GOP Primary Megathread II—Electoral Boogaloo

[Novus America]

So I have to stop repeating myself.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... story.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/ ... ways-paid/

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... david-king

This should not even a debate. Nuclear energy is the safest form of power. Anti nuke arguments are like anti vaccine arguments. Lots of fear mongering, facts be dammned.

[Crusader occupied mecca]

Both of the times it wasn't actually the nuclear technology that was fault. Chernobyl was caused by humans and Fukushima by natural disaster. More reason to support nuclear power.
And as you pointed out with thorium reactors that technology has advanced.

Wouldn't that be less reason to support nuclear power? Who runs power plants? Humans. Human error in a solar plant, maybe there is a black out. Human error in a nuclear facility...there's more than a black out. Humans error, a lot. It's like being superman. Superman has to bat 100 every time, because the one time he fucks up...everyone dies. If you're in a technical position in a power plant, you have to bat 100. Because if you don't, people might die and you'll certainly cause some damage to the environment. Then there's natural disasters....If a random weather occurrence can cause something like a meltdown...that's unsettling. Weather is unpredictable, and thanks to climate change it has become a lot more intense. If all it takes is a hurricane or a really strong tornado to cause big problems...that's unsettling. Because what I'm getting is "People are known to fuck up, and Chernobyl was caused by a series of fuck ups. Weather is dangerous and unpredictable, Fukushima was the result of a natural disaster."

I don't think we're ready for nuclear, I'm not an expert and this isn't something I'm passionate about, that's just what I think. We need renewable, but Nuclear has room for improvement.

Except that even with human error adequate containment facilities will make it so that the only thing that goes wrong is a blackout.

IMHO anti nuclear activists should be put on trial for advocating violence via fighting words because without nuclear the global warming will cause flooding and kill people on some coastal areas and islands like the Maldives, so anti nuclear is pro genocide even if they don't realize it.

[The Black Forrest]

So I have to stop repeating myself.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... story.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/ ... ways-paid/

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... david-king

This should not even a debate. Nuclear energy is the safest form of power. Anti nuke arguments are like anti vaccine arguments. Lots of fear mongering, facts be dammned.

How many of the defenders live right next to the facilities?

[Novus America]

So I have to stop repeating myself.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... story.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/ ... ways-paid/

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... david-king

This should not even a debate. Nuclear energy is the safest form of power. Anti nuke arguments are like anti vaccine arguments. Lots of fear mongering, facts be dammned.

How many of the defenders live right next to the facilities?

US nuclear facilities tend to be built in remote areas. The closest one to me is surrounded by a state park. Three mile Island which is pretty close to me is in middle of a river. Hence island.

But how about the 1.3 million people in San Diego? I used to live there, never cared about the nuclear reactors floating in the harbor. Nobody there seemed that worried.

I would gladly serve on a nuclear aircraft carrier if recalled to active duty. People living on the carriers do not seem to mind. Not a sub though. Not because of the reactor, but because they are crazy claustrophobic and cramped.

And I would not mind one near me in an industrial area. Building them in residential areas is silly. Would you want to have a coal power plant or steel mill right next door? I love steel mills, but one right next door is bad for property values.

Heavy industry goes in heavy industry zones. Not many people live in heavy industry zones.

So this is a silly arguement. Do you want a solar panel or electric car factory in your back yard?

FYI you live on top of and below a nuclear reactor. The Sun is a massive reactor. Plus has no containment structure. Much more dangerous than a tiny little shielded power plant. Are you scared? The entire earth is a fucking uranium and thorium fission reactor also.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/new ... arths-heat

If you are scared of nuclear reactors do not look up or down.
http://www.thingsworsethannuclearpower. ... s.html?m=1

[Northern Davincia]

You see, free trade and privatization are an unmitigated disaster for most countries, yet the right keeps pushing these Reaganesque-Thatcherite terrorist economic policies. And yes, I just called it terroristic. The policies only benefit the rich, banks and corporations. Executive paychecks skyrocket and workers wages remain flat.

If free markets are so bad for most countries, then why is job growth expanding so rapidly in 3rd-world nations that opened themselves to these 'terrorist economic policies'?

Additionally, what does Niger, Cuba, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Congo, and Cambodia all have in common? Leftist governments.

[Atomic Utopia]

I support trump for a better America... with Hilliary Clinton as president.

You realize the GOP is more pro nuclear, right?

Marco Rubio is very pro nuclear. Hillary will not say because many Democrats hate nuclear power.

