EPTSeeing how GOP is gathering around a potentially splitting Trump, I am fairly convinced the DEMs would gather around Bernie as a president too. I am just afraid he is too old, he needs to pass the torch!
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 825
| 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 | ||
|
Slydie
2011 Posts
Seeing how GOP is gathering around a potentially splitting Trump, I am fairly convinced the DEMs would gather around Bernie as a president too. I am just afraid he is too old, he needs to pass the torch! | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
Beto has run an incredible campaign, but it would still take a miracle for him to win. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On October 09 2018 02:14 Grumbels wrote: I think such framing is dangerous. For the last few decades the GOP has been much more destructive while in office than the Democrats have been constructive. While it would be nice to have Obama in charge again, it’s not like he really did that much to prevent his accomplishments from being sabotaged by the GOP the moment they held some leverage. Neither did he achieve anything truly transformative during his first few years in office when he had a supermajority. I’d much rather have an “exciting” president given that last I read starting from 2040 climate change will make many parts of the world unlivable and will probably cause a global turn towards fascism. If there is a centrist Dem in 2020 who doesn’t drastically change the direction of the country, this could have dire negative effects two or three decades from now. In many respects it’s our last chance as a global community to meaningfully mitigate the effects of climate change. If you think the GOP is cruel towards immigrants now, then just wait until there are 10 million refugees fleeing floods and famine in Central America. Or let’s see what happens if Bangladesh becomes unlivable and India and Pakistan start a nuclear war as a result. If you're so worried, the drivers of CO2 increases are mostly the developing countries - China, the African continent, South-East Asia, the Middle East, etc. The US has been dropping its CO2 footprint. https://reason.com/blog/2018/05/04/us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-down-europea By the way, how about before lecturing us, you get your own house in order. The EU increased their CO2 footprint, while the US saw theirs decrease by 2% (the highest of any industrialized country). You guys place more importance on stupid international conferences and "agreements" than on facts. This is going to continue as non-coal power sources become cheaper. I just wish the people who believed in this doomsday scenario so much weren't also opposed to the best non-CO2 energy source - Nuclear. I'm sure that once 2040 comes around and most of the planet isn't unlivable and there aren't lots of major wars over food/water that you'll change your opinion.....(sarcasm meter alert). | ||
KwarK
United States44352 Posts
On October 09 2018 04:44 Sermokala wrote: Amy Klobuchar would be the easy win candidate for the Democrats. A safe nice midwestern woman would secure The blue firewall that was promised in 2016. She's an incredibly hard target seeing how she even got Kavanaugh to apologize to her. Booker would be an easy target for Republicans from being in New Jersey to being well lets be objective black (disclaimers about it being me saying he's bad because hes black I don't think being black means hes inferior I'm not saying that I'm saying that it would be easy to sling mud at him for the conservative base because hes black) Warren would be an even worse candidate than Hillary. I don't know why she's considered a serious candidate for the presidency. She's probably pretty popular within her crowd but would die a death on any national campaign. Bernie could give a candidate a rocket at the start of a campaign but I don't think the party could survive another Bernie Sanders campaign pulling the party apart (through no fault of his own) Half the country is never going to vote for a woman. Or, for that matter, a Jew. They need to run an old rich white Christian male that the country can somehow all relate to despite having nothing in common. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44352 Posts
On October 09 2018 05:37 Wegandi wrote: If you're so worried, the drivers of CO2 increases are mostly the developing countries - China, the African continent, South-East Asia, the Middle East, etc. The US has been dropping its CO2 footprint. https://reason.com/blog/2018/05/04/us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-down-europea By the way, how about before lecturing us, you get your own house in order. The EU increased their CO2 footprint, while the US saw theirs decrease by 2% (the highest of any industrialized country). You guys place more importance on stupid international conferences and "agreements" than on facts. This is going to continue as non-coal power sources become cheaper. I just wish the people who believed in this doomsday scenario so much weren't also opposed to the best non-CO2 energy source - Nuclear. I'm sure that once 2040 comes around and most of the planet isn't unlivable and there aren't lots of major wars over food/water that you'll change your opinion.....(sarcasm meter alert). Nobody on this forum is opposed to nuclear as far as I know. You’re battling a straw man idea of a hypocritical environmentalist. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7032 Posts
