Support NeoGAF

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

There are only three Democrats in U.S. history to break 50% in the popular vote more than once in presidential elections.

 

[BenjaminBirdie]

The President on Scandal is really shit. He's a giant useless manbaby. I don't know why I'm watching this show.

you don't like a gross man in his 50s hooking up with one of the most beautiful women on earth?

 

[RustyNails]

There are only three Democrats in U.S. history to break 50% in the popular vote more than once in presidential elections.

Islamic Shock being one?

 

[nature boy]

Trump's internal numbers are probably crowd attendance.

He has internal pollsters.

He is definitely going to float Hannity, O'Reilly and Hugh Hewitt.

Argh, this is nonsense.

 

[Y2Kev]

There's a reason why they usually pick like Gwen Ifill. No one in their right mind thinks Hugh Hewitt can moderate a presidential debate.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

Damnit, I missed the nuclear talk? That's a personal crusade of mine since I largely find that people who're against it make similar arguments to anti-vaxxers.

I find all these posts about how obviously we need nuclear power and anybody who's worried about it is just dumb to be really tedious. It's frankly a disrespectful and arrogant argument pattern. Sometimes the reason people disagree with you is that you're wrong or you're communicating badly, not because they're obviously crazy.

I'll say it again, Fukushima happened in 2011, and the investigation found that, sure, the accident would have been preventable with proper safety and technology, but the plant operator just didn't bother. If you think that we should all feel super confident that nuclear accidents can never happen I think you're the one who's living in a fantasy world. Come up with a real justification for why this won't just keep happening.

At most, Fukushima's high bar for deaths is 600ish. We're talking about an incredibly rare event and it might kill less people than die of car accidents in the US in a week! Making a fuss about such events isn't really that removed from people who're worried about vaccines. Equally idiotic though!

I'm pretty tired and about to head to bed soon but just so I'm clear, is what is being asked for is a number & reference dump? I mean that can be done but A) none of it would be new info B) this isn't a new conversation (in the grand scheme of things) C) is this going to convince anyone? D) is this same rigor required in defense of say vaccines at this point or that global warming exists at all? Those sorts of conversations tend to go nowhere not because of an absence of evidence or strong statistics but that opposing parties refuse to change their opinions when presented with information that contradicts their world view. As an example, "If you just explained it better" isn't the reason many prominent GOP policy makers are skeptical of climate science.

Yeah, you legitimately cannot tell me that you believe climate change is a problem and follow that with "nuclear is bad because it's scary." This is like telling me that you need to sweep your house but brooms are evil.

This seems like your same objection to GMOs.

Nothing is completely safe.

Science is basically based on repeated observation to a reasonable degree of certainty.

Good statement.

Everything else is nuance to comfort the uncomfortable.

Really good quote.

FL: +5 Clinton (45-40)
GA: +4 Trump (45-41)
NH: +9 Clinton (45-36)


https://today.yougov.com/news/2016/08/14/cbs-battleground-florida-georgia-new-hampshire/


C'mon Georgia, GET IN LINE!

Yeah, NH is her cutoff point. Insane that we might call this thing when the East Coast closes.

 

[User 463088]

Katy Tur: "No pivot"

I mean, spinning in place so you spew verbal diarrhea 360 degrees is a kind of pivot.

 

[jevity]

CNN is really taking this serious now. Talking taxes not just tax returns.

Edit: LOL manafort just experienced "audio trouble" when he had to defend trump flip- flopping on taxing the rich

 

[Oblivion]

I find those NH numbers somewhat fascinating. Sure, NH has gone Democrat for the past few elections so it's not a huge shock that Hillary would be winning, but considering that place is full of lots of libertarians and by extension 90% of the time, Republicans, you'd think Trump would be doing a lot better.

 

[Oblivion]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/764803159692836864?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

Look at that, he's admitting he's losing. Progress, I suppose.

 

[pigeon]

This seems like your same objection to GMOs.

It is similar, since the terrible, self-satisfied responses I got were very similar. I am starting to think that we're discovering the weakness of an educational system too focused on STEM and not on, you know, rhetoric and psychology.

Nothing is completely safe.

Science is basically based on repeated observation to a reasonable degree of certainty.

This is not the argument I'm making. Et tu, shinra? I am not brainchilding this by refusing to accept any degree of evidence. Nobody has PROVIDED any degree of evidence for me to accept or refuse. By a huge quantity, the responses I've gotten are literally "since you don't already agree with me you are terrible." For example:

Yeah, you legitimately cannot tell me that you believe climate change is a problem and follow that with "nuclear is bad because it's scary." This is like telling me that you need to sweep your house but brooms are evil.