I know, but nuclear fission is not the only thing that exists in the world that I support.

[Geilinor]

I support trump for a better America... with Hilliary Clinton as president.

You realize the GOP is more pro nuclear, right?

Marco Rubio is very pro nuclear. Hillary will not say because many Democrats hate nuclear power.

Source? And even he is, it doesn't mean the party is.

[Novus America]

You realize the GOP is more pro nuclear, right?

Marco Rubio is very pro nuclear. Hillary will not say because many Democrats hate nuclear power.

Source? And even he is, it doesn't mean the party is.

I already posted it. He has called from more nuclear power. Sanders wants it banned. Already posted the sources.

It is no secret the GOP is more pro nuclear.

[Novus America]

You realize the GOP is more pro nuclear, right?

Marco Rubio is very pro nuclear. Hillary will not say because many Democrats hate nuclear power.

I know, but nuclear fission is not the only thing that exists in the world that I support.

I am aware, but many Democrats like Sanders wanting it banned might give you pause. Look at the anti nuclear posters we just shot down in flames too. Certainly many Democrats need better education on the issue.

[Geilinor]

It is no secret the GOP is more pro nuclear.

The GOP doesn't even accept climate change. Until they fix that problem, they have no credibility.

[Novus America]

It is no secret the GOP is more pro nuclear.

The GOP doesn't even accept climate change. Until they fix that problem, they have no credibility.

Some in the GOP do, some do not. Neither part is great. Cleary the many Democrats are not hot on science when it comes to nuclear. But reducing emissions will necessitate more nuclear. France has much lower emissions. Guess why?

[Geilinor]

The GOP doesn't even accept climate change. Until they fix that problem, they have no credibility.

Some in the GOP do, some do not. Neither part is great. Cleary the many Democrats are not hot on science when it comes to nuclear. But reducing emissions will necessitate more nuclear. France has much lower emissions. Guess why?

I know why, I support nuclear power. But not a single GOP presidential candidate would even go to climate change talks based on their criticism of Obama's attendance there.

[Northern Davincia]

Some in the GOP do, some do not. Neither part is great. Cleary the many Democrats are not hot on science when it comes to nuclear. But reducing emissions will necessitate more nuclear. France has much lower emissions. Guess why?

I know why, I support nuclear power. But not a single GOP presidential candidate would even go to climate change talks based on their criticism of Obama's attendance there.

Pataki and Graham are very environmentally friendly for GOP candidates. That's about it.

[Geilinor]

I know why, I support nuclear power. But not a single GOP presidential candidate would even go to climate change talks based on their criticism of Obama's attendance there.

Pataki and Graham are very environmentally friendly for GOP candidates. That's about it.

My criticism would be a lot lighter if Pataki was leading the field or if Graham was doing something about in the Senate.

[Novus America]

Some in the GOP do, some do not. Neither part is great. Cleary the many Democrats are not hot on science when it comes to nuclear. But reducing emissions will necessitate more nuclear. France has much lower emissions. Guess why?

I know why, I support nuclear power. But not a single GOP presidential candidate would even go to climate change talks based on their criticism of Obama's attendance there.

Well I am not sure talks is the solution. I would rather lead by example. Cut our emissions in half, tell everyone else to catch up. Talks do not get reactors built. But we should work with, not against the power industry.

Yes, I never said the GOP is good either. I am no Republican. I might join the Republicans if zombie Theodore Roosovelt was running. I support Marco Rubio not because I agree with him on everything and I think his environmental policy could be better. But he is the least shitty candidate IMHO.

[Geilinor]

I know why, I support nuclear power. But not a single GOP presidential candidate would even go to climate change talks based on their criticism of Obama's attendance there.

Well I am not sure talks is the solution. I would rather lead by example. Cut our emissions in half, tell everyone else to catch up. Talks do not get reactors built. But we should work with, not against the power industry.

Yes, I never said the GOP is good either. I am no Republican. I might join the Republicans if zombie Theodore Roosovelt was running. I support Marco Rubio not because I agree with him on everything and I think his environmental policy could be better. But he is the least shitty candidate IMHO.

We should lead by example, but we can't solve this alone either. While I think Rubio is one of the better candidates, I have concerns about his views on foreign policy, social issues, health care and immigration.

[Novus America]

Well I am not sure talks is the solution. I would rather lead by example. Cut our emissions in half, tell everyone else to catch up. Talks do not get reactors built. But we should work with, not against the power industry.

