Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Will Trump become an ineffectual president if elected?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Will Trump become an ineffectual president if elected?

    I suspect that he would have a lot of problems driving policy due to the radical nature of his goals compared to the means, and his own lack of experience and support from political allies.

    What do you think?

  • #2
    I'll most likely say




    and you don't know how much I love that dildo.
    "Ask not what your country can do for you"

    Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

    you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Cult Icon View Post
      I suspect that he would have a lot of problems driving policy due to the radical nature of his goals compared to the means, and his own lack of experience and support from political allies.

      What do you think?
      There's no way to know. Similar things were said about Reagan in 1980. Trump is 100% wild card.
      Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

      Comment


      • #4
        what private sector and public sector industries would support trump?

        I see:

        manufacturing, military, commodities, infrastructure related construction

        Trump brings up the classic clash between the service vs 'physical/tangible' economy and work force.

        The journal reported last week that US economic growth is ~1.5 % services, the other 1 % is in the 'tangible' economy. Manufacturing, commodities, and energy companies have been hit hard with the collapse of the oil price in Feb and the strong dollar.

        But oil has been recovering for a month now and real estate is slowly improving.
        Last edited by Cult Icon; 12 Jun 16, 08:07.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Cult Icon View Post
          what private sector and public sector industries would support trump?

          I see:

          manufacturing, military, commodities, infrastructure related construction

          Trump brings up the classic clash between the service vs 'physical/tangible' economy and work force.

          The journal reported last week that US economic growth is ~1.5 % services, the other 1 % is in the 'tangible' economy. Manufacturing, commodities, and energy companies have been hit hard with the collapse of the oil price in Feb and the strong dollar.

          But oil has been recovering for a month now and real estate is slowly improving.
          Trump is more complicated than that. His jingoistic protectionist views appeal to a lot of blue collar, union oriented voters.

          The oil industry will almost certainly support Trump; however there are a lot of doubts. Policy-wise, who knows where he will go?

          The fact that Trump is such a wild card, that he isn't the automatic choice of big business...
          The staunchly GOP-aligned oil industry that championed George W. Bush and Mitt Romney isn’t yet willing to embrace Donald Trump — and some of its lobbyists wonder if they could stomach seeing Hillary Clinton in the White House instead.

          It’s yet another sign of how Trump’s unconventional campaign and bombastic rhetoric have upended many of the traditional assumptions of presidential politics. For oil and gas supporters, the industry’s traditional allegiance to the Republican Party is bumping up against the GOP front-runner’s support for ethanol, his puzzling remarks about grabbing “a chunk” of the Keystone XL pipeline and his attacks on oil as just another “special interest.”

          Among those expressing uncertainty is the industry's top lobbyist, American Petroleum Institute CEO Jack Gerard, who told POLITICO this month that he doesn't know whom he will vote for in November.

          "It's probably premature for me to judge," said Gerard, a former Bush campaign bundler who in 2012 was widely viewed as a potential White House chief of staff or energy secretary if Romney won.

          [...]

          None of this may translate into outright industry support for Clinton, especially given the leftward lurch she has taken while working to assuage suspicious green activists and fend off a Democratic primary challenge from Bernie Sanders. But some oil and gas representatives say they may be resigned to Clinton winning in November, allowing the Republican Party to mount a strong comeback four years later.

          "It might be better to have four years of Clinton and try again in 2020," Republican energy lobbyist Mike McKenna said.

          Stephen Brown, a vice president at the refining company Tesoro, said the choice "comes down to which risky bet are you willing to take."

          "Is Hillary really more centrist on traditional energy issues than she is posturing on the campaign trail or is Trump more substantive on these same issues than he has telegraphed thus far?" Brown asked. "And can Republican incumbent senators running in blue states sufficiently present themselves as a check on a Democratic White House enough to win if Trump is tanking?"


          [...]

          Trump has offered few solid clues about what his energy policies would look like. And his unpredictability is an overarching concern for an industry in which regulatory certainty is a top priority.

