No. of Recommendations: 0
Sorry for the false advertising, but I have some thoughts I'd like to share and not the companies that back up those thoughts. In fact, if any of you happen to know I'd like to hear about the companies that you think match up with these thoughts.


Romney has started moving up in the polls and Obama down. I assume at least part of the market prices has baked in the thought that Obama is going to win. If Romney wins, what sort of changes might we be able to make plays on?

My thoughts:
1. Companies seeking oil leases in the Gulf and Alaska (I'm sure all of the big players would benefit but who benefits the most?).
2. Companies likely to invest in the Keystone (Canadian) pipeline (Transcanada?).

I don't think oil is the only play either, it's just the one that came to mind.

Also look at it the other way: if Obama loses what are companies to avoid (Solyndra [hahah], GM, Chrysler, any banks?).

Sincerely
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The biggest swings will probably show up from the drillers that take most of the risk and profit. The famous pipeline is something like one of a half dozen or so that already exist. This is the first one that raised an eyebrow. The two majors at the other end are Suncore and Syncrude. There's also Albion and I think one other smaller player. The word I've been hearing is that over the last 6 months or so they've never seen it so slow...everything is literally just grinding to a halt after roughly 15+ years of growth. How much gorwth? The major town (Fort McMurray) has roughly tripled in size in 10 years. I've seen it first hand...it's the craziest growth I've ever seen.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Is there oil under the Gulf of Alaska? Which companies are seeking leases?

rp
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Is there oil under the Gulf of Alaska? Which companies are seeking leases?

"Companies seeking oil leases in the Gulf and Alaska"

(emphasis added)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
If Romney wins, what sort of changes might we be able to make plays on?


Personally, I intend to fund my golden years by stocking up on all the Big Bird (RIP) lunch boxes I can get my hands on.

I might well back up the truck and fill it with Staple's stock too. After all, they sell binders and on day-one truck loads of binders full of women will be delivered to the White House's service entrance.

kelbon
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
The sad news is they are predicting no more than 5 seats to change hands in Congress. That means no matter who is President, we are in for two more years of gridlock.

So I think you cannot expect much from the next Congress. Only last minute deals on the brink of disaster.

Maybe one day the voters will wise up and realize the Congressman and Senators they always reelect are not doing such a good job.

It is time for a change in the Congress.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Whoops, got it. Need to pay closer attention.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
The sad news is they are predicting no more than 5 seats to change hands in Congress. That means no matter who is President, we are in for two more years of gridlock.

So I think you cannot expect much from the next Congress. Only last minute deals on the brink of disaster.

Maybe one day the voters will wise up and realize the Congressman and Senators they always reelect are not doing such a good job.

It is time for a change in the Congress.



I happen to have a different view. I believe gridlock is good and serves as the ultimate check and balance. Anything worth doing will have bi-partisan support.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I happen to have a different view. I believe gridlock is good and serves as the ultimate check and balance. Anything worth doing will have bi-partisan support.

Gridlock, if not the best, is the safest form of democratic government.

Denny Schlesinger
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
In my view, infinite gridlock is called anarchy.

And is definitely not what the writers of the constitution had in mind.

If gridlock works for one side of the isle, whats to prevent the other side from using it too.

So all of our many problems go on hold--for years or forever-- while each side prays for a majority in both houses of Congress. But with gerrymandered districts, that is not likely to occur.

So our much loved system of government fails.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
while each side prays for a majority in both houses of Congress.

I think you meant super majority, in the Senate at least.

So our much loved system of government fails.

I'm not sure at this point if failed isn't the more appropriate choice of words. :<(

B
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
Gridlock, if not the best, is the safest form of democratic government.

Hardly Captain. It's a kin to a ship without a rudder, or a crew that refuses to navigate, let alone steer, because they can't agree where they need to go. All the while the ship flounders and inevitably gets closer to the rocks that will eventually breach its hull. No good ever comes to a ship adrift without a competent and cooperative crew.

kelbon
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
So all of our many problems go on hold--for years or forever-- while each side prays for a majority in both houses of Congress.

This proves my point...if the problem is really worth solving, it will have bi-partisan support. One party in control of the presidency and both chambers is never good...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
if the problem is really worth solving, it will have bi-partisan support.

This statement reminds me of the French fighting the Nazis in World War II. Inability to agree did not serve them too well.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
Anything worth doing will have bi-partisan support.

Maybe things used to be that way.

But the Republicans have already made it clear that they really have only one thing that they will consider lending their support to.

Only one thing. And it's not the well-being of the country.

Only one thing.


culcha
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
This statement reminds me of the French fighting the Nazis in World War II. Inability to agree did not serve them too well.

Running a country at peace and wining a war do require different methods. LOL

Denny Schlesinger
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
Only one thing. And it's not the well-being of the country.

I'm going to avoid partisan politics but think of it this way, the USA and the USSR didn't have the welfare of the other country in mind during the Cold War but MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) worked. MAD is gridlock on the international scale. Gridlock works!

Denny Schlesinger
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
But the Republicans have already made it clear that they really have only one thing that they will consider lending their support to.

Only one thing. And it's not the well-being of the country.

Only one thing.


And the Republicans were saying the same thing about Democrats the last two years of Bush's term. What's your point? Eventually, a problem will be big enough that partisanship will have to be cast aside. Until then, gridlock protects us from ideology...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Eventually, a problem will be big enough that partisanship will have to be cast aside.

Yeah sure, go back and take a gander at the size of the problem we faced in January 2009 and tell me how that worked out.

How did it go again? Our number one priority is...

B
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Eventually, a problem will be big enough that partisanship will have to be cast aside. Until then, gridlock protects us from ideology...


True, inertia, or gridlock, if you like, does protect us from ideology. I guess it's a judgement call as to what's big enough to break a log-jam.

Dithering and arguing and "no-ing" about raising the debt ceiling not only caused disbelief throughout much of the rest of the world, but it had serious consequences to the U.S's credibility and credit rating, not because of the countries inability to pay its debts, but because of the game of chicken over the willingness of the country to pay its debts. Shame on both parties for indulging themselves this way and shame on the President for not stepping up and invoking executive privilege and declaring "Not on my watch!"

If this wasn't big enough to break a log-jam, stay tuned for the fiscal-cliff debacle and the ensuing, and totally unnecessary, recession that's likely to follow unless those in Washington wise-up.

Small comfort to be insulated from ideology…

kelbon
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
In my view, infinite gridlock is called anarchy.

No, gridlock (no one getting to do their thing) is the opposite of anarchy (everyone doing their own thing).
Print the post Back To Top
Advertisement