Yes, I never said the GOP is good either. I am no Republican. I might join the Republicans if zombie Theodore Roosovelt was running. I support Marco Rubio not because I agree with him on everything and I think his environmental policy could be better. But he is the least shitty candidate IMHO.

We should lead by example, but we can't solve this alone either. While I think Rubio is one of the better candidates, I still have concerns about his views on foreign policy, social issues, and immigration.

What are your issues with his immigration policy? He has to walk a fine line with the rising nativist sentiment.

Socially, yeah could be better.

But there is no perfect or even really good candidate.

Or you can write me in.

[Geilinor]

We should lead by example, but we can't solve this alone either. While I think Rubio is one of the better candidates, I still have concerns about his views on foreign policy, social issues, and immigration.

What are your issues with his immigration policy? He has to walk a fine line with the rising nativist sentiment.

Socially, yeah could be better.

But there is no perfect or even really good candidate.

Or you can write me in.

I like that Rubio supported immigration reform but he's trying to walk away from it. In the last debate, he accused Cruz of being too soft on immigration, which everyone knows is a baseless claim.

[Idzequitch]

What are your issues with his immigration policy? He has to walk a fine line with the rising nativist sentiment.

Socially, yeah could be better.

But there is no perfect or even really good candidate.

Or you can write me in.

I like that Rubio supported immigration reform but he's trying to walk away from it. In the last debate, he accused Cruz of being too soft on immigration, which everyone knows is a baseless claim.

Are you sure you don't have that backwards? Cruz said Rubio was too soft on immigration.

[Geilinor]

Are you sure you don't have that backwards? Cruz said Rubio was too soft on immigration.

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2015/dec/16/marco-rubio/marco-rubio-says-ted-cruz-supports-legalizing-peop/

[Idzequitch]

30% of Republican voters, 19% of Democratic voters support bombing Agrabah. Yes, the fictional land from Aladdin
Do we need any more proof that voters don't have a clue? It's stuff like this that makes me wonder if democracy is actually a good idea.

Also of note, from the article: "According to the PPP, “[Donald] Trump is at 45% with Republicans who want to bomb Aladdin and only 22% with ones who don’t want to bomb Aladdin.” To nobody's great surprise, Trump's supporters showcased their ignorance.

[Alien Space Bats]

I know that what the Qur'an advocates is inferior, I am absolutely certain of this in my heart. I've drawn my conclusions from looking at Islam's long history of aggression towards non-Muslims both past and present and Islam's full condoning of atrocities in order to give itself an unfair advantage over all other faiths and cultures.

Unlike the left in the US and Europe which is content to cave into Islamists out of cowardice or in attempts to be more inclusive or "tolerant," the right is actually willing to push back against Islam with vigor or at least take common sense steps to prevent Sharia law from becoming more popular than it has to, such as restricting immigration from Muslim majority countries.

It would seem to me that the left is motivated to bring in the entire third world's immigrants from constantly feeling shame for western civilization's past history of colonialism and exploitation of the Americas, Africa, and Asia, but the right takes the opposite approach in celebrating our ascension to the top in economic status as something worth celebrating.

Because the right has no guilt, we are the ones who are the most willing and able to defend and advance western culture and interests from outside forces which want it to collapse such as Islamic fundamentalism. For the right, the problems of the world are external, while for the left, they look inward for problems needing solutions. The far left would be quick to say that it is the US' fault for 9/11 because our foreign policy happened to be too pro-Israel for example, whatever it is- we are to blame and must suffer to fix it according to their world view.

Here's my problem with your thinking: In a society that believes in freedom of religion, what does "fighting back against Islam" mean?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

— First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

— Article 9 of the European Human Convention on Human Rights

Speaking for America and most of Europe, then, the problem here should be patently clear: Our fundamental law does not allow us to wage ANY kind of 'War on Islam", even if its values are demonstrably at odds with the very ones exemplified in these same documents.

This is not to say that we can't do anything about people who seek to use Islam as an excuse to attack us or subvert our values; as Justice Arthur Goldberg famously observed (in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (1963)), "... while the Constitution protects against invasions of individual rights, it is not a suicide pact." The same can be said for the ECHR: We have the right to defend ourselves. The problem here is that conservatives are SO gung-ho about insisting that we accept the premise that this is a "War on Islam" (radical or otherwise) that they skip over the utterly necessary step of assuring the rest of us that they have no intention of making freedom of religion the first casualty in the war they so fervently want to wage.