On October 09 2018 05:37 Wegandi wrote: If you're so worried, the drivers of CO2 increases are mostly the developing countries - China, the African continent, South-East Asia, the Middle East, etc. The US has been dropping its CO2 footprint. https://reason.com/blog/2018/05/04/us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-down-europea By the way, how about before lecturing us, you get your own house in order. The EU increased their CO2 footprint, while the US saw theirs decrease by 2% (the highest of any industrialized country). You guys place more importance on stupid international conferences and "agreements" than on facts. This is going to continue as non-coal power sources become cheaper. I just wish the people who believed in this doomsday scenario so much weren't also opposed to the best non-CO2 energy source - Nuclear. I'm sure that once 2040 comes around and most of the planet isn't unlivable and there aren't lots of major wars over food/water that you'll change your opinion.....(sarcasm meter alert). The United States’ CO2 emissions per capita are much higher than in Western Europe. Just because they went down in the US two years ago, before Trump loosened environmental regulations and pulled out of the Paris accords, gives scant hope. The link you gave is to an article by some idiot that thinks economic progress and technological innovation is the best way to solve environmental issues, as opposed to just doing something about CO2 emissions directly. Completely wishful thinking that will get us all killed. And by the way, it’s not just me proselytizing about the end of the world, it’s climate scientists and the UN who came out with a new report saying 2040 is about the date when the effects will become really noticeable. Instead of doing something about it /now/ I guess we could also let economic progress and technological innovation save us, while soon India, Russia, Brazil, the US, China are ruled by these nationalist dictatorships or revanchist rightwing movements of some sort. But I guess everything is just fine and the EU shouldn’t whine about internstional agreements and should just care about facts. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
chocorush
696 Posts
| ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12551 Posts
On October 09 2018 06:16 Grumbels wrote: The United States’ CO2 emissions per capita are much higher than in Western Europe. Just because they went down in the US two years ago, before Trump loosened environmental regulations and pulled out of the Paris accords gives scant hope. The link you gave is to an article by some idiot that thinks economic progress and technological innovation is the best way to solve environmental issues, as opposed to just doing something about CO2 emissions directly. Complete wishful thinking that will get us all killed. And by the way, it’s not just me proselytizing about the end of the world, it’s climate scientists and the UN who came out with a new report saying 2040 is about the date when the effects will become really noticeable. Instead of doing something about it /now/ I guess we could also let economic progress and technological innovation save us, while soon India, Russia, Brazil, the US, China are ruled by these nationalist dictatorships or revanchist rightwing movements of some sort. But I guess everything is just fine and the EU shouldn’t whine about internstional agreements and should just care about facts. I think even the US says it at this point, right? Isn't there a new report that says the temperature will indeed rise, but that since it will rise even if we made efforts, it's not worth it to fight against it? | ||
|
IyMoon
United States1249 Posts
On October 09 2018 06:21 Plansix wrote: Rosenstien is on Air Force One today with Trump, so I guess that means that the Justice Department is now hopeless corrupted and unable to do its job. Because that is what the Republicans argued during the Clinton investigation and the AG talked with Bill for like a couple of minutes. Don't you understand, they are just talking about how to drain the swamp! Nothing bad could be happening here because he isn't a Clinton | ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
On October 09 2018 05:39 KwarK wrote: Nobody on this forum is opposed to nuclear as far as I know. You’re battling a straw man idea of a hypocritical environmentalist. I'm strongly opposed to nuclear. As are many other of my fellow Germans. Naming nuclear as a non co2 source of energy shows how little effort had been put in the post. It's like saying electric cars are emission free. While emitting far less than natural gas CHP, nuclear ranges above all true renewables (depending on whether you include cleanup or not), with but one advantage, as far as I'm concerned. That is near constant power output. That being said unclear final waste storage, incredible upfront and tail end costs that, at least with the latter, will end up on the taxpayers bill. Susceptibility to terror attacks and human error as well as an ageing reactor fleet with decades old safety standards are not really drawing points either. The reluctance of energy companies to have their pants inspected and keep them properly maintained is a public risk. In sum, why go for the big, risky variant that has a possible side effects that are devastating, maybe even more so with increasingly severe natural desasters that were unthinkable when the plant das built.? Renewable energy can't be stored properly, yet. I'm hesitant to accept that the inhabitants of the land of the free are so much against free energy. That is the renewables. They are so cheap right now that in 20 years we could make jet fuel out of wind power. But no, let's take this 20 years and build a couple of centralised power plants instead of making our grid flexible, reliable, decentralised, modern, smart. Let's stay in the past. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24801 Posts
