Mediaboss Marketing

We took a look at an energy claim President Donald Trump made at his rally in Phoenix on Aug. 22, 2017.

In a 75-minute rally speech that revisited his response to the Charlottesville, Va., unrest and scolded the national media, President Donald Trump slid in a note of pride about the United States balance of trade in energy.

"We're going to do an infrastructure bill," Trump said. "We will build gleaming new roads, bridges, highways, railways, waterways, all across our beautiful land. Our greatest creations, our most incredible buildings, our most beautiful works of art are just waiting to be brought to life. American hands will build this future. American energy will power this future. We have become an energy exporter for the first time ever just recently."

Was he correct to say that the United States has "become an energy exporter for the first time ever just recently"?

Short answer: No.

But to get to the short answer, you have to wade through several possible interpretations of what Trump meant. (The White House did not clarify his meaning for us.)

First possible meaning: The U.S. has just begun exporting energy

One way to read Trumps statement is to take it literally -- that the United States only recently began to export energy. This is flat wrong.

"We have been exporting coal, natural gas, electricity, refined products and energy technologies for a very long time," said Paul Sullivan, a professor at National Defense University and an adjunct professor at Georgetown University who specializes in energy security issues. "We were once, during the time of JD Rockefeller, the world's near monopoly on kerosene. Liquefied natural gas exports from Alaska to Japan have been around for a long time. Piped gas to Mexico and Canada are normal events. We have a massive electricity trade with Canada."

Second possible meaning: The U.S. is now a net energy exporter

Trump might have meant that the United States had only recently become a net exporter of energy -- meaning the total of all U.S. energy exports recently overtook the total of all U.S. energy imports. This is less wrong, but still not accurate.

"This has been falling, but we are still a huge net energy importer," said Jason Bordoff, who directs Columbia Universitys Center on Global Energy Policy.

In its most recent projections, the federal Energy Information Administration concluded that the United States would become a net energy exporter around 2026, depending on the course of future patterns of global supply, demand and pricing.

Whats clear is that the United States has not yet become a net exporter of energy, as Trumps past-tense remark indicated. If that day comes in 2026 -- and it may or may not -- that would be two years after Trump finishes a possible second term.

Third possible meaning: U.S. crude oil export ban lifted

Perhaps rather than "energy," Trump meant to say "crude oil."

If this is what Trump meant, the statement would still be problematic. It wouldnt be the first time "ever." And the relevant change was signed under his predecessor, President Barack Obama.

On Dec. 18, 2015, the United States enacted legislation to repeal a ban on most crude-oil exports that had been in place since the energy-crisis days of 1975. (Exports of refined petroleum were not blocked by the law, just crude.)

Heres a chart showing U.S. crude-oil exports going back to the 1980s. (The years between 1975 and 2015 show some export activity because trade with some countries, such as Canada, was exempt from the law.) The rapid rise in crude-oil exports near the end of the chart reflects the lifting of the export-restriction law.

Other possible meanings

Its possible to substitute any number of energy subcategories into Trumps remark to see whether they make the statement more accurate. Some do, some dont.

The United States has been a net coal exporter for many years. It has been a net exporter of refined petroleum products since around 2011. So neither of those would make Trump correct.

Natural gas is a more promising option. The United States is not yet a net exporter of natural gas, but the difference between imports and exports has narrowed for nine consecutive years, according to EIA, falling to its smallest gap ever in 2016. And the agency projects that the United States will become a net exporter of natural gas once the 2017 numbers are tallied up.

Energy experts say that this is a significant development, though one that Trump can take little credit for.

"It has been a trend that was activated by the U.S. shale boom and made possible by the Obama administration's policy on liquefied natural gas exports," said Anna Mikulska, a fellow with Rice Universitys Center for Energy Studies.

Ironically, Bordoff added, a different Trump policy goal -- reviewing Obama-era increases in fuel-efficiency standards for vehicles -- could make it harder for the United States to become a net exporter of energy, the very thing he applauded in Phoenix.

"Trumps stated intention to ease fuel economy standards actually undermines the goal of becoming a net energy exporter, because it means the U.S. will be consuming more oil than we would otherwise," he said. "The EIA projections assume the planned increases in fuel economy go into effect, so the EIA projection of when we become a net exporter of energy would be pushed further out if we weaken fuel economy standards."

Our ruling

Trump said that "we have become an energy exporter for the first time ever just recently."

