Yeah that

centerpole84 said:

---

He's selling burnt orange t-shirts in his website so I already don't trust him.

---

He's running for Ag commissioner and has burnt orange as his primary campaign color? What a clueless tool.

Can they both lose?

Charpie said:

---

I will say that lots of Ag folks are not fans of Miller.

Source-rancher friends from West Texas

---

Cool.

Thanks to everyone for the input.

centerpole84 said:

---

He's selling burnt orange t-shirts in his website so I already don't trust him.

---

That's not burnt orange. It's the same orange color used by his business, Nature Nate's. Probably also the reason he's going by 'Nate' - brand recognition.

In fact, his business (at one point at least) was a sponsor and partner with academic programs at A&M.

So it's quite the opposite of what you say, actually.

Gigem314 said:

---

centerpole84 said:

---

He's selling burnt orange t-shirts in his website so I already don't trust him.

---

That's not burnt orange. It's the same orange color used by his business, Nature Nate's. Probably also the reason he's going by 'Nate' - brand recognition.

In fact, his business (at one point at least) was a sponsor and partner with academic programs at A&M.

So it's quite the opposite of what you say, actually.

---

He's still a moron. It's too close to burnt orange. It's certainly not Tennessee orange. And if this is just about promoting his business, then that's not a plus either.

He needs to read the room.

My understanding is that they all pushed to have Abbot find someone else. Sid has been a problem. He is a special interest guy is my understanding from those I know.

He's gotten in trouble for violating ethics rules more than once. So he's just like everyone else in that regard.

CorpsTerd04 said:

---

My understanding is that they all pushed to have Abbot find someone else. Sid has been a problem. He is a special interest guy is my understanding from those I know.

---

The best man at my wedding is a farmer in the Temple area. He has a farm and married a gal who's family has a much larger farm right next to him.

They are Miller fans. They told me the reason Abbott has turned on Miller is Miller's trying to protect farm land from being bought out by interest giving money to Abbott.

In Jan, Miller launched his campaign that had been building for a while. It's not just data centers, but things like solar farms and wind turbines that fund Abbott. He wants tax incentives to encourage farmers and ranchers to keep providing food instead of being bought out and losing the farm land.

So, right after, Abbott launches his attack on Miller saying he is a total failure. Of course, Abbott had zero issues with him until Miller launches his "Agriculture Freedom Zone".

You **** with Abbott's donors, he goes on attack.

In the latest Sheet's attack ads, it says the taxpayers are paying for Miller's overseas trips. He's trying to get these countries to buy Texas' ag products. He's actually working. He got Taiwan to buy $10 billion more in ag products. That's a pretty good return on investments. I would hope Sheets would do the same, but since he's attacking Miller for it, you would have to assume he's against that. An Ag Commissioner that's not interested in selling ag products overseas is no fan of the farmer/rancher.

So, add +2 (wife and I) to the Miller vote tally. Sheets will only work to get Abbott's donors more land for ****ing solar panels.

If Sid Miller cared about protecting farmland he would figure out how to help more farmers and ranchers stay in business. The reason all the solar farms and data centers are buying up the land is because there is no money to be made in farming and ranching.

First rule of real estate is highest and best use.

Burdizzo said:

---

If Sid Miller cared about protecting farmland he would figure out how to help more farmers and ranchers stay in business. The reason all the solar farms and data centers are buying up the land is because there is no money to be made in farming and ranching.

First rule of real estate is highest and best use.

---

$10 billion in overseas buying is doing just that. Creating demand.

But Sheets is against that, at least in his ads.

And while solar panels is a lib dream and gets Abbott campaign contributions, that unreliable energy may not be the best use of that land.

I'm voting for Miller, he's at least against data centers. Also, I will never vote for Abbott again since he's put in an express lane for these data centers to be built.

Science Denier said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

If Sid Miller cared about protecting farmland he would figure out how to help more farmers and ranchers stay in business. The reason all the solar farms and data centers are buying up the land is because there is no money to be made in farming and ranching.

First rule of real estate is highest and best use.

---

$10 billion in overseas buying is doing just that. Creating demand.

But Sheets is against that, at least in his ads.

And while solar panels is a lib dream and gets Abbott campaign contributions, that unreliable energy may not be the best use of that land.

---

The best use of land should be solely determined by the owner of the land.

