|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 18 2016 01:36 Mohdoo wrote: Having a conversation with Bernie about nuclear energy would be a fascinating experience. A sneak peak into the utterly irrational. I remind myself that the fear of nuclear energy is not a fear of the science, but of human error and arrogance. This is compound by the irrational fear you describe, that it is something harmful we can’t see and won’t harm us instantly. I think making fun of people for that isn’t productive.
I think the fear of human error, cut cutting and general arrogance are valid, but I wish we could separate them from the more irrational fears.
|
On March 18 2016 01:41 puerk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2016 01:36 Mohdoo wrote: Having a conversation with Bernie about nuclear energy would be a fascinating experience. A sneak peak into the utterly irrational. not really sure what the point would be if one of the participants is a lftr fanboy arrogantly proclaiming everyone against nuclear to be an uninformed idiot.
You don't need lftr for a safe reactor. Fukishima was a testiment to the extreme safety of nuclear reactors. Reactors well past the time they should have been retired, on an old, terrible technology, with a terrifyingly large number of safety regulations ignored, coupled with a tsunami, only led to what we are seeing.
It's easy for you to brush off my perspective as just saying everyone else is an idiot, but there is merit to the idea that ignorance complicates someone's perspective on nuclear energy. It's actual science and the science involved with the safety of modern reactors is not straight forward. When people understand the science, it is straight forward. When you don't understand the science, you are left feeling like you are surrendering a really big risk to someone, just hoping they don't drop the ball. You are left feeling like so long as things go well, terrible disaster can be averted. But that isn't telling the whole story, because even when someone is a complete moron, the number of safeguards just makes things inconvenient. I would argue power outages from reactors going silly is more of a concern than safety. Bernie's educational background leads me to believe he just sees it as "nuclear waste and radiation".
Edit: I think it is fair for a average old citizen to be skeptical of nuclear energy. Super old reactors were really dangerous. However, public policy makers, in my opinion, have a duty to be well educated on relevant issues. Bernie owes it to us to be educated on the differences between then and now.
|
On March 18 2016 01:23 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2016 01:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 18 2016 01:13 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 18 2016 01:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 18 2016 00:25 oneofthem wrote: bernie making bad ideas popular isnt longterm thinking. it is just bad What bad ideas? What makes them bad? Affordable education and healthcare are surely good ideas, right? I'd like to point out Hillary has the same goals in her platform. Bernie's plans to achieve those goals are terribad. I agree that Hillary also wants those  I'm just wondering what the "bad ideas" are. Some bad ideas: -putting farmers on the fed (putting a bunch of guys who know nothing about high finance in charge of monetary policy is a terribad idea, and beyond that these are guys who by and large rely on huge subsidies to do business... which is a bit of a concern in and of itself and may have some impact on their view of finance) -tax on equity trading (it doesn't work, look what happened to other nations which tired this-- it just gutted their markets and it will hurt retail/retirement investors more than investment firms) -reinstating glass steagal (breaking up the banks is NOT a good thing at this point, and it doesn't matter since the commercial and investment divisions of the big banks are required to keep separate balance sheets, and if the banks that died in the financial crisis hadn't been acquired it would have been even worse potentially) -medicare for all (the entire plan is godawful) -against NAFTA (NAFTA is NOT a bad thing) -against the ex/im bank (we need it to keep major firms like Boeing competitive against Airbus which is subsidized/ owned by several major Euro governments, it's just low cost financing which Boeing and others pay back) -against nuclear energy (debate around this, but he opposes it for the wrong reasons) -mandatory GMO labeling (we had this discussion, voluntary is fine with some regulation)
It's a bit scary that no-one looks at his FP (besides trade, which for him is an internal only issue as he never engages the diplomatic and legal ramifications). He is an isolationist which has been a massively radical idea since at least Eisenhower! And if you read the piece on Obama's FP in the Atlantic, you should take all the criticism there and multiply it by 10 with Sanders. So if you're looking for terribad ideas, look to his FP, such as forming a new NATO with ME countries so that the US would be drawn into every regional conflict there (exactly what he's trying to avoid!). The only saving grace is that he clearly has no idea what he's talking about so his team would probably be able to formulate a decent FP strategy with relatively little meddling - he might veto the whole thing though.
Edit. Just to add an Estonian perspective: hearing that comment of his that the US shouldn't have supported people rising up against Communist governments still creates irrational anger in me. If he had been in government, my life would still be lived under a foreign authoritarian regime.
|
On March 18 2016 01:48 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2016 01:41 puerk wrote:On March 18 2016 01:36 Mohdoo wrote: Having a conversation with Bernie about nuclear energy would be a fascinating experience. A sneak peak into the utterly irrational. not really sure what the point would be if one of the participants is a lftr fanboy arrogantly proclaiming everyone against nuclear to be an uninformed idiot. You don't need lftr for a safe reactor. Fukishima was a testiment to the extreme safety of nuclear reactors. Reactors well past the time they should have been retired, on an old, terrible technology, with a terrifyingly large number of safety regulations ignored, coupled with a tsunami, only led to what we are seeing. It's easy for you to brush off my perspective as just saying everyone else is an idiot, but there is merit to the idea that ignorance complicates someone's perspective on nuclear energy. It's actual science and the science involved with the safety of modern reactors is not straight forward. When people understand the science, it is straight forward. When you don't understand the science, you are left feeling like you are surrendering a really big risk to someone, just hoping they don't drop the ball. You are left feeling like so long as things go well, terrible disaster can be averted. But that isn't telling the whole story, because even when someone is a complete moron, the number of safeguards just makes things inconvenient. I would argue power outages from reactors going silly is more of a concern than safety. Bernie's educational background leads me to believe he just sees it as "nuclear waste and radiation". you show again that you are not arguing in good faith by strawmanning my position and implicitly claiming i am uneducated and do not understand the science
i wrote several pages ago that it is not about reactor safety and you bring it up again as if it was my main concern... stop the bullshit!