And why is that first step so utterly necessary? Because the longstanding political alliance of conservatism with Christianity and the equally longstanding opposition of both (especially in Europe) to religious disestablishment makes us liberals quite queasy. We wonder sometimes — and maybe much more often than "sometimes" — whether what conservatives and their hyper-religious allies REALLY want is some kind of legal precedent restricting freedom of religion to some subset of possible human belief, in order to then provide them with the basis for drawing up an "acceptable" list or religions or religious beliefs that we are actually ALLOWED to practice — in essence, a kind of "establishment by process of elimination".

Now you can cry "slippery slope" all you want; yet legal precedents often prove to be precisely that. Who could ever have imagined that Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) (which granted married couples the right to use contraceptives) would ultimately result in both gay marriage and a constitutionally unchallengeable right by Americans to own and use firearms in their own self-defense? If our governments can limit us to certain "acceptable" religions, then doesn't that essentially give them complete authority over the content and practice of faith in ALL its handouts, both individually and as members of a faith community? How do we draw the line between religions "consistent with our Western values" and "barbaric" ones, especially when so many American fundamentalist Protestant preachers believe in killing homosexuals and confining women to the home, just like their "radical" Muslim counterparts do?

You may not be old enough to remember the Oklahoma City bombing, but I am and do, and I think there are valuable lessons to be learned in the wake of that incident, which killed 168 people and injured over 680 more. At the time, it was the worst terrorist attack to have ever taken place on American soil — and it had absolutely NOTHING to do with Islam or "Islamic radicalism". No, Timothy McViegh and Terry Nichols, the men responsible for manufacturing and delivering the bomb, were bona fide right-wingers of the sort who would be happily at home among the great unwashed masses of the GOP who cheerfully support Donald Trump.

Taxes are a joke. Regardless of what a political candidate "promises," they will increase. More taxes are always the answer to government mismanagement. They mess up. We suffer. Taxes are reaching cataclysmic levels, with no slowdown in sight. [...] Is a Civil War Imminent? Do we have to shed blood to reform the current system? I hope it doesn't come to that. But it might.

— Timothy McViegh, in a letter to the Editor of the [Lockport, NY] Union-Sun & Journal, February 11, 1992

I strongly believe in a God-given right to self-defense... It is a lie if we tell ourselves that the police can protect us everywhere at all times. Firearms restrictions are bad enough, but now a woman can't even carry Mace in her purse?

— Timothy McViegh, in a letter to Rep. John J. LaFalce (D - NY), February 16, 1992

The government is afraid of the guns people have because they have to have control of the people at all times. Once you take away the guns, you can do anything to the people. You give them an inch and they take a mile. I believe we are slowly turning into a socialist government. The government is continually growing bigger and more powerful, and the people need to prepare to defend themselves against government control.

— Timothy McViegh, to SMU Student Reporter Michelle Rauch outside the Koresh Compound in Waco, TX during the armed standoff, April, 1993

Ultimately, McViegh fell in with the so-called "Patriot" movement and started frequenting gun shows, where he sold copies of The Turner Diaries. After Ruby Ridge and Waco, radicalization (as the FBI defines it) increased exponentially, and McVeigh's attack on the ATF headquarters in the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City was one of the most visible results of that radicalization.

The thing is, we didn't conduct mass arrests of people who embraced "sovereign citizenship" or those who organized themselves into "militias". We didn't even ban books like The Turner Diaries, even though McVeigh had been clearly inspired by it. We didn't detain or break up or forbid assemblies by the kinds of right-wing zealots whose thinking aligned itself with McViegh's, even though any number of subsequent lower level events (such as attacks on abortion providers or last year's shooting of two police officers in Las Vegas) can be linked to this same movement, and even though these same people continue to believe that the government is out to get them, that they're going to be rounded up and sent to FEMA camps "any day now", that civil war (or race war) is inevitable in the United States (if not worldwide), and even though they continue to arm themselves against the government and even engage in armed standoffs against it (such as at the Cliven Bundy ranch last year).

So does that make us weak and stupid... or does that mean there are nuances to this thing that we need to consider before flying off the handle?

It's ironic that many of the same idiots who want to round up all the Muslims and detain, deport, or (God forbid) kill them are precisely the same kind of people who the government would have rounded up and robbed of their rights en masse had it responded to Oklahoma City in the same way THEY want to respond to Paris and San Bernadino; indeed, their utter lack of self-awareness is fairly breathtaking. This suggests that we COULD apply the Golden Rule and do precisely as these people wish, rounding up and "dealing with" all the Muslims — and then round up and "deal with" all of THEM for good measure as well. Some recipes for goose sauce can be found here.