Jbob04 said:

---

I'm voting for Miller, he's at least against data centers. Also, I will never vote for Abbott again since he's put in an express lane for these data centers to be built.

---

"I like capitalism and property rights unless it doesn't go my way"

Teslag said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

If Sid Miller cared about protecting farmland he would figure out how to help more farmers and ranchers stay in business. The reason all the solar farms and data centers are buying up the land is because there is no money to be made in farming and ranching.

First rule of real estate is highest and best use.

---

$10 billion in overseas buying is doing just that. Creating demand.

But Sheets is against that, at least in his ads.

And while solar panels is a lib dream and gets Abbott campaign contributions, that unreliable energy may not be the best use of that land.

---

The best use of land should be solely determined by the owner of the land.

---

Tax breaks would help the owner of the land keep his land. It's called "incentives" for a reason.

Science Denier said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

If Sid Miller cared about protecting farmland he would figure out how to help more farmers and ranchers stay in business. The reason all the solar farms and data centers are buying up the land is because there is no money to be made in farming and ranching.

First rule of real estate is highest and best use.

---

$10 billion in overseas buying is doing just that. Creating demand.

But Sheets is against that, at least in his ads.

And while solar panels is a lib dream and gets Abbott campaign contributions, that unreliable energy may not be the best use of that land.

---

The best use of land should be solely determined by the owner of the land.

---

Tax breaks would help the owner of the land keep his land. It's called "incentives" for a reason.

---

Like a property tax exemption for Ag use?

Burdizzo said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

If Sid Miller cared about protecting farmland he would figure out how to help more farmers and ranchers stay in business. The reason all the solar farms and data centers are buying up the land is because there is no money to be made in farming and ranching.

First rule of real estate is highest and best use.

---

$10 billion in overseas buying is doing just that. Creating demand.

But Sheets is against that, at least in his ads.

And while solar panels is a lib dream and gets Abbott campaign contributions, that unreliable energy may not be the best use of that land.

---

The best use of land should be solely determined by the owner of the land.

---

Tax breaks would help the owner of the land keep his land. It's called "incentives" for a reason.

---

Like a property tax exemption for Ag use?

---

He's proposing a heifer tax credit as well as credits for these developers of data centers to locate on areas that are "ag free". Probably more, but I've not researched it fully.

He also told me that Miller pushed for rual health care in the BBB, but I don't know exactly what that was.

Will Shatt on a car!

Nate Sheets on a car!

who is nate sheets? is there something miller did we are not aware of?

Science Denier said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

If Sid Miller cared about protecting farmland he would figure out how to help more farmers and ranchers stay in business. The reason all the solar farms and data centers are buying up the land is because there is no money to be made in farming and ranching.

First rule of real estate is highest and best use.

---

$10 billion in overseas buying is doing just that. Creating demand.

But Sheets is against that, at least in his ads.

And while solar panels is a lib dream and gets Abbott campaign contributions, that unreliable energy may not be the best use of that land.

---

The best use of land should be solely determined by the owner of the land.

---

Tax breaks would help the owner of the land keep his land. It's called "incentives" for a reason.

---

Government shouldn't be picking winners or loser, nor get involved to influence private land transactions.

Teslag said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

If Sid Miller cared about protecting farmland he would figure out how to help more farmers and ranchers stay in business. The reason all the solar farms and data centers are buying up the land is because there is no money to be made in farming and ranching.

First rule of real estate is highest and best use.

---

$10 billion in overseas buying is doing just that. Creating demand.

But Sheets is against that, at least in his ads.

And while solar panels is a lib dream and gets Abbott campaign contributions, that unreliable energy may not be the best use of that land.

---

The best use of land should be solely determined by the owner of the land.

---

Tax breaks would help the owner of the land keep his land. It's called "incentives" for a reason.

---

Government shouldn't be picking winners or loser, nor get involved to influence private land transactions.

---

LOL, what do you think solar panels come from? You think developers pay for all that?

They use free government money to build those things. All this green energy facilities are essentially free to developers using your tax money and don't work alot of the time.

But libs love to build them on taxpayer $$$. You build reliable energy with that money and there will be more than enough money left over to keep farmers in business and give taxpayers a huge tax cut.

Some quotes from a Tribune article.

