EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 830
| 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 | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On October 10 2018 02:12 Plansix wrote: I just brushed up on Coulter's background and she is so wildly under qualified for the job it is sort of amazing that anyone would suggest it. She has a brief 4 year spot working in Congress in the late 1990s. Then book deals, show business and heckling from the cheap seats for the next 18 years. But she is such a shill that I don't' think she would accept Trump's nomination anyways. She is here to heckle, not preform. That makes her 4 years more qualified than the actual President of the United States so why not? | ||
CosmicSpiral
United States15275 Posts
On October 10 2018 06:07 Plansix wrote: It isn’t factually inaccurate, it does omit the majority of Clinton’s political career. Though I would also say that the Republican fueled mythos around the Clintons is equally disingenuous. I find it weird that the Senate Republicans seem to operate like Bill Clinton just left office and Hilary could run for election at any moment. And with his charitable depiction of Clinton in mind, his characterization of Trump is generous as well. He leaves out all the scummy real estate deals and tax fraud.
Irrespective of her record, she doesn't need whitewashing to compare favorably to Trump. On October 10 2018 06:08 Nebuchad wrote: Neoliberalism is a logical consequence of capitalism. If you create a wealthy and powerful ruling class and tell them that the goal is to increase their profit, it is logical that they will favor a strand of capitalism that gives them even more money and power. That's corporatism, which is already different from capitalism since most strains of capitalism advocate antitrust legislation and other means to prevent abuse. After all, consolidation on the scale of Google or Time Warner inherently inhibits fair competition in the marketplace. On October 10 2018 06:08 Nebuchad wrote: And because of the power that they already hold thanks to being the ruling class, it is logical that neoliberalism becomes the most influential capitalist ideology. Neoliberalism didn't come from the ruling class. It was advocated via think tanks, contemporary economic theory, and advisers in major institutions such as the IMF to become the baseline standard. The ruling class never questioned it because they don't understand its basic tenets. They would largely conflate it with laissez-faire capitalism. On October 10 2018 06:08 Nebuchad wrote: We can of course influence capitalism using other economic ideologies, mainly socialism and fascism, without moving away from capitalism entirely. My favourite is socialism =). But without those external influences I don't see how a capitalist ideology wouldn't naturally tend toward neoliberalism after some amount of time. The main reason neoliberalism spread so rapidly was due to concentrated effort across several decades by the likes of the Chicago School of Economics. Many neoliberal principles are unintuitive and repulsive to common sense e.g. most hardcore advocates of capitalism wouldn't want greater state intervention and expansion of state bureaucracy. Nor would they entertain the ghastly notion that totalitarianism was compatible with the free market (see Hayek's debt to Carl Schmitt on his critique of democracy). | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15725 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Blitzkrieg0
United States13132 Posts
On October 10 2018 07:56 Mohdoo wrote: No one gives up a governorship for 18 months as UN ambassador. Anyone got any "what really happened" theories regarding Nikki Haley? There are some ethics violations regarding private jets Distancing from Trump to run in 2024 Some political positioning for a position in South Carolina | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15725 Posts
On October 10 2018 08:09 Plansix wrote: Well she is in a staggering amount of debt(2 million or something per the NPR reporter) and the Democrats could take the House. I think she wants to bail before they decide that all the graft must be investigated. Lawyers cost money. That would be hilarious. Everyone realizing there is gonna be a laundry list of investigations and jumping ship to be a low priority. Fun theory. | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor http://www.globalconstructionreview.com/news/china-starts-work-landmark-fourth-generation-fast-/ http://en.cgnpc.com.cn/encgn/c100035/2018-03/16/content_58d5e9e16cd84abaacee6fdc50a7fc43.shtml Edit: Get rid of the regulatory red-tape, stop subsidizing specific energy sources, and let the market dictate efficiency. I'm pretty damn confident Nuclear would easily demolish every other energy source. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15725 Posts
On October 10 2018 08:15 Wegandi wrote: By the way, for the guy from Germany against Nuclear. I would advise doing some small amount of research on the new Gen IV reactors. They're completely safe, can re-use old nuclear fuel, and can be low-scaled. Citing the huge bureaucratic red-tape for nuclear as a reason against nuclear is circular logic. Yes, maybe, fifty years ago when there were significant safety concerns it was warranted, but not today with today's technology. China is blowing the world away. Europe thinks going back to middle age technology (wind-generated power) is the answer, but it's not really (not to mention the environmental and land-use issues with wind and solar), and the US thinks black lung technology needs to be subsidized. It's silly really. Come on western civilization, get with the times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor http://en.cgnpc.com.cn/encgn/c100035/2018-03/16/content_58d5e9e16cd84abaacee6fdc50a7fc43.shtml Edit: Get rid of the regulatory red-tape, stop subsidizing specific energy sources, and let the market dictate efficiency. I'm pretty damn confident Nuclear would easily demolish every other energy source. Germany has deep societal biases against nuclear. It is unclear to me where this bias originates from, but nuclear is super fucking dead in Germany. It is a damn shame, since it is straight up the best form of energy. But oh well. Poor, poor nuclear. All the "REEEEE" liberals hate it because they think they emit radiation because rich people own nuclear power plants. Republicans hate it because it can't be mined in Kentucky. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12359 Posts
