American Politics

[hokageji]

Problem is, the left don't like progressiveness or further left. Look at how Pelosi and Biden treat AOC and the Green New Deal, or how Biden and Harris support fracking. Not to mention, Biden doesn't support Medicare For All, even though that's a better plan.

Thats not the left, thats the democratic party which is left of center. Which is why i said progressive party...
I already mentioned in detail why Biden and Harris support fracking and why its not a bad thing. THe president has to speak to all and fracking will need to be supported....

I know they're vocally against Trump... but what's the guarantee they won't vote for him just because they'd rather have an ineptitude leader as long as he's a REpublican?

There is no guarantee, but a lot of the minority have vocally said that they didnt vote for Trump in 2016. And their individual votes don't count, their reach is what matters...

Most people in the US notice by now that a two party system is stupid. But nobody seriously tries to create another system.

A lot of frustration would be gone if the democrats split into a left and a moderate democrat party that could coaligne under whichever party gets more votes in an election but can also move independently from each other in the senate and house or gubernational entities.

That's my point. If there is a 2nd party on both sides of the spectrum, it would be better for the country, but perhaps the experts can comment better.

The way i see it, AMerican constitution is nearly 250 years old. So other younger countries like south africa for instance, could have a better system. But i will be hoenest, i am no expert so cannot back my thoughts.

Elon Musk's Tesla battery farm has saved South Australia $116 MILLION

Operating via the Hornsdale Power Reserve in South Australia, the battery has helped to restore stability to the network and lower the costs of running the power grid, according to reports.

www.dailymail.co.uk

• Elon Musk bet that if they didn't deliver the battery in 100 days it would be free
• They delivered it within 70 days and it has saved an estimated $116 million AUD
• It also reduced the cost of operating the once shaky power grid by 91 per cent

Elon Musk built and deployed the world's 1st 100 megawatt lithium battery designed for power grid applications.

Illustrating the technology exists and is feasible.

I Its not that battery technology isnt feasible as much as its a case of using batteries to store power from renewable energy grids and then supplying it to the cities.

The idea of using renewable energy is to offset the carbon emissions. But if you end up building so many batteries, it adds to the carbon emission and will end up offsetting the goal achievable further.

 

[M3J]

Thats not the left, thats the democratic party which is left of center. Which is why i said progressive party...
I already mentioned in detail why Biden and Harris support fracking and why its not a bad thing. THe president has to speak to all and fracking will need to be supported....

that's the left though...

Fracking is known to be bad for the environment but more importantly, it could cause them votes. Dunno if enough, but it doesn't help.

There is no guarantee, but a lot of the minority have vocally said that they didnt vote for Trump in 2016. And their individual votes don't count, their reach is what matters...

Perhaps does, perhaps their actual votes are what makes the difference.

 

[Sanity Check]

Its not that battery technology isnt feasible as much as its a case of using batteries to store power from renewable energy grids and then supplying it to the cities.

The idea of using renewable energy is to offset the carbon emissions. But if you end up building so many batteries, it adds to the carbon emission and will end up offsetting the goal achievable further.

............

Increasing electrical storage greatly increases efficiency while reducing the cost of grid operation. It allows daytime energy from solar panels to be stored for night time use. Rather than be routed away to neighboring states in times when power generation exceeds demand. Virtually any power grid would greatly benefit from batteries for grid use. Storing grid energy is a huge problem many engineers have tried to solve by various means.

Here you can see one method proposed was to lift heavy concrete objects during peak power production to "store" electricity for future use. This concept is considered by some as "cutting edge". Despite it being far inferior and less efficient to grid tied batteries.


The way harvesting of fossil fuels and lithium works is, deposits near to the surface are collected first. As decades pass all of the oil near to the surface is harvested. Wells necessary to reach oil become increasingly deeper, requiring more energy.

Lithium is a relatively new energy medium. While oil wells might be hundreds or thousands of feet deep, producing a good size carbon footprint to collect. Lithium reserves would be shallower and far easier to reach.

Fossil fuels like coal, oil and natural gas are combusted to produce energy. This harvesting and combustion process directly releases greenhouse gases like methane and CO2. Lithium by contrast is not combusted, it is merely processed. It is far more environmentally friendly no matter what comparison is utilized.