btw how did your nuclear science studies turn out? still thinking that Rossi found something "groundbreaking"?
|
Found as close to a devil's advocate article as possible about Trump, implying that beneath his racist, sexist, violent outside there's a legitimate issue of trade that he focuses on:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/07/donald-trump-why-americans-support
+ Show Spoiler +Let us now address the greatest American mystery at the moment: what motivates the supporters of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump?
I call it a “mystery” because the working-class white people who make up the bulk of Trump’s fan base show up in amazing numbers for the candidate, filling stadiums and airport hangars, but their views, by and large, do not appear in our prestige newspapers. On their opinion pages, these publications take care to represent demographic categories of nearly every kind, but “blue-collar” is one they persistently overlook. The views of working-class people are so foreign to that universe that when New York Times columnist Nick Kristof wanted to “engage” a Trump supporter last week, he made one up, along with this imaginary person’s responses to his questions.
Live Campaign live: Deputies disciplined for 'failure to act' after Trump rally punch Follow live-wire coverage from the 2016 campaign as John Kerry announces Isis is committing genocide, a topic the presidential candidates may feel inclined to weigh in on Read more When members of the professional class wish to understand the working-class Other, they traditionally consult experts on the subject. And when these authorities are asked to explain the Trump movement, they always seem to zero in on one main accusation: bigotry. Only racism, they tell us, is capable of powering a movement like Trump’s, which is blowing through the inherited structure of the Republican party like a tornado through a cluster of McMansions.
Trump himself provides rather excellent evidence for this finding. The man is an insult clown who has systematically gone down the list of American ethnic groups and offended them each in turn. He wants to deport millions upon millions of undocumented immigrants. He wants to bar Muslims from visiting the United States. He admires various foreign strongmen and dictators, and has even retweeted a quote from Mussolini. This gold-plated buffoon has in turn drawn the enthusiastic endorsement of leading racists from across the spectrum of intolerance, a gorgeous mosaic of haters, each of them quivering excitedly at the prospect of getting a real, honest-to-god bigot in the White House.
Play VideoPlayMute Current Time 0:00 / Duration Time 1:02 Loaded: 0% Progress: 0% Fullscreen Facebook Twitter Pinterest Trump on Michigan and Mississippi wins: ‘Only I did well tonight’ All this stuff is so insane, so wildly outrageous, that the commentariat has deemed it to be the entirety of the Trump campaign. Trump appears to be a racist, so racism must be what motivates his armies of followers. And so, on Saturday, New York Times columnist Timothy Egan blamed none other than “the people” for Trump’s racism: “Donald Trump’s supporters know exactly what he stands for: hatred of immigrants, racial superiority, a sneering disregard of the basic civility that binds a society.”
Advertisement
Stories marveling at the stupidity of Trump voters are published nearly every day. Articles that accuse Trump’s followers of being bigots have appeared by the hundreds, if not the thousands. Conservatives have written them; liberals have written them; impartial professionals have written them. The headline of a recent Huffington Post column announced, bluntly, that “Trump Won Super Tuesday Because America is Racist.” A New York Times reporter proved that Trump’s followers were bigots by coordinating a map of Trump support with a map of racist Google searches. Everyone knows it: Trump’s followers’ passions are nothing more than the ignorant blurtings of the white American id, driven to madness by the presence of a black man in the White House. The Trump movement is a one-note phenomenon, a vast surge of race-hate. Its partisans are not only incomprehensible, they are not really worth comprehending.
* * * Or so we’re told. Last week, I decided to watch several hours of Trump speeches for myself. I saw the man ramble and boast and threaten and even seem to gloat when protesters were ejected from the arenas in which he spoke. I was disgusted by these things, as I have been disgusted by Trump for 20 years. But I also noticed something surprising. In each of the speeches I watched, Trump spent a good part of his time talking about an entirely legitimate issue, one that could even be called leftwing.
Yes, Donald Trump talked about trade. In fact, to judge by how much time he spent talking about it, trade may be his single biggest concern – not white supremacy. Not even his plan to build a wall along the Mexican border, the issue that first won him political fame. He did it again during the debate on 3 March: asked about his political excommunication by Mitt Romney, he chose to pivot and talk about … trade.
It seems to obsess him: the destructive free-trade deals our leaders have made, the many companies that have moved their production facilities to other lands, the phone calls he will make to those companies’ CEOs in order to threaten them with steep tariffs unless they move back to the US.
Trump embellished this vision with another favorite leftwing idea: under his leadership, the government would “start competitive bidding in the drug industry”. (“We don’t competitively bid!” he marveled – another true fact, a legendary boondoggle brought to you by the George W Bush administration.) Trump extended the critique to the military-industrial complex, describing how the government is forced to buy lousy but expensive airplanes thanks to the power of industry lobbyists.
