Democratic 2020 Presidential Primary Thread

[Buffalo Bills Fan]

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/475701-trump-rails-against-windmills-i-never-understood-wind

President Trump lashed out again at wind farms on Saturday, claiming that the production of wind turbines causes a large carbon footprint.

During a speech to the conservative student group Turning Point USA, Trump told attendees that he "never understood" the allure of wind power plants, according to a report from Mediaite.

“I never understood wind,” Trump said, according to Mediaite. “I know windmills very much, I have studied it better than anybody. I know it is very expensive. They are made in China and Germany mostly, very few made here, almost none, but they are manufactured, tremendous — if you are into this — tremendous fumes and gases are spewing into the atmosphere. You know we have a world, right?”

“So the world is tiny compared to the universe. So tremendous, tremendous amount of fumes and everything. You talk about the carbon footprint, fumes are spewing into the air, right spewing, whether it is China or Germany, is going into the air,” the president added.

 

 

We got a idiot as president. Who cut lots of funds to the CDC, Who,  some paramedic teams. Said coronavirus would fall off before April or whatever. Never does anything proactive. Hopefully next person has a clue know how to run things or do things.  

Edited February 26, 2020 by Buffalo Bills Fan

[B-Man]

BUTTIGIEG SICK, CANCELS SEVERAL FLORIDA EVENTS:

 

“Buttigieg stills plans to attend an event Wednesday in Charleston, South Carolina, with the Rev. Al Sharpton, then travel to Washington for previously scheduled meetings.”

 

 

In other Buttigieg news: What Was Buttigieg Thinking Encouraging a Nine Year old Boy to Come Out as Gay at His Campaign Event?

 

 

 

.

[LSHMEAB]

14 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

You’re not familiar with the history of the intersectional movement?

 

It was started by communist activists, who came to realize that their class warfare dogma had failed, and set upon racial strife hoping to create divides.

 

It was the same people.

 

At this point you don’t get one without the other because the dogma was intertwined.

I'm gonna gracefully bow out of this particular exchange; It's become evident over time that I stand a 0.0 percent chance of "defeating" YOU in a debate.

Edited February 26, 2020 by LSHMEAB

[LSHMEAB]

7 hours ago, GG said:

 

 

 

The numbers back it up.  The worst thing about recent tax laws was the elimination of a huge chunk of the American public from income taxes.   You've seen the stats in how 47% of the population doesn't pay any income tax.  Conversely, the top 20% pays 80% of the tax burden, and the top 1% pays about 50% of income taxes.   That's not a very good tax base to implement the liberal agenda.   And that's exactly how the socialist downward spirals begin.

OK. Well, I know you don't have to file taxes if you make less than 12.5k. That's a little different than paying because I'm sure there's a gap between 12.5 and the amount at which you still wouldn't PAY anything. 

 

But what's the max an individual can make and still not PAY any taxes? Like 25k? If 47% of Americans are making less than this threshold, THAT'S A PROBLEM!

[Albwan]

Not sure if this is has been posted but g damn it all this is infuriating.

[TakeYouToTasker]

59 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

I'm gonna gracefully bow out of this particular exchange; It's become evident over time that I stand a 0.0 percent chance of "defeating" YOU in a debate.

I’m not approaching this looking to defeat anyone.

 

I’m simply suggesting that there is a good deal of very relevant information you lack in order to form a fully educated opinion on the topic.

 

I’m trying to help you to learn by steering you towards that information because you have a history here of being interested, honest, and decent.

[IDBillzFan]

Not sure this stuff will ever get old.

 

[section122]

 

8 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

.

 

This is what drives me crazy.  The same can be said for Trump so let me turn it around.

 

Trump is no big deal but somehow Sanders is a unique threat to America.  Every argument contending Trump can't do harm can be used to say the same thing about Sanders.

 

I  think I have been pretty even keeled about Trump.  The labeling of Sanders as a communist destined and determined to destroy America makes it impossible to have honest conversation.  Shoutout to @rochester rob and @LSHMEAB for the back and forth that never turned nasty and involved no name calling.  It was great to read 2 opinions on opposite sides of the coin that stayed civil.

 

2 minutes ago, Buffalo Bills Fan said:

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/475701-trump-rails-against-windmills-i-never-understood-wind

President Trump lashed out again at wind farms on Saturday, claiming that the production of wind turbines causes a large carbon footprint.