My position, as I already posted in a post you apparently did not bother to read or understand, is that renewable options seem better and we should pursue those. Why are you so excited about arguing on a topic that you are not interested in reading other people's opinions about?

 

[AntraxSuicide]

Real talk I doubt the Trump campaign has internal numbers

The RNC would and probably shows them to the Trump campaign on a regular basis

I think this as well, and I imagine it's unhinging Trump since he's just (in his mind) being attacked from all sides. The media and the left (to him, the same thing) won't let up, and he's now got people around him acting like the hyenas in the Lion King; no one working on this campaign but his family has any stake in Trump after November. The rest of the group is now so sure that he'll lose (because they actually do believe the polling) that they're looking for exit ramps and trying to change their names for future applications.

Edit:

My position, as I already posted in a post you apparently did not bother to read or understand, is that renewable options seem better and we should pursue those. Why are you so excited about arguing on a topic that you are not interested in reading other people's opinions about?

I'm fairly certain people have already told you that those options don't produce enough power. You ignored that because for some reason (and this is where I think we need more STEM education to combat people getting their science from movies and sci-fi novels) you think solar panels can power a nation like the US (or even smaller ones). They can't. We can't store the stuff well at all, and it generates such a small level of power compared to nuclear as to be a waste of time.

Much like you yourself (and I'll search your posts if you make me!) like to go for the "I'm not going to repeat myself from an argument a year ago" defense, I'm not going to keep reiterating that your argument makes no sense. Your argument is exactly that you find nuclear to be scary and that's bad. Some people find flying scary; some people don't like doctors or shots. Your feelings are noted and discarded.

 

[Spoiled Milk]

I think the sheer excitement of having people live inconspicuously next to dangerous engines harnessing the inert power of the universe that, given any mild catastrophe could destroy the lives of hundreds of thousands of people in an instant, is reason enough to justify its existence.

 

[Slayven]

Think trump will drop out saying "it's too rigged"?

 

[Grief.exe]

Think trump will drop out saying "it's too rigged"?

No, he's too delusional from his rally attendance, he thinks the liberal media is reporting incorrect polling, and his ego.

 

[BlastProcessing]

I FINALLY UNDERSTOOD A NEW YORKER CARTOON!

 

[Y2Kev]

I really hate to wade into this but honestly, Pigeon, the claim that stood out to me as most unsubstantiated during this entire conversation was the one you made below:

I have already made a pretty clear argument from my perspective. Nuclear power is very dangerous, we clearly haven't as a society demonstrated the ability to use it without potentially huge disasters, technological advances don't seem to have changed that, and alternate, safer power sources are in development and getting more effective over time.

What is this based on? Sure, there's a lot of rhetorical flourish in the thread about global warming/carbon production/you being rude (honestly), but this claim (if I'm reading it correctly) just seems flatly unbelievable. What is the evidence here? I would think technological advances are the reasons hundreds of nuclear reactors are operating safely over decades of test time and the only issues we really have are with old designs and acts of god that were they not to produce catastrophe with nuclear power (and I think you can make an argument about Fukushima) would see other power sources characterized by less immediate, more long-term consequences potentially equally as damaging.

Who disagrees that we should be looking at renewable energy sources? The argument seems to be whether nuclear is worth pursuing at all.

 

[Grief.exe]

What is this based on? Sure, there's a lot of rhetorical flourish in the thread about global warming/carbon production/you being rude (honestly), but this claim (if I'm reading it correctly) just seems flatly unbelievable.

He did use Fukushima to justify that argument, though I don't think that is relevant as it was generation 1 plant that is inherently unstable by design.

 

[Y2Kev]

He did use Fukushima to justify that argument, though I don't think that is relevant as it's a generation 1 design that is inherently unstable by design.

If the argument is that reactor designs from the late 1960s are unsafe, fine, no argument. I don't see the point of ignoring 40 years of technological advances.

 

[plagiarize]

I find all these posts about how obviously we need nuclear power and anybody who's worried about it is just dumb to be really tedious. It's frankly a disrespectful and arrogant argument pattern. Sometimes the reason people disagree with you is that you're wrong or you're communicating badly, not because they're obviously crazy.

I'll say it again, Fukushima happened in 2011, and the investigation found that, sure, the accident would have been preventable with proper safety and technology, but the plant operator just didn't bother. If you think that we should all feel super confident that nuclear accidents can never happen I think you're the one who's living in a fantasy world. Come up with a real justification for why this won't just keep happening.

