Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Fat hurts wrote:

I think you misread the plan. Free college would be paid for primarily from a tax on Wall St. transactions.

Yes and much like his M4A claims, this too relies on made up numbers from questionable policies that are unlikely to pass.

Yes, it's not surprising that the study funded by the Coke Brothers would go against Medicare for All.

Let's go back to the fact that every other major nation provides coverage for all its citizens with better results and half the cost. It has been proven over and over that a single payer system like Medicare for All is the best way to go.

agip wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

The fossil fuel companies need to be liquidated. .

You want to throw the world economy into what is was in circa 1790?

seriously Fats -you can't mean that.

Great example post of ideological blinders right here

agip wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

. The fossil fuel companies need to be liquidated. .

You want to throw the world economy into what is was in circa 1790?

seriously Fats -you can't mean that.

No, we need to throw the world into an economy that runs exclusively on renewable energy.

Obviously there would be a transition away from coal, oil, and gas while the fossil fuel companies are in receivership.

Fat hurts wrote:

agip wrote:

You want to throw the world economy into what is was in circa 1790?

seriously Fats -you can't mean that.

No, we need to throw the world into an economy that runs exclusively on renewable energy.

Obviously there would be a transition away from coal, oil, and gas while the fossil fuel companies are in receivership.

well at the risk of being rude I'd say the idea that the fossil fuel companies should be liquidated is one of the most unrealistic and foolhardy 'policy' ideas out there. Shrinking the world econpmy by 40% would not be helpful in any way for green initiatives.

And anyway, blaming the oil companies is like blaming drug dealers. It is us who burns the stuff. If we stop flying and eating and using concrete then the enviro crisis is over.

moderates suck wrote:

agip wrote:

You want to throw the world economy into what is was in circa 1790?

seriously Fats -you can't mean that.

Great example post of ideological blinders right here

How exactly is that ideological? If anything, it's not ideological enough and too much status-quo pragmatism (again, if anything).

Racket wrote:

Yes and much like his M4A claims, this too relies on made up numbers from questionable policies that are unlikely to pass.

He could pay for it with savings from no golf trips.

agip wrote:

well at the risk of being rude I'd say the idea that the fossil fuel companies should be liquidated is one of the most unrealistic and foolhardy 'policy' ideas out there. Shrinking the world econpmy by 40% would not be helpful in any way for green initiatives.

And anyway, blaming the oil companies is like blaming drug dealers. It is us who burns the stuff. If we stop flying and eating and using concrete then the enviro crisis is over.

Keep in mind that Fat Hurts has at times advocated for military action and forceful coercion of other countries to meet C02 emissions goals and is of the opinion that climate change will cost billions of lives over the next 50 years.

He knows this because he's not a scientist, but he read one white paper once

I'm not a big fan of suing companies or industries into oblivion. Sue if there is known harmful behavior that went on or that was covered up, but, even there, I would have to see. We have had a history of industries or processes being phased out for many reasons, pollution being one of them. We don't use lead in most things anymore, asbestos isn't used (but might be again thanks to Trump), etc. Even the most environmentally conscious of all of us use petroleum-based products or have once upon a time. We also all use plastics (petroleum based), and it would be wrong to eventually sue manufacturers of those.

Capitalism is the best thing here. Make things that are safe and useful and at least as good as the bad alternatives, and people will switch. I know you think cars are there already, but most people don't agree with that yet. We also have an issue of supply there. I can't buy an EV Kia Soul in Ohio. Have to go to California for that. Plenty oil usage to product those EVs too. We just aren't ready for oil producers to go away completely. Should be a goal yes, but we're not there today.

Racket wrote:

moderates suck wrote:

Great example post of ideological blinders right here

How exactly is that ideological? If anything, it's not ideological enough and too much status-quo pragmatism (again, if anything).

status-quo pragmatism is an ideology. This is where the blinders come in. He assumes the current state of things is the correct way and therefore dismissed out of hand things that do not conform to that. The ideology is clear in what he states and his dismissiveness, that this would return the world economy to 1790. It would not and that is not what anybody has advocated. He isn't actually pragmatically weighing the costs and benefits as some sort of neutral fact based arbiter as he would have you believe, he is just advocating for the status quo.

agip wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

No, we need to throw the world into an economy that runs exclusively on renewable energy.

