Presidential Election: 11/3/20 ---Now the President Elect Joe Biden Thread

[visionary]

 

[visionary]

So...looking at CNN on tv right now and it says, 'Williamson blasts Pres Trump's dark psychic force.'

 

Anderson Cooper is interviewing her right now.  (she did say she likes Bernie and Warren)

 

 

Listening to her talk, if Williamson ends up being the nominee, I'm going to be very annoyed.

[Renegade7]

Everytime I see Warren talk. I believe more and more she can hold her own on stage with Trump.  She can throw bows and stay on point just like Harris.  Them two should be the ticket. 

 

I've never been so frustrated with what the idea of a moderate is then right now, every single one of them on stage sounded scared of life, Trump would destroy them.

 

 

[Momma There Goes That Man]

23 minutes ago, visionary said:

So...looking at CNN on tv right now and it says, 'Williamson blasts Pres Trump's dark psychic force.'

 

Anderson Cooper is interviewing her right now.  (she did say she likes Bernie and Warren)

 

 

Listening to her talk, if Williamson ends up being the nominee, I'm going to be very annoyed.

 

She was just being interviewed on cnn and said the American people need a colonic to cleanse our chakras and recharge our spirits. 

 

 

 

Admit it, you can’t tell if this is true or not 

 

8 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

Everytime I see Warren talk. I believe more and more she can hold her own on stage with Trump.  She can throw bows and stay on point just like Harris.  Them two should be the ticket. 

 

I've never been so frustrated with what the idea of a moderate is then right now, every single one of them on stage sounded scared of life, Trump would destroy them.

 

 

 

This is why Warren was the big winner. She sold herself as true one taking on trump which was really the only thing I needed to still see. she showed that fire and passion and strength that she didnt show last time because she wasn’t challenged or attacked. I wanted to see her go for blood and she did. 

 

And she ended that man Delaneys whole career 

[Renegade7]

Williamson should be Secretary of Spirituality.  Can see her at a cabinet meeting saying we should kill North Korea with love and DoD saying "killing, we support killing"

 

[Rufus T Firefly]

5 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

Everytime I see Warren talk. I believe more and more she can hold her own on stage with Trump.  She can throw bows and stay on point just like Harris.  Them two should be the ticket. 

 

I've never been so frustrated with what the idea of a moderate is then right now, every single one of them on stage sounded scared of life, Trump would destroy them.

 

 

Agree totally on both points. Not being talked about is it seemed Warren did the best job of doing what will be most important for whoever takes on Trump- she took the attacks and turned them to her advantage. That wins her the night for me.

 

This country doesn't vote ideologically. All this whinging and clutched pearls over whether this or that proposal is too far left is wasted time. Trump's policies are extremely unpopular but he got elected. What people respond to is someone they believe is genuine. It amazes me that Trump fits the bill for so many people but he does. The Democrats need to nominate someone people believe in. Hillary lost because she wasn't that, at all. 

[Renegade7]

2 minutes ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

Agree totally on both points. Not being talked about is it seemed Warren did the best job of doing what will be most important for whoever takes on Trump- she took the attacks and turned them to her advantage. That wins her the night for me.

 

This country doesn't vote ideologically. All this whinging and clutched pearls over whether this or that proposal is too far left is wasted time. Trump's policies are extremely unpopular but he got elected. What people respond to is someone they believe is genuine. It amazes me that Trump fits the bill for so many people but he does. The Democrats need to nominate someone people believe in. Hillary lost because she wasn't that, at all. 

 

Exactly, moderates on stage trying to argue we should play by a set of rules Republicans dont play by.  You need another blue wave to take back the Senate because even a moderate Democrat will get stonewalled just because they are a Democrat.  I'm completely convinced we cannot put someone up there who tries to stay medium, theres nothing medium about Trump and the base the Dems need to get back the Senate, young voters, are tired of being medium. 

[Bozo the kKklown]

23 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Exactly, moderates on stage trying to argue we should play by a set of rules Republicans dont play by.  You need another blue wave to take back the Senate because even a moderate Democrat will get stonewalled just because they are a Democrat.  I'm completely convinced we cannot put someone up there who tries to stay medium, theres nothing medium about Trump and the base the Dems need to get back the Senate, young voters, are tired of being medium. 

Welcome to the light, My G.

 

 

[Renegade7]

Dear DNC, please give the next debate to PBS.  CNN and NBC do not have your best interests at heart, its what makes them the most amount of money.

[visionary]

 

[Rufus T Firefly]

4 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

Dear DNC, please give the next debate to PBS.  CNN and NBC do not have your best interests at heart, its what makes them the most amount of money.

They should at least get veto power of the moderators. If we have to have 3 mods, I'd be happy to see Maddow, Hayes and Heilman moderating a Dem debate.

[visionary]

 

[DCSaints_fan]

Looks like Marianna Williamson managed not trip up on her stump speech, almost thought she said  "your planet" but it was actually "this planet"

[PeterMP]

8 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

 

I'd say it needs to add cap and trade, it's not perfect, but matches the urgency of the situation.  You have to change our economy to accommodate this.

 

If you watched the video, the problem at this point in time is the developing world.  If you do the Green New Deal with a cap and trade, fossil fuel prices will drop globally, which will just increase consumption elsewhere.  If we JUST lower our consumption, prices drop, which means much of the rest of the world will increase consumption (and the problem is not even China really, but much of SE Asia (e.g. Indonesia, Vietnam, etc.) Africa, and S. America).

 

If your objective is to stay under 2 degrees, the consensus appears to be that now

 

An actual tax that raises prices here, lowers consumption, and makes alternative energy more competitive that can re-invested globally for alternative energy.  Which then decreases the amount of re-investment here.    Much of the change in our economy is going to have to come from lower consumption, but that doesn't leave the money imagined in the Green New Deal to be invested here.

 

If we had started 30 years ago or maybe even a decade ago, with cap and trade or a tax, maybe you would have a chance because that would have allowed for a larger time frame of technological development and implementation globally (i.e. non-distributed alternatives might have been an enough of an advantage to much of the developing world that if they were extremely cost competitive that they would have skipped large scale fossil fuel implementation just like much of the developed world is going to simply skip over wire based communication.)

 

(Of course this does make some assumptions about future technology.  If there is a big (unexpected) jump in battery technology next year, that changes things.)

[PeterMP]

9 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/collegeforallsummary/%3Finline%3Dfile&ved=2ahUKEwiSsI-sjN7jAhXEUt8KHUY8AwUQFjABegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw0X29bXACRQlcIwl6gaNltJ

 

 

 

Such estimates are naive.  They are based on the current numbers and values of transactions and assume that such a tax won't change behavior (which taxes almost always do).

 

The biggest thing it will do is make high speed trading less profitable, which will cause a decline in high speed trading, which means the tax will collect less income than expected given the naive estimates.  There also likely will be a decline in stock prices, which corresponds to a decline in capital gains tax revenue.  Some of the revenue you get from the new tax will really be money you would have collected anyway from capital gains taxes.

 

(The CBO has put out estimates saying you MIGHT get $100 billion+ a year out of such a tax, but then in the next paragraph, they say it will decrease high speed trading, and you'll likely get much less.)

 

I'll also point out in terms of public pensions, who can't easily decrease the amount of trading they do, this turns into a pretty big tax on everybody supporting those pensions (which is many of us).

 

I'm for a financial transaction tax because we need to do something about high speed trading.  I wouldn't plan on it being much of an income generator.

 

(I'd be more for a tax that specifically targets high speed trading so that we don't have the tax on public pensions.  So you'd put like a 50% capital gains tax on any stock held less than 1 minute or something (the exact % and time, I don't honestly know enough about to give meaningful numbers).)

 

(Let me also say, naive estimates aren't always bad.  They do create a starting place and a framework.  But they are also naive.)

