American Politics: The Speaker's Cornered

[Fartsniffage]

I imagine one would need a big science brain to figure it out when it was, but I'd guess that there was a point somewhere between the 50s and maybe the 70s where we could have gone all-in on nuclear and almost totally dodged global warming in favour of having a lot more nuclear waste to deal with and maybe another Chernobyl or two. We emitted more CO2 from 1990 to 2020 than from 1751 to 1990, we had a chance to make a huge difference to global warming before then.

Man, that is just wild. I already knew that about the emissions but every time I see it, it just manages to shock me again. To think there's still folks who believe climate change isn't real, it boggles the mind.

Ghengis Khan had a good solution. Admittedly that was a bit before the science...

[Galactic Powers]

Seen here, the sight of a man who has never read a book on the topic and instead has to resort to trying to vaguely mock his opponents without breaking the rules, because that's what intelligent and emotionally confident people do.



We actually do seem to be making pretty good progress on that front. If I'm not mistaken solar panels especially are becoming more and more efficient and while there is the question of mining the things to make them, they do seem to be an increasingly good alternative to many other forms of energy. Even some of my neighbors are starting to get a bunch of panels installed on their homes, and I'm tempted to follow suit tbh.

One of the big issues with using nuclear to bridge the gap is it allows capitalism to kick the can down the road with regards to actual renewable sources of power.

That’s a horrible argument. Even if you despise capitalism, shouldn’t you want to at least try to improve life as much as possible for the people who live under it? Refusing nuclear energy won’t give you a communist utopia, maybe some communes in the rubble of society but that’s probably it.

[Corrian]

Actually I can kinda get it not being considered renewable on the grounds its still something you need to dig up to power it. Obviously wind and solar need that too, but its different once its there. Still, its probably the most efficient out there, unless hydro is more efficient? I'm not sure on that. I just know I bask in the benefits of hydro every day up here with energy costs.

I grew up powered by the Folsom dam. EDIT: Oh yeah, and the occasional 15 minutes that the Ranch Seco nuclear power plant was actually operating and not being taken off line for one thing or another. They turned that shit into a solar farm and now it generates power every day.[/edit]

Anyway, most efficient is wind. Nuclear is 'spensive.

Nuclear is expensive but cheap once its up and operating for decades and decades.

But yeah, I can see wind being the most efficient.

My state has a lot of wind power and hydro power, its nice.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Man, that is just wild. I already knew that about the emissions but every time I see it, it just manages to shock me again. To think there's still folks who believe climate change isn't real, it boggles the mind.

Ghengis Khan had a good solution. Admittedly that was a bit before the science...

No, no, I support this. China should once again be put under Mongolian rule.

[El Lazaro]

The only concern is about reliance on, rather than limited use, of nuclear power. It’s definitely part of the solution, but it’s not the solution and has its own security concerns. Over 50% of uranium is produced in Kazakhstan and Russia, and the use of nuclear power in non-nuclear armed states risks making proliferation the norm.

we could just... not use uranium.

But we do, and in all likelihood, will continue to do so. For the time being, nuclear should be viewed as a way to supplement renewable energy in some countries, especially in areas where other hydro, wind, and solar aren’t practical. Spreading nuclear power past that isn’t worth risking WW3 or the 2022 energy crisis but worse.

[Corrian]

I'm actually honestly surprised Washington isn't like 90% powered by hydro by now.

[Alternate Garza]

I'm actually honestly surprised Washington isn't like 90% powered by hydro by now.

Some states it would make sense. Arizona, probably more of a solar place. Nuclear everywhere, though. That was one of my early beefs with Tulsi, well before she went all anti-trans. Being anti-nuclear is just not practical. It really should have caused me to think twice about her even then. Look at the harm it did to Germany. They could have been a lot more independent of Russian fuel a lot sooner with nuclear power.

[Fartsniffage]

One of the big issues with using nuclear to bridge the gap is it allows capitalism to kick the can down the road with regards to actual renewable sources of power.