Trump: the great orange-haired Unintended Consequence Marilynne Robinson Read more Thus did he hint at his curious selling proposition: because he is personally so wealthy, a fact about which he loves to boast, Trump himself is unaffected by business lobbyists and donations. And because he is free from the corrupting power of modern campaign finance, famous deal-maker Trump can make deals on our behalf that are “good” instead of “bad”. The chance that he will actually do so, of course, is small. He appears to be a hypocrite on this issue as well as so many other things. But at least Trump is saying this stuff.
All this surprised me because, for all the articles about Trump I had read in recent months, I didn’t recall trade coming up very often. Trump is supposed to be on a one-note crusade for whiteness. Could it be that all this trade stuff is a key to understanding the Trump phenomenon?
* * * Advertisement
Trade is an issue that polarizes Americans by socio-economic status. To the professional class, which encompasses the vast majority of our media figures, economists, Washington officials and Democratic powerbrokers, what they call “free trade” is something so obviously good and noble it doesn’t require explanation or inquiry or even thought. Republican and Democratic leaders alike agree on this, and no amount of facts can move them from their Econ 101 dream.
To the remaining 80 or 90% of America, trade means something very different. There’s a video going around on the internet these days that shows a room full of workers at a Carrier air conditioning plant in Indiana being told by an officer of the company that the factory is being moved to Monterrey, Mexico, and that they’re all going to lose their jobs.
As I watched it, I thought of all the arguments over trade that we’ve had in this country since the early 1990s, all the sweet words from our economists about the scientifically proven benevolence of free trade, all the ways in which our newspapers mock people who say that treaties like the North American Free Trade Agreement allow companies to move jobs to Mexico.
Well, here is a video of a company moving its jobs to Mexico, courtesy of Nafta. This is what it looks like. The Carrier executive talks in that familiar and highly professional HR language about the need to “stay competitive” and “the extremely price-sensitive marketplace”. A worker shouts “Fuck you!” at the executive. The executive asks people to please be quiet so he can “share” his “information”. His information about all of them losing their jobs.
* * * Now, I have no special reason to doubt the suspicion that Donald Trump is a racist. Either he is one, or (as the comedian John Oliver puts it) he is pretending to be one, which amounts to the same thing.
But there is another way to interpret the Trump phenomenon. A map of his support may coordinate with racist Google searches, but it coordinates even better with deindustrialization and despair, with the zones of economic misery that 30 years of Washington’s free-market consensus have brought the rest of America.
It is worth noting that Trump is making a point of assailing that Indiana air conditioning company from the video in his speeches. What this suggests is that he’s telling a tale as much about economic outrage as it is tale of racism on the march. Many of Trump’s followers are bigots, no doubt, but many more are probably excited by the prospect of a president who seems to mean it when he denounces our trade agreements and promises to bring the hammer down on the CEO that fired you and wrecked your town, unlike Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Here is the most salient supporting fact: when people talk to white, working-class Trump supporters, instead of simply imagining what they might say, they find that what most concerns these people is the economy and their place in it. I am referring to a study just published by Working America, a political-action auxiliary of the AFL-CIO, which interviewed some 1,600 white working-class voters in the suburbs of Cleveland and Pittsburgh in December and January.
Support for Donald Trump, the group found, ran strong among these people, even among self-identified Democrats, but not because they are all pining for a racist in the White House. Their favorite aspect of Trump was his “attitude”, the blunt and forthright way he talks. As far as issues are concerned, “immigration” placed third among the matters such voters care about, far behind their number one concern: “good jobs / the economy”.
“People are much more frightened than they are bigoted,” is how the findings were described to me by Karen Nussbaum, the executive director of Working America. The survey “confirmed what we heard all the time: people are fed up, people are hurting, they are very distressed about the fact that their kids don’t have a future” and that “there still hasn’t been a recovery from the recession, that every family still suffers from it in one way or another.”
Advertisement
Tom Lewandowski, the president of the Northeast Indiana Central Labor Council in Fort Wayne, puts it even more bluntly when I asked him about working-class Trump fans. “These people aren’t racist, not any more than anybody else is,” he says of Trump supporters he knows. “When Trump talks about trade, we think about the Clinton administration, first with Nafta and then with [Permanent Normal Trade Relations] China, and here in Northeast Indiana, we hemorrhaged jobs.”
“They look at that, and here’s Trump talking about trade, in a ham-handed way, but at least he’s representing emotionally. We’ve had all the political establishment standing behind every trade deal, and we endorsed some of these people, and then we’ve had to fight them to get them to represent us.”
Now, let us stop and smell the perversity. Left parties the world over were founded to advance the fortunes of working people. But our left party in America – one of our two monopoly parties – chose long ago to turn its back on these people’s concerns, making itself instead into the tribune of the enlightened professional class, a “creative class” that makes innovative things like derivative securities and smartphone apps. The working people that the party used to care about, Democrats figured, had nowhere else to go, in the famous Clinton-era expression. The party just didn’t need to listen to them any longer.