During a speech to the conservative student group Turning Point USA, Trump told attendees that he "never understood" the allure of wind power plants, according to a report from Mediaite.

“I never understood wind,” Trump said, according to Mediaite. “I know windmills very much, I have studied it better than anybody. I know it is very expensive. They are made in China and Germany mostly, very few made here, almost none, but they are manufactured, tremendous — if you are into this — tremendous fumes and gases are spewing into the atmosphere. You know we have a world, right?”

“So the world is tiny compared to the universe. So tremendous, tremendous amount of fumes and everything. You talk about the carbon footprint, fumes are spewing into the air, right spewing, whether it is China or Germany, is going into the air,” the president added.

We got a idiot as president. Who cut funds to the CDC, Who,  some paramedic teams. Said coronavirus would fall off before April or whatever. Never does anything proactive. Hopefully next person has a clue know how to run things or do things.  

 

I won't call him an idiot.  The way he speaks though is so ridiculous.

 

"I know windmills very much, I have studied it better than anybody"

 

really?  The whole statement is embarrassing.  The quickest google search.  I haven't studied it better than anyone though 

Bird Deaths
Trump referred to wind turbines as "a bird graveyard" telling the crowd that if they "go under a windmill someday, you'll see more birds than you've ever seen ever in your life."
Facts First: Research suggests that while wind power does contribute to bird deaths, more birds are killed by cats or other types of power plants.
According to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, collisions with turbines kills between 140,000 and 500,000 birds annually. Other energy sources, such as coal, oil and power lines, contribute to millions of bird deaths. However, cats remain the biggest threat to birds, killing an estimated 1.3 to 4 billion birds each year.
Eagle-caused shut-downs
Trump was adamant that several of his claims about birds and wind turbines were true, saying that "a windmill will kill many bald eagles. It's true. And you know what? After a certain number, they make you turn the windmill off. That's true, by the way."
Facts First: It's misleading to claim that after a certain amount of eagles die, the government makes wind farms "turn the windmill off." However, there is a limit of incidental eagle deaths the wind farms are expected to remain within.
Since 2017, wind farms have been able to apply for an up to 30-year permit that exempts them from prosecution for up to 4,200 eagles killed as a result of the wind turbines. These permits are subject to a five-year review by a third party and require wind facilities to report how many eagles they kill. However, exceeding this limit does not result in a fine or require the facility to shut down its turbines.
Concurrently, the Fish and Wildlife Service does have an Eagle Conservation Plan which suggests "seasonal, daily or mid-day shut downs" as an advanced conservation practice that project developers could be asked to implement if the amount of post-construction fatalities reaches a concerning level, but this is not a requirement under existing regulations.
Carbon footprint
Trump claimed that wind turbines leave a large carbon footprint, specifically that the manufacturing of wind turbines results in "tremendous amount of fumes and everything."
Facts First: Wind power has the smallest carbon footprint compared to other energy sources, according to the Department of Energy. A 2014 study additionally found that after operating for five to eight months, the average wind turbine will have offset the energy expended during its manufacturing.
The same study noted that "wind turbines produce energy with virtually no emissions." According to the Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory, coal-powered electricity releases about 20 times more greenhouse gas per kilowatt-hour than wind.

 

 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

4 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

 

What ?

 

Old insincere, half-apologies don't count anymore ?

 

?

 

 

...hell, just repo her teepee...........

[LSHMEAB]

3 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

I’m not approaching this looking to defeat anyone.

 

I’m simply suggesting that there is a good deal of very relevant information you lack in order to form a fully educated opinion on the topic.

 

I’m trying to help you to learn by steering you towards that information because you have a history here of being interested, honest, and decent.

Appreciate the compliment. While I have my views and I'll voice them, I give credit where it's due. There are A LOT of conservative idiots who espouse nonsense; obviously the same goes for liberals. But there are exceptions.

 

I value your intellect in the same way I value the intellect of people like Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson.

 

We all live very short lives. I want to know WHY and even if I disagree with a Ben Shapiro, I feel like I learned something. 

[3rdnlng]

6 hours ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

 

From your link:

 

She also distanced herself from the cases cited in The Times investigation, which she called an “injustice.” She said her “situation differs from these cases because I never benefited financially or professionally,” and cited a Boston Globe story that concluded her past identification as Native American never boosted her career.