On October 10 2018 07:18 CosmicSpiral wrote: That's corporatism, which is already different from capitalism since most strains of capitalism advocate antitrust legislation and other means to prevent abuse. After all, consolidation on the scale of Google or Time Warner inherently inhibits fair competition in the marketplace. I wasn't arguing that they are the same, I was arguing that there is a clear logical path from one to the other. You create a society where there is a ruling class who holds a larger part of the power and influence and wealth when compared to the working class. After a while, theories that talk about how you should give more money and influence and power to the ruling class become prevalent in the economic discourse; that is not something that I find surprising, I find that to be extremely logical and predictable (Marx agrees, for what it's worth). On October 10 2018 07:18 CosmicSpiral wrote: The main reason neoliberalism spread so rapidly was due to concentrated effort across several decades by the likes of the Chicago School of Economics. Many neoliberal principles are unintuitive and repulsive to common sense e.g. most hardcore advocates of capitalism wouldn't want greater state intervention and expansion of state bureaucracy. Nor would they entertain the ghastly notion that totalitarianism was compatible with the free market (see Hayek's debt to Carl Schmitt on his critique of democracy). Yeah I know about our boy Friedman. I haven't read much from him but I've read the Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein, was a decent read. If you look at who backed Friedman's research and who ensured it became as popular and influential as it did, you'll see that the same forces of capital come back into play. If it wasn't for Friedman, there would have been someone else and we'd have the Seattle School of Economics, or wherever. I don't disagree that corporatism and neoliberalism are worse than a lot of other forms of capitalism, and it wouldn't surprise me that a large percentage of capitalists reject them. Keynesian economics were overall better than what we have now, by a mile. It's just that it makes perfect sense to me, given the general model of society that is described, that we end up drifting away from the latter into the former. | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On October 10 2018 08:15 Wegandi wrote: By the way, for the guy from Germany against Nuclear. I would advise doing some small amount of research on the new Gen IV reactors. They're completely safe, can re-use old nuclear fuel, and can be low-scaled. Citing the huge bureaucratic red-tape for nuclear as a reason against nuclear is circular logic. Yes, maybe, fifty years ago when there were significant safety concerns it was warranted, but not today with today's technology. China is blowing the world away. Europe thinks going back to middle age technology (wind-generated power) is the answer, but it's not really (not to mention the environmental and land-use issues with wind and solar), and the US thinks black lung technology needs to be subsidized. It's silly really. Come on western civilization, get with the times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor http://www.globalconstructionreview.com/news/china-starts-work-landmark-fourth-generation-fast-/ http://en.cgnpc.com.cn/encgn/c100035/2018-03/16/content_58d5e9e16cd84abaacee6fdc50a7fc43.shtml Edit: Get rid of the regulatory red-tape, stop subsidizing specific energy sources, and let the market dictate efficiency. I'm pretty damn confident Nuclear would easily demolish every other energy source. I'm gonna need you to define under what conditions you mean "completely safe". Human incompetence and cost-cutting in the name of profits can and has overcome a lot of idiot-proofing in the past. I'd prefer to live in a world where renewables provide the vast majority of power to the world - between safety issues, the risk of malice, dealing with nuclear waste, and the large but finite amount of nuclear fuel on Earth. If nuclear power is required to get us to that point in a feasible manner, then that is what it is. | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On October 10 2018 08:20 Mohdoo wrote: Germany has deep societal biases against nuclear. It is unclear to me where this bias originates from, but nuclear is super fucking dead in Germany. It is a damn shame, since it is straight up the best form of energy. But oh well. Poor, poor nuclear. All the "REEEEE" liberals hate it because they think they emit radiation because rich people own nuclear power plants. Republicans hate it because it can't be mined in Kentucky. Just imagine if people knew that when they went to get an MRI done, it was a nuclear machine! The horror! | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15725 Posts
On October 10 2018 08:30 Aquanim wrote: I'm gonna need you to define under what conditions you mean "completely safe". Human incompetence and cost-cutting in the name of profits can and has overcome a lot of idiot-proofing in the past. I'd prefer to live in a world where renewables provide the vast majority of power to the world - between safety issues, the risk of malice, dealing with nuclear waste, and the large but finite amount of nuclear fuel on Earth. If nuclear power is required to get us to that point in a feasible manner, then that is what it is. That is a social program, not a technology problem. Coal mines create a great deal of radioactive material, for example. The golden dream is still solar. Nothing has as high a potential as solar+batteries. If we were to look 50 years into the future, it will likely be entirely solar and perhaps fusion if we figure that out. Solar has the best "long term" viability. | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On October 10 2018 08:46 Mohdoo wrote: ... That is a social program, not a technology problem. Coal mines create a great deal of radioactive material, for example. The golden dream is still solar. Nothing has as high a potential as solar+batteries. If we were to look 50 years into the future, it will likely be entirely solar and perhaps fusion if we figure that out. Solar has the best "long term" viability. Which part is a social problem, not a technology problem? In any case, social problems are still problems. EDIT: ...did you actually mean "social program"? I'm not sure what's going on at all I guess. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15725 Posts