Simple. Let's not build them on fault lines or where they might get hit with a tsunami. Human error and an Earth quake caused a meltdown. Seems a lesson we can completely learn from and move on safely.

Chernobyl, flawed design we don't use any more and experiments being run (IE it wasn't during normal operation) caused a meltdown. Already solved.

Three mile island, human error and design flaws again.

Chernobyl wouldn't and hasn't happened again. Fukushima just tells us not to build power stations were they are susceptible to earthquakes or tsunamis. Completely doable here in America.

Refusing to learn anything from these accidents other than 'there can be nuclear accidents' is frustrating. The large majority of nuclear reactors operate completely safely, and the reactors we build now are a safer than ever.

Pollution and mining kill people every year.

http://climate.nasa.gov/news/903/coal-and-gas-are-far-more-harmful-than-nuclear-power/

Yeah, it's not as headline producing as a meltdown, but the *truth* is, even with nuclear accidents that nuclear power kills less people.

 

[Valhelm]

I FINALLY UNDERSTOOD A NEW YORKER CARTOON!

hoo that's a good one

 

[jevity]

Does it get more dog-whistle racist than this ?

It doesn't

https://mobile.twitter.com/Bikers4Trump/status/764861330230763520

 

[Grief.exe]

If the argument is that reactor designs from the late 1960s are unsafe, fine, no argument. I don't see the point of ignoring 40 years of technological advances.

It might have even been longer than that as Gen 1 was designed just after WWII if I remember correctly. Need to go refresh my nuclear knowledge as I hadn't had a good discussion in a while.

RE: Wyoming Demographics.

I forgot to add in those adults that are below high school education.

So over 70% of the adult electorate is without a college degree.

Took a look at Wyoming demographics since they are the most Republican portion of the electorate according to 538's polls-only forecast.

93% white
60% without a college degree
Trump's wheelhouse

Almost a quarter of the population is employed by the Government, which is ironic considering the rhetoric of fiscal conservatives. I would be surprised if there wasn't a large majority of that white population on food stamps as well.

 

[jevity]

That shit that make your soul burn slow

https://mobile.twitter.com/Lawrence/status/764859237260328960

 

[RustyNails]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/764803159692836864?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

Look at that, he's admitting he's losing. Progress, I suppose.

Woah this dude went ALL IN

https://twitter.com/jackschofield/status/764809459440967680

 

[Grief.exe]

Woah this dude went ALL IN

https://twitter.com/jackschofield/status/764809459440967680

He dropped a fucking hammer

 

[daedalius]

Woah this dude went ALL IN

https://twitter.com/jackschofield/status/764809459440967680

Ugh why did I keep scrolling through the posts, what the fuck is #bliss?

 

[pigeon]

I'm fairly certain people have already told you that those options don't produce enough power.

They have not, because, just like you, they have not bothered to make any actual arguments.

You ignored that because for some reason (and this is where I think we need more STEM education to combat people getting their science from movies and sci-fi novels) you think solar panels can power a nation like the US (or even smaller ones). They can't. We can't store the stuff well at all, and it generates such a small level of power compared to nuclear as to be a waste of time.

http://www.vox.com/2016/3/10/11192022/big-solar-boom-times

Since apparently I need to be the change I want to see, here is an article about solar crossing efficiency thresholds to the point that utilities are voluntarily opting for it over non-renewable power sources.

The battery topic that Crab brought up is definitely a concern. Here's an article that talks about the trendline there:

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/5/10919082/solar-storage-economics

Much like you yourself (and I'll search your posts if you make me!) like to go for the "I'm not going to repeat myself from an argument a year ago" defense, I'm not going to keep reiterating that your argument makes no sense. Your argument is exactly that you find nuclear to be scary and that's bad.

This is not my argument. I literally just explained my argument in the post you're responding to.

 

[Retro]

what the fuck is #bliss?

Ignorance.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Fucking LOL

Brian S on CNN just exposed
that Trumps Clinton Foundation
Chart is from the fringe website,
http://beforeitsnews.com.

And Jason Miller says he didnt know it existed, and that the POLICY Department makes the charts.

Jason Miller also defended Katrina Pierson

What a fucking shitshow of a campaign

What chart?

 

[Box of Kittens]

Islamic Shock being one?

Yes. The other two were Andrew Jackson and FDR. The Democrats actually went 80 years between electing presidents with over 50% (Pierce in 1852 to FDR in 1932; Tilden got over 50% in 1876 but was not elected president).

 

[Oblivion]

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnns-ste...-how-can-we-believe-what-hes-actually-saying/

Here's the Brian Stelter clip. Watching it now.