 

Can she not stop lying?

[ComradeKayAdams]

On 2/25/2020 at 11:37 AM, LSHMEAB said:

I'm not concerned about the CEO's Rob. I'm concerned about the people trying to scrape by who may (or may not) be affected by the consolidation of wealth. 

 

As I said, I wouldn't want to live in a country that didn't allow citizens to become wealthy, even uber wealthy. But if you look at healthcare outcomes, upward mobility rates, income disparity, etc; something's gotta give.

 

Healthcare alone; we spend TWICE as much as the next country on healthcare and our outcomes are 26th! There's no where to go but up.

 

Let me just ask this question re: CEO's since you're likely referencing the 400/1 figure I cited. At what point is it a problem? If, let's say, the average CEO was making 10,000x that of the average worker, would THAT be a problem?

 

 

I think that ratio is only useful as a rhetorical device for left-wing progressives. The actual number, of course, tells you very little about the state of economic affairs. On the impoverished end of the spectrum, we only care about data pertaining to socioeconomic mobility and human health. On the super wealthy end of the spectrum, we only care about data on job creation and GDP. How much “socialism” and how much “capitalism” we should inflict on the national economy probably depends largely on the state of these numbers.

 

You’ve been having a really great conversation here, so I don’t mean to get in the way, but my own recommendation (based on personal history with these kinds of discussions) is to avoid economic theory involving classical and Keynesian economics and what not and focus more on practical, real-world examples of New Deal mixed economy countries that we’ve seen since the mid-twentieth century. Australia, Canada, UK, and Germany are maybe the best case studies for the US. Many of these economies are doing reasonably well, with their citizens very happy with their social safety net programs like universal health care. All have yet to collapse into communism (there are just 4 current communist countries in the world: China, Cuba, Vietnam, and Laos). Venezuela’s economic crisis is also a good case study to debate, since there is a lot of misinformation floating around that topic.

 

Also, this week Bernie’s campaign provided a more detailed review of his domestic agenda which might help foster a productive discussion (summary: it’s New Deal capitalism, not communism):

 

https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-does-bernie-pay-his-major-plans/

 

One last related thought on this subject: wealthy CEO ranks are filled with individuals who would be clinically diagnosed as sociopaths or psychopaths, at rates much higher than among the general population. This is something worth considering when trying to analyze why laissez faire economies tend toward societal instability. These dangerous people, of course, gravitate toward government power as much as they do corporate power; too much power given to government is extremely problematic as well. We’ve already seen them in the Dem primaries! Pete Buttigieg and Kamala Harris are the most conspicuous to my amateur psychologist eyes.

 

Switching subjects to the Dem primary horse-race: it’s now down to Sanders as the frontrunner and either Biden or Bloomberg as the centrist/moderate challenger. I don’t have a whole lot of super cool Bernie campaign insider info to share. Based on internal canvassing data, there are some optimistic indications (for us, at least) that the Overton window is very rapidly shifting left in the country, not just with specific domestic policy issues but also with the general label of “socialism.” There are also concerns, however, among high-level campaign staff that the Bernie movement is stalling with African Americans over 40 and suburban liberal moms. In any event, the three-pronged base of the Bernie movement (working class, Millenials, Latinos) has been solidified and is significant enough on its own to enter the July convention with enormous leverage. Are you a potential Bernard Brother sitting on the Dem Party fence? A prospective Sanders Sister? If you ignore MSNBC and just look at all of the polling data, you will see that Bernie Sanders is clearly the most electable of the 8 candidates. No worries; we’ve got this. So to anyone ready to join: we welcome you with open arms! But also…hurry up and do so before Super Tuesday so that Bernie has a better shot at avoiding a brokered convention!

[3rdnlng]

7 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

Appreciate the compliment. While I have my views and I'll voice them, I give credit where it's due. There are A LOT of conservative idiots who espouse nonsense; obviously the same goes for liberals. But there are exceptions.

 

I value your intellect in the same way I value the intellect of people like Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson.

 

We all live very short lives. I want to know WHY and even if I disagree with a Ben Shapiro, I feel like I learned something. 