 

[kkck]

Conventional energy technologies utilizing hydrocarbon based combustion have been utilized in common applications for decades. There isn't much potential growth or innovation to be realized with internal combustion engines or power plants which have been optimised and improved over decades.

Lithium battery technology however is completely new and carries a large potential for innovation and improvement as successive generations of it are revised. Tesla's skyrocketing stock price, in terms of price to earnings, could be one best indication of this.

Tesla has unveiled a blueprint for improving their battery in leaps and bounds. Which when coupled with ramping up the scale of battery production, will provide EV technology that is not only cheaper and more efficient than oil and hydrocarbon based technology. But also more environmentally friendly, producing decreased greenhouse gas emissions overall.

I would like a solution to the above problem BTW from anyone claiming nuclear power is good policy.



There we have 6 nuclear power plants built on the san andreas fault line in a high risk earthquake and tsunami zone. How could lithium batteries possibly be worse than that?

This reads more like an add than actual answers to anything I wrote. What's the path forward? Can lithium be mined cleanly? Can it be made into batteries cleanly? Can the used up batteries be disposed of or recycled cleanly?

And.... that's a bit of an awkward comparison. The batteries in question are not an energy source, they are just batteries. And nuclear power plants can be made to withstand earthquakes.

 

[shionoro]

That's my point. If there is a 2nd party on both sides of the spectrum, it would be better for the country, but perhaps the experts can comment better.

The way i see it, AMerican constitution is nearly 250 years old. So other younger countries like south africa for instance, could have a better system. But i will be hoenest, i am no expert so cannot back my thoughts.

I think that even a two party system can work in theory. For example, it would be imaginable to have different factions in house and senate that the party does not try to influence (for example an AOC bloc) while a president needs bipartisan support to do anything.

The problem with the american system is that it is 'winner takes it all' not only in electoral college, but also while governing. There is no compromise, because it is much better for a party to obstruct a president if they are in opposition and a president has to overcome them with power (executive orders or by having enough seats) if he wants to get anything done.

Also, senators and other representatives have to play these games too. If the representative in the senate of a state, for example, would just vote by what he thinks is right, he might feel repercussions from the people who voted him. That can be seen as a democratic process, but it also means that senators have to obey the party line or certain trends in their state instead of going by what they think is best for the country, which obvously leads to less independent decisions.

Generally, the american system has it that ruling from the center seems undesirable , ESPECIALLY for a republican. A republican like mc cain or romney is not going to win elections again, as there are not enough conservatives and the nonvoters and hatevoters are not thrilled by them. That is why Trump was successful.
Biden is the archetype of ruling from the center, but i think he will be the last of his kind.
Similarly, democrats have the problem that the party is torn between two forces that are almost equally strong with moderates still having the edge.

But the leftwing democrats can only really put that into policy once they start overpowering the moderates, who will then be underrepresented and might start swinging republican again, which in turn will swing the republican party into an even more torn state (or stop voting, which is also undesirable).

 

[hokageji]

that's the left though...

Fracking is known to be bad for the environment but more importantly, it could cause them votes. Dunno if enough, but it doesn't help.

Fracking's environmental concerns are realistically only due to burning of the gas mined. The actual extraction happens a kilometer away from the surface, none of the ground water reserves can get contaminated. And like i said, placing better regulations can make it better.

Perhaps does, perhaps their actual votes are what makes the difference.

Max of 200 elected republicans, and only a fraction are anti trump, their actual votes wont.

............

Increasing electrical storage greatly increases efficiency while reducing the cost of grid operation. It allows daytime energy from solar panels to be stored for night time use. Rather than be routed away to neighboring states in times when power generation exceeds demand. Virtually any power grid would greatly benefit from batteries for grid use. Storing grid energy is a huge problem many engineers have tried to solve by various means.

Here you can see one method proposed was to lift heavy concrete objects during peak power production to "store" electricity for future use. This concept is considered by some as "cutting edge". Despite it being far inferior and less efficient to grid tied batteries.