That’s a horrible argument. Even if you despise capitalism, shouldn’t you want to at least try to improve life as much as possible for the people who live under it? Refusing nuclear energy won’t give you a communist utopia, maybe some communes in the rubble of society but that’s probably it.

It's an argument you don't like. It doesn't make it horrible.

[Corrian]

I'm actually honestly surprised Washington isn't like 90% powered by hydro by now.

Some states it would make sense. Arizona, probably more of a solar place. Nuclear everywhere, though. That was one of my early beefs with Tulsi, well before she went all anti-trans. Being anti-nuclear is just not practical. It really should have caused me to think twice about her even then. Look at the harm it did to Germany. They could have been a lot more independent of Russian fuel a lot sooner with nuclear power.

That was a huge German blunder. And they replaced it with a lot of much dirtier energies.

[Ifreann]

I imagine one would need a big science brain to figure it out when it was, but I'd guess that there was a point somewhere between the 50s and maybe the 70s where we could have gone all-in on nuclear and almost totally dodged global warming in favour of having a lot more nuclear waste to deal with and maybe another Chernobyl or two. We emitted more CO2 from 1990 to 2020 than from 1751 to 1990, we had a chance to make a huge difference to global warming before then.

Man, that is just wild. I already knew that about the emissions but every time I see it, it just manages to shock me again. To think there's still folks who believe climate change isn't real, it boggles the mind.

I'd bet that a lot of these people know that they're talking shit. Like, I'm in my thirties and in the course of my lifetime I have seen weather patterns change. When I was in primary school I was taught that St. Brigid's Day, the 1st of February, is the start of spring. This year we're only starting to get spring weather this week. You don't need to be reading IPCC reports and studying climatology to know that the climate is changing.

[Corrian]

Gotta love early voting sometimes because so many people on my Twitter feed are overanalyzing the data for Wisconsin so far.

I get it, though. This is potentially a game changer of a Supreme Court election for the state, and may even bring it back to some for of a democracy again.

[Adamede]

Yeah, that is a definite problem one could raise with it, and I could see a lot can kicking happening if we'd gone fully nuclear 50 years ago because they'd just be able to say we don't need it and all that jazz. Though I still think that would be preferable because I imagine it would have lessened the impact of climate change by a fair bit and given us more time to course correct, whereas now the house is already on fire before we're trying to put it out.

It would have been decent 50 years ago. Now if it lets us survive the next 100 years then it will be portrayed as the saviour, not a stop gap. And that can't happen.

There’s no such thing as a single “savior” when it comes to power generation. They’re tools. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Adamede]

Being a native of Kansas this narrative is doubly funny. It was civilian militias who kept slavery from over running the state.

Well, the Second Amendment wasn't about state militias, anyway, but about the unorganized national militia. The one stipulated in the Militia Act of 1792. In other words, the People, as stated in the second part of the Second Amendment. The body politic. The civilian population. The one invoked by Washington to put down the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794, by Madison to defend against Great Britain in the War of 1812 (though it didn't perform as well as it should, due to inexperience), and by Lincoln with his call for seventy-five thousand volunteers to put down the Southern Confederacy. The state militias were covered by the Tenth Amendment, so didn't need the Second to protect them. Given the relatively small size of the United States' Army back then in peacetime, having a national militia to serve as the reserve, whatever the flaws of the system, made perfect sense and were a valid reason to keep in place, at least partly so that the burden wouldn't shift entirely to the professionals.

I’m not talking about an organized state militia. I’m taking about bleeding la seas which was basically guerrilla warfare between abolitionist settlers in Kansas against attacks by pro-slavery southerners flooding the territory. It was the people who fought them, not some government body.

[Adamede]

Ghengis Khan had a good solution. Admittedly that was a bit before the science...

No, no, I support this. China should once again be put under Mongolian rule.

Russia too while we’re at it.

[Northern Seleucia]

No, no, I support this. China should once again be put under Mongolian rule.