Quote:

---

In an interview, Miller said he remains the strongest candidate for the job and claimed his opponent has "never milked a cow, sheared a sheep, or shod a horse."
He was dismissive of Abbott's crusade against him, noting that the governor just doesn't like him. He brushed off Trump's lack of endorsement, suggesting that Trump was privately supporting him.

---

Quote:

---

But beyond the political spectre, Miller has lost the support of many farmers and ranchers some of whom say he hasn't done enough on the ground to support them during events like the 2024 Panhandle fires, and are angry he raised license and registration fees across agriculture industries. The Texas Farm Bureau which represents more than 500,000 member-families and the Texas & Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association, with more than 28,000 members, lined up behind Sheets.
"We don't necessarily need a guy who's really good on a horse, who is really good at doctoring cows," said Lee Wells, a rancher and small business owner in Greenville who is supporting Sheets. "We need more of a CEO than a cowboy."

---

Quote:

---

"The proposed fee increases will raise certain fees dramatically; in one case, a fee will be raised more than six times the current rate. The stakeholder community has indicated that these fee increases could potentially have a dire impact on individual industries, the agricultural economy at large, and consumers," a bipartisan group of 72 House members wrote in an open letter to Miller, urging him to back off the fee increases.
A state audit later found the raised fees generated millions more than necessary to operate the agency.

---

Quote:

---

After Miller posted on Facebook about the STAR Fund relief aid raised for farmers and ranchers affected by a major disaster a pastor from the Panhandle asked him where that money was going and why he hadn't visited the region since the disaster occurred. It prompted a tense back-and-forth where Miller apparently told the pastor to "jump in a lake," according to screenshots of the partially deleted exchange obtained by the Tribune and reported by Chron.com at the time.
"Why can't you appreciate the help you are being sent from the TDA," wrote Miller from his personal Facebook account. "I don't think I've ever been talked to by someone so ungrateful."
Miller said in an interview that his policy is to wait until a disaster has died down before visiting.

---

Colonel Kurtz said:

---

Hot wheels and miller both need to go

---

Is that you, Jasmine?

You mean a left leaning "news" outlet with a hit piece on someone against green energy?
Texas Scorecard

Quote:

---

Sid Miller: 'We Should Never Build Another Wind Turbine in Texas'

---

On another note,
Did you know the Texas Beekeepers of Texas actually endorsed Sid Miller and not Sheets, who's business is beekeeping?

Seems the more I dig, the more I find out that Abbott is protecting his special interests / cash by trying to get rid of Miller. Which is what Michael said and the farmers/ranchers he knows.

twk said:

---

Gigem314 said:

---

centerpole84 said:

---

He's selling burnt orange t-shirts in his website so I already don't trust him.

---

That's not burnt orange. It's the same orange color used by his business, Nature Nate's. Probably also the reason he's going by 'Nate' - brand recognition.

In fact, his business (at one point at least) was a sponsor and partner with academic programs at A&M.

So it's quite the opposite of what you say, actually.

---

He's still a moron. It's too close to burnt orange. It's certainly not Tennessee orange. And if this is just about promoting his business, then that's not a plus either.

He needs to read the room.

---

It's closer to traditional orange, like Clemson, than burnt orange. Again, it's branding for his business. People are reading way too much into it.

I'm not saying that I agree with the Tribune per se... the article was more focused on trying to understand why Rs have allegedly soured on him vs. pick a side.

Science Denier said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

If Sid Miller cared about protecting farmland he would figure out how to help more farmers and ranchers stay in business. The reason all the solar farms and data centers are buying up the land is because there is no money to be made in farming and ranching.

First rule of real estate is highest and best use.

---

$10 billion in overseas buying is doing just that. Creating demand.

But Sheets is against that, at least in his ads.

And while solar panels is a lib dream and gets Abbott campaign contributions, that unreliable energy may not be the best use of that land.

---

The best use of land should be solely determined by the owner of the land.

---

Tax breaks would help the owner of the land keep his land. It's called "incentives" for a reason.

---

Government shouldn't be picking winners or loser, nor get involved to influence private land transactions.

---

LOL, what do you think solar panels come from? You think developers pay for all that?

They use free government money to build those things. All this green energy facilities are essentially free to developers using your tax money and don't work alot of the time.

But libs love to build them on taxpayer $$$. You build reliable energy with that money and there will be more than enough money left over to keep farmers in business and give taxpayers a huge tax cut.