The way harvesting of fossil fuels and lithium works is, deposits near to the surface are collected first. As decades pass all of the oil near to the surface is harvested. Wells necessary to reach oil become increasingly deeper, requiring more energy.

Lithium is a relatively new energy medium. While oil wells might be hundreds or thousands of feet deep, producing a good size carbon footprint to collect. Lithium reserves would be shallower and far easier to reach.

Fossil fuels like coal, oil and natural gas are combusted to produce energy. This harvesting and combustion process directly releases greenhouse gases like methane and CO2. Lithium by contrast is not combusted, it is merely processed. It is far more environmentally friendly no matter what comparison is utilized.

That concrete object is exactly what i meant before, by alternate ways of storing energy. Any alternative to battery must be considered viable. This is analogous to having a reservoir where additional energy pumps the water, and its flow allows receiving it again. While the solution you present is significantly better, i dont know how it compares to hydrothermal. At the end of the day, these solutions will be better than Lithium.

Yes, Lithium is only for energy storage, but there is no technology to recycle the waste at the moment. Lithium batteries will eventually have to be replaced and new ones will have to be produced.

My point is, we need to consider all the effects of future alternatives before we make a full commitment towards it. Cars were considered clean commute when compared to what they replaced, horses. We cannot repeat the same mistake over and over again. Nuclear is definitely cleaner and established that the waste products are much lower. Consider the energy. There was an environmentalist who encouraged nuclear more than solar and wind, i will share the link once i find it, but the point is solar and wind will killa lot of species on the planet. And moving to nuclear is much easier and quicker from traditional thermal sources so might as well consider it seriously.

 

[kkck]

I don't think the issue with the US is the two party system. At least not necessarily. Having a ton of parties at the same time can also result in chaos and an inability to govern at all... The issue the US has is representation. There are a ton of issues which actually have a majority support from the population (say, medicare for all) but you still have the entirety of the republican party and a substantial part of the democratic party against it. Which is utterly absurd.

 

[shionoro]

I don't think the issue with the US is the two party system. At least not necessarily. Having a ton of parties at the same time can also result in chaos and an inability to govern at all... The issue the US has is representation. There are a ton of issues which actually have a majority support from the population (say, medicare for all) but you still have the entirety of the republican party and a substantial part of the democratic party against it. Which is utterly absurd.

It can if you do it the wrong way, but i think by now countries have a pretty good grasp on how to implement it properly.
After all, you lose the problem of representation when people can actually vote parties they are behind, not just the lesser evil.

After all, the most common problems with a multi party system are usually deadlocks (nobody having the power to govern) and too many small parties.
The latter problem can be removed by having reasonable limits to who gets senate or house seats, the former problem is a problem that already exists in the US when parties can use the senate and the supreme court to block everything the other party does, or, on the flipside, being able to ignore more than half of the country's voters if they have 50% of the seats.

--- Double Post Merged, Oct 17, 2020, Original Post Date: Oct 16, 2020 ---

I must say tho, as a european, i am really thrilled about a US that is a reliable ally in the world again.

I do know that the US and Europe have disagreements that are independent from Trump, but still a president Biden with the international relationships that he could form over his career can mean a united front between EU and US stronger than in the times of Obama (leave alone Trump).
That would both be true on issues like China, but also on issues like Iran, Turkey, Russia or broader issues like climate change and the refugee crisis.

Biden is going to have to make very ambitious pitches to really mend this relationship, tho. Trump did destroy a lot.

 

[Sanity Check]

This reads more like an add than actual answers to anything I wrote. What's the path forward? Can lithium be mined cleanly? Can it be made into batteries cleanly? Can the used up batteries be disposed of or recycled cleanly?

And.... that's a bit of an awkward comparison. The batteries in question are not an energy source, they are just batteries. And nuclear power plants can be made to withstand earthquakes.

# Nothing mined is ever 100% clean. Lithium mining however is cleaner than fracking mining coal or oil.
# Processing lithium into batteries is cleaner than processing oil, natural gas or coal.
# Disposed or recycled lithium batteries are more climate change friendly in contrast to hydrocarbon alternatives.