What Lewandowski and Nussbaum are saying, then, should be obvious to anyone who’s dipped a toe outside the prosperous enclaves on the two coasts. Ill-considered trade deals and generous bank bailouts and guaranteed profits for insurance companies but no recovery for average people, ever – these policies have taken their toll. As Trump says, “we have rebuilt China and yet our country is falling apart. Our infrastructure is falling apart … Our airports are, like, Third World.”
Trump’s words articulate the populist backlash against liberalism that has been building slowly for decades and may very well occupy the White House itself, whereupon the entire world will be required to take seriously its demented ideas.
Yet still we cannot bring ourselves to look the thing in the eyes. We cannot admit that we liberals bear some of the blame for its emergence, for the frustration of the working-class millions, for their blighted cities and their downward spiraling lives. So much easier to scold them for their twisted racist souls, to close our eyes to the obvious reality of which Trumpism is just a crude and ugly expression: that neoliberalism has well and truly failed.
|
On March 18 2016 00:25 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2016 00:17 KwarK wrote:On March 17 2016 23:58 LegalLord wrote:On March 17 2016 23:56 KwarK wrote:On March 17 2016 23:54 LegalLord wrote:On March 17 2016 23:47 Sbrubbles wrote:On March 17 2016 23:20 xDaunt wrote: Mainstream democrats' expectation that Bernie supporters will simply tow the party line and fully support Hillary at this point are misplaced and unreasonable. Hillary represents much of what Bernie is diametrically opposed to. It's not unreasonable to expect Bernie supporters to fully support Hillary when push comes to shove, but I do agree it is unreasonable to expect them to so while Bernie can still stick around to further his message. It is actually pretty unreasonable. Dems stay home if they don't like their own candidate. So them not voting for Hillary is very likely. If Romney were the Republican candidate, maybe. You're really going to tell me there won't be a rally to vote against Trump though? A rally against a candidate gets people to stay home, not vote for the opposition. They won't want Trump but they won't exactly rally behind Hillary either. You don't need to rally behind Hillary. You need to rally behind "anyone but Trump" which will propel Hillary to the White House. There is absolutely no requirement to support Hillary, or to want her to be president, to vote against Trump. In a two party system if you're against one candidate you are by default for the other. The strength of feeling against Trump can be greater than the strength of feeling for Hillary and people will still get out there and vote. For those people Hillary isn't campaigning under her own name, she's campaigning as "not Trump". The "anyone but Hillary" train of thought is no weaker than the "anyone but Trump" one. If neither candidate is a good option, people will often choose simply not to vote. This happens a lot even when it isn't logical to do so. "I suck but Trump sucks worse" doesn't exactly inspire people to "get out the vote." People actually have to like you. And Trump may just not be universally hated in the general, and Hillary will be shat on by most for being a genuinely sleazy and shitty politician.
Are you saying democrat turnout would be abnormally low with Hillary, just because Sanders supporters don't like her? You're talking about Sanders supporters that are activists. You don't think Bernie supporters hate trump? I struggle to think that Bernie supporters would not cast a vote to stop trump.
In 08 Clinton supporters said in polls they wouldn't vote for Obama if he was the nominee, but then they did.
|
Nuclear energy is one of the areas I disagree with Bernie on. As someone who is hell-bent on ending dependence on fossil fuels, he should be able to recognize nuclear as a natural bridge between oil and coal and truly sustainable sources like solar and wind. The technology just isn't there yet for solar/wind and won't be for a long enough time that environmentalists should really be looking at nuclear to bridge the gap. Reactor safety in the United States should really not concern anyone, witch leaves us with waste disposal as the biggest issue. And if your primary goal is to combat climate change by targeting GHG emissions, shouldn't a pragmatic alternative be stockpiling nuclear waste in a safe location until we can figure out what to do with it?
A temporary solution to our climate/energy problems is staring everyone in the face but the stigma around it is unbelievable in many cases.
I have supported Sanders but when Hillary is ultimately nominated I will have no problem voting for her over someone like Trump or Cruz. Just by running, Bernie has done some interesting things in this race, but there is a greater imperative to prevent someone as unhinged as Trump or ideological as Cruz from obtaining the presidency, because if we don't like how things are now, we really won't like how things are then (speaking as a Bernie supporter).
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 18 2016 01:51 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2016 01:23 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 18 2016 01:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 18 2016 01:13 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 18 2016 01:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 18 2016 00:25 oneofthem wrote: bernie making bad ideas popular isnt longterm thinking. it is just bad What bad ideas? What makes them bad? Affordable education and healthcare are surely good ideas, right? I'd like to point out Hillary has the same goals in her platform. Bernie's plans to achieve those goals are terribad. I agree that Hillary also wants those  I'm just wondering what the "bad ideas" are. Some bad ideas: -putting farmers on the fed (putting a bunch of guys who know nothing about high finance in charge of monetary policy is a terribad idea, and beyond that these are guys who by and large rely on huge subsidies to do business... which is a bit of a concern in and of itself and may have some impact on their view of finance) -tax on equity trading (it doesn't work, look what happened to other nations which tired this-- it just gutted their markets and it will hurt retail/retirement investors more than investment firms) -reinstating glass steagal (breaking up the banks is NOT a good thing at this point, and it doesn't matter since the commercial and investment divisions of the big banks are required to keep separate balance sheets, and if the banks that died in the financial crisis hadn't been acquired it would have been even worse potentially) -medicare for all (the entire plan is godawful) -against NAFTA (NAFTA is NOT a bad thing) -against the ex/im bank (we need it to keep major firms like Boeing competitive against Airbus which is subsidized/ owned by several major Euro governments, it's just low cost financing which Boeing and others pay back) -against nuclear energy (debate around this, but he opposes it for the wrong reasons) -mandatory GMO labeling (we had this discussion, voluntary is fine with some regulation) It's a bit scary that no-one looks at his FP (besides trade, which for him is an internal only issue as he never engages the diplomatic and legal ramifications). He is an isolationist which has been a massively radical idea since at least Eisenhower! And if you read the piece on Obama's FP in the Atlantic, you should take all the criticism there and multiply it by 10 with Sanders. So if you're looking for terribad ideas, look to his FP, such as forming a new NATO with ME countries so that the US would be drawn into every regional conflict there (exactly what he's trying to avoid!). The only saving grace is that he clearly has no idea what he's talking about so his team would probably be able to formulate a decent FP strategy with relatively little meddling - he might veto the whole thing though. Edit. Just to add an Estonian perspective: hearing that comment of his that the US shouldn't have supported people rising up against Communist governments still creates irrational anger in me. If he had been in government, my life would still be lived under a foreign authoritarian regime. i agree with this
|
On March 18 2016 01:30 ZasZ. wrote: Not sure it has been discussed in here yet but I am fascinated by this theory that Kasich is only remaining in the Republican race in order to ensure Trump wins the nomination and selects him as VP. After he won Ohio, he seems to be stressing the "whoever wins Ohio wins the presidency" point, and appears to now be buying ad time in states (like Utah) where Cruz has the strongest foothold to try to cut into his lead and bring Trump to the top. He's mathematically eliminated from winning the nomination himself, so what other reason could he possibly be staying in for?
As someone who has always viewed Kasich as the most reasonable Republican candidate by far, this disappoints the hell out of me. Maybe he thinks he can "control" Trump as VP, but more likely than not he becomes Christie 2.0, because as Trump has said many times, no one controls him and he controls everyone else. I don't think Kasich wants to be Trump's VP. I think he's in it to win it at a broker convention.
That said, the more that I think about it, the more that it makes sense for Trump to pick an establishment-type candidate to be his VP. In particular, I can easily see him picking a (current or former) high-ranking republican congressional/senate official. Both John Boehner and even Newt Gingrich make sense.
|
nope, since nuclear is only cheap when you ignore all externalities and use reactors that are 20 years beyond their intended life so they already payed for their construction. building new reactors with totally new developed technology is so much more expensive than solar and wind are already today, and they have many (engineering) unknowns about them, that they are not the pragmatic and reliable alternative they are made out to be.
|
On March 18 2016 02:00 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2016 00:25 LegalLord wrote:On March 18 2016 00:17 KwarK wrote:On March 17 2016 23:58 LegalLord wrote:On March 17 2016 23:56 KwarK wrote:On March 17 2016 23:54 LegalLord wrote:On March 17 2016 23:47 Sbrubbles wrote:On March 17 2016 23:20 xDaunt wrote: Mainstream democrats' expectation that Bernie supporters will simply tow the party line and fully support Hillary at this point are misplaced and unreasonable. Hillary represents much of what Bernie is diametrically opposed to. It's not unreasonable to expect Bernie supporters to fully support Hillary when push comes to shove, but I do agree it is unreasonable to expect them to so while Bernie can still stick around to further his message. It is actually pretty unreasonable. Dems stay home if they don't like their own candidate. So them not voting for Hillary is very likely. If Romney were the Republican candidate, maybe. You're really going to tell me there won't be a rally to vote against Trump though? A rally against a candidate gets people to stay home, not vote for the opposition. They won't want Trump but they won't exactly rally behind Hillary either. You don't need to rally behind Hillary. You need to rally behind "anyone but Trump" which will propel Hillary to the White House. There is absolutely no requirement to support Hillary, or to want her to be president, to vote against Trump. In a two party system if you're against one candidate you are by default for the other. The strength of feeling against Trump can be greater than the strength of feeling for Hillary and people will still get out there and vote. For those people Hillary isn't campaigning under her own name, she's campaigning as "not Trump". The "anyone but Hillary" train of thought is no weaker than the "anyone but Trump" one. If neither candidate is a good option, people will often choose simply not to vote. This happens a lot even when it isn't logical to do so. "I suck but Trump sucks worse" doesn't exactly inspire people to "get out the vote." People actually have to like you. And Trump may just not be universally hated in the general, and Hillary will be shat on by most for being a genuinely sleazy and shitty politician. Are you saying democrat turnout would be abnormally low with Hillary, just because Sanders supporters don't like her? You're talking about Sanders supporters that are activists. You don't think Bernie supporters hate trump? I struggle to think that Bernie supporters would not cast a vote to stop trump. In 08 Clinton supporters said in polls they wouldn't vote for Obama if he was the nominee, but then they did. Yes, I think that democrats that supported Bernie might stay home, not wanting to vote for the shitty candidate they see Hillary as. Abnormally low turnout, I don't think anyone can say - we don't even have our nominees chosen yet. But low enough to give it to Trump? Maybe.