 

Here's wikipedia take on revenue:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_transaction_tax#Revenues

 

(Not a good if you want to raise hundreds of billions on dollars on the wealthy.  And I don't know why they have Sweden as a positive example.  Sweden is generally acknowledged to have been negative.

 

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1714395

 

In Japan stocks have some of the highest P/E ratios and are kept high because the Japanese citizens heavily believe in investing in Japanese stocks.  It works in Japan because the Japanese buy Japanese stock even if it doesn't make much sense as an individual to do so.  Taiwan, I don't know about.  But generally financial transaction taxes have failed compared to the naive estimates that Sanders is putting forward.)

 

(As on many policies, Sanders is either ignorant, stupid, or lying.)

[Springfield]

They need to thin this mother****er down to like 5 people.

 

Biden

Bernie

Harris

Warren

Buttigueg

 

Too many people yapping away

[Renegade7]

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

 

If you watched the video, the problem at this point in time is the developing world.  If you do the Green New Deal with a cap and trade, fossil fuel prices will drop globally, which will just increase consumption elsewhere.  If we JUST lower our consumption, prices drop, which means much of the rest of the world will increase consumption (and the problem is not even China really, but much of SE Asia (e.g. Indonesia, Vietnam, etc.) Africa, and S. America).

 

If your objective is to stay under 2 degrees, the consensus appears to be that now

 

An actual tax that raises prices here, lowers consumption, and makes alternative energy more competitive that can re-invested globally for alternative energy.  Which then decreases the amount of re-investment here.    Much of the change in our economy is going to have to come from lower consumption, but that doesn't leave the money imagined in the Green New Deal to be invested here.

 

If we had started 30 years ago or maybe even a decade ago, with cap and trade or a tax, maybe you would have a chance because that would have allowed for a larger time frame of technological development and implementation globally (i.e. non-distributed alternatives might have been an enough of an advantage to much of the developing world that if they were extremely cost competitive that they would have skipped large scale fossil fuel implementation just like much of the developed world is going to simply skip over wire based communication.)

 

(Of course this does make some assumptions about future technology.  If there is a big (unexpected) jump in battery technology next year, that changes things.)

 

I watched the video and what I believe is missing from your post is the lady from Africa bringing up that many countries getting the worst from climate change contributed the least. 

 

Saying we shouldnt do this because "what about the rest of the world" misses the point the world cant do this without us.  Many countries and major cities already have carbon-neutral targets, we dont, entire the Green New Deal. 

 

Hansen is saying we need to help the rest of the world while China is already building carbon capture systems and converting whole bus and taxi fleets to electric, who really needs to catch up here?  Green New Deal isnt stupid, it's a plan bold enough to match the situation that needs a carbon tax added to it.

[TheGoodBits]

11 minutes ago, Springfield said:

They need to thin this mother****er down to like 5 people.

 

Biden

Bernie

Harris

Warren

Buttigueg

 

Too many people yapping away

 

Nobody else is close to those top 5 or has any real path to make up ground... I’m curious about two things: How long Buttigieg stays in the race (and where his voters go when he drops out), and whether Bernie pulls a 2016 and holds out until its far too late. 

 

Bernie has no path to the nomination but does have 10-15% support locked up that would presumably go to Warren if he dropped out and endorsed her. That’s the most likely way to overtake Biden, but probably won’t happen as long as Bernie stays in. 

[Bozo the kKklown]

4 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

I watched the video and what I believe is missing from your post is the lady from Africa bringing up that many countries getting the worst from climate change contributed the least. 

 

Saying we shouldnt do this because "what about the rest of the world" misses the point the world cant do this without us.  Many countries and major cities already have carbon-neutral targets, we dont, entire the Green New Deal. 

 

Hansen is saying we need to help the rest of the world while China is already building carbon capture systems and converting whole bus and taxi fleets to electric, who really needs to catch up here?  Green New Deal isnt stupid, it's a plan bold enough to match the situation that needs a carbon tax added to it.

 

Its the same deal with saying individuals need to recycle and use alternative to plastic straws while corporations continue to loot and pollute.

