EPTHave fun arguing with yourself. Not worth my time.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1782
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21502 Posts
Have fun arguing with yourself. Not worth my time. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22973 Posts
On September 02 2019 19:25 Gorsameth wrote: Really? Your asking a question and then play dumb when you get an answer you don't like? Have fun arguing with yourself. Not worth my time. No, I don't know what you were trying to say doesn't exist? The rest was presuming you meant that there isn't a somewhat obsessive compulsion for neoliberals to (every minute on twitter, several times an hour on cable news, daily in print and internet publications, and nearly every page of the last 1000 here, save a handful of exceptions) point and laugh at Trump/Republican stupidity and hypocrisy. I didn't expect an argument from you anyway, was just hoping to clearly understand what you were asserting only existed to my skewed view as opposed to your skewed view or others. EDIT: Trump is the unencumbered id of the US, not an aberration. He's the result of the conservative/neoliberal ego failure to effectively check him and a long absent super-ego to bring any real sense of morality. IMO focusing on Trump and Republicans "hypocrisy/stupidity" allows for catharsis, but it's worthless politically and substantively. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10636 Posts
Anyone but Trump may be a horrible slogan but it's also true for everyone with the slightest bit of decency. From what i can tell most democrats aren't happy with the state of the democratic party, but there is a way more pressing issue on the table atm. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22973 Posts
On September 02 2019 21:54 Velr wrote: The problem is that you want exactly one answer, to your question and will bitch around until you get it. I don't know why you do this, I guess it makes you feel smart? Anyone but Trump may be a horrible slogan but it's also true for everyone with the slightest bit of decency. From what i can tell most democrats aren't happy with the state of the democratic party, but there is a way more pressing issue on the table atm. I'm open to a substantive counter/alternative argument, but what was offered was unimpressive to say the least. As to why, to offer my positions/ideas up for scrutiny/critique, and ideally improvement. I'm increasingly under the impression that's not what others are here for. EDIT: The "you want exactly one answer" is somewhat fair though, in that it's a position I personally/currently hold rather than one I'm simply curious about, so I certainly have a strong preference for people to agree with me (not that it's a particularly popular occurrence here, though I have my moments). EDIT2: Just to address the "anyone better than Trump". The two things that immediately jump to mind are 1. Better than Trump ≠ adequate 2. There is always a "more pressing issue" | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10636 Posts
I really would like to agree with you on this but atm this just stands far above every other issue. To even have a chance to deal with actual issues, Trump needs to be gone. The issues you would like to be front and center are extremly important and should be at the forefront in any brighter timeline no doubt. Bernie/Warren 2020  | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35117 Posts
| ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10636 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21502 Posts
The US would be better off with a Republican President (yes even Trump) but a Democratic House and Senate then with a Democratic House and President but a Republican Senate. Mitch McConnel will ensure nothing gets done so long as he remains Senate majority leader. And he'll probably filibuster everything if he loses the majority so still nothing gets done. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22973 Posts
On September 03 2019 00:23 Velr wrote: I disagree with that there is allways a more pressing issue that is as important as who the president is. I really would like to agree with you on this but atm this just stands far above every other issue. To even have a chance to deal with actual issues, Trump needs to be gone. The issues you would like to be front and center are extremly important and should be at the forefront in any brighter timeline no doubt. Bernie/Warren 2020 We all know it's not just this particular one or presidential elections in general when this excuse for a lack of accountability and progress is deployed, it's practically every election past dog catcher where a Republican boogieman can be used. Alternatively "experience" is used when there's not a clear and ominous threat electorally. The threat can manifest as crime, immigration, terrorism, etc... But the argument is always more or less the same. You can't have what you want (or what was promised) because winning is more pressing and this bad but experienced (at being bad) candidate is more likely to win and losing is too risky/harmful. I agree Trump needs to be gone for satisfactory progress, but so does most (basically all) of congress. That'll never happen as long as people keep accepting the "not the Republican" argument imo. Partially because the people most strident about it, don't mean it. They mean "get in line" with our agenda, whether it's a winning one (let alone moving in the direction you want instead of the opposite) or not. On September 03 2019 00:44 Gorsameth wrote: So long as Republicans continue their tactics of simple not doing their jobs having a Democratic President won't fix much. The US would be better off with a Republican President (yes even Trump) but a Democratic House and Senate then with a Democratic House and President but a Republican Senate. Mitch McConnel will ensure nothing gets done so long as he remains Senate majority leader. And he'll probably filibuster everything if he loses the majority so still nothing gets done. Dems needed 60 seats to pass the ACA which, as was attempted to be used to sell it to "reasonable Republicans", a Republican plan in the first place. I feel like we never let it sink in that the major accomplishment of the 60 seat filibuster proof (resistant really) Dem majority was to pass a Republican healthcare plan. | ||