Lithium for Bipolar Disorder

Learn more from the experts at WebMD about lithium use for the treatment of bipolar disorder.

www.webmd.com

Remember lithium is considered a bonafide medical treatment for some mental conditions. Its not as toxic, environmentally damaging or harmful as people seem to think.

Building a nuclear power plant that can withstand earthquakes or tsunamis costs money. The motive for constructing nuclear plants on fault lines is land located in those regions being cheap. The fukushima disaster may have demonstrated how capable nuclear plants are of withstanding earthquakes/tsunamis. In a real world scenario.

That concrete object is exactly what i meant before, by alternate ways of storing energy. Any alternative to battery must be considered viable. This is analogous to having a reservoir where additional energy pumps the water, and its flow allows receiving it again. While the solution you present is significantly better, i dont know how it compares to hydrothermal. At the end of the day, these solutions will be better than Lithium.

Yes, Lithium is only for energy storage, but there is no technology to recycle the waste at the moment. Lithium batteries will eventually have to be replaced and new ones will have to be produced.

My point is, we need to consider all the effects of future alternatives before we make a full commitment towards it. Cars were considered clean commute when compared to what they replaced, horses. We cannot repeat the same mistake over and over again. Nuclear is definitely cleaner and established that the waste products are much lower. Consider the energy. There was an environmentalist who encouraged nuclear more than solar and wind, i will share the link once i find it, but the point is solar and wind will killa lot of species on the planet. And moving to nuclear is much easier and quicker from traditional thermal sources so might as well consider it seriously.

One option for recycling lithium waste. Utilization in medical applications.

Lithium for Bipolar Disorder

Learn more from the experts at WebMD about lithium use for the treatment of bipolar disorder.

www.webmd.com

Scientists and "environmentalists" who claim nuclear power is cleaner than wind or solar could be deserving of slaps for pushing blatant misinformation. If Nikola Tesla, Einstein or a real scientist/engineer heard those people talking, they might be sorely tempted to slap the living shit out of them.

Saying that nuclear power is "clean" isn't science. Its politics. The same with those claiming wind, lithium batteries or solar power are "dirty" or "environmentally damaging".

I don't think the issue with the US is the two party system. At least not necessarily. Having a ton of parties at the same time can also result in chaos and an inability to govern at all... The issue the US has is representation. There are a ton of issues which actually have a majority support from the population (say, medicare for all) but you still have the entirety of the republican party and a substantial part of the democratic party against it. Which is utterly absurd.

A two party system represents democracy. Having a choice.

Single party system is totalitarianism. It represents having no choice.

I feel like the two party system is under attack by those who wish to push the 2nd option.

 

[M3J]

A two party system represents democracy. Having a choice.

Single party system is totalitarianism. It represents having no choice.

I feel like the two party system is under attack by those who wish to push the 2nd option.

Pretty sure he and others are pushing for 3 parties, while Republicans (at least the voters) push for totalitarianism.

 

[kkck]

# Nothing mined is ever 100% clean. Lithium mining however is cleaner than fracking mining coal or oil.
# Processing lithium into batteries is cleaner than processing oil, natural gas or coal.
# Disposed or recycled lithium batteries are more climate change friendly in contrast to hydrocarbon alternatives.

Lithium for Bipolar Disorder

Learn more from the experts at WebMD about lithium use for the treatment of bipolar disorder.

www.webmd.com

Remember lithium is considered a bonafide medical treatment for some mental conditions. Its not as toxic, environmentally damaging or harmful as people seem to think.

Building a nuclear power plant that can withstand earthquakes or tsunamis costs money. The motive for constructing nuclear plants on fault lines is land located in those regions being cheap. The fukushima disaster may have demonstrated how capable nuclear plants are of withstanding earthquakes/tsunamis. In a real world scenario.


One option for recycling lithium waste. Utilization in medical applications.

Lithium for Bipolar Disorder

Learn more from the experts at WebMD about lithium use for the treatment of bipolar disorder.

www.webmd.com

Scientists and "environmentalists" who claim nuclear power is cleaner than wind or solar could be deserving of slaps for pushing blatant misinformation. If Nikola Tesla, Einstein or a real scientist/engineