Democratic primary watch

Political discussion here. Any reasonable opinion is welcome, but due to the sensitive nature of the topic area, please be nice and respectful to others. No flaming or trolling, please. And please keep political commentary out of the other board areas and confine it to this area. Thanks!
User avatar
In2ition
Posts: 11385
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 1:35 pm

Re: Democratic primary watch

Post by In2ition »

Marty [Mori Chu] wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 9:18 am
In2ition wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 4:53 pm
Marty [Mori Chu] wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 4:27 pm
In2ition wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:51 pm
Marty [Mori Chu] wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:38 pm
What are some of her ideas that you dislike? Do you oppose her idea to marginally tax the richest Americans at a much higher rate such as 70%? Do you oppose her environmental policies such as a "Green New Deal"?
Are you saying those are good ideas?
Yes. I deeply desire heavily taxing the marginal earnings of the rich (80-90% at the highest rates). And I favor radical action to address climate change since it threatens the extinction of our species. But what about you?
70% is crazytown, let alone 80-90%. And what do you consider rich? Over 100K? 200K? 100 Mil? 100 bil? I'm just not in favor of holding a gun to the head of someone else to take their money at a much higher rate and claim you are creating a better world. I'm just not sold on this idea.

As far as radical action to address climate change, do you really think that the US is going to be able to control this around the world? Or do you think that the US should be the Earth's cleaners? What do you do to fix volcano eruptions or wildfires which contribute an amazing amount of carbon?
It probably will take radical action, but even batteries and the creation of solar panels create their own type of harm to the environment, from what I've heard. I certainly don't have the answers nor am I saying that we shouldn't be pursuing eventual solutions to these problems, but to claim you know exactly what is going to happen or how to fix it, seems odd to me. Count me as an global warming agnostic, and not a religious zealot yet. Creating a utopia on Earth is about as realistic as the Suns making the playoffs and winning the title this year, imo.
I am, of course, talking about marginal tax rates. I don't want to tax all of the rich guy's income at 70-90%, only the dollars above a high threshold, say $10m. I look at it this way: tax revenue has to come from somebody. Why would you prefer for it to come from the poor and middle-class? Why not have more of it come from the wealthiest Americans who can amply afford it?

As for climate change, yes, I do think the US has a huge influence in the world. If we adopt policies and rules that help the environment, that has a big impact. Look at the Paris accords and how much impact that has had; now that we're pulling out of that thanks to Trump, that sends exactly the wrong message. I favor lots and lots of action and investment in climate improvements, clean energy, etc. because we're all literally going to die if we don't do it. I can't imagine literally anything more important.
Why $10m? Why did you set it at that rate? Would I prefer for it to come from the poor and middle-class? Hmmm, I'll take this as a rhetorical question instead of a strawman one. I'm not a CPA or tax expert, but how much income tax does the poor actually pay? As far as I know, I think there is a progressive tax rate right now, at least it seems that I start paying at a higher rate as my income goes above certain points, and when I didn't make much of anything all my money taken out for taxes was returned to me. Don't the wealthiest Americans already pay for the large majority of the taxes right now? I'm not sure on the numbers, but I believe that In 2014, the top 1 percent of taxpayers accounted for more income taxes paid than the bottom 90 percent combined.

Yes, I'm sure that the US has a sizable influence on the world, but it certainly doesn't influence everyone. I am not speaking for anyone else, but it doesn't seem right that US should be hamstrung and carry an unfair burden when it comes to environmental changes. Why can't everyone carry their share of responsibility? Like I've said before, I am in favor of finding and supporting clean energy or ways to clean the environment and make it better for our ancestors that come after us. Heck, I would love to work from home more and ride my bicycle to work. I would love to be off the grid and have my household to be total self sustainable. I grew up on a farm, we had a huge garden, farm animals, practiced soil conservation and hunted. I haven't noticed a big difference in weather patterns from when I was as kid in the 70's and 80's to now, other than I live in a totally different climate now, but I'm sure it's radically different. Even back then, they predicted that New York would be under water long ago, and the ocean level hasn't changed from my understanding. When I was much younger, this was a great fear of mine as I remember a huge blizzard we had and a major flooding that happened in my town, but as I've gotten older I've become a bit more skeptical of the fear mongering. Like I said, call me an agnostic on what feels like this religious movement.
"When we all think alike, nobody is thinking" - Walter Lippmann
"Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them." ~ Frederick Douglass

User avatar
In2ition
Posts: 11385
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 1:35 pm

Re: Democratic primary watch

Post by In2ition »

Superbone wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 9:51 am
Yeah, let's just let the planet go to pot. We'll survive it and maybe even our kids. What do we care?
Was this directed at me?
"When we all think alike, nobody is thinking" - Walter Lippmann
"Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them." ~ Frederick Douglass

User avatar
In2ition
Posts: 11385
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 1:35 pm

Re: Democratic primary watch

Post by In2ition »

Cap wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 9:20 am
Where are you getting this “creating a Utopia” nonsense? Climate change mitigation isn’t about creating a Utopia, it’s about preserving the stability of the ecosystems to which our species and society have adapted over the past tens of thousands of years.

Do you sincerely believe that climate change mitigation proponents have claimed they can create a Utopia on Earth, or do you just like to put those silly words in their mouths because you think it gives you a good excuse to dismiss the entire scientific field as nonsense?
I am not dismissing an entire scientific field, just saying I'm agnostic on the religious fervor that spouted. Perhaps a different approach would work better with me. I'm certainly not against making the world a cleaner and safer place for everyone and everyone that comes after us. It's been said that we may be on the brink of scientific discoveries that extend our health hundreds of years. That would be something. Who wants to live in a world were the environment is killing us?
"When we all think alike, nobody is thinking" - Walter Lippmann
"Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them." ~ Frederick Douglass

User avatar
Cap
Posts: 8553
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2014 6:08 pm

Re: Democratic primary watch

Post by Cap »

In2ition wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 10:37 am
Cap wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 9:20 am
Where are you getting this “creating a Utopia” nonsense? Climate change mitigation isn’t about creating a Utopia, it’s about preserving the stability of the ecosystems to which our species and society have adapted over the past tens of thousands of years.

Do you sincerely believe that climate change mitigation proponents have claimed they can create a Utopia on Earth, or do you just like to put those silly words in their mouths because you think it gives you a good excuse to dismiss the entire scientific field as nonsense?
I am not dismissing an entire scientific field, just saying I'm agnostic on the religious fervor that spouted. Perhaps a different approach would work better with me. I'm certainly not against making the world a cleaner and safer place for everyone and everyone that comes after us. It's been said that we may be on the brink of scientific discoveries that extend our health hundreds of years. That would be something. Who wants to live in a world were the environment is killing us?
It’s not a religion, it’s a science. The “fervor” to which you refer is just people who pay attention to the science saying it’s really important, which it is. Dismissing it as unimportant because you’re turned off by people saying it’s important isn’t particularly rational.

Tell me, what kind of messaging approach would work for you? There’s plenty of dry academic literature on the subject. Of course, only “fervent” politicians get quoted every day in the news. If you only hear fervent messaging, it’s just because the other kind isn’t heard, not because it doesn’t exist. (Actually, the kind of messaging you’re hearing doesn’t exist. Nobody is saying green energy will create a Utopia on Earth, but somehow that’s what you’re hearing and using to denounce the messaging.)

As for who wants to live in a world where the environment is killing us, obviously most of us would prefer to live in a world where it isn’t, which is precisely why climate change mitigation is so important.

FWIW, there’s a big difference between “it’s been said” and “it is the practically universal consensus of the scientific community.” Most longevity experts do not believe we are on the brink of a discovery that will extend lifespans to hundreds of years. Not it that it has much to do with the subject under discussion. How is potentially long lifespans a reason not to undertake climate change mitigation?
Last edited by Cap on Tue Jan 15, 2019 12:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Superbone
Posts: 33490
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 11:44 am
Location: San Diego, CA (Phoenix Native)

Re: Democratic primary watch

Post by Superbone »

In2ition wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 10:28 am
Superbone wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 9:51 am
Yeah, let's just let the planet go to pot. We'll survive it and maybe even our kids. What do we care?
Was this directed at me?
If you think it is... Look, this is not a religious argument that you're making it out to be. This is all backed by scientific fact. We are degrading the earth at a rate that is not sustainable. Something must be done by everybody. As world leaders, we absolutely must spearhead the initiative.
"Be Legendary."

User avatar
Nodack
Posts: 8517
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2014 6:50 pm

Re: Democratic primary watch

Post by Nodack »

In2ition wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:30 pm
I'm not a fan of career politicians. I don't like it that it seems many of them are bought and paid for by the lobbyists.
I saw a former lobbyist interviewed on TV who was sent to prison over unscrupulous lobbying activites. He was out of prison and talking about lobbyists. He says 85% of all the politicians in Washington are on the take. The ones who aren’t are the young ones who just got there and haven’t been turned yet.