 

The biggest offenders aren’t being taken to task.

[Larry]

2 hours ago, PeterMP said:

The biggest thing it will do is make high speed trading less profitable, which will cause a decline in high speed trading, which means the tax will collect less income than expected given the naive estimates.  

 

Just pointing out, "will make high speed trading less profitable" is one reason I support the proposal. I think of it as making the system much more fair to the lower 99.99%. 

 

(I agree with your point that it won't raise nearly as much revenue.)

[PeterMP]

20 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

I watched the video and what I believe is missing from your post is the lady from Africa bringing up that many countries getting the worst from climate change contributed the least. 

 

Saying we shouldnt do this because "what about the rest of the world" misses the point the world cant do this without us.  Many countries and major cities already have carbon-neutral targets, we dont, entire the Green New Deal. 

 

Hansen is saying we need to help the rest of the world while China is already building carbon capture systems and converting whole bus and taxi fleets to electric, who really needs to catch up here?  Green New Deal isnt stupid, it's a plan bold enough to match the situation that needs a carbon tax added to it.

 

CO2 emissions in China last year were up 4.7% last year.

 

Electric still generates CO2 for the most part in China.

 

CO2 capture in China is being funded by the EU (so a tax on EU citizens is being used to fund work against climate change in other countries, just like what Hansen talked about)

 

https://euobserver.com/eu-china/144579

 

(and it isn't working as well as expected.))

 

And as Hansen talked about, even alternatives use up energy in terms of mining, etc.

 

(Serious question here, who do you think has spent more time considering what do about climate change you or James Hansen?  We've started doubting experts, and it is worse on the right than the left.  You have a guy that has spent his life associated with climate change telling you the Green New Deal is garbage.  Maybe you want to take some real time to consider that.  If somebody that's been in the forefront of studying and pushing forward an area says a new plan won't work, that's something to consider.)

 

(I'll let this go as it is at least a bit OT and could be used to the climate change thread.)

[Renegade7]

2 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

Such estimates are naive.  They are based on the current numbers and values of transactions and assume that such a tax won't change behavior (which taxes almost always do).

 

The biggest thing it will do is make high speed trading less profitable, which will cause a decline in high speed trading, which means the tax will collect less income than expected given the naive estimates.  There also likely will be a decline in stock prices, which corresponds to a decline in capital gains tax revenue.  Some of the revenue you get from the new tax will really be money you would have collected anyway from capital gains taxes.

 

(The CBO has put out estimates saying you MIGHT get $100 billion+ a year out of such a tax, but then in the next paragraph, they say it will decrease high speed trading, and you'll likely get much less.)

 

I'll also point out in terms of public pensions, who can't easily decrease the amount of trading they do, this turns into a pretty big tax on everybody supporting those pensions (which is many of us).

 

I'm for a financial transaction tax because we need to do something about high speed trading.  I wouldn't plan on it being much of an income generator.

 

(I'd be more for a tax that specifically targets high speed trading so that we don't have the tax on public pensions.  So you'd put like a 50% capital gains tax on any stock held less than 1 minute or something (the exact % and time, I don't honestly know enough about to give meaningful numbers).)

 

(Let me also say, naive estimates aren't always bad.  They do create a starting place and a framework.  But they are also naive.)

 

Here's wikipedia take on revenue:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_transaction_tax#Revenues

 

(Not a good if you want to raise hundreds of billions on dollars on the wealthy.  And I don't know why they have Sweden as a positive example.  Sweden is generally acknowledged to have been negative.

 

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1714395

 

In Japan stocks have some of the highest P/E ratios and are kept high because the Japanese citizens heavily believe in investing in Japanese stocks.  It works in Japan because the Japanese buy Japanese stock even if it doesn't make much sense as an individual to do so.  Taiwan, I don't know about.  But generally financial transaction taxes have failed compared to the naive estimates that Sanders is putting forward.)

 

(As on many policies, Sanders is either ignorant, stupid, or lying.)