There's a lot to be learned from other posters here. Generally speaking but with a few exceptions, each of us has something to offer. You seem to be a person who is willing to take a second look at a subject and admit when other people know more about it than you do. Too many liberals here have preconceived ideas that are set in stone. Others are so immature that they post offensive pictures just because they are a dick or cherry pick a sentence or paragraph out of an article that is behind a paywall to post what is in affect a lie. Stay civil and open minded and you'll not have posters being a dick to you. BTW, a certain prolific poster here who everyone thinks is a right wing kind of a guy was a bleeding heart liberal 6 years ago. There's hope for you. 

[LSHMEAB]

6 minutes ago, KayAdams said:

 

I think that ratio is only useful as a rhetorical device for left-wing progressives.

Right. Because the average person doesn't and shouldn't care what the CEO is earning as long as they're doing well. Solid point.

 

Here's the deal as it pertains to my perspective; Sociopath is a bit strong for my taste for those who have acquired means, but they're obviously good at gaming the system. They're "good at life" so to speak. I don't begrudge Bezos, Bloomberg, Branson for attaining massive amounts of wealth. They're obviously innovate and they've earned the right to have massive amounts of wealth. 

 

BUT, there are folks who are just not "good at life." Some would like to label ALL of them as lazy, etc. That's fine. Some probably are. But many of them are simply not gifted. So the question becomes; do you want to directly help these people or go with a Darwinian approach in which they're twisting in the mind. I would prefer a social safety net that provides them some scraps. They're not gonna life well, but at least they'll have some scraps. Some hold the view that they either sink or swim on their own merit. It's a valid, although somewhat heartless position. 

 

So how do you directly help these people? That's a tough question, but I think it's worth exploring. You could take the approach of slashing all social programs, which is where this thing is headed given the deficit. That's one approach. I'd rather find a reasonable solution that involves government intervention.

 

Cut off their scraps, and they'll probably end up in prison. Know why? Because they probably suck at crime too. "Good" criminals don't end up in prison. The notion of profiteering from incarceration personally sickens me.

 

I'll leave it at that, but appreciate the well thought out response.

11 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

There's a lot to be learned from other posters here. Generally speaking but with a few exceptions, each of us has something to offer. You seem to be a person who is willing to take a second look at a subject and admit when other people know more about it than you do. Too many liberals here have preconceived ideas that are set in stone. Others are so immature that they post offensive pictures just because they are a dick or cherry pick a sentence or paragraph out of an article that is behind a paywall to post what is in affect a lie. Stay civil and open minded and you'll not have posters being a dick to you. BTW, a certain prolific poster here who everyone thinks is a right wing kind of a guy was a bleeding heart liberal 6 years ago. There's hope for you. 

You won't like this post!

[GG]

4 hours ago, LSHMEAB said:

OK. Well, I know you don't have to file taxes if you make less than 12.5k. That's a little different than paying because I'm sure there's a gap between 12.5 and the amount at which you still wouldn't PAY anything. 

 

But what's the max an individual can make and still not PAY any taxes? Like 25k? If 47% of Americans are making less than this threshold, THAT'S A PROBLEM!

 

Don’t forget the credits that are applied to taxes.  The biggest is the $2k credit per child, which drops the tax bill a lot.   A family with one child in a household making $50k will pay $1k in total taxes after basic deductions and credits.

 

There was an op-ed in the WSJ today talking about how the US has the most progressive effective tax regime.   The EU countries may have higher top marginal rates, but the income tax burden is spread much more evenly in them.   If Bernie was honest, he’d be upfront with the voters that all their taxes are going to be raised by a LOT!    For all his talk about taxing millionaires and billionaires, the reality is that there isn’t enough money  available to pay for everything he wants to do.  

[B-Man]

 

FULL DINNER JACKET:

 

 

 

 

.

[LSHMEAB]

18 minutes ago, GG said:

 

Don’t forget the credits that are applied to taxes.  The biggest is the $2k credit per child, which drops the tax bill a lot.   A family with one child in a household making $50k will pay $1k in total taxes after basic deductions and credits.

 

There was an op-ed in the WSJ today talking about how the US has the most progressive effective tax regime.   The EU countries may have higher top marginal rates, but the income tax burden is spread much more evenly in them.   If Bernie was honest, he’d be upfront with the voters that all their taxes are going to be raised by a LOT!    For all his talk about taxing millionaires and billionaires, the reality is that there isn’t enough money  available to pay for everything he wants to do.  

