twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Two strokes in MotoGP were the epitome of man vs machine! No pussy traction control or other rider assistance. It's like cheating now with anitlock brakes and shit.
Make Liberalism Great Again
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
And now comes the grammar nazi. Truly the last resort to a losing argument next to racizms! Grammarezez!
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
We can and we will. In the meantime this is the only way to satisfy everyone on the left and right until then.
see4
Well-Known Member
I don't think she was a weak candidate, rather a meager one, in character.
Hillary has been "worked on" by the opposition for nearly a decade. Republicans are very good at closing ranks and taking a strong position on something for the sake of solidarity. In this case they closed ranks on Hillary. They've been placing the seed of doubt about her with low information voters for the past 2 election cycles. Which made it relatively easy for them to use that underpinning of doubt in the national election.
I agree, it was Hillary's campaign to lose, and she lost it by the rules of the game. Trump even acknowledged that the election was rigged, and so did his dimwitted supporters, until he won.
However, the majority of Americans think Hillary would be better for the country, over EVERY other candidate that entered the race. And so now that this has happened we need to look at how it happened, and why. The answer is pretty obvious, and that's what you and I have agreed on.
see4
Well-Known Member
And you want to be taken seriously?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i'll leave the nazism to you, since you are a white supremacist who hates jews.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
I'm afraid you are just ignorant of the hierarchy of Law in the United States and its history stemming from Magna Carta.
The People retain all rights, among these the right to vote. The President is not the President of The People but the President of The United States. The popular vote would ill legitimize the right of the States to have equal voice in who is the President of the States.
With executive orders being what they are today, this is one more straw on the pile of "unacceptable" in the Republic.
Imagine the campaign trail of the popular vote candidates. Would look like Hillary's was this year and there ya go.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
you're always so angry. is it the jews that bother you so much, or is it the blacks?
or is it living in a trailer, making less than poverty, raising some other redneck's kid (see: cuckoldry), and getting caught in your own lies over and over and over again by me?
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Nah. Natural gas- fracked now and from biological sources in the future- is the bridge to the future.
We still build wind. We still build solar.
Fuel cells running on natural gas in the homes, malls, offices and factories will be the electrical generation system of choice in the not so distant future. No transmission losses, twice as efficient in terms of BTU per watt vs current coal fired methods, smaller carbon footprint with the potential of becoming zero net if it's biogas sourced, and not poisonous for twenty thousand generations of humanity!
Why is this the bridge? Because the future is hydrogen. The same infrastructure that handles natural gas now could, with very little alteration, handle hydrogen.
Really, the only advantage hydrogen has is that it doesn't create carbon dioxide as a byproduct of combustion or fuel cell use. That's not always desirable; I can think of lots of ways to put pure co2 to good use around here!
Nuclear = expensive, dangerous forever poison.
Natural gas = bridge to an efficient, distributed power future.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
All of that verbosity fails to convince me that the people should not have the final say in who governs.
The notion that the state gets to help choose our representatives, from the presidency on down, is aristocracy in disguise and I find it corrosive to our collective wellbeing and future prosperity.
The simple fact is that voting is the voice of the people deciding whom to represent US, in OUR government. That the government itself has the power to sway this decision just means those who control the government control who gets to run it...
Which is not democracy, nor is it a republic; it's tyranny.
Mr Sanders lost by a smaller margin than the total of democratic party superdelegates. In my estimation, that shows the state's aims are not in the best interest of the people, which is what the focus of our government should always be.
see4
Well-Known Member
So then you're ok with California having 222 electoral votes? Equal voice and all.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Would you include the number of deaths that would occur in the event of an accident? We aren't talking about apples and oranges here. A windfarm accident kills what? 10? A nuclear power plant within 10 miles of a major city would kill maybe a million? Go away. You are feeble in the head.
see4
Well-Known Member
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
I'm afraid you haven't thought these through according to the numbers. Rotting waste isn't ever going to come close to powering anything really. But ya grab it up where applicable every bit helps.
Natural gas and hydrogen, you have left out the economics of them vs nuclear. Quality of life for poorer people and what they can comfortably afford for energy are important as is mortality rate. These deaths are almost exclusively regular working class folks as well. As you transition to Natural Gas then Hydrogen, you are right in that your infrastructure transition costs would be minimal. Not to to be confused with costs of expanding that infrastructure for the new very large demand for Natural Gas though, the demand would be the cost kicker largely though.
Producing hydrogen is crazy expensive, you sound a little Bushy in your prediction that hydrogen is a great target of the immediate future, how long has it been since he said that like 16 years? And where's the hydrogen, you have two choices:
1. You believe those youtube vids where the hydrogen car ran on water and the inventor was killed or shunned from science.
2. It's not economically viable.
You should have typed
Natural Gas= expensive, dangerous.
Nuclear= safe and affordable.
Do you have any info on how much one kwH costs with gas? Include the bio farts I would love to know that number.