Dems were pretty much guaranteed to win 08 after Bush. Now, it could go either way - Obama is neither particularly good or bad overall, as a general perception by the country. To assume Dems will tow the party line just to stop Trump is to ignore reality.
|
On March 18 2016 02:05 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2016 01:30 ZasZ. wrote: Not sure it has been discussed in here yet but I am fascinated by this theory that Kasich is only remaining in the Republican race in order to ensure Trump wins the nomination and selects him as VP. After he won Ohio, he seems to be stressing the "whoever wins Ohio wins the presidency" point, and appears to now be buying ad time in states (like Utah) where Cruz has the strongest foothold to try to cut into his lead and bring Trump to the top. He's mathematically eliminated from winning the nomination himself, so what other reason could he possibly be staying in for?
As someone who has always viewed Kasich as the most reasonable Republican candidate by far, this disappoints the hell out of me. Maybe he thinks he can "control" Trump as VP, but more likely than not he becomes Christie 2.0, because as Trump has said many times, no one controls him and he controls everyone else. I don't think Kasich wants to be Trump's VP. I think he's in it to win it at a broker convention. That said, the more that I think about it, the more that it makes sense for Trump to pick an establishment-type candidate to be his VP. In particular, I can easily see him picking a (current or former) high-ranking republican congressional/senate official. Both John Boehner and even Newt Gingrich make sense.
I stand by my statement that he is delusional if he thinks he can win even at a brokered convention, and he doesn't strike me as delusional. If the RNC wants to commit political suicide by handing him the nomination when Trump and Cruz are more popular, that's fine by me, but it doesn't seem to be a wise choice.
And yes, Trump has almost nothing to lose by picking an establishment VP because his supporters won't see that as a betrayal, they'll see it as him doing whatever it takes to win and they trust him to make Kasich his bitch rather than take any actual advice. And if Kasich is indeed capable of delivering Ohio to Trump, it would be a huge boon against Hillary in the general.
|
United States43277 Posts
Are we properly accounting for the externalities of other power sources? My understanding is that radioactive particles from coal etc kill far more people than those from nuclear. I mean sure, nuclear is "uninsurable" which is another way of saying "only cost efficient if we ignore the potential for shit to go horribly wrong and if we didn't ignore it then it wouldn't be cost efficient at all" but it's not alone in that.
|
On March 18 2016 02:09 KwarK wrote: Are we properly accounting for the externalities of other power sources? My understanding is that radioactive particles from coal etc kill far more people than those from nuclear. I mean sure, nuclear is "uninsurable" which is another way of saying "only cost efficient if we ignore the potential for shit to go horribly wrong and if we didn't ignore it then it wouldn't be cost efficient at all" but it's not alone in that.
well obviously coal has more direct externalities because a nuclear energy facility literally has no emissions, even a banana is more radioactive, but there really isn't any long term waste storage in place. People are just dumping nuclear waste everywhere they want. Also cost externalities often include heavy subsidies for the plants which take quite a while to amortize.
|
On March 18 2016 01:51 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2016 01:23 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 18 2016 01:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 18 2016 01:13 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 18 2016 01:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 18 2016 00:25 oneofthem wrote: bernie making bad ideas popular isnt longterm thinking. it is just bad What bad ideas? What makes them bad? Affordable education and healthcare are surely good ideas, right? I'd like to point out Hillary has the same goals in her platform. Bernie's plans to achieve those goals are terribad. I agree that Hillary also wants those  I'm just wondering what the "bad ideas" are. Some bad ideas: -putting farmers on the fed (putting a bunch of guys who know nothing about high finance in charge of monetary policy is a terribad idea, and beyond that these are guys who by and large rely on huge subsidies to do business... which is a bit of a concern in and of itself and may have some impact on their view of finance) -tax on equity trading (it doesn't work, look what happened to other nations which tired this-- it just gutted their markets and it will hurt retail/retirement investors more than investment firms) -reinstating glass steagal (breaking up the banks is NOT a good thing at this point, and it doesn't matter since the commercial and investment divisions of the big banks are required to keep separate balance sheets, and if the banks that died in the financial crisis hadn't been acquired it would have been even worse potentially) -medicare for all (the entire plan is godawful) -against NAFTA (NAFTA is NOT a bad thing) -against the ex/im bank (we need it to keep major firms like Boeing competitive against Airbus which is subsidized/ owned by several major Euro governments, it's just low cost financing which Boeing and others pay back) -against nuclear energy (debate around this, but he opposes it for the wrong reasons) -mandatory GMO labeling (we had this discussion, voluntary is fine with some regulation) It's a bit scary that no-one looks at his FP (besides trade, which for him is an internal only issue as he never engages the diplomatic and legal ramifications). He is an isolationist which has been a massively radical idea since at least Eisenhower! And if you read the piece on Obama's FP in the Atlantic, you should take all the criticism there and multiply it by 10 with Sanders. So if you're looking for terribad ideas, look to his FP, such as forming a new NATO with ME countries so that the US would be drawn into every regional conflict there (exactly what he's trying to avoid!). The only saving grace is that he clearly has no idea what he's talking about so his team would probably be able to formulate a decent FP strategy with relatively little meddling - he might veto the whole thing though. Edit. Just to add an Estonian perspective: hearing that comment of his that the US shouldn't have supported people rising up against Communist governments still creates irrational anger in me. If he had been in government, my life would still be lived under a foreign authoritarian regime. American isolationist ideas seem to simply come from the fact that war is expensive. Most Americans simply don't care about the rest of the world beyond a very simplistic worldview. The involvement in FP of almost all natural born Americans is minimal.