Obviously there would be a transition away from coal, oil, and gas while the fossil fuel companies are in receivership.

well at the risk of being rude I'd say the idea that the fossil fuel companies should be liquidated is one of the most unrealistic and foolhardy 'policy' ideas out there. Shrinking the world econpmy by 40% would not be helpful in any way for green initiatives.

And anyway, blaming the oil companies is like blaming drug dealers. It is us who burns the stuff. If we stop flying and eating and using concrete then the enviro crisis is over.

You are dead wrong. First it would not shrink the world economy. The harm that fossil fuel companies do will destroy the economy of every nation on earth. Therefore, we would be saving the economy, not to mention billions of lives.

We blame the oil companies because they knew that they were destroying the planet. Their own internal studies showed this even before it was widely known by the public. Instead of acting responsibly, they spent millions to fund climate denial and influence public opinion.

You are making the same argument that people used to make about the tobacco companies. They shouldn't be sued because it's all the smoker's fault.

there is no world in which liquidating oil companies would not result in mass starvation, war and global anarchy.

Nice going Republicans.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/25/politics/arizona-congress-candidate-heroin-overdose/index.html

moderates suck wrote:

Racket wrote:

How exactly is that ideological? If anything, it's not ideological enough and too much status-quo pragmatism (again, if anything).

status-quo pragmatism is an ideology. This is where the blinders come in. He assumes the current state of things is the correct way and therefore dismissed out of hand things that do not conform to that. The ideology is clear in what he states and his dismissiveness, that this would return the world economy to 1790. It would not and that is not what anybody has advocated. He isn't actually pragmatically weighing the costs and benefits as some sort of neutral fact based arbiter as he would have you believe, he is just advocating for the status quo.

you and I barely speak the same language. I don't even know how to respond really.

If you are interested in starving billions of people to death and causing global war and poverty, then by all means liquidate the energy companies.

I really don't get much from your posts because you are using some alternate reasoning system that I don't understand. Mea culpa.

lol yeah that's not how that works. kinda sounds like something a 20 year old would say on Reddit in some "liberals are literally the saviors of the earth" subreddit.

It's called hyperbole and it's often used to illustrate a point and.... oh my God. It makes sense now. You're autistic. I'm so sorry.

Runningart2004 wrote:

Rigged for Hillary wrote:

We both know that Crazy Bernie will not defeat Trump.

I will post this weekly....

To say he has no shot is ignorant.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-6250.html

The trend shows me that: 1. He's hitting 50% in many polls, which is a marker of importance when a good 5% will be undecided. 2. He is trending up while Trump is maintaining that 45% mark where he lives and breathes.

In the general Trump will get no more than 45% of the popular vote and will lose big.

Alan

Alan, why are you even mentioning that Trump will get no more than 45% of the popular vote (and will lose big)? What does the popular vote have to do with anything?

Please read Article II of the US Constitution. I have linked it here. It discusses how presidents are elected (warning - the popular vote does not figure in to the equation):

Right now, "free college" is being instituted at the state level.

Tennessee is one of the leaders in this, actually.

To make it national, it may be best that the federal government work with the states and provide funding to the states, earmarked to cover tuition at state colleges and certified trade schools.

That rewards the states that have already started doing this, allowing those states to provide tax credits or use the money for something else.

Tweaking the tax code would bring in more revenue and more money in people's pockets to spend would also result in more tax revenue.

(similar logic to tax cuts paying for themselves)

Don't forget, they blindly raise the military budget all the time without introducing new revenue to pay for it.

agip wrote:

you and I barely speak the same language. I don't even know how to respond really.

If you are interested in starving billions of people to death and causing global war and poverty, then by all means liquidate the energy companies.

I really don't get much from your posts because you are using some alternate reasoning system that I don't understand. Mea culpa.

Global warming is currently causing global war, poverty, and dislocation. The status quo comes with enormous downsides.

I guess that is all OK as long as you make good money.

L L wrote:

Don't forget, they blindly raise the military budget all the time without introducing new revenue to pay for it.

Somehow moderates and conservatives never ask how we can continue to spend many times more on our military than any other country on earth.