I mean, better 20 years late than never, right?

Or — and I think this the wiser approach — we could apply the same solution to Muslims as we applied to the extreme right wing, when it was THEIR turn 20 years ago: We could watch, investigate, cultivate informant contacts within their ranks, and otherwise conduct good wary police work. After all, most of the radical right was (as still is) essentially harmless (except when they vote, but that's an evil we have to accept if we're going to have a democracy; think of it as a "feature" of the system [rather than a "bug"]); we can police them carefully and prosecute the outliers as they appear. Does that lead to unfortunate deaths? Yes, it does; but in a sense, isn't that just collateral damage?

So why not do the same for Muslims? Just as declaring war on the far right back in 1995 would have been destructive to our most fundamental values (people have the right to be gun-toting racist nutbags, as much as we find such douchebaggery offensive, after all), declaring war on Islam would destroy any hope of our continuing to embrace the idea of the free practice of religion today. That the right wants to use Muslim violence as an excuse to gut the Constitution (or the ECHR) is no surprise; they never much liked these things anyway.

But we don't need to indulge them. We can keep our freedom and still survive, as long as we put aside our fears and embrace both courage and wisdom.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Great. The tensions already exist. Why make them worse? Radical jihadists aren't impressed by the rhetoric, or cowed by it. The only people affected negatively are Muslims here and abroad who want nothing more than to live out their lives in peace, working their jobs, raising their children, and doing the best that they can to get by. Now they're being pulled into this nonsense, resulting in an increase in hate crimes against Muslims, and a likelihood of increased radicalization of previously moderate followers. It's a terrible idea. You don't resolve disagreements by screaming even louder and coming up with more creative insults. That's a child's approach.

Constructive debate should be avoided in favour of social cohesion? Yeah, we have this situation in Singapore. To preserve the Greater Morality of religious peoples (Christianity and Islam mainly) gays cannot have sex here. A concert was cancelled as some singer encouraged homosexuals to show their affection to their loved ones. Should this happen in Europe too? So much restriction on freedom of speech and subjugation of 'traditional minorities' "religious freedom"?

I'm not too sure what you mean by nonsense, moderates, terrible ideas, creative insults... please be a bit more specific, but I get where you're coming from. Those billions of peaceful Muslims, am I right? Truth is, Islamic modernism looks like this and perhaps at times like this. As I said, morality is subjective, Islamic morality as described in the Qu'ran is not inferior in any way- how could it be, who can judge? The problem arises when we portray our values as superior in front of these billions of peaceful Muslims, and in this way we and the media (you and I included) are attacking their beliefs and making them feel vulnerable. I've watched debates online, when asked about these questions they have two options: give an honest answer, after which they will have to face tons of abuse and labels as 'extremist' or 'terrorist', or avoid and go around the question, after which they'll be labeled as 'double tongued' and 'dishonest'.

The problems start when we look down on certain beliefs and ways of thinking, as we won't even listen to those voices. May I remind you that the right-wing of today was pretty much the norm before the 60s, and homosexuality was still classified by the US Psychiatry Assoc as a disorder?

PS: You're right about me being a child, but I don't see the problem with that. Do you?

I don't see the problem with being a child. I do have an issue with childish solutions.

What Trump is doing is not constructive debate. It's simple yelling. There's a difference. If you're unable to discern a difference between the two, then there's little point in continuing this exchange.

[Geilinor]

30% of Republican voters, 19% of Democratic voters support bombing Agrabah. Yes, the fictional land from Aladdin
Do we need any more proof that voters don't have a clue? It's stuff like this that makes me wonder if democracy is actually a good idea.

Also of note, from the article: "According to the PPP, “[Donald] Trump is at 45% with Republicans who want to bomb Aladdin and only 22% with ones who don’t want to bomb Aladdin.” To nobody's great surprise, Trump's supporters showcased their ignorance.

Oh dear.

[Ashmoria]

I like that Rubio supported immigration reform but he's trying to walk away from it. In the last debate, he accused Cruz of being too soft on immigration, which everyone knows is a baseless claim.

Are you sure you don't have that backwards? Cruz said Rubio was too soft on immigration.

you know cruz is a liar right? so yeah, Rubio worked on the comprehensive immigration bill. it was a not-too-too-terrible bill. CRUZ submitted an amendment that would have allowed illegal residents a pathway to a legal status (but not citizenship). NOW cruz is saying that he offered it only as a poison pill that would scuttle the whole bill.