Doing something about lobbyists having WAY to much influence on our leaders is one of the most important things we need to address as Americans. Politicians are not going to do anything about it besides give it occasional lip service unless we Americans protest in great numbers. It doesn’t seem to be of any priority for most Americans so, I expect it to continue unabated.

User avatar
Nodack
Posts: 8517
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2014 6:50 pm

Re: Democratic primary watch

Post by Nodack »

We don’t need to create a Utopian society. We just need to try to stop destroying the planet as much as possible. Do we really know if man is destroying the climate or is the earth naturally evolving in ways that hurt mankind? The vast majority of scientists as far as I have seen think man is making the issue much worse. Are we going to stop driving cars and turning on lights anytime soon? No.

Does solar power hurt the environment? I haven’t heard that anywhere before. Maybe the making of the solar panels helps pollute the air some. Does it pollute the air as much as a coal plant? I would say no. We aren’t ready to stop all emissions but we can lower emissions and that’s what the green tech is designed to do.

Trump pulling out of the Paris accord was catastrophic. We as a country were instrumental in making it happen in the first place. Pulling out sent a REALLY REALLY BAD message to the rest of the world. Pulling out of the Iran deal sent a REALLY REALLY BAD message to the world. Trump threatening to pull out of NATO sends a REALLY REALLY BAD message to the world. Trump selecting a guy that HATES the EPA sent a REALLY REALLY bad message to the world. Pruitt did a lot of harm while there. I’m sure ot made Trump supporters very happy.

Trump sent Americas standing in the world back decades IMO. Our allies like Germany no longer consider us allies.

User avatar
In2ition
Posts: 11385
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 1:35 pm

Re: Democratic primary watch

Post by In2ition »

Cap wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 12:04 pm
In2ition wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 10:37 am
Cap wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 9:20 am
Where are you getting this “creating a Utopia” nonsense? Climate change mitigation isn’t about creating a Utopia, it’s about preserving the stability of the ecosystems to which our species and society have adapted over the past tens of thousands of years.

Do you sincerely believe that climate change mitigation proponents have claimed they can create a Utopia on Earth, or do you just like to put those silly words in their mouths because you think it gives you a good excuse to dismiss the entire scientific field as nonsense?
I am not dismissing an entire scientific field, just saying I'm agnostic on the religious fervor that spouted. Perhaps a different approach would work better with me. I'm certainly not against making the world a cleaner and safer place for everyone and everyone that comes after us. It's been said that we may be on the brink of scientific discoveries that extend our health hundreds of years. That would be something. Who wants to live in a world were the environment is killing us?
It’s not a religion, it’s a science. The “fervor” to which you refer is just people who pay attention to the science saying it’s really important, which it is. Dismissing it as unimportant because you’re turned off by people saying it’s important isn’t particularly rational.

Tell me, what kind of messaging approach would work for you? There’s plenty of dry academic literature on the subject. Of course, only “fervent” politicians get quoted every day in the news. If you only hear fervent messaging, it’s just because the other kind isn’t heard, not because it doesn’t exist. (Actually, the kind of messaging you’re hearing doesn’t exist. Nobody is saying green energy will create a Utopia on Earth, but somehow that’s what you’re hearing and using to denounce the messaging.)

As for who wants to live in a world where the environment is killing us, obviously most of us would prefer to live in a world where it isn’t, which is precisely why climate change mitigation is so important.

FWIW, there’s a big difference between “it’s been said” and “it is the practically universal consensus of the scientific community.” Most longevity experts do not believe we are on the brink of a discovery that will extend lifespans to hundreds of years. Not it that it has much to do with the subject under discussion. How is potentially long lifespans a reason not to undertake climate change mitigation?
Obviously, you don't like how I'm describing it. Sorry you feel that way and seem to be personally insulted. I'm not trying to insult you or anyone, nor am I trying to put words in your mouth or anyone else.