---

It shocks me how many people have such a myopic view of things. We will get to a point where people will have plenty of power to run their appliances and live in zero lot communities but won't have any food to cook in their appliances and can't afford what little food is available. No room to garden (which still wouldn't be enough to feed a family) or places to hunt wild game. Guess what folks, the Earth isn't making anymore land (unless you count underwater volcanoes that make lava islands that aren't big enough to do squat on). Water is already becoming a limited resource in some areas but at least I can watch AI Tom Cruise and AI Brad Pitt fight each other. I can't eat the money you made for selling agricultural land for data centers/solar farm/wind farm/subdivision.

I'm sorry. What?

Surprised this hasn't been mentioned, but Sid Miller's political consultant Todd Smith was indicted for trying to sell hemp licenses, basically out of Miller's office.

Quote:

---

Less than a week after prosecutors subpoenaed Miller to testify in Smith's trial set for October, Smith pleaded guilty to commercial bribery and accepted a deal offered by prosecutors that will dismiss the charges after two years if he follows the terms of his probation.

---

Miller then created the position of "Chief of Staff" in the Ag Department, and hired Todd Smith.

That whole mess turned a lot of people against Miller.

Science Denier said:

---

CorpsTerd04 said:

---

My understanding is that they all pushed to have Abbot find someone else. Sid has been a problem. He is a special interest guy is my understanding from those I know.

---

The best man at my wedding is a farmer in the Temple area. He has a farm and married a gal who's family has a much larger farm right next to him.

They are Miller fans. They told me the reason Abbott has turned on Miller is Miller's trying to protect farm land from being bought out by interest giving money to Abbott.

In Jan, Miller launched his campaign that had been building for a while. It's not just data centers, but things like solar farms and wind turbines that fund Abbott. He wants tax incentives to encourage farmers and ranchers to keep providing food instead of being bought out and losing the farm land.

So, right after, Abbott launches his attack on Miller saying he is a total failure. Of course, Abbott had zero issues with him until Miller launches his "Agriculture Freedom Zone".

You **** with Abbott's donors, he goes on attack.

In the latest Sheet's attack ads, it says the taxpayers are paying for Miller's overseas trips. He's trying to get these countries to buy Texas' ag products. He's actually working. He got Taiwan to buy $10 billion more in ag products. That's a pretty good return on investments. I would hope Sheets would do the same, but since he's attacking Miller for it, you would have to assume he's against that. An Ag Commissioner that's not interested in selling ag products overseas is no fan of the farmer/rancher.

So, add +2 (wife and I) to the Miller vote tally. Sheets will only work to get Abbott's donors more land for ****ing solar panels.

---

I see you have very little understanding of how primaries and election campaigns work.

Burdizzo said:

---

If Sid Miller cared about protecting farmland he would figure out how to help more farmers and ranchers stay in business. The reason all the solar farms and data centers are buying up the land is because there is no money to be made in farming and ranching.

First rule of real estate is highest and best use.

---

It's not simply a function of there is no money to be made in farming and ranching.

It is also very much a function of a corproration or equity group having a lot of money and being able to walk up to a landowner and offer them an amount of cash that is extremely hard to turn down, and generally an amount that is worth more than their land is via farming and ranching.

Say you own 500 acres that some data center or developer or whatever outfit wants to buy. You make enough money ranching it to get by fairly comfortably, but generally speaking your entire net worth is wrapped up in whatever the value of the land is. As farm land, that acreage is worth say $1500 an acre. To a developer or a data center or private equity group that land is worth paying say $20,000 an acre for because they will make 10x that amount after they develop it.

You stare at a check for $10,000,000 and it is hard to turn that kind of money down. Especially if you are getting older and maybe don't have kids that want to take over the family business because they are living their own lives.

And even if you did sell it to somebody that wanted to continue to use it for ag purposes - you aren't getting $10MM for that land. You aren't even getting $1MM for that land at $1500/acre.

schmellba99 said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

If Sid Miller cared about protecting farmland he would figure out how to help more farmers and ranchers stay in business. The reason all the solar farms and data centers are buying up the land is because there is no money to be made in farming and ranching.

First rule of real estate is highest and best use.

---

It's not simply a function of there is no money to be made in farming and ranching.