Russia too while we’re at it.

Put it all under Bhutan's rule instead.

[Northern Seleucia]

Speaking of which...

Why do the U.S and Bhutan not have relations?

[Zurkerx]

Gotta love early voting sometimes because so many people on my Twitter feed are overanalyzing the data for Wisconsin so far.

I get it, though. This is potentially a game changer of a Supreme Court election for the state, and may even bring it back to some for of a democracy again.

Everything is on the line in Wisconsin: because it can make a huge difference, especially if it keeps a GOP Gerrymandered Dominated Legislature in check. It would especially have a profound impact on the likes of abortion, voting rights, and the gerrymandered maps in the State.

I do see Protasiewicz did get 46.5% of the vote in the first round when that vote happened; her "liberal" opponent got 7.5%.

Meanwhile, Kelly got 24.2% and his "conservative" opponent got 21.8%. So, based off these numbers, one would assume Protasiewicz has a chance but no one should gamble on that. I would say it leans her way unless Democrats drop the ball on spending and fail to capitalize but that would be on them.

[El Lazaro]

Speaking of which...

Why do the U.S and Bhutan not have relations?

MSM bluepill answer: Bhutan is pretty small and isolated. It’s also sandwiched between India and occupied Tibet, so it delegates significant foreign policy decision making powers to the former in exchange for protection. Informal-yet-cordial relations are satisfactory for both the US and Bhutan because formalizing them would barely make a difference in how the two countries interact.

True and based answer: too hard to find on map+we forgor

[Ifreann]

Speaking of which...

Why do the U.S and Bhutan not have relations?

MSM bluepill answer: Bhutan is pretty small and isolated. It’s also sandwiched between India and occupied Tibet, so it delegates significant foreign policy decision making powers to the former in exchange for protection. Informal-yet-cordial relations are satisfactory for both the US and Bhutan because formalizing them would barely make a difference in how the two countries interact.

True and based answer: too hard to find on map+we forgor

Bhutan knows that nothing good comes from talking to Am*ric*ns.

[Fartsniffage]

It would have been decent 50 years ago. Now if it lets us survive the next 100 years then it will be portrayed as the saviour, not a stop gap. And that can't happen.

There’s no such thing as a single “savior” when it comes to power generation. They’re tools. Nothing more, nothing less.

Well done for not understanding my point.

[Fartsniffage]

MSM bluepill answer: Bhutan is pretty small and isolated. It’s also sandwiched between India and occupied Tibet, so it delegates significant foreign policy decision making powers to the former in exchange for protection. Informal-yet-cordial relations are satisfactory for both the US and Bhutan because formalizing them would barely make a difference in how the two countries interact.

True and based answer: too hard to find on map+we forgor

Bhutan knows that nothing good comes from talking to Am*ric*ns.

What about their passport?

[The United Penguin Commonwealth]

MSM bluepill answer: Bhutan is pretty small and isolated. It’s also sandwiched between India and occupied Tibet, so it delegates significant foreign policy decision making powers to the former in exchange for protection. Informal-yet-cordial relations are satisfactory for both the US and Bhutan because formalizing them would barely make a difference in how the two countries interact.

True and based answer: too hard to find on map+we forgor

Bhutan knows that nothing good comes from talking to Am*ric*ns.

america and bhutan are friends though

[Northern Seleucia]

China Protests U.S. South China Sea Freedom of Navigation Operation

lol

[Galactic Powers]

That’s a horrible argument. Even if you despise capitalism, shouldn’t you want to at least try to improve life as much as possible for the people who live under it? Refusing nuclear energy won’t give you a communist utopia, maybe some communes in the rubble of society but that’s probably it.

It's an argument you don't like. It doesn't make it horrible.

You could always try addressing it to prove me wrong, I'm open to altering my view. But to me it's accelerationist bull.

[Xind]

So North Carolina finally took the Affordable Health Care Act expansion of Medicare. One down ten more to go.