 

You got a lot of nerve calling Bernie a stupid snake oil salesman.  I've said we need to cut spending and raise taxes to deal with these problems, but at minimum we have to raise taxes because we cant cut our way out if it.  His proposal talks about fractions of a percent, are you suggesting that high speed trading will slow down or decline with this proposal?

 

It's in toothpick stilts if that's the case.  And I dont have a pension, I have a 401k, only 14% offers both anymore.  With trillion deficits coming back we have no choice but to raise taxes, trying to poke holes in the proposals wont change that.

 

If CBO is saying it will raise $100 billion a year and program is $70 billion a year, we need to do that and cross the bridge of it raising less then $70 billion when we get there.

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, Renegade7 said:

 

You got a lot of nerve calling Bernie a stupid snake oil salesman.  I've said we need to cut spending and raise taxes to deal with these problems, but at minimum we have to raise taxes because we cant cut our way out if it.  His proposal talks about fractions of a percent, are you suggesting that high speed trading will slow down or decline with this proposal? It's in toothpick stilts if that's the case.  And I dont have a pension, I have a 401k, only 14% offers both anymore.  With trillion deficits coming back we have no choice but to raise taxes, trying to poke holes in the proposals wont change that.

 

Well, I didn't call him both.  He's either.   I used an or.

 

I'm not saying we don't have to raise taxes.  I'm saying that his tax increase isn't going to raise the billions of dollars he claims to pay for free college for Americans even given current US college attendance.

 

(Much less considering if college is free, it is likely attendance is going to go up and so the true costs will be even more.)

 

Even a wikipedia based reading of the history of financial transaction taxes make that clear.  Financial transaction taxes don't raise lots of money.

 

And the fact that you don't have a pension doesn't matter.  Your taxes still are going to public employee union pensions (e.g. teachers).  If those pensions get taxed more, then you have to pay more taxes to fund the public employee pensions.

[Renegade7]

15 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

CO2 emissions in China last year were up 4.7% last year.

 

Electric still generates CO2 for the most part in China.

 

CO2 capture in China is being funded by the EU (so a tax on EU citizens is being used to fund work against climate change in other countries, just like what Hansen talked about)

 

https://euobserver.com/eu-china/144579

 

(and it isn't working as well as expected.))

 

And as Hansen talked about, even alternatives use up energy in terms of mining, etc.

 

(Serious question here, who do you think has spent more time considering what do about climate change you or James Hansen?  We've started doubting experts, and it is worse on the right than the left.  You have a guy that has spent his life associated with climate change telling you the Green New Deal is garbage.  Maybe you want to take some real time to consider that.  If somebody that's been in the forefront of studying and pushing forward an area says a new plan won't work, that's something to consider.)

 

(I'll let this go as it is at least a bit OT and could be used to the climate change thread.)

And there are climate scientists that say it is a good idea.  This isnt about ignoring Hasen, it's about not trying to delay what to do arguing about until the point we are having the arguement under water.  I dont agree gradual is the way to go, and neither of them addressed the livestock issue in that video or article, so again, neither really go far enough.

[PeterMP]

Sanders is a great debater, but he's intellectually dishonest.

 

This video that CNN is running is a great example of this:

 

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/07/30/cnn-democratic-debate-bernie-sanders-john-hickenlooper-trump-vpx.cnn

 

Sanders hasn't made proposals for reasonable drug prices.  He's made a proposal where drugs are essentially free to the consumer (i.e. there are no deductibles or co-pays for prescription drugs in his plan; there are no out of pocket costs).

 

I'm for reasonable drug prices.

 

From there, his proposal is not what most of the rest of the (developed, western, democratic) world is doing.  Places like Canada, the UK, etc. have out of pocket costs associated with prescription drugs.

 

He's staked out a far left position, but when Hickenlooper calls him on it, he paints a centrist position (free prescription drugs vs. reasonable prescription drugs) and Hickenlooper gets lost/loses steam and doesn't continue to call him on it.

 

It is a great debate tactic.  It is also dishonest.