Meanwhile, your gas mortality rate per trillion kwH yearly would climb dramatically from where it is now at 4000 per unit.
Biogas is a staggering 24,000.
Nuclear is staying around 10cents per kwH right there with Gas but the mortality rate is 0.01 per trillion kwH.
IDK, frack that shit if you think it's going to drop below 10cents per kwH, I seriously doubt it will though.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
You're turning it into something it's not. The People choose who their state Representatives are in Congress. Electors may not be in other forms of office or have other such conflicts of interest and always vote as per their states People.
So there's that. So you see the People are the voice of who represents US in our government which is the Legislative Branch. Commander in chief, however, the Executive is reserved for the States and the mechanism to insure that a minority of states can't elect the President is crucial to prevent democracy, which would ironically lead to minority state rule in your scenario. Evidenced in this years Election.
When you pose a popular vote you are advocating for a change in Legislative Representation as well. Especially considering the Commander in Chief is beholden to Congress in many ways. Its all about balance of power. Pesky branches.
I clearly stated my distaste for the popular Presidential election process. Your number clearly is a per capita representation of EC votes, which is the same thing. I guess you are proof that you need two functioning brain cells for synapses.So then you're ok with California having 222 electoral votes? Equal voice and all.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Do you have any science education in your background? Not kindergarten stuff, I mean college level physics or chemistry. Maybe some engineering courses? I can't believe the level of stupid you evince here.
Ya, hydrogen is not today commercially feasible. Also thorium salt reactors are not comercially feasible today. Oh, by the way, that technology is 50 years old. Do you think if it were easy it would have come to market sooner? Or at least be closer to market? Nuclear is not the cheap source you say it is. Costs and cost over runs of building nuclear power plants makes this energy source untenable.
You just spout shit off the top of your head as if we should take you at your word. Who the fuck are you and why should we listen? I know you are enamored with investing in silver. That is all I need to know about you . Either a fraud or a fool. So why should we accept your insults when we question the veracity of your statements about an old, mature and expensive way to produce electricity. But don't listen to me, listen to the union of concerned scientists:
The first generation of nuclear power plants proved so costly to build that half of them were abandoned during construction. Those that were completed saw huge cost overruns, which were passed on to utility customers in the form of rate increases. By 1985, Forbes had labeled U.S. nuclear power "the largest managerial disaster in business history.”
The industry has failed to prove that things will be different this time around: soaring, uncertain costs continue to plague nuclear power in the 21st century. Between 2002 and 2008, for example, cost estimates for new nuclear plant construction rose from between $2 billion and $4 billion per unit to $9 billion per unit, according to a 2009 UCS report, while experience with new construction in Europe has seen costs continue to soar.
When nuclear energy was an emerging technology, public support made some sense. But more than 50 years (and two public bailouts) after the opening of the first U.S. commercial nuclear plant, nuclear power is a mature industry that should be expected to stand on its own.
Instead, the industry has responded to escalating costs with escalating demands for government support. A 2009 UCS report estimated that taxpayers could be on the hook for anywhere from $360 billion to $1.6 trillion if then-current proposals for nuclear expansion were realized.
If we want to reduce the climate impact of electric power generation in the United States, there are less costly and risky ways to do it than expanding nuclear power. A 2011 UCS analysis of new nuclear projects in Florida and Georgia shows that the power provided by the new plants would be more expensive per kilowatt than several alternatives, including energy efficiency measures, renewable energy sources such as biomass and wind, and new natural gas plants.
Public financing for energy alternatives should be focused on fostering innovation and achieving the largest possible reduction in heat-trapping emissions per dollar invested—not on promoting the growth of an industry that has repeatedly shown itself to be a highly risky investment.
http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-power/cost-nuclear-power#.WDvA1_krIdU
You are an idiot who knows not what he speaks. Go away.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
It already has long ago. Biogas is already generating power. Fuel cells are being manufactured in ever larger numbers, with attendant drops in their cost as they do.
Like millions of other American consumers, I already have natural gas service to my home, so infrastructure costs are low.
You'll notice I didn't exactly advocate for hydrogen, I'm content with natural gas.
Nuclear hasn't killed many people YET. But the overhang is undeniable. Care to find out how many died at Chernobyl?
How do you figure natural gas mortality rates per unit of power delivered would climb? You offered no supporting evidence here, and the trend is in fact very much in the opposite direction.
The closer one examines your arguments, political, environmental, energy or climate change, the less water they hold.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
I posted the numbers, your room temperature IQ has let you down yet again. The numbers for the two accidents were already posted by UncleBet earlier and have been accounted for.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Yeah, this too!
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
You quoted numbers but not their source. Where did your numbers for energy cost come from? Do they factor in the 9 billion dollar cost of the facility? Amortized for how long? What risk analysis was done to justify that cost? Given the track record of the industry, we should double or triple any estimates provided by bean counters in the industry, so there is that. Also the cost of insurance in case of an accident. Or do they expect tax payers to carry that cost in the form of disaster relief should one occur?