Hot takes on the Democratic frontrunners

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by BigV

I don't know about his claim (which I didn't see) about keeping his tax bill low by blocking the advance of the campaigns of Sanders or Warren. I think that mistakenly dismisses the function of Congress when it comes to changing taxes.

All candidates' positions are tempered by that fact.

As for taxes, I was being uncharitable in my interpretation of his basing the decision to run [pp 3] on Biden's apparent weakness to Warren and Sanders at the time.

I'll be more charitable now, assuming he actually supports whoever wins the nomination, and, perhaps more importantly, the downballot candidates as well.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Luce

The bodies are starting to pile up.

Warren will quit in less than 10 days.

Unless they start to do so literally.

Say Bernie gets coronavirus. Dude just had a heart attack; he's a goner. Biden's a little healthier, but very much in the danger zone, age-wise. So is Warren.

Maybe they'll all cark it by the end of the summer, and only young, healthy Buttigieg will be left holding any delegates.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

He was pretty clear about why he was running - to prevent Sanders or Warren from raising his taxes, and when he entered Biden looked very weak.

Biden looked weak. And Sanders was lying out his ass - like a socialist Trump would do. It was not about taxes. Bloomberg was quite right. His programs were lies - not practical - did not address the actual problem. Sanders, for example, would guarantee a Trump victory. That was not in doubt.

Facts about Sanders are accurate and damning. His proposal after proposal is only based in political beliefs - rather then based in reality and actual problems. I have not a clue why anyone would vote for someone who has magic solutions without bothering to first identify a problem. And whose solutions do not solve anything.

That is not an honest man. That is someone only campaigning for support from the emotional - and not from people who learn facts before making a conclusion. Bernie would guarantee Trump's reelection. So Bloomberg (too late but he had to try) entered the race to provide moderates with an intelligent option.

The Economist accurately defined Sanders - who is and acts on the cover so similar to The Don. When Biden was tanking, we desperately needed someone who represents patriotic Americans - the moderates. Biden, getting his act together at the last minute, made Bloomberg unnecessary.

What just happened in the past 48 hours is one for the history books. We have never seen so much political change so fast.

Next question. Can Biden (so well known for being a nice guy) match or deflect insults by a master anti-American, Putin loving, presidential liar and crook? (I am being kinds to that scumbag.)

I was also surprised to learn some Warren proposals also were not based in addressing a problem. She proposed solutions solved only by raising taxes. As if money solves problems. (Only business school graduates make that claim.) I thought she was better than that.

I paid no attention to any of them until after Iowa. Everything before Iowa was irrelevant. After Iowa I was shocked, by learning the problems and reading facts, how bad Sanders was.

[Clodfobble]

So Biden is better because he neither defines problems nor offers solutions?

[tw]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

So Biden is better because he neither defines problems nor offers solutions?

You cannot say that.

However Trump and Sanders promoted solutions that clearly have no relationship to the problem. And can even make things worse.

For example, what did a tax cut for the rich do? What does promoting hate of immigrants do?

Show me one reason that banning fracking solves a problem? it only creates new problems. Both are boldface lying. That is about as evil as any politicians can be. That is no different than intentionally lying about Saddam's WMDs. Or blaming 11 September on Saddam.

Why are they lying. They want support from the lemmings among us. At what point is that not insulting?

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

So Biden is better because he neither defines problems nor offers solutions?

[BigV]

Define the actual problem for us, tw.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Most rational people know what the problems are they don't have to be explained. When people lament about these problems crying why aren't the being fixed, the standard reply from the left and right is, and always has been, not enough money.
We need a better health care system. Not enough money.
Thousands of bridges are in danger of collapse. Not enough money
There's too many potholes in my street. Not enough money.
That's why the campaign pledges to tax the gazillionaires making people think all these problems will be addressed if the government gets more money.

[sexobon]

I'll wait for Joe to announce Hillary (popular vote) as his running mate so he can be her presidential beard.

[tw]

Originally Posted by BigV

Define the actual problem for us, tw.

Was already done. For example, fracking. Fracking is not the problem. Some companies - because they want to make profits and don't care about the product - are creating problems. Cited before - Cabot Oil. Are all fracking companies a problem? Of course not. So why ban all fracking because the extremist refuses to address (ignores) the actual problem? Companies run by similar types who are also running companies like GM, Sears, and GE into the ground. To only enrich top management. And to even blame employees.

It was defined previously. Why did you not read it?

xoxoxoBruce has cited more.

