Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 126

On May 31 2019 02:49 RiKD wrote: The next time someone tries to bring up the NUMBER of communist deaths which is always exaggerated I .

Sorry, but a huge NO.The fact that some sources show "exaggerated" numbers is because data was cleaned up and nobody actually knows, we just know that a lot more people died than data's showing. They tried to sweep up entire genocides under the rugs...

On May 31 2019 04:45 Santafairy wrote: Show nested quote + On May 30 2019 20:50 Loco wrote: "US energy department rebrands gas exports 'molecules of freedom'" No, it's not from The Onion. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48454674 "Increasing export capacity from the Freeport LNG project is critical to spreading freedom gas throughout the world by giving America's allies a diverse and affordable source of clean energy," Mark Menezes, the US undersecretary of energy, said. Moving forward to the future: Loco: Holy shit, *posts news about horrible anthropogenic global warming effects affecting millions of people*. Baal: So generic, you're against the spreading of molecules of freedom across the world like other authoritarian leftists. This isn't bad, the free market is just freeing up all those people to do new things. If they didn't want this to happen to them, they shouldn't have voluntarily consented to existing under capitalism. well the US could devote its $2 trillion budget into buying the whole country bikes and windmills and solar panels and let wonderful countries like saudi arabia, russia, venezuela, china, and so on, control world energy instead

Oh yeah the US definitely couldnt do shit about the climate change you're right. The fact that China and India and light years ahead of them in terms of renewable, clean energy is just a huge fucking joke.

lol the axe

The only viable clean energy is nuclear.

The cost per watt of solar and wind are simply unaffordable for 90%+ of the world, the failure to understand this will be our demise.

https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/10-best-ways-to-combat-climate-change/ wind and solar are both bigger solutions than nuclear energy, tho nuclear is useful as a stepping stone until wind/solar becomes cheaper. carbon emissions for those that cant afford solar and quite low anyway. Those that can afford are the one's with higher carbon emission

HAHAHAHAHAHA that Ben Shapiro video We already knew that this guy isn't exactly the brightest critical thinker but going so far really? :D

"NEW DELHI: Temperatures pushed towards 50 degrees Celsius across much of India on Saturday (Jun 1) as an unrelenting heatwave triggered warnings of water shortages and left locals fearing for their livelihoods."

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/...-as-mercury-nears-50-celsius-11587904


And this is only in the beginning of June....

By the way, my city was flooded a few weeks ago (it didn't reach my house), and several other nearby cities were affected much worse. My dad used to be a real estate agent and in one place he said he sold 200 houses and they were all flooded. In that same city one of Peterson's Christian friends, Jonathan Pageau, lost his house and nearly everything he and his family owned (they didn't have insurance either). Peterson has shared a gofundme to help him. In the next Tweet he was sharing thinly-veiled climate change denialism.

On June 01 2019 10:02 Stroggoz wrote: https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/10-best-ways-to-combat-climate-change/ wind and solar are both bigger solutions than nuclear energy, tho nuclear is useful as a stepping stone until wind/solar becomes cheaper. carbon emissions for those that cant afford solar and quite low anyway. Those that can afford are the one's with higher carbon emission

You are absolutely wrong, I've researched this quite a while, eolic energy isn't viable for most of the world, places like switzerland can do (and it would still underperform to nuclear) but you require a lot of all-season wind which isn't as common to provide hundreds of millions with power.

Eolic won't become significantly cheaper either, its quite a simple technology, a pivotal head to maximize the yield would be the next step but that's pretty much it.

Solar is much more interesting, but it also produces more CO2 per watt (mining) and is more expensive, there is simply no reason to choose it over nuclear besides the danger of core meltdown.

A properly built new nuclear plant is extremely safe, there are many ways to create fail-safes for core meltdown, as simle and unelegant as simply building the core "floating" on a massive hole where a failing core can be safely dropped and poured concrete over.

In fact its estimated that had nuclear reserach not be almost halted worldwide thorium reactors would be operational by now, and thorium reactors are meltdown-safe and its much more abundant than uranium/plutonium.

As a completely clueless guy on the topic... how would nuclear reactors ever be safe? The only way would be to have 100% certainty on prevention that a meltdown would happen and thats when you're going for "predictable" factors. (e.g. can't really do that for earthquakes can we?) ... otherwise, how would pouring concrete over the core stop the Gamma waves which go through everything?

