I inferred that from this, " Now what's going on is that Brazilian farmers are using fire to clear their lands and being good conservatives who feel no obligation but to themselves, " and also this

"
So should Trump as your president and your representative to the world be sticking his nose into what all good Capitalists call for a free-market solution? Of course, me, as a red-blooded socialist am simply going to use this as one more example of how free-market Capitalism can't provide answers for all of our problem. There was a time when we could slash and burn with no one accountable to anyone but those days passed centuries ago--even though you cons as slow to catch on to the fact that we, as a country, have responsibilities to the rest of the world and they have responsibilities to us.

So what do you think? Should we, the US, offer help to Brazil even though with no one to stop their farmers they will simply do it again as fire is the most economical way for them to clear their lands. "

Here are the "lowlights" of the RealClearPolitics.com article by Michael Tracy - https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/08/21/gabbard_victimized_by_dncs_dubious_debate_criteria_141055.html

"Tulsi Gabbard is on the verge of being excluded from the next Democratic p**********l debate on the basis of criteria that appear increasingly absurd..."

"The DNC had proclaimed that for admittance to the September and October debates, candidates must secure polling results of 2% or more in four separate “approved” polls -- but a poll sponsored by the newspaper with the largest circulation in New Hampshire (the Globe recently surpassed the New Hampshire Union Leader there) does not count, per this cockamamie criteria. There has not been an officially qualifying poll in New Hampshire, Gabbard’s best state, in over a month."

"Take, for instance, her poll standing in New Hampshire, which currently places Gabbard at 3.3% support, according to the RealClearPolitics average as of Aug. 20. One might suspect that such a figure would merit inclusion in the upcoming debates -- especially considering she’s ahead of several candidates who have already been granted entry, including Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar, Beto O’Rourke, and Andrew Yang.

But the Democratic National Committee has decreed that the polls constituting this average are not sufficiently “qualifying.”

"To recap:

Gabbard has polled at 2% or more in two polls sponsored by the two largest newspapers in two early primary states, but the DNC -- through its mysteriously incoherent se******n process -- has determined that these surveys do not count toward her debate eligibility. Without these exclusions, Gabbard would have already qualified. She has polled at 2% or more in two polls officially deemed “qualifying,” and surpassed the 130,000 donor threshold on Aug. 2. While the latter metric would seem more indicative of “grassroots support” -- a formerly obscure Hawaii congresswoman has managed to secure more than 160,000 individual contributions from all 50 states, according to the latest figures from her campaign -- the DNC has declared that it will prioritize polling over donors. In polls with a sample size of just a few hundred people, this means excluding candidates based on what can literally amount to rounding errors: A poll that places a candidate at 1.4% could be considered non-qualifying, but a poll that places a candidate at 1.5% is considered qualifying. Pinning such massive decisions for the trajectory of a campaign on insignificant fractional differences seems wildly arbitrary.

Take also Gabbard’s performance in polls conducted by YouGov. One such poll published July 21, sponsored by CBS, placed Gabbard at 2% in New Hampshire and therefore counts toward her qualifying total. But Gabbard has polled at 2% or more in five additional YouGov polls -- except those polls are sponsored by The Economist, not CBS. Needless to say, The Economist is not a “sponsoring organization,” per the whims of the DNC. It may be one of the most vaunted news organizations in the world, and YouGov may be a “qualified” polling firm in other contexts, but the DNC has chosen to exclude The Economist’s results for reasons that appear less and less defensible.

Then there’s the larger issue of how exactly the DNC is gauging grassroots enthusiasm, which was ostensibly supposed to be the principle governing the debate-qualifying process in the first place. Gabbard was the most Googled candidate twice in a row after each previous debate, which at a minimum should indicate that there is substantial interest in her campaign. It’s an imperfect metric -- Google searches and other online criteria could be subject to manipulation -- but then again, the other metrics are also noticeably imperfect. There is no reason why the DNC could not incorporate a range of factors in determining which candidates v**ers are entitled to hear from on a national stage. For what it’s worth, she also tends to generate anomalously large interest on YouTube and social media, having gained the second-most Twitter followers of any candidate after the most recent debate in July. Again, these are imperfect metrics, but the entire debate-qualifying process is based on imperfect metrics."

"If only out of self-interest, the DNC might want to ponder whether alienating her supporters is a tactically wise move, considering how deeply suspicious many already are of the DNC’s behind-the-scenes role -- memories of a “r****d” primary in 2016 are still fresh."

No, not literally but it did get your attention didn't it. What is burning is much of the Amazon which provides 20% of the Earths oxygen. Now what's going on is that Brazilian farmers are using fire to clear their lands and being good conservatives who feel no obligation but to themselves, they have no qualms about the overall consequences of their actions. I mean, so long as they get theirs who cares about anyone else, correct!

Now the reason for this thread is apparently your president has been giving serious thoughts to sending help to Brazil as their president threw up his hands and said the job was too big for him. Now, this brings about all sorts of free-market questions as well as questions on when we (conservatives that is) should be sticking our noses into other peoples business. I mean it's their trees right. So what if we and the rest of the planet are harmed by their actions. It's their country, their trees, they can burn them, slash them and the rest of the world be damned, correct.

So should Trump as your president and your representative to the world be sticking his nose into what all good Capitalists call for a free-market solution? Of course, me, as a red-blooded socialist am simply going to use this as one more example of how free-market Capitalism can't provide answers for all of our problem. There was a time when we could slash and burn with no one accountable to anyone but those days passed centuries ago--even though you cons as slow to catch on to the fact that we, as a country, have responsibilities to the rest of the world and they have responsibilities to us.

So what do you think? Should we, the US, offer help to Brazil even though with no one to stop their farmers they will simply do it again as fire is the most economical way for them to clear their lands. And if Brazils actions do indeed threaten 20% of the earth's oxygen should we step in then because if our planet loses 20% oxygen people will die, in this country and around the world? We could always use our military to take over Brazil, you cons would love that, but when our actions threatened others we simply pretended like they didn't and told the world to go fuk itself. Doesn't Brazil have the same right or does the biggest stick win?

As always, I am waiting with bait on my breath wanting to know what you cons have to say about this one. Should Capitalism be allowed to run its course or should our president and government step in to fix what Capitalism failed to do???