It is also very much a function of a corproration or equity group having a lot of money and being able to walk up to a landowner and offer them an amount of cash that is extremely hard to turn down, and generally an amount that is worth more than their land is via farming and ranching.

Say you own 500 acres that some data center or developer or whatever outfit wants to buy. You make enough money ranching it to get by fairly comfortably, but generally speaking your entire net worth is wrapped up in whatever the value of the land is. As farm land, that acreage is worth say $1500 an acre. To a developer or a data center or private equity group that land is worth paying say $20,000 an acre for because they will make 10x that amount after they develop it.

You stare at a check for $10,000,000 and it is hard to turn that kind of money down. Especially if you are getting older and maybe don't have kids that want to take over the family business because they are living their own lives.

And even if you did sell it to somebody that wanted to continue to use it for ag purposes - you aren't getting $10MM for that land. You aren't even getting $1MM for that land at $1500/acre.

---

Thanks. I understand how real estate sales work and how it works when people who are scratching out a living on property get paid lots of money to cash out.

I have also been witness to some of these land sales for data centers. There are many things the buyers are looking for - footprint (large tracts), access to power, water, and especially access to communications. All of these have been located next to major highways or railroads where telecoms have long haul fiber. The paranoia over water consumption is far overblown IMO. In almost every case the local utilities are telling them they can't meet their initial requests, and then the buyers change their cooling schemes and back way off the water demands. Most of them are using about the same water demands as medium sized office buildings... which is still lower than residential development on the same size tract.

One real estate purchase by a data center bought a ranch of several hundred acres. The owner was a lawyer who ranched as a side job. He did a 1031 exchange and bought another ranch down the road.

One real estate transaction bought a tract that a real estate developer had already acquired for the purposes of building a subdivision. It was still being ranched, but it was a token grazing lease with the sole intent of keeping the ag exemption.

One transaction was a working turf grass farm. I am pretty sure that guy cashed out and retired.

Burdizzo said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

If Sid Miller cared about protecting farmland he would figure out how to help more farmers and ranchers stay in business. The reason all the solar farms and data centers are buying up the land is because there is no money to be made in farming and ranching.

First rule of real estate is highest and best use.

---

It's not simply a function of there is no money to be made in farming and ranching.

It is also very much a function of a corproration or equity group having a lot of money and being able to walk up to a landowner and offer them an amount of cash that is extremely hard to turn down, and generally an amount that is worth more than their land is via farming and ranching.

Say you own 500 acres that some data center or developer or whatever outfit wants to buy. You make enough money ranching it to get by fairly comfortably, but generally speaking your entire net worth is wrapped up in whatever the value of the land is. As farm land, that acreage is worth say $1500 an acre. To a developer or a data center or private equity group that land is worth paying say $20,000 an acre for because they will make 10x that amount after they develop it.

You stare at a check for $10,000,000 and it is hard to turn that kind of money down. Especially if you are getting older and maybe don't have kids that want to take over the family business because they are living their own lives.

And even if you did sell it to somebody that wanted to continue to use it for ag purposes - you aren't getting $10MM for that land. You aren't even getting $1MM for that land at $1500/acre.

---

Thanks. I understand how real estate sales work and how it works when people who are scratching out a living on property get paid lots of money to cash out.

I have also been witness to some of these land sales for data centers. There are many things the buyers are looking for - footprint (large tracts), access to power, water, and especially access to communications. All of these have been located next to major highways or railroads where telecoms have long haul fiber. The paranoia over water consumption is far overblown IMO. In almost every case the local utilities are telling them they can't meet their initial requests, and then the buyers change their cooling schemes and back way off the water demands. Most of them are using about the same water demands as medium sized office buildings... which is still lower than residential development on the same size tract.

One real estate purchase by a data center bought a ranch of several hundred acres. The owner was a lawyer who ranched as a side job. He did a 1031 exchange and bought another ranch down the road.

One real estate transaction bought a tract that a real estate developer had already acquired for the purposes of building a subdivision. It was still being ranched, but it was a token grazing lease with the sole intent of keeping the ag exemption.

One transaction was a working turf grass farm. I am pretty sure that guy cashed out and retired.

---

Not really selling your case if you are saying those examples are good things.

And you didn't really say it was a bad thing.


When was the last time you ate a healthy meal of turf grass?


There is nothing about the three case studies I provided that should make anyone panic about our nation starving to death, but you do you