BTW, I also did not use longevity as a reason to not undertake climate change mitigation. In fact, it would be a good reason to undertake climate change mitigation.
"When we all think alike, nobody is thinking" - Walter Lippmann
"Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them." ~ Frederick Douglass

User avatar
Mori Chu
Posts: 20875
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 10:05 am

Re: Democratic primary watch

Post by Mori Chu »

The latest conservative buzzphrase about climate change is that we should not react to it and should instead wait for "technology" to come along to help us fix it. Which, okay, sure, we should keep working on new scientific means to fight climate change. But this framing ignores the fact that we have already come up with an immense amount of technology that would help against climate change, and conservatives don't want to pay to deploy or implement it. Things like alternative energy, for example. New tech costs money. You have to invest in fighting climate change; you won't ever find a magical technology that just fixes all of the world's problems for free. But hey, tax cuts! *fires pistol into air*

User avatar
Nodack
Posts: 8517
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2014 6:50 pm

Re: Democratic primary watch

Post by Nodack »

https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/ ... 6e8d13ea19
Of the 800,000 federal employees furloughed or working without pay, thousands are researchers. These include agency scientists at the Agriculture Department, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Geological Survey. (The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health, which were separately funded through September, are almost entirely safe from this shutdown.) Furloughed government scientists are banned from any form of work activity — they cannot so much as open an email.

They are all just lazy Democrats milking society anyway...

User avatar
Mori Chu
Posts: 20875
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 10:05 am

Re: Democratic primary watch

Post by Mori Chu »

California Senator Kamala Harris announces today that she is running for President. (The announcement comes on MLK Day, no doubt chosen intentionally.)

Personally I think the Democratic primary is a three-candidate race, with the candidates who have the best chances being, in some order:

Elizabeth Warren
Kamala Harris
Beto O'Rourke

There are a few others with outside shots, like Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Kirsten Gillibrand, Amy Klobuchar, and Cory Booker, but I don't think any of these latter list have a real shot.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sen-kam ... d=60472358

User avatar
Nodack
Posts: 8517
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2014 6:50 pm

Re: Democratic primary watch

Post by Nodack »

I saw O’Rourke and thought he seemed like an honest guy who really wants to help people and seems to keep politics clean as in not resorting to cheap attacks and insults. Then I saw he does have a past and was arrested for burglary and DWI. Now I am a little more skeptical.

I sort of like Elizabeth Warren but she is wearing on me a little bit.

Kamala Harris has been one of the more vocal critics of Trump and seems intelligent. I have been keeping an eye on her.

User avatar
Nodack
Posts: 8517
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2014 6:50 pm

Re: Democratic primary watch

Post by Nodack »

Democrat Presidential Hopefuls Power Rankings
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/17/politics ... index.html

User avatar
Mori Chu
Posts: 20875
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 10:05 am

Re: Democratic primary watch

Post by Mori Chu »

I sort of like Elizabeth Warren but she is wearing on me a little bit.
Curious; can you elaborate? What do you dislike about her / what is wearing on you? Do you disagree with her views on certain issues?

User avatar
Nodack
Posts: 8517
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2014 6:50 pm

Re: Democratic primary watch

Post by Nodack »

I can’t really put a finger on it. I haven’t follwed her enough to really be up on her issues other than she champions the little guy and goes after big business, which is fine. Her indian stunt backfired on her and left me a little embarrassed for her. She seems a little whiny as well. I know these aren’t issues other than likability on my end for the most part. Maybe she will win me over before it’s all said and done.

User avatar
Mori Chu
Posts: 20875
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 10:05 am

Re: Democratic primary watch

Post by Mori Chu »

Here's an article in The Guardian arguing why Joe Biden wouldn't make a very good 2020 Presidential candidate. I tend to agree.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -candidate

User avatar
Nodack
Posts: 8517
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2014 6:50 pm

Re: Democratic primary watch

Post by Nodack »

I could accept Biden but I am ready for new blood all around. New politicians haven’t been corrupted yet and there is a chance they will act in the best interests of America and not the highest bidder.

User avatar
Indy
Posts: 19339
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2014 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Democratic primary watch

Post by Indy »

I can't say I would or wouldn't vote for him, because it depends who he is running against in the general. But of all of the people that have announced they are running, Biden would not be near the top of my list. Besides all of his skeletons around the crime bill and how he treated non-white people, I don't want a privileged millionaire white guy in their 80s representing me.

User avatar
Nodack
Posts: 8517
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2014 6:50 pm

Re: Democratic primary watch

Post by Nodack »

I am ready for new blood all around. = Nice way of saying I don't want a privileged millionaire white guy in their 80s representing me.

User avatar
Cap
Posts: 8553
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2014 6:08 pm

Re: Democratic primary watch

Post by Cap »

Nodack wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:56 pm
I am ready for new blood all around. = Nice way of saying I don't want a privileged millionaire white guy in their 80s representing me.
If the privileged millionaire white guy has political sensibilities like Warren Buffet or Bill Gates, I won’t hold his wealth and skin color against him.

Post Reply