I'll refrain from saying too much about my thoughts about that Estonian perspective because I think it's not really the best place for it. But I will say that "irrational anger" is a pretty accurate way of describing it.
|
On March 18 2016 02:07 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2016 02:00 Doodsmack wrote:On March 18 2016 00:25 LegalLord wrote:On March 18 2016 00:17 KwarK wrote:On March 17 2016 23:58 LegalLord wrote:On March 17 2016 23:56 KwarK wrote:On March 17 2016 23:54 LegalLord wrote:On March 17 2016 23:47 Sbrubbles wrote:On March 17 2016 23:20 xDaunt wrote: Mainstream democrats' expectation that Bernie supporters will simply tow the party line and fully support Hillary at this point are misplaced and unreasonable. Hillary represents much of what Bernie is diametrically opposed to. It's not unreasonable to expect Bernie supporters to fully support Hillary when push comes to shove, but I do agree it is unreasonable to expect them to so while Bernie can still stick around to further his message. It is actually pretty unreasonable. Dems stay home if they don't like their own candidate. So them not voting for Hillary is very likely. If Romney were the Republican candidate, maybe. You're really going to tell me there won't be a rally to vote against Trump though? A rally against a candidate gets people to stay home, not vote for the opposition. They won't want Trump but they won't exactly rally behind Hillary either. You don't need to rally behind Hillary. You need to rally behind "anyone but Trump" which will propel Hillary to the White House. There is absolutely no requirement to support Hillary, or to want her to be president, to vote against Trump. In a two party system if you're against one candidate you are by default for the other. The strength of feeling against Trump can be greater than the strength of feeling for Hillary and people will still get out there and vote. For those people Hillary isn't campaigning under her own name, she's campaigning as "not Trump". The "anyone but Hillary" train of thought is no weaker than the "anyone but Trump" one. If neither candidate is a good option, people will often choose simply not to vote. This happens a lot even when it isn't logical to do so. "I suck but Trump sucks worse" doesn't exactly inspire people to "get out the vote." People actually have to like you. And Trump may just not be universally hated in the general, and Hillary will be shat on by most for being a genuinely sleazy and shitty politician. Are you saying democrat turnout would be abnormally low with Hillary, just because Sanders supporters don't like her? You're talking about Sanders supporters that are activists. You don't think Bernie supporters hate trump? I struggle to think that Bernie supporters would not cast a vote to stop trump. In 08 Clinton supporters said in polls they wouldn't vote for Obama if he was the nominee, but then they did. Yes, I think that democrats that supported Bernie might stay home, not wanting to vote for the shitty candidate they see Hillary as. Abnormally low turnout, I don't think anyone can say - we don't even have our nominees chosen yet. But low enough to give it to Trump? Maybe. Dems were pretty much guaranteed to win 08 after Bush. Now, it could go either way - Obama is neither particularly good or bad overall, as a general perception by the country. To assume Dems will tow the party line just to stop Trump is to ignore reality.
I think to make the argument Bernie supporters won't vote you have to assume dem turnout will be abnormally low. A win in 08 was not at all guaranteed if hillary's primary supporters didn't turn out for Obama, which according to polls, they said they wouldn't do. All we're talking about is turnout of people who voted in the primary for someone other than who they vote for in the general. It happens with every election and I don't think Hillary is so abnormal that it will R different this year, eapecially given how strongly Bernie supporters feel against trump.
|
On March 18 2016 01:51 Ghanburighan wrote:
...hearing that comment of his that the US shouldn't have supported people rising up against Communist governments still creates irrational anger in me... Wut?
|
On March 18 2016 02:26 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2016 02:07 LegalLord wrote:On March 18 2016 02:00 Doodsmack wrote:On March 18 2016 00:25 LegalLord wrote:On March 18 2016 00:17 KwarK wrote:On March 17 2016 23:58 LegalLord wrote:On March 17 2016 23:56 KwarK wrote:On March 17 2016 23:54 LegalLord wrote:On March 17 2016 23:47 Sbrubbles wrote:On March 17 2016 23:20 xDaunt wrote: Mainstream democrats' expectation that Bernie supporters will simply tow the party line and fully support Hillary at this point are misplaced and unreasonable. Hillary represents much of what Bernie is diametrically opposed to. It's not unreasonable to expect Bernie supporters to fully support Hillary when push comes to shove, but I do agree it is unreasonable to expect them to so while Bernie can still stick around to further his message. It is actually pretty unreasonable. Dems stay home if they don't like their own candidate. So them not voting for Hillary is very likely. If Romney were the Republican candidate, maybe. You're really going to tell me there won't be a rally to vote against Trump though? A rally against a candidate gets people to stay home, not vote for the opposition. They won't want Trump but they won't exactly rally behind Hillary either. You don't need to rally behind Hillary. You need to rally behind "anyone but Trump" which will propel Hillary to the White House. There is absolutely no requirement to support Hillary, or to want her to be president, to vote against Trump. In a two party system if you're against one candidate you are by default for the other. The strength of feeling against Trump can be greater than the strength of feeling for Hillary and people will still get out there and vote. For those people Hillary isn't campaigning under her own name, she's campaigning as "not Trump". The "anyone but Hillary" train of thought is no weaker than the "anyone but Trump" one. If neither candidate is a good option, people will often choose simply not to vote. This happens a lot even when it isn't logical to do so. "I suck but Trump sucks worse" doesn't exactly inspire people to "get out the vote." People actually have to like you. And Trump may just not be universally hated in the general, and Hillary will be shat on by most for being a genuinely sleazy and shitty politician. Are you saying democrat turnout would be abnormally low with Hillary, just because Sanders supporters don't like her? You're talking about Sanders supporters that are activists. You don't think Bernie supporters hate trump? I struggle to think that Bernie supporters would not cast a vote to stop trump. In 08 Clinton supporters said in polls they wouldn't vote for Obama if he was the nominee, but then they did. Yes, I think that democrats that supported Bernie might stay home, not wanting to vote for the shitty candidate they see Hillary as. Abnormally low turnout, I don't think anyone can say - we don't even have our nominees chosen yet. But low enough to give it to Trump? Maybe. Dems were pretty much guaranteed to win 08 after Bush. Now, it could go either way - Obama is neither particularly good or bad overall, as a general perception by the country. To assume Dems will tow the party line just to stop Trump is to ignore reality. I think to make the argument Bernie supporters won't vote you have to assume dem turnout will be abnormally low.