This statement is problematic regardless of how you interpret his statement -- gross energy exports, net energy exports, gross crude-oil exports, and net natural gas exports. The closest he would come to being accurate is if he were referring to net natural gas exports, but even there, it hasnt happened yet, contrary to what his past-tense statement indicates. We rate the statement False.

Share the Facts

2017-08-23 21:33:46 UTC

2

1

7

False

http://time.com/4912055/donald-trump-phoenix-arizona-transcript/

"We have become an energy exporter for the first time ever just recently."

a rally in Phoenix

Tuesday, August 22, 2017

2017-08-22

Go here to read the rest:
Donald Trump wrongly says US is a net energy exporter - PolitiFact

Tony Fabrizio, a GOP strategist who worked for President Trump's 2016 campaign, tweeted out a poll Wednesday arguing Donald Trump's invincibility in the 2020 election but the data he was showcasing told a different story.

The poll, conducted by Fabrizio's firm, Fabrizio, Lee and Associates, showed that if a Republican presidential primary were held today, just 50% of the GOP would be most likely to vote for Donald Trump. The poll found that 26% would choose among four other candidates.

Even though these results technically show that 50% of the Republican Party wants someone other than Trump to run in a presidential primary, Fabrizio treated the results as welcome news of the President's popularity, tweeting that he was "crushing" the primary field:

Among Trump's hypothetical challengers, support was split. The poll found that 14% would most likely to vote for Texas Senator Ted Cruz, 10% would vote for Ohio Governor John Kasich both of whom ran against Trump in the 2016 presidential primaries and 1% would vote for either Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse or Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton. Not everyone could make up their minds: 24% were undecided.

Historically, sitting Presidents rarely face serious primary challenges when they are running for reelection, although such instances have occurred, most notably Senator Ted Kennedy's insurgent run against Jimmy Carter in 1980. There is no indication Trump will not run; to the contrary, he has already filed paperwork laying the groundwork for the 2020 campaign. Trump has historically low approval ratings for this point in his tenure, according to multiple polls, leading some pundits to speculate he will face an intra-party challenge. Politico reported Tuesday, for example, that the Democratic National Committee is preparing opposition research on Kasich, Sasse, Vice President Mike Pence, and U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley. Kasich recently denied that he plans to run in 2020, telling CNN's Jake Tapper "I don't have any plans to do anything like that."

Polls this far out from a primary are notoriously unreliable. The survey was conducted among 1,500 voters who either described themselves as GOP or leaning GOP. The margin of error is 2.5 percentage points.

Fabrizio joined Trump's campaign as pollster after working for Rand Paul in the 2016 presidential primaries, TIME reported in June 2016. After sparking a firestorm on political Twitter, Fabrizio posted a Gallup poll from September 2010 showing that Hillary Clinton with the support of 37% of Democrats in the 2012 primary, while Barack Obama had 52%.

Though a poll from a month later showed Obama with 64% support.

Continue reading here:
Donald Trump's Campaign Pollster Tweeted Out a Poll That Is Not Great for the President - TIME

It's a major test for Trump -- particularly given that there appears to be such a marked difference between Teleprompter Trump who was on display Monday night in his Afghanistan speech and Campaign Trump. Previous attempts at restarting a new -- and more politic -- version of the Trump Administration have been dashed along the rocks of the President's desire to be applauded and loved by his base.

It's a reality that has caused the Republican party -- and, really, the entire political world -- to suffer from a permanent case of whiplash.

2. The Cleveland Browns

At a campaign rally in Kentucky (sound familiar?) in March, Trump attributed the fact that Kaepernick had not yet been signed by an NFL team to a fear of his wrath.

Given Trump's both-sides-do-it response to the violence caused by white supremacists and neo-Nazis in Charlottesville, a riff on the Browns -- or Kaepernick -- would be, um, inadvisable.

3. Louise Linton

Trump -- ever loyal to those who are loyal to him -- might be tempted to defend Linton. "She's a great lady -- and elegant too!," or something like that.

Bad idea. No one likes the guy defending the rich and entitled from the average Joe (or Jane).

4. John McCain and Jeff Flake

There's no question that a few ad hominem attacks against Flake and/or McCain would be well received by the assembled masses there to hear Trump speak tonight. But, he needs to understand that simply giving people what they want for a cheap applause high can badly undermine his efforts to unify his party behind things like tax reform, the budget and the debt ceiling. Attacking Flake and McCain in their home state would be Trump cutting off his nose to spite his face. Which, if past is prologue, he's uniquely capable of doing.