Why do some streets constantly need repair? No foundation. Politicians (using concepts taught in business schools) simply have those roads repaved on dirt. I have watched one particular and deep pothole constantly reopen because they simple put more asphalt on it. And because, having wasted so much money on Mission Accomplished and Afghanistan, we do not widen those roads for turning lanes.

So many problems are addressed only by first identifying each problem. When were you going to admit that Mission Accomplished, blacksite torture sites, and the 5000 wasted American soldiers means we should be holding those criminals in the administration responsible. So that it does not happen again? So that $trillions goes into making America great and not promoting problems like a criminal president. Crickets?

There is another reason for those problem. Those crickets.

Did I mention other nations have big stadiums for crickets? Never mind. That's not a problem.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by tw

Fracking is not the problem.

I take issue with this. Fracking makes fossil fuels cheaper. And makes it more difficult for alternative energy sources to compete with fossil fuels. The planet needs to move away from fossil fuels in order to lessen the impact of human caused climate change. Fracking is making things worse. It is the problem.

Fracking is like finding a more efficient way to produce opium.

[tw]

Originally Posted by glatt

I take issue with this. Fracking makes fossil fuels cheaper. And makes it more difficult for alternative energy sources to compete with fossil fuels.

And so again, you are not identifying the problem. It has been posted so many times.

$35 of gasoline in a car. How much of that gasoline moves the car? $4. Therein lie the problem. Solutions have also been discussed. Learn from history. One was the 70 Hp per liter engine. It polluted less. It had better HP. It consumed less energy. It was far more reliable. And it was stifled by people such as Roger Smith (GM), Henry Ford (Ford), and Townsend and Richardo (Chrysler).

My god. GM makes a car where the engine cannot even recharge its battery. Why? That is a symptom of the real problem. Clinton even gave them money to innovate - Precept, Prodigy, and ECX2. And still they stifled innovation - as any good business school graduate would do to increase profits.

Address that problem. All were bean counters - not car guys. All wanted to make profits - not better products. And so many Americans were so brainwashed as to hype more destruction - "Buy American". Even in late 1970s when reasons for those problems were becoming obvious back then.

Why do we need fracking oil? Because we are not addressing the problem. Then want to cure symptoms by increasing prices? Or banning it? Where is that a solution? That is the evil Bernie Sanders solution. Either he is lying to get votes. Or he is that brainwashed dumb.

Meanwhile fracking for gas has substantially addressed global warming. Is its a final solution? Obviously not. It is a stepping stone - part of the long process to a solution.

To implement your solution, then cite another energy source that has the same or more energy per kilogram. We want to fix a problem by ignoring critical numbers? Yes. Many extremist left wants to do that. Demonstrated is the difference between a moderate vs. a left or right extremist.

Show me solutions. Do not solve problems by banning things. That is not innovation. That is an underlying point in Ayn Rand books.

Already solar and wind (in America) have supplanted other less desirable energy sources. (Not confirmed) I believe wind now produces more electricity than coal.

BTW, who are world leaders in wind? Not Americans. GE, a company that should be dominate, is but a secondary player to superior (innovative) foreign wind generators. GE only recently marketed a new wind generator that is even competitive - as GE keeps selling off division after division to maintain profits. To enrich their central committee of the communist party.

So where really is this problem? You did not say. A shortage of innovation. For example, my room mate, an engineer, stopped being an engineer to become a salesmen. Immediately doubled his income. America increasingly does not want many Elon Musks. Since he is an immigrant. And so many extremists (ie The Don) hate one of the largest sources of innovation - immigrants.

Are we addressing a problem? Or only want to cure symptoms?

Best engineer in my class quit engineering after only one year, went to Harvard Business, and massively increased his income working on Wall Street. Why is that problem ignored?

Too many refuse to address a fundamental problem clearly defined in every paragraph here. We are not innovating to solve your cited symptom. That (and not banning fracking) is the problem we should be addressing.

But again, those noisy crickets.

[Undertoad]

Unless a massive conversion to nuclear happens, it is not yet near possible to power everything with alternative energy sources; and so at this time, cheap natural gas crowds out coal and/or oil with about half the carbon emissions of those sources

Please to browse the charts and graphs at this page - and keep in mind that renewables they mention are not entirely carbon-free (it's complicated)

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/

[Clodfobble]

I'm trying to find the speech where Biden lambasted the fuel efficiency of GM vehicles. It's weird, I can't find it anywhere.

[Diaphone Jim]

Now Warren's out; no endorsement yet.

Damn, but the party bosses hate Sanders.

Trump will eat Biden whole if it comes to it.