A major characteristic of both frontrunners is that a large part of their own party dislikes and/or distrusts them very much. To expect a high turnout is incredibly wishful.
I assume Clinton is going to give an important post in her administration to Sanders, which may help.
|
On March 18 2016 02:53 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2016 02:26 Doodsmack wrote:On March 18 2016 02:07 LegalLord wrote:On March 18 2016 02:00 Doodsmack wrote:On March 18 2016 00:25 LegalLord wrote:On March 18 2016 00:17 KwarK wrote:On March 17 2016 23:58 LegalLord wrote:On March 17 2016 23:56 KwarK wrote:On March 17 2016 23:54 LegalLord wrote:On March 17 2016 23:47 Sbrubbles wrote: [quote]
It's not unreasonable to expect Bernie supporters to fully support Hillary when push comes to shove, but I do agree it is unreasonable to expect them to so while Bernie can still stick around to further his message. It is actually pretty unreasonable. Dems stay home if they don't like their own candidate. So them not voting for Hillary is very likely. If Romney were the Republican candidate, maybe. You're really going to tell me there won't be a rally to vote against Trump though? A rally against a candidate gets people to stay home, not vote for the opposition. They won't want Trump but they won't exactly rally behind Hillary either. You don't need to rally behind Hillary. You need to rally behind "anyone but Trump" which will propel Hillary to the White House. There is absolutely no requirement to support Hillary, or to want her to be president, to vote against Trump. In a two party system if you're against one candidate you are by default for the other. The strength of feeling against Trump can be greater than the strength of feeling for Hillary and people will still get out there and vote. For those people Hillary isn't campaigning under her own name, she's campaigning as "not Trump". The "anyone but Hillary" train of thought is no weaker than the "anyone but Trump" one. If neither candidate is a good option, people will often choose simply not to vote. This happens a lot even when it isn't logical to do so. "I suck but Trump sucks worse" doesn't exactly inspire people to "get out the vote." People actually have to like you. And Trump may just not be universally hated in the general, and Hillary will be shat on by most for being a genuinely sleazy and shitty politician. Are you saying democrat turnout would be abnormally low with Hillary, just because Sanders supporters don't like her? You're talking about Sanders supporters that are activists. You don't think Bernie supporters hate trump? I struggle to think that Bernie supporters would not cast a vote to stop trump. In 08 Clinton supporters said in polls they wouldn't vote for Obama if he was the nominee, but then they did. Yes, I think that democrats that supported Bernie might stay home, not wanting to vote for the shitty candidate they see Hillary as. Abnormally low turnout, I don't think anyone can say - we don't even have our nominees chosen yet. But low enough to give it to Trump? Maybe. Dems were pretty much guaranteed to win 08 after Bush. Now, it could go either way - Obama is neither particularly good or bad overall, as a general perception by the country. To assume Dems will tow the party line just to stop Trump is to ignore reality. I think to make the argument Bernie supporters won't vote you have to assume dem turnout will be abnormally low. A major characteristic of both frontrunners is that a large part of their own party dislikes and/or distrusts them very much. To expect a high turnout is incredibly wishful. I assume Clinton is going to give an important post in her administration to Sanders, which may help.
Well, at least when it comes to people in the parties actually voting in the primaries, up until around two weeks ago more primary voters would have been satisfied with Clinton than would have been satisfied with Obama in 2008 (79% satisfied with 2012 Clinton vs Obama's 69% in '08). Clinton herself has risen from 71% in '08, interestingly enough. You might be able to argue Obama's numbers were brutally tanked by a couple states though.
Source : http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/republican-voters-kind-of-hate-all-their-choices/
There is the looming spectre of people that just aren't voting in the primaries, though, which is a legitimate concern since they're not captured in the exit polls, but I can't help but think they'll just vote hard party lines.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
sanders does a lot better in open primaries, on the strength of 'independent' and conservative voters. they are not democrats
|
|
|
|
|
|