|
redlightdistrict
382 Posts
| ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9087 Posts
On September 03 2019 01:35 redlightdistrict wrote: Is nobody in the USA worried that the Category 5 Hurricane Dorian is heading directly toward a Nuclear Power Plant that was built on Hutchinson Island in the 60's? Seems like something the news should be reporting about. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eq3q7c6UbLo A nuclear plant is pretty much the safest place you could be in overground during a storm | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21502 Posts
Assuming this power plant doesn't have the same design flaw there isn't much to worry about, Nuclear power plants tend to be build sturdy. Plus, do you know the plant hasn't prepared itself? Powered down (or low activity, actually shutting down a power plant takes a long time) or something? | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9087 Posts
On September 03 2019 01:59 Gorsameth wrote: If I remember right Fukushima went wrong because the backup generators were below sea level and got flooded which meant they couldn't cool the reactors when the power failed. Assuming this power plant doesn't have the same design flaw there isn't much to worry about, Nuclear power plants tend to be build sturdy. Plus, do you know the plant hasn't prepared itself? Powered down or something? Yeah, time is the main factor. You can't fully shutdown a plant in the hour or less between an earthquake and a tsunami compared to a hurricane where you have a week in advance. | ||
micronesia
United States24625 Posts
Both before and after Fukushima, the NRC has forced commercial plants to build redundancy into their systems so that they can power pumps to accomplish the above in the case of a severe weather phenomenon. Structurally, the facility in question should have no problem withstanding hurricane force winds, and I doubt the storm surge will match Fukushima tsunami levels, so as someone suggested, that plant is probably one of the safest places to be. | ||
|
Ben...
Canada3485 Posts
On September 03 2019 01:59 Gorsameth wrote: Yes, the diesel generators were basically on or just below the surface, which is incredibly uncommon in nuclear plants and was obviously ill-advised given where the plant was located (they had assumed the giant storm wall built would stop any tsunami from getting through. The wall was slightly too short for this tsunami). I recently watched a briefing on the Fukushima incident by a retired nuclear safety person who had been working in the field since the 1970s, and he mentioned that this below ground layout is not really used in the US or in any modern facility. Backup generators are typically found either on the roof of the plant inside a heavily reinforced concrete structure, or at one of the highest points in the building also heavily reinforced so there is no chance of damage or flooding. In either case they are impervious to the elements and would require the building itself to collapse for them not to be able to be run. When you combine that with modern reactor technology it becomes highly improbable that a reactor would ever fail in a catastrophic manner.If I remember right Fukushima went wrong because the backup generators were below sea level and got flooded which meant they couldn't cool the reactors when the power failed. One thing to note: even in Fukushima, despite being hit by a tsunami far larger than the rest of the plant was designed to withstand, the main buildings all survived intact and didn't have significant issues until hydrogen explosions started happening because of the water cooling the reactors boiling and building up too much pressure. Had the generators been placed where they are in most other plants, the plant would have been completely safe. Nuclear plants are built to withstand pretty much anything. I can guarantee they built this plant in the US that is in the hurricane's path to withstand storms stronger than anything ever recorded. They don't tend to skimp when it comes to the engineering of these things. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24625 Posts
On September 03 2019 06:49 Ben... wrote: One thing to note: even in Fukushima, despite being hit by a tsunami far larger than the rest of the plant was designed to withstand, the main buildings all survived intact and didn't have significant issues until hydrogen explosions started happening because of the water cooling the reactors boiling and building up too much pressure. Good post but one point of clarification: When reactors like the Fukushima reactors significantly overheat, the zirc fuel cladding undergoes a reaction with water (the primary coolant) that releases hydrogen gas. The hydrogen concentrations in the containment at Fukushima built up to explosive levels and then detonated in several locations, including in one of the buildings with a reactor that hadn't been operating recently. | ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
| ||