          So while Trump has dismissed the idea that the government should take action on climate, for example, that does little to reassure the industry that he would have its back when decision time arrives.

          “Would he take a carbon tax as part of a tax reform deal? Of course, because he cares about tax reform," said McKenna, the Republican energy lobbyist. "You start asking yourself policy questions, ‘Would he do X?’ The answer is usually yes."

          Gerard said much about Trump’s energy philosophy is still a mystery. "The question on Mr. Trump’s side is, 'How do you feel about energy generally?' He hasn't talked about it a lot.”

          [...]

          Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...#ixzz43qPxo5yK
          Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

          This will probably put the oil industry solidly behind Trump...
          May 11, 2016

          U.S. oil production is bound for a significant shake up after the presidential election in November, says a senior editor at energy-information provider Platts.

          “This election is going to have a major impact on the direction of U.S. and, possibly, global oil supply. Maybe the most significant impact of any election in U.S. history,” said Brian Scheid, senior oil editor at Platts, at the Platts Crude Oil Summit in London on Tuesday.

          Looking at a worst case/best case scenario worked out between several analysts in Washington, he estimated that with a Republican win, U.S. oil production could jump by as much as 500,000 barrels a day. If the Democrats win, there could be a decline of 500,000 barrels a day, Scheid said.

          [...]

          Hillary Clinton — pushed left by the movement behind her Democratic rival Bernie Sanders — has vowed to reduce American oil consumption by a third and is seen as possibly banning fracking on public land. She may also further push for efforts to combat climate change, Scheid said.

          “Overall, the biggest concern for the U.S. oil industry is how Clinton will deal with fracking,” he said.

          [...]

          “Who wins in November may dictate if the U.S. shale renaissance peaked last year or if this year has been a dip ahead of a new high,” he said.

          U.S. oil production peaked in April last year at 9.6 million barrels a day, but has since declined in response to lower oil prices and cuts in capital expenditures. The U.S. Energy Information Agency estimates that domestic production will fall to around 8 million barrels a day by the third quarter of next year.

          http://www.marketwatch.com/story/dif...day-2016-05-10

          $50/bbl * 1,000,000 bbl/d = $50,000,000 per day, $18,250,000,000 per year...
          US election: one million barrels a day at stake

          23 May 2016 Taylor Heyman

          The primaries are almost over and the main event is soon upon us; the US presidential election. The candidates facing off are likely to be Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump, so what affect could the election have on the oil market?

          [...]

          Speaking at the Platts Crude Oil summit earlier this month, Platts' senior editor of oil news, Brian Scheid claimed "the 2016 US presidential election has about 1million barrels per day riding on it", a decline of 500,000 barrels for a Democrat victor, and an increase of 500,000 for a Republican.

          This is a major figure to ride on one election - it is relative to the amount of oil produced by North Dakota each day - and could have far reaching consequences for the US economy.

          [...]

          What if Trump were elected?

          He may have started off as a joke candidate, but commentators are now forced to take him seriously. He goes into the Republican convention virtually uncontested...

          [...]

          Any new Republican president could scrap the Iran deal, effectively forcing Iran to limit its output. Trump has certainly expressed this sentiment.

          [...]

          At home, Scheid says Trump could scale back Obama's policies to cut climate change, including regulation on methane emissions from oil and gas wells and limiting areas where offshore drilling can be based. "When a Republican comes into office, they'd likely gut all of that," says Scheid. "The cost, the burden of federal regulations on oil and gas drilling, that could go away overnight."

          These changes would lower the cost of production for US producers, and could boost production of oil, both on and offshore.

          [...]

          What if Clinton were elected?

          [...]

          As former Secretary of State in Obama's government, it is easy to assume she will continue in the same vein, limiting offshore drilling and cutting emissions. Scheid says it is likely Clinton will extend Obama's current ban on offshore drilling in the Atlantic from five years to 10 or 15, as well as shutting down drilling offshore of Alaska.

