Posted on 01/19/2016 2:01:06 PM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
[ This aint good for Trump....
Demonstrates very poor judgement and a lack of conservative principles. ]
If the Republic is already Dead, principles are a losers game, sadly... The only “winning solution” in an empire involves raw populism and tossing meat and wheat to the rabble.
I hate this too, but it is the pure truth.
End of the American Republic, Start of the American Empire
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3385310/posts
Isn’t there a biofuel that is much better than ethanol> Butynol or some like that? What is it made from> Could farmers switch over to growing whatever it’s made of?
Yep-any good mechanic will tell you to stay away from E85, even if your vehicle can use it. Increasing ethanol will hurt vehicles. Our “new” suburban is 12 years old-we bought it three years ago. We need it to keep running for a few more years.
I’ve noticed Finny that you seem to play hallway monitor on here at all times. You seem to have a lot of time on your hands. You should spend more time analyzing your candidates excessive flip flops and explanations for every issue than to worry about Trump’s position on ethanol. But since you asked, in the grand scheme of things, ethanol is a non-issue. If Trump has to support ethanol to win Iowa, so be it. You and your crew would rather fight your last stand over an issue as trivial as ethanol ending whatever chance you’d have at solving the big issues. Your guy Cruz is trying to do that too but he’s too cute for his own good.
Very clever!
You are correct. If you want to win Iowa you need to love ethanol. At least for a few months. LOL!
ethanol only works as a fuel if you mix it with 90% gasoline.
We’ve got to allow the free market to dictate what’s most efficient and economical for our nation’s economy. No, at this time, our country can’t afford the subsidies. Before, though, we even start arguing about some of these domestic subsidies that need to be eliminated — should be — we need to look at ending subsidies and loans to foreign countries and their energy production that we’re relying on, like Brazil.” Sarah Palin 2011
Our mainstays are from 97, 98, 99, 2000, and an older pickup (’87). There are others including motorcycles which just don’t do ethanol, going back to ‘41 (thankfully, we can get no alcohol gasoline, but it costs extra—like low sodium food, you pay for not adding something). Pushing ethanol will be the ruination of that and those perfectly good vehicles (and other small engines we use), and that doesn’t do us or the environment any favors.
"Of course, to hear Branstad say it, what he actually said was that he hopes Ted Cruz loses. The problem with Branstad's jeremiad against Cruz is that Brandstad is everything that is wrong with both the Republican Party and the political class in the country as a whole. The fecklessness and self-dealing of Terry Branstad would put any fat cat Republican Senator in the caucus to shame.
It's the shameless behavior of people like Branstad who have given rise to the Trump/Cruz phenomenon in the first place. Basically, at the end of the day, Republican voters have shown that they want exactly the opposite of whatever people like Terry Branstad stands for. So when Branstad says he wants Cruz to lose, well. I don't know how that will translate in Iowa, but I know that across the country, this is taken by most Republican voters as a de facto endorsement of the Cruz candidacy.
Branstad's galling crony capitalism - highlighted by the fact that his son is a prominent ethanol lobbyist and that he himself is virtually guaranteed a profitable sinecure with an ethanol lobbying firm upon his eventual retirement - has already been remarked upon frequently. Branstad himself declared before the primary season began, in refreshingly open language, that he would oppose any Republican candidate who opposed the renewable fuel standard because if one of them won, that might shut off the flow of federal pork to Iowa:
>>>"I think it is a significant issue," Mr. Branstad told The Washington Times. "If you are for closing that industry down and don't want to give them access [to the market], I think that could be a very difficult thing to explain to the people who live in the state and really believe in renewable fuels."
Asked whether the issue could make or break a campaign, Mr. Branstad answered, "Yes."<<<
In addition to being a crony capitalist, Branstad is also an incorrigible tax hiker. He has raised the gasoline tax in Iowa multiple times, He has also been a repeat booster of higher sales taxes. Why has he pushed for these taxes? Well, among other reasons, Branstad has overseen the bloating of the Iowa state budget, especially in recent years.
Bloating the budget, using his influence to push for policies that benefit himself and his wealthy and well connected friends and family members, and raising taxes that disproportionately affect lower-income people to do it: these are the things that Terry Branstad stands for. The fact that he wants Ted Cruz to lose is a plus, not a minus.
But hey, no one tell Donald Trump. He and Branstad are birds of a feather, if Trump's record in private industry is any indicator:.."
How about that.
As long as they use organic corn & soy, I have no problem. The ethanol market will die by itself.
More New York values...
They're "coming out of ..wherever."
As long as they use organic corn & soy, I have no problem. The ethanol market will die by itself.
“Who’s won Iowa going against ethanol? This is ballgame for Ted.”
So you admit that if Trump loses Iowa now he’s finished. Kaput.
Another big government scheme to distort the market. Mandatory ethanol quotas create an artificial demand for grain that boosts the price, costing Americans (and others in the world) huge amounts of money in increased food prices. Stephen Harper, pseudo-conservarive, did the same thing in Canada because his base of support is in the otherwise conservative heartland of grain-growing western Canada. There are very few real conservatives in any government. Most politicians support big government - they only differ on which people and industries deserve the handouts and subsides.
But Trump was not referring to.......whatever. :-)
It’s a moving target.
"...Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump is vowing to take a hatchet to the federal government if elected, putting the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in his crosshairs. Trump told host Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday" he will start spending cuts by eliminating waste in government - and that means all options are on the table.
"I'm not cutting services, but I'm cutting spending,", Trump told Wallace. ..... Source
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.