 per gallon for gas, than have drilling off of our coast.

What we really need to do is find an alternative to oil...then we wouldn't need to drill off the coast of Florida. I would rather pay $5 per gallon for gas, than have drilling off of our coast.

I agree a 100%

do you see that: NO SPILLS from offshore oil rigs. Maybe, well, didn't happen.

Thanks for the link. Made my night. More props for the storm list - No spills from the rigs in the worst storm history on record. Reasonable thought would lead to believe that they know what they are doing out there.

Please stop the scare tactics.

Maybe I didn't choose the right words..... I didn't mean that there were spills from accidents on oil rigs. What happens is, that they loose "small" amounts of oil through leaks every day under normal operation. They cannot be 100% sealed. And that adds up to more damage than a big shipping spill. But it goes on silently and doesn't get any media attention.

What we really need to do is find an alternative to oil...then we wouldn't need to drill off the coast of Florida. I would rather pay $5 per gallon for gas, than have drilling off of our coast.

Five dollars a gallon??? You have to be crazy. That would greatly damage our economy.

But I do agree that we need an alternative fuel. We have needed it since the early 70's. Lets face facts. It is our own faults we are in the position we are in. It is simple capitalism. Nothing is going to change until we demand it (and I don't mean simple lip-service). Until that point, we are beholden to oil, and must find a way to get a lot of it at a low price. Unfortunately, I believe that means drilling off our coast, and in Alaska.

That is the best you could come up with.:lol: Very lame!!!

Unfortunately, yes. I have better things to do than argue with someone who's just going to go SEE I TOLD YOU I'M RIGHT AND YOU'RE WRONG HAHAHA. If I wanted that, I'd just argue with my fiancee.

Maybe I didn't choose the right words..... I didn't mean that there were spills from accidents on oil rigs. What happens is, that they loose "small" amounts of oil through leaks every day under normal operation. They cannot be 100% sealed. And that adds up to more damage than a big shipping spill. But it goes on silently and doesn't get any media attention.

Not to mention if they are to plant rigs off the coast of Florida, there is significant land-bound infrastructure such as tanks and pipelines that leak or rupture all the time.

It is simple mathematics but here is a source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon

Please in the future ask others to prove their statements also. ie: emoore's statement that we will see the rigs which is a couple down the thread. THIS STATEMENT IS NOT TRUE IN ANY WAY.

Thank you.
You will note that I am not involved in the ridiculous arguing going on here, I simply was interested in knowing how such things are calculated.

Thanks.




Note to all... A few of you are really close to being moderated for breaking forum rules. I suggest easing up please.

Five dollars a gallon??? You have to be crazy. That would greatly damage our economy.

But I do agree that we need an alternative fuel. We have needed it since the early 70's. Lets face facts. It is our own faults we are in the position we are in. It is simple capitalism. Nothing is going to change until we demand it (and I don't mean simple lip-service). Until that point, we are beholden to oil, and must find a way to get a lot of it at a low price. Unfortunately, I believe that means drilling off our coast, and in Alaska.

Yeah, and they said $3/gallon gas would break the economy too. It didn't happen.

My point is, if gas goes to $5/gallon, cities will and states will finally be forced to come up with mass transit plans. People wouldn't mind paying higher taxes to support those systems. Sure, it would hurt at first, but I think it is exactly what we need.

Yeah, and they said $3/gallon gas would break the economy too. It didn't happen.

My point is, if gas goes to $5/gallon, cities will and states will finally be forced to come up with mass transit plans. People wouldn't mind paying higher taxes to support those systems. Sure, it would hurt at first, but I think it is exactly what we need.

Right, what do you think Europeans do? Gas is about 6$ there.... they use mass transit instead

Right, what do you think Europeans do? Gas is about 6$ there.... they use mass transit instead

You are correct, but you also have to remember that we produce more in this country than the individual nations of Western Europe, and have much longer distances to ship throughout our country. Oh, and by the way, we drive way more than the Europeans do.

Yeah, and they said $3/gallon gas would break the economy too. It didn't happen.

My point is, if gas goes to $5/gallon, cities will and states will finally be forced to come up with mass transit plans. People wouldn't mind paying higher taxes to support those systems. Sure, it would hurt at first, but I think it is exactly what we need.

I will be honest with you. $5 a gallon would have one great benefit. We will get off our fat asses in this country, and actually demand new energy sources, like we should have done in '73. We started to seriously talk about alternative fuels last year, when the average price got around $3.50; then the prices fell to $2.00, and we quite the discussions. I will reiterate... I WANT AN ALTERNATIVE TO OIL. However, until the American people stand up and demand it, we are not going to get it. At some point, we will get an alternative fuel. Until then, I simply believe we need to produce oil domestically, and quit depending on an out-of-control region.

CHINA STARTS OIL DRILLING OFF FLORIDA

WHILE AMERICA TWIDDLES THUMBS, CHINESE TAP BILLIONS OF BARRELS

By Mike Blair, AmericanFreePress.net

Date: May 21, 2006

After elections in Mexico in early July, when a new regime hostile to Washington is expected to take power, the United States might be without supplies of Mexican crude oil.

They really nailed that one! Presidente Calderon was the most pro-American candidate on the Mexican ballot last July. I wonder how many other things they slightly missed on.