On October 09 2018 06:48 Artisreal wrote: I'm strongly opposed to nuclear. As are many other of my fellow Germans. Naming nuclear as a non co2 source of energy shows how little effort had been put in the post. It's like saying electric cars are emission free. While emitting far less than natural gas CHP, nuclear ranges above all true renewables (depending on whether you include cleanup or not), with but one advantage, as far as I'm concerned. That is near constant power output. That being said unclear final waste storage, incredible upfront and tail end costs that, at least with the latter, will end up on the taxpayers bill. Susceptibility to terror attacks and human error as well as an ageing reactor fleet with decades old safety standards are not really drawing points either. The reluctance of energy companies to have their pants inspected and keep them properly maintained is a public risk. In sum, why go for the big, risky variant that has a possible side effects that are devastating, maybe even more so with increasingly severe natural desasters that were unthinkable when the plant das built.? Renewable energy can't be stored properly, yet. I'm hesitant to accept that the inhabitants of the land of the free are so much against free energy. That is the renewables. They are so cheap right now that in 20 years we could make jet fuel out of wind power. But no, let's take this 20 years and build a couple of centralised power plants instead of making our grid flexible, reliable, decentralised, modern, smart. Let's stay in the past. You criticized someone pointing to nuclear as being the best non-CO2 source but didn't really back it up. You just said that nuclear, while resulting in less CO2 emissions than the typical CO2 source, natural gas, results in more CO2 emissions than other renewables. You acknowledge that nuclear has benefits that the other renewable sources don't currently have (there are some possible exceptions in limited geographic areas) but don't actually weigh them against the increase in CO2 emissions between nuclear energy and other renewables. I would argue that your accusation of a lack of effort is equally applicable to your post. I won't evaluate the other parts of your post although there is plenty to discuss there were it relevant. | ||
|
Aesthetician
20 Posts
On October 09 2018 06:48 Artisreal wrote: Renewable energy can't be stored properly, yet. I'm hesitant to accept that the inhabitants of the land of the free are so much against free energy. That is the renewables. They are so cheap right now that in 20 years we could make jet fuel out of wind power. But no, let's take this 20 years and build a couple of centralised power plants instead of making our grid flexible, reliable, decentralised, modern, smart. Let's stay in the past. I'm only 25, and in my lifetime the use of solar and wind energy in the U.S. has grown at a phenomenal rate. Watching wind turbines and solar panels spring up across the West coast and Southwest over various road trips throughout the years has been really cool. I know the news is full of doom and gloom, but I think the adoption of renewable resources is going at a good clip, and as you mentioned, since it is so cheap there are more and more adopters. | ||
|
OuchyDathurts
United States4588 Posts
On October 09 2018 05:17 ticklishmusic wrote: If Beto wins in Texas, I'm pretty sure he could do anything honestly. If his next move was to walk on water or turn water to wine I wouldn't even be that surprised. Beto has run an incredible campaign, but it would still take a miracle for him to win. If he wins and he has any sense he'll hold onto that seat. Once he gives it up its going back to a Republican instantly. The ONLY reason he's got a chance in hell is because he's running against the most repellent slug in existence. If he was running against any regular republican he wouldn't have any shot. Vacate that seat and it falls right back to Republican dude #8322, keep that senate seat at any cost for the good of the country. | ||
|
Deleted User 173346
16169 Posts
| ||
|
Belisarius
Australia6233 Posts
The very long horizons and enormous expense of setting up new plants means there's a good chance they'd end up being eclipsed by cheaper renewables projects fairly early into their production windows, even if we went all-in on them tomorrow. While the technology has improved since the 80s, it has definitely suffered from a lack of investment and interest due to being political poison. There are an absolute truckload of hysteria-related issues to overcome as well as some real, significant technical/safety issues remaining. Also, I'm not sure how I'd feel about having my pants inspected and maintained in the interests of public safety either. + Show Spoiler + On October 09 2018 06:48 Artisreal wrote: That being said unclear final waste storage, incredible upfront and tail end costs that, at least with the latter, will end up on the taxpayers bill. Susceptibility to terror attacks and human error as well as an ageing reactor fleet with decades old safety standards are not really drawing points either. The reluctance of energy companies to have their pants inspected and keep them properly maintained is a public risk. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
But trust him when he tells you* that he is the law and order president. *After all, the available evidence indicates that he is a truth teller. | ||
|
Deleted User 173346
16169 Posts
| ||
| ||
