Who is going to win democrat nominee 2020? - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Who is going to win democrat nominee?

Bernie Sanders
23
47%
Joe Biden
19
39%
Elizabeth Warren
4
8%
Other
3
6%
#15060418
I wish someone would explain to me what exactly is "progressive" about carbon taxes and energy austerity? That fuckwit Sanders somehow got it in his head that highly regressive taxes and artificially induced energy poverty are consistent with socialism, someone should tell him that they are not.

When this shitstain loses it's not gonna be because of socialism, it's gonna be on account of his abandoning socialism for carbon taxes and all the rest liberal horseshit he's been pushing.


Sanders has also been hyping the fuck out of russiagate lately because he's a stupid dildo.
#15060452
I wish someone would explain to me what exactly is "progressive" about carbon taxes and energy austerity? That fuckwit Sanders somehow got it in his head that highly regressive taxes and artificially induced energy poverty are consistent with socialism, someone should tell him that they are not.

When this shitstain loses it's not gonna be because of socialism, it's gonna be on account of his abandoning socialism for carbon taxes and all the rest liberal horseshit he's been pushing.


Sanders has also been hyping the fuck out of russiagate lately because he's a stupid dildo.


Perhaps if you stopped posting childish insults and asked you questions in an adult manner someone would answer your question.
#15060456
Drlee wrote:Perhaps if you stopped posting childish insults and asked you questions in an adult manner someone would answer your question.


So far as I can tell, this is his question:

"I wish someone would explain to me what exactly is "progressive" about carbon taxes and energy austerity?"

How is that a childish insult?
#15060457
Sivad wrote:
I wish someone would explain to me what exactly is "progressive" about carbon taxes and energy austerity?



It's a choice between a market based solution and regulation.

Regulation isn't working, and it never will. I could go into depth, but you should start doing your homework.

That leaves an incremental Carbon Tax.

It's a tax you don't have to pay. You can easily reduce it (with a Prius, for example) but you see people getting off the grid now.

Next, it unleashes the creative forces of capitalism on the problem.

Third, if you want a big dog, or a Ferrari, that's great. High end cars routinely develop technology that trickles down to the benefit of the rest of us.

Fourth, there is going to be a new wave in response to the dramatic increases in the damages caused by climate change. It would be really bad to have to reform in accord with a second wave when we've barely started the first.

Don't kid yourself, this new wave will have teeth.
#15060459
late wrote: I could go into depth, but you should start doing your homework.


This is late-speak for "I have no fucking idea what I'm talking about"...

It's a tax you don't have to pay. You can easily reduce it (with a Prius, for example)


But then you'd have to drive a Prius...

:lol: :lol: :lol:

This is a lot more enjoyable than a Prius:

Image
#15060461
BigSteve wrote:
1) This is late-speak for "I have no fucking idea what I'm talking about"...

2) But then you'd have to drive a Prius...





1) CAFE increased emissions. You are projecting again.

2) Have you tried the new Prius? It's nice, I didn't like the early models, but they have steadily gotten better, earning a place near the top of Consumer Reports recommendations.
#15060463
late wrote:1) CAFE increased emissions. You are projecting again.

2) Have you tried the new Prius? It's nice, I didn't like the early models, but they have steadily gotten better, earning a place near the top of Consumer Reports recommendations.


Huh.

Whatever.

A Prius isn't going to get me out to Porpoise Point the way this thing does, though:

Image
#15060478
late wrote:You keep calling me ignorant, I keep schooling you and you never learn.


Drive your Prius. My neighbor's daughter drives one. I'm sure you'd look great in one.

I'll keep the Jeep...
#15060494
"I wish someone would explain to me what exactly is "progressive" about carbon taxes and energy austerity?"


They are progressive because they actually consider what will become of future generations. There is little stomach for such thought in modern conservative circles. This is unlike real conservatives who, when the movement still had an intellectual base, realized that what Buckley said was true:

"A conservative is one who stands athwart history and shouts stop."


So why could a carbon tax or environmental regulation be conservative? Easy. Nixon saw it and he was FAR more classically conservative than any of the current crop of republicans save a couple.

Now Big Steve this will be hard and I fully expect your usual childish insults from it. To for the others.

Here is an example. Conservatives oppose inheritance taxes. Why? Because taxes are regressive and besides they aim to preserve or "conserve" their wealth for future generations of their kin. There is not a soul who has ever benefited from low inheritance taxes on his own money. So we see conservatives do care about future generations.

Continuing to exponentially produce carbon emissions is progressive by definition. The damage to the environment is progressing nicely, thank you. Preserving our planet (conservation if you wish) is inherently conservative. It is "seeing damage to the future and shouting stop!"

Business can take one of two tacks. (To oversimplify) They can either go for massive profits now and not plan for the future or they can create a company that means to make reasonable profits in the long haul. Usually these require two distinctly different management and investment styles. Let me give you an example.

A "liberal" real estate investor, wishing to maximize near term profits, can flip homes. Fix them up to the minimum required for a quick buck and sell them for a nominal profit. Lather, rinse, repeat. A "conservative" real estate investor will fix them up with the idea of keeping them to generate rent in the short term and increased profits in the future. These investors are interested in long-term solutions such as quality repairs up front. These conservative investors would also be interested in laws that protect their investment such as strict zoning and environmental laws that protect the neighborhood.

Look at beachfront property in much of the country. (Florida is already seeing it.) It would be fine for an investor to flip a beachfront home in some parts of Florida but unwise to plan to keep it. Why? Because it will be flooded in not that many years. We are seeing it already.

So clearly a very conservative company would be far more likely to take the long view of its business model. This company would be concerned about profits not only now but in the future. A damaged environment would clearly be seen as a threat. (Even the pentagon is planning for global climate change.)
This company would be supporting plans that allow them to make money now while preserving their ability to make money in the future. Carbon taxes, which are taxes in which they have choice about when and what to pay. They are a very conservative solution.

What would be the "liberal" solution? That would be to simply legislate clean air, looser take the hindmost. Far more than carbon taxes, these kinds of draconian regulations could damage many American businesses a great deal. So carbon taxes ARE the conservative solution. They are about as free-market as you can get without throwing the whole future to the vagaries of fate. Just who do you think was driving the push for carbon taxes? Certainly not progressives.

You also asked about energy austerity. There really is no such thing but if, for the sake of argument grant that there is, consider this:

Using energy is a market. Not only for the energy itself but for the products that use it. I recently replaced my HVAC. (Air conditioner.) The decision affected two "markets". I could have chosen a cheaper solution near term and as my state mandates a minimum of 13 SEER purchased that. This option would have had me paying more by buying retail energy, much of it generated by coal. Or, as I did, I could choose to buy a far more efficient unit, paying more now with future savings and burning less coal.

Mandated energy consumption creates new markets for efficient energy use. Granted it is not good for the coal miners but it is sometimes good for the companies that buy coal. It is an opportunity for them to scale production to cheaper methods of production or even seek higher rates to compensate for any additional capital investment required.

So you see BigSteve, the issue is not what it appears. What is the problem is the sound-bite simplicity attributed to these issues not in the service of the truth but rather in the service of a political goal.

I mean really. Look at the poor coal miners that Trump and other republicans are nattering on about. We are supposed to vote republican because the big-bad "liberals" are going to put all of them out of work. And how many is that? It is about 50,000 coal miners nationwide. That is about half as many miners as there are florists in the country. It is nothing. If they were all out of work tomorrow it would hardly affect the unemployment rate at all. There are 10 times that many Scientologists in the country.

But the republican party, not conservative and certainly not interested in the truth, knows that this is a winning issue with people who are simply not smart enough or too lazy to seek the truth.

Now I don't expect anything nearing what I just posted in response. Why? Too hard. It will be much easier to simply get angry or result to sarcasm.
#15060792
I reckon Sanders is the only one who could beat Trump (like last time) but he's going to get the Corbyn treatment, actually he already has been getting that; the antisemitism smears didn't quite work on him so they opted for accusing him of sexism, and so will probably get Mr Grab Them By The Pussies staying in power.

America. :hmm:
#15060809
I'm just one person without a vote in this, but If I had had a vote in 2016 between Trump and Bernie I would have voted for Bernie. I would vote for Bernie in 2020 if given that choice. In 2016, Hilary's "Black lies matter" goons were unleashed on Sanders, and tried to slander him as a White supremacist racist. Hilary obviously had a massive sense of entitlement and expected, Sanders supporters just to show up and vote for her. Now Warren is trying a similar trick with her lies trying to portray Sanders as a sexist misogynist. I doubt Pocahontas thinks she can win, I suspect she expects to be rewarded by the establishment for doing their dirty work for them.
#15060969
It's Joe because the DNC prefers Donald to Bernie.


Sort of.

There is an interesting possibility though.

It may be that the democratic leadership may conclude that they should let Trump win for other reasons. Here they are:

They know they will retain the house thereby effectively thwarting any massive changes the republicans may want to try. For example they can stop any significant wall construction and even, just maybe, protect some of Obamacare.

They know that the economy is going to crash and want it to crash on Donald's watch thereby discrediting the republican party's economic strategy. The market is way overvalued and I am quite surprised it has held out this long.

They want Trump to pardon the hell out of his cronies, discrediting him.

They like the tax cuts and do not want to try to balance the budget on their own watch.

They don't believe they have a candidate who can beat Trump.

They believe Trump is doing irreparable damage to the Republican party...Between he and McConnell this is probably true.

They believe that if they wait another annoying four years they can take the senate and white house too.
#15060974
Drlee wrote:They know that the economy is going to crash and want it to crash on Donald's watch thereby discrediting the republican party's economic strategy. The market is way overvalued and I am quite surprised it has held out this long.

True, but what if the market crashes before the election? It has nearly a year.
They want Trump to pardon the hell out of his cronies, discrediting him.

That strikes me as marginal.
They don't believe they have a candidate who can beat Trump.

They know Bernie can. Or do you mean someone they would approve?
They believe Trump is doing irreparable damage to the Republican party...Between he and McConnell this is probably true.

I'm skeptical. If Nixon didn't, how could Trump?
They believe that if they wait another annoying four years they can take the senate and white house too.

That may work.
#15060992
True, but what if the market crashes before the election? It has nearly a year.


That is still on Donald's watch. He will get the blame and they can run on a plan to fix the economy. Granted this is the republican's strong suit but Trump would get the blame.

And.

If the economy crashes before the election, Bloomberg for the win.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 19

Lay off the shrooms man and living in a delusiona[…]

Worship myself? Who do you think I am, Donald Tru[…]

Is that a joke or are you one of those stupid Ame[…]

The reason China has so many factory "zombie[…]