 

[Spoiled Milk]

I really hate to wade into this but honestly, Pigeon, the claim that stood out to me as most unsubstantiated during this entire conversation was the one you made below:



What is this based on? Sure, there's a lot of rhetorical flourish in the thread about global warming/carbon production/you being rude (honestly), but this claim (if I'm reading it correctly) just seems flatly unbelievable. What is the evidence here? I would think technological advances are the reasons hundreds of nuclear reactors are operating safely over decades of test time and the only issues we really have are with old designs and acts of god that were they not to produce catastrophe with nuclear power (and I think you can make an argument about Fukushima, honestly) are counterbalanced by a slow rolling death boil created by coal fired plants otherwise.

Who disagrees that we should be looking at renewable energy sources? The argument seems to be whether nuclear is worth pursuing at all.

+1.

The Fukushima disaster was caused entirely by record breaking tsunami waves destroying generators operating coolant pumps. It is not an argument against nuclear reactors in the same way earthquakes are not an argument against tall buildings, and diseases are not an argument against vegetable produce. Nuclear energy provides such measurable good to society that it is worth preserving and expanding. It *is* clean energy if you don't count the miniscule amounts of nuclear waste produced. If I had my way, we would replace all coal plants in this country and replace them with nuclear energy, which would decrease our carbon emissions by a whopping 27%.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

This 2013 study shows their projection on how many lives were saved from using nuclear power instead of burning fossil fuels.

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es3051197

And it has a ton of related articles that it cites.

Thousands of OECD fatalities from fossil fuel accidents alone:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142151400072X

Dam failures have caused almost all of energy accident deaths in recent history, but that's largely from the Banqiao Dam which killed 171k people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam

India, China, and Russia have had several other severe dam failures, but Russia and China are former Communist nations and India is pretty poor.

This article estimates 50k extra deaths will come if Sweden phases out their nuclear power plants:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421515001731

This shows another summary of fossil fuel accident deaths:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S036054420700196X

 

[Iolo]

Other than nuclear, does any other power source create a 1,000 square mile exclusion zone when it fails? Trying to think of one

 

[User 463088]

He's tweeting again

Donald J. TrumpVerified account
‏@realDonaldTrump
Crooked Hillary Clinton is being protected by the media. She is not a talented person or politician. The dishonest media refuses to expose!

Donald J. TrumpVerified account
‏@realDonaldTrump
I am not only fighting Crooked Hillary, I am fighting the dishonest and corrupt media and her government protection process. People get it!

The fuck is "government protection process"?

 

[Y2Kev]

Other than nuclear, does any other power source create a 1,000 square mile exclusion zone when it fails? Trying to think of one

beans

 

[Bowdz]

Other than nuclear, does any other power source create a 1,000 square mile exclusion zone when it fails? Trying to think of one

Ted Cruz.

 

[jevity]

He's tweeting again

Donald J. TrumpVerified account
‏@realDonaldTrump
Crooked Hillary Clinton is being protected by the media. She is not a talented person or politician. The dishonest media refuses to expose!



Donald J. TrumpVerified account
‏@realDonaldTrump
I am not only fighting Crooked Hillary, I am fighting the dishonest and corrupt media and her government protection process. People get it!

The fuck is "government protection process"?

Duh. Thats trumpspeak for the secret service.

 

[Spoiled Milk]

Other than nuclear, does any other power source create a 1,000 square mile exclusion zone when it fails? Trying to think of one

Fukushima did not cause a 1,000 square mile exclusion zone.

If the argument is that reactor designs from the late 1960s are unsafe, fine, no argument. I don't see the point of ignoring 40 years of technological advances.

Fukushima actually didn't have a poor reactor design at all. The redundancy system was pretty impressive. There was just a single lynchpoint (the generators that had no alternative). But most importantly.. the walls just weren't tall enough. If they had chosen to build 40-foot walls they would have been fine.

 

[Cesare Borgia]

https://twitter.com/stuartpstevens/status/764867924213522432

They're really running with the PA stuff, you can tell they recognize Trump has no path without it. Given that PA will probably be called somewhat early on election night they clearly have their excuse lined up.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

There's no point building any more fission reactors because they're ridiculously expensive, but shutting down all nuclear power plants would immediately starve away 20% of U.S. electricity and almost all (current) U.S. electricity not from fuels that emit CO2.

There was a time in 2005 when liberals being anti-nuclear caused more global warming because, at that point in time, nuclear was a relatively cheap form of non-CO2 emitting energy. At this point, however, as long as liberals stay away from "shut down all plants, believe me, I'm a doctor and stay away from the Wi-Fi." then the attitude of "build no more nuclear power plants!" is probably fine.