5. The eclipse photos

By not mentioning Eclipse-gate, Trump can keep it that way. But, it may be hard for him to resist using the episode as yet more evidence of the media's terrible and horrible biases against him.

"They said I looked into the sun without the glasses on!," you can imagine Trump saying. "And I didn't."

Spoiler alert: He did.

6. Steve Bannon

Trump cares deeply about his media coverage and watches Breitbart along with the Daily Caller and the Drudge Report very, very closely. And he won't be happy -- at all -- about his former aide taking pot shots at him.

But, there's zero to be gained by going after Bannon. Conservative media -- led by Breitbart -- have been an incredible ally for Trump, and will be again. Why alienate them over one day of bad headlines?

Plus, talking about staffing and process is the surest way to lose a crowd. "Did you see what a guy who used to work for me said?," is not exactly the world's greatest applause line.

7. The electoral map

As you may have heard, Trump won the electoral college when no one said he could. They said it was impossible to do. But he did it. And, yes, he won Arizona -- by 3.5 points -- in 2016.

As you may have also heard, the 2016 election was 287 days ago. Trump was inaugurated as the 45th president of the United States 214 days ago.

Spending any time at all about how he won a historic victory makes it look like Trump is still living off past glories. Which believe me -- a guy who once scored 30 points in a 6th grade basketball game -- is not a good look.

Read the original:
7 things Donald Trump shouldn't talk about in Arizona tonight (but probably will) - CNN

Screen legend Robert De Niro is taking on PresidentDonald Trump once again, this time insulting the presidents intelligence and accusing him of bigotry.

If he was smart, hed be even more dangerous, the two-time Oscar winner told Deadline.Hes dangerous as it is.

He also suggested that Trumps days may be numbered.

Hes terrible, and a flat-out blatant racist and doubling down on that, and its good that he does because hes going to sink himself, De Niro said.

De Niro, who is nominated for an Emmy for his portrayal of fraudster Bernie Madoff in HBOs King of Lies, wants next months awards show to take on the president.

It should be a kind of theme in some way however, you know, balanced it could be so were not making it all about that, he said. But at this point, were at a crisis in this country with this fool, who never should have gotten into the position that hes in.

Since the upcoming Emmy Awards will be hosted by Stephen Colbert, who has risen to the top of the ratings with his nightly Trump jokes on the Late Show, theres a chance De Niros wish will come true.

De Niro has been one of Hollywoods harshest Trump critics, last year saying hed like to punch him in the face.

He has since said Trump has sullied the presidency, slammed proposed cuts to programs for the arts as bullshit and called America under Trump a tragic dumbass comedy.

The rest is here:
Robert De Niro Unloads On Donald Trump In Biting New Interview - HuffPost

Mondays cable news cycle included two huge ratings events: a rare cross-country total eclipse of the sun, and an equally historic Donald Trump total walk-back on his position about American involvement in Afghanistan.

Given President Donald Trumps obsession with TV ratings and winning, were happy to report Trump obliterated the sun. No competition.

On the cable news networks, the sun scored its biggest crowd on Fox News Channel, whose wildly enthusiastic Shep Smith snagged a much deserved 2.1 million viewers from 1-3 PM. CNN followed with 1.7 million viewers, and MSNBC logged another 1.2 million. In total, the sun tallied 5.1 million U.S. viewers by TV. Happily for Trump, the millions more people who went out of doors to see the eclipse for themselves, hopefully all wearing protective glasses, do not count toward the suns tally.

On those same cable news networks later that day, 10.3 million viewers saw Trumps stunning 180 spin on Afghanistan.

Our troops will fight to win, Trump vowed. From now on, victory will have a clear definition: attacking our enemies, obliterating ISIS, crushing al-Qaeda, preventing the Taliban from taking over the country and stopping mass terror attacks against Americans before they emerge.

This seismic shift rocked longtime Trump supporters. Since Donald Trumps early years as a reality TV star, he steadfastly opposed American involvement in Afghanistan when the Celebrity Apprentice star got asked about the matter, for reasons we cannot explain. Trump clung to that popular position as a candidate for the White House. In his speech Monday night, Trump explained that position had been his instinct and he likes to go with his instinct, but on this he ignored his instinct because he had been told the view looks different from the Oval Office.

Continue reading here:
Donald Trump's Afghanistan About-Face Eclipses Cable News' Solar Blackout Crowd Of 5.1 Million TV Viewers - Deadline