Well, I think he's relatively up front in comparison to most politicians. Pocahontas attempted to dance around the issue. Bernie came right out in the debate and said that even MIDDLE CLASS taxes would be raised by 4 percent to pay Medicaid for all.

 

Just to follow up; I don't disagree with your first paragraph. 50K a year with one kid? Yeah. You gotta be paying more than 2%. Kid probably costs more than 2k a year, but that doesn't mean your deduction should be THAT high. It's your kid. If we're ever going to get the deficit under control while maintaining some safety nets, that's unacceptable.

Edited February 27, 2020 by LSHMEAB

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 hour ago, LSHMEAB said:

Well, I think he's relatively up front in comparison to most politicians. Pocahontas attempted to dance around the issue. Bernie came right out in the debate and said that even MIDDLE CLASS taxes would be raised by 4 percent to pay Medicaid for all.

 

Just to follow up; I don't disagree with your first paragraph. 50K a year with one kid? Yeah. You gotta be paying more than 2%. Kid probably costs more than 2k a year, but that doesn't mean your deduction should be THAT high. It's your kid. If we're ever going to get the deficit under control while maintaining some safety nets, that's unacceptable.

Consider why that particular deduction is in place:

 

American population growth is cratering, as it is in most of the First World, and our social safety net is a gigantic Ponzi scheme requiring more and more new births (future tax payers) to support a top heavy, aging population.  Which is why the establishment elite is so keen on importing a large population from our third world neighbors, and giving them citizenship.  It a) keeps them in power, and b) staves off wide scale government collapse during their tenure by kicking the can down the road.

 

The child tax credit is social engineering designed to prop up the long term health of Social Security.

[GG]

1 hour ago, LSHMEAB said:

Well, I think he's relatively up front in comparison to most politicians. Pocahontas attempted to dance around the issue. Bernie came right out in the debate and said that even MIDDLE CLASS taxes would be raised by 4 percent to pay Medicaid for all.

 

 

 

But that's what I mean when I say he isn't honest.  Taxes on the middle class would go up by way more than 4%, and he's being dishonest about it.

 

He refuses to provide any detail on the funding for Medicare for all, but it's easy to see how he plans to implement it by hearing what else he says about his plan.  

 

Essentially he wants to eliminate all private insurance and replace all the premiums companies and individuals pay for health insurance with a health tax.  Because most of these premiums are paid by employers, he can claim that taxes on individuals will only go up by a little, because the big part of the health tax will be paid by employers.   The trouble with the plan is that you are replacing a voluntary $12k premium payment by companies with a compulsory $12k tax per head.  Realistically, the tax would be higher because you would need to cover the costs of the unemployed.  This scheme could work with large employers;oyers, but would be more painful for smaller employers, whose participation will be necessary to provide universal coverage.

[LSHMEAB]

2 minutes ago, GG said:

 

But that's what I mean when I say he isn't honest.  Taxes on the middle class would go up by way more than 4%, and he's being dishonest about it.

 

He refuses to provide any detail on the funding for Medicare for all, but it's easy to see how he plans to implement it by hearing what else he says about his plan.  

 

Essentially he wants to eliminate all private insurance and replace all the premiums companies and individuals pay for health insurance with a health tax.  Because most of these premiums are paid by employers, he can claim that taxes on individuals will only go up by a little, because the big part of the health tax will be paid by employers.   The trouble with the plan is that you are replacing a voluntary $12k premium payment by companies with a compulsory $12k tax per head.  Realistically, the tax would be higher because you would need to cover the costs of the unemployed.  This scheme could work with large employers;oyers, but would be more painful for smaller employers, whose participation will be necessary to provide universal coverage.

I mean, the heart of the plan isn't really designed to be deficit neutral. That's obvious. We're talking about human beings, so the plan is designed to provide coverage to all Americans. Essentially, is healthcare a right or a privilege? You've also got to take into account the enormous cost ER's take on because poor/uninsured folks already have a "right" to healthcare if you will. 

 

As far as employers go, I suppose they would be paying more in taxes, but it WOULD also eliminate the headache of providing employees insurance. You could make the case that the plan would increase companies' incentive to HIRE more people when you eliminate that perk.