On October 10 2018 08:49 Aquanim wrote: Which part is a social problem, not a technology problem? In any case, social problems are still problems. My point is that since none of the other options except solar have a "risk free" scenario, we can't ever harvest energy without some sort of need for government oversight. Coal and natural gas can both go terribly wrong and cause widespread damage. Geothermal can go really fucking wrong if they do it wrong. Hell, even solar can go terribly wrong because the materials have components that are toxic if they get into soil/water. Runoff from solar corrosion stuff can be shitty. But it is very unlikely solar panels end up in that kinda situation. They would no longer be working well, so the company would want to fix that anyway. Edit: And I said social, rather than societal, on accident. Energy generation is always going to have societal issues that need to be dealt with. Mainly just regulating companies to not be shitbags. edit 2: And a lot of the chemicals used in semiconductor manufacturing (solar panels) are not particularly good for the environment. But that is all negligible compared to other stuff. edit 3: And the funny thing about semiconductor manufacturing is that we are able to "wash" all of our pollutants such that all we produce are elemental (as in just one element) solids and a bunch of CO2. It would cost a ton of money, but we are already "washing" a great deal of our gases and liquids prior to shooting them out into the world. We could do a lot more if we had to, but the government doesn't require it. And it would enormously increase costs. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On October 10 2018 08:45 Wegandi wrote: Just imagine if people knew that when they went to get an MRI done, it was a nuclear machine! The horror! Yeah, about that.. As someone who had MRIs done, could you briefly elaborate which part of the magnetic resonance imaging was radioactive or "nuclear"? | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15725 Posts
On October 10 2018 10:01 m4ini wrote: Yeah, about that.. As someone who had MRIs done, could you briefly elaborate which part of the magnetic resonance imaging was radioactive or "nuclear"? There's nothing "nuclear" in the sense that most people associate with nuclear. It is more so that the nuclei of atoms are responding to a magnetic field. When we think "nuclear power", we are talking about the energy generated by fission of atoms, where we are separating atoms into other pieces, which then emit radiation as a result of that process. For NMR (MRI), it is more so that nuclei are interacting with magnetic fields. If you have one really strong static magnetic field, and then another weak oscillating field, the nuclei do stuff that you can detect. In short, nuclear energy is harvesting power stored within a nucleus. MRI/NMR is detecting signals generated by doing stuff to nuclei. But in MRI/NMR, you are not actually changing any atoms. That is why NMR/MRI is considered "non-ionizing", which means it doesn't fuck up your shit. Nuclear energy fucks up all your shit. Edit: Funny little bit of history: The name MRI only came to exist because everyone was freaked out about getting "nuclear magnetic resonance" imaging done. But if you call it "magnetic resonance imaging", everyone is like "oh nice, magnets are awesome" | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On October 10 2018 10:17 Mohdoo wrote: There's nothing "nuclear" in the sense that most people associate with nuclear. It is more so that the nuclei of atoms are responding to a magnetic field. When we think "nuclear power", we are talking about the energy generated by fission of atoms, where we are separating atoms into other pieces, which then emit radiation as a result of that process. For NMR (MRI), it is more so that nuclei are interacting with magnetic fields. If you have one really strong static magnetic field, and then another weak oscillating field, the nuclei do stuff that you can detect. In short, nuclear energy is harvesting power stored within a nucleus. MRI/NMR is detecting signals generated by doing stuff to nuclei. But in MRI/NMR, you are not actually changing any atoms. That is why NMR/MRI is considered "non-ionizing", which means it doesn't fuck up your shit. Nuclear energy fucks up all your shit. Other kinds of medical scan can in principle have adverse radiation-related effects I believe, but the processes involved are still not reasonably comparable to nuclear power... which makes Wegandi's argument very weak even if they'd picked the right medical procedure. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15725 Posts
On October 10 2018 10:24 Aquanim wrote: Other kinds of medical scan can in principle have adverse radiation-related effects I believe, but the processes involved are still not reasonably comparable to nuclear power... which makes Wegandi's argument very weak even if they'd picked the right medical procedure. yeah, x-ray imaging is downright bad for you, but we do it in small bursts and whatnot. x-rays are ionizing, which mean they have enough energy to ionize atoms in your body. When stuff gets ionized, it gets all goofed up. But its usually fine to just ionize stuff a bit. But in general, you should always seek to have as little x-ray imaging done as possible. But MRI is non-ionizing, so its entirely different. It's just that it uses nuclei, so "nuclear". | ||
| ||