          According to Scheid, Hilary Clinton has an "overall plan where she wants to reduce US oil consumption by 1/3 within a decade." He says this means if she is elected, fracking on public lands could be banned. It would only have a small effect on the market, as public land only make up 5% of the US land mass, but it would be a symbolic gesture that the government was looking for alternatives to oil and gas.

          Other policies of Obama's which could be pushed further are limits to methane emissions extending to all wells, rather than just new ones, and the implementation of a $10 a barrel tax on oil - a policy Obama tried to bring to life this year, but failed. With the momentum a new president possesses, Clinton could pass this legislation in her first year as president.

          Croft said the Iran deal is safer with Clinton than with Trump, but not as safe as it is with Obama...

          [...]

          http://www.offshore-technology.com/f...stake-4900795/
          Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

          Comment


          • #6
            I think that the Congress, if it stays republican, can keep a tight handle on either Trump or the Hillary (I ain't playin', no women's card!).

            At least it will keep either of them from running wild and spawn another, oh lets say, Obamacare on us.

            If Trump IS elected (preferred choice), Congress takes him in hand and we can get something done.

            If Hildabeast is elected, Congress takes her in hand and we can lock her program down.

            Both have some good ideas! Let's hope that Congress can see that they are good ideas. (... and congress can keep Hildy from stacking the Supreme Court. My primary worry!)

            This all depends on the Congress remaining Republican. If it goes over to Dem control....... we are in for a world of hurt.

            GG
            "The will of a section rooted in self interest, should not outweigh the vital interests of a whole people." -Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain-

            "Fanatics of any sort are dangerous." -GG-

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Grognard Gunny View Post

              If Hildabeast is elected, Congress takes her in hand and we can lock her program down.



              This all depends on the Congress remaining Republican. If it goes over to Dem control....... we are in for a world of hurt.

              GG

              During the 8 years of Obama, Congress has done nothing to lock his program down .


              This all depends not on Congress remaining Republican, it depends on the elimination of the RINOS :5 in the Senate, 50 in the House .

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Cult Icon View Post
                I suspect that he would have a lot of problems driving policy due to the radical nature of his goals compared to the means, and his own lack of experience and support from political allies.

                What do you think?
                At this point his odds are much better than Hillary's. With Hillary we have a white Obama dressed in drag, you decide.
                My worst jump story:
                My 13th jump was on the 13th day of the month, aircraft number 013.
                As recorded on my DA Form 1307 Individual Jump Log.
                No lie.

                ~
                "Everything looks all right. Have a good jump, eh."
                -2 Commando Jumpmaster

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by 101combatvet View Post
                  At this point his odds are much better than Hillary's. With Hillary we have a white Obama dressed in drag, you decide.
                  To me, Hilary's goals are repeat of the 'ruling regime' since the 1990s.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Cult Icon View Post
                    To me, Hilary's goals are repeat of the 'ruling regime' since the 1990s.
                    Funny how she says Trump is unqualified, but voted for Obama. If you look for her accomplishments she really shouldn't talk, nothing to speak about other than wasting tax dollars away. She's a ****ing train wreck.
                    My worst jump story:
                    My 13th jump was on the 13th day of the month, aircraft number 013.
                    As recorded on my DA Form 1307 Individual Jump Log.
                    No lie.

                    ~
                    "Everything looks all right. Have a good jump, eh."
                    -2 Commando Jumpmaster

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I'm hardly a fan of hers but she has met many more heads of state and other high government officials than Trump or Obama prier to his election.
                      "Ask not what your country can do for you"

                      Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

                      you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        We can only hope so.

                        With Trump in Washington and Boris at Westminster, we're all in the sh!t.
                        Indyref2 - still, "Yes."

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          We is of course a pluralis majestatis .

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by the ace View Post
                            We can only hope so.

                            With Trump in Washington and Boris at Westminster, we're all in the sh!t.
                            VERY, VERY deep!
                            "Ask not what your country can do for you"

                            Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

                            you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              You want ineffective? The Hildabeast in office is almost certain to end up facing impeachment charges by Congress at some point.



                              Hillary has a lifetime of being a felon...

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X