 

[SpeedySwaf]

He's tweeting again

Donald J. TrumpVerified account
‏@realDonaldTrump
Crooked Hillary Clinton is being protected by the media. She is not a talented person or politician. The dishonest media refuses to expose!

Donald J. TrumpVerified account
‏@realDonaldTrump
I am not only fighting Crooked Hillary, I am fighting the dishonest and corrupt media and her government protection process. People get it!

The fuck is "government protection process"?

The irony is this is what he wanted. He wanted the media to do all the hard work for him to get his word out, because that's what happened in the primaries. He just forgot that the media was almost always criticizing what he said then as well. It didn't matter to him because he was still winning and getting support.

Almost nothing has changed. It's just now he's finding out that what makes him popular with his base doesn't make him popular with everyone else.

 

[Holmes]

https://twitter.com/stuartpstevens/status/764867924213522432

They're really running with the PA stuff, you can tell they recognize Trump has no path without it. Given that PA will probably be called somewhat early on election night they clearly have their excuse lined up.

I hope there's another Karl Rove-like meltdown when it's called. And if she wins the state by double digits, it'll be called quickly after the polls closed. Probably not when they close though, since it's the media and they want people to stay tuned in and calling PA means it'll be over.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

I do wonder why the failure of a shitty nuclear power plant in a Communist nation (Chernobyl) has remained in cultural awareness whereas the failure of a shitty dam in a Communist nation (Banqiao Dam) has not.

 

[Iolo]

Fukushima did not cause a 1,000 square mile exclusion zone.

You got me, it was only 500 square miles.

I hope there's another Karl Rove-like meltdown when it's called.

Insensitive, dude.

 

[Grief.exe]

I do wonder why the failure of a shitty nuclear power plant in a Communist nation (Chernobyl) has remained in cultural awareness whereas the failure of a shitty dam in a Communist nation (Banqiao Dam) has not.

Generating electricity via moving water makes sense conceptually to most people, while generating via nuclear is more difficult to understand.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

They have not, because, just like you, they have not bothered to make any actual arguments.

Literally the best program I can find for solar powering the States is to start putting massive fields of panels in the desert or start co-opting parking lots and factories. This is clearly much more inefficient than building a nuclear plant, which provides an astronomical level of power compared to solar.

http://www.vox.com/2016/3/10/11192022/big-solar-boom-times

Since apparently I need to be the change I want to see, here is an article about solar crossing efficiency thresholds to the point that utilities are voluntarily opting for it over non-renewable power sources.

The battery topic that Crab brought up is definitely a concern. Here's an article that talks about the trendline there:

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/5/10919082/solar-storage-economics

So what you're saying is that storage is still a problem?

Why is a possible future with solar batteries at an unknown time in the future a better option than our currently secure, well-known, easily built nuclear plants that can power the country today? You also seem to think I'm not a solar fan; I like solar. But it's childish to rely on some sci-fi movie version of energy production that's still not there when we've got the answer (and have had it for decades). [/QUOTE]

This is not my argument. I literally just explained my argument in the post you're responding to.

It is your argument. There's no other reason to waste time trying to make solar the fossil fuel replacement when we already have 90% efficient plants that could do the same right now.

Your position over time has been:
1)You want to reduce fossil fuel reliance to combat climate change (I assume, maybe you also don't believe in climate change).
2)We've had the tech to do such a thing for decades with insanely low footprints and efficiency.
3)You balk for an unknown future tech instead of going for the answer in front of your face because you're scared of it.

I don't really see any difference in your position and someone who avoids vaccines but promises they'll definitely just wash their hands a lot. You should totally be washing your hands, but you still need the damn shots. Washing your hands isn't enough.

 

[Diablos]

https://twitter.com/stuartpstevens/status/764867924213522432

They're really running with the PA stuff, you can tell they recognize Trump has no path without it. Given that PA will probably be called somewhat early on election night they clearly have their excuse lined up.

It'll be even funnier when it turns out that Hillary could have lost PA but still won the election anyway once the results are in. Which is what will most likely happen.

Seriously tho wtf is the campaign gonna do if they lose PA? Go to the courts?

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

The problem with solar is technological advancements are often so jagged. We're clearly making progress, but there is no guarantee that pumping a bunch of money into that technology will output what we want on the other end. It could be the key is an innovation in a completely different field that won't arrive for fifty years, and carbon footprints need a pretty immediate reduction.