I could easily represent "the masses" on this topic cause I only have basic physics knowledge and examples of the devastation nuclear reactors cause when they fail.

I was taking info from drawdown, most comprehensive list ever made for climate solutions (according to them). https://www.drawdown.org/ (they had nuclear listed at #20). Not really much info given for reasoning behind it but havn't looked into it too hard myself.

On June 03 2019 08:04 Spitfiree wrote: As a completely clueless guy on the topic... how would nuclear reactors ever be safe? The only way would be to have 100% certainty on prevention that a meltdown would happen and thats when you're going for "predictable" factors. (e.g. can't really do that for earthquakes can we?) ... otherwise, how would pouring concrete over the core stop the Gamma waves which go through everything? I could easily represent "the masses" on this topic cause I only have basic physics knowledge and examples of the devastation nuclear reactors cause when they fail.

Yes we can take earthquakes and all other factors into account and you can create safety features even in the event of a meltdown like I mentioned, gamma particles stop after a few inches of lead or after a few meters of concrete, so pre-drilling a huge mile-deep hole, dropping the core and cover it in concrete over it would contain it perfectly and much easier an effective methods probably already exist and can be further developed.

Fukushima was built in the 70s without any significant tech update, it was hit by an earthquake that broke its main cooling, then a Tsunami flooded the backup pumps, then that said tsunami made roads inaccesible for carrying water to the plant, and even in that absurd scenario it wouldn't have been much of an issue if the plant had a proper thicker containment to the sea.

How many spooky stories have you heard about coal plants? none despise the fact that they kill 100x of more people, its a bit like worrying about dying to terrorism and not in a car crash only because that fear is somehow more palpable.


Also Thorium reactors are 100% meltdown safe, we haven't built one because nuclear research funding is virtually non-existant.

On June 03 2019 09:36 Stroggoz wrote: I was taking info from drawdown, most comprehensive list ever made for climate solutions (according to them). https://www.drawdown.org/ (they had nuclear listed at #20). Not really much info given for reasoning behind it but havn't looked into it too hard myself.

https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/electricity-generation/nuclear

Almost every sentence in that nuclear page is retarded and wrong... they even mispelled "fissile" for fucks sake.

The narrative is such bullshit, if they believe its a program used to launder money, prove it first. Claiming that without any proof and simply forcing sanctions is so fucking retarded.

Poor Venezuelans, they're standing in the middle of 2 evils

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ve...la-food-program-sources-idUSKCN1SR2KY

It's sanctions against government officials that are using the food program to lauder money for Maduro, obviously the US can't stop the program itself.

https://youtu.be/EoN-MZV7-7c

Youtube starts new clean up of people who are not leftist (some of whom are not even "conservatives" ) under the usual facade of undefined, unspecified, "hate speech" and "terms of service"

The left is very aware of the hydra effect in the middle east of killing 1 islamist but producing 2 but are oblivious to this same effect when they censor conservatives and punch nazis.

I guess its a self fulfilling prophecy, they will erradicate the center and create the monster they fear so brace yourself lads for Trumps 2nd term, for the Boris Johnson's and Le Penns of the world.

On June 07 2019 04:58 Baalim wrote: The left is very aware of the hydra effect in the middle east of killing 1 islamist but producing 2 but are oblivious to this same effect when they censor conservatives and punch nazis. I guess its a self fulfilling prophecy, they will erradicate the center and create the monster they fear so brace yourself lads for Trumps 2nd term, for the Boris Johnson's and Le Penns of the world.

I don't think the left is unaware, they are simply shutting this people down before the 2020 election cycle. The internet got Trump elected, have to do something about it.

Newsflash: Google isn't run by 'leftists' and it doesn't favor them. It's run by neoliberal corporatists, i.e. the same kind of people who fund Mr. "I'm too busy thinking about big ideas to bother talking about people" Dave Rubin. Leftists are constantly censored/demonetized on YouTube. You can't even find Abby Martin's Peter Joseph's videos by searching for them.

Crowder wasn't banned, and his videos weren't taken down for the so-called "gay jokes", and they were re-monetized after the 'investigation'. He earns YouTube too much money for them to do anything about what he does, even if he's blatantly violating their own policies. This is stupid outrage that serves as one big advertisement for him. He likes to cry victim, just like he did when he cried about being sucker punched, despite the fact that it was later proven that he was the physical initiator in the conflict.

But even if he had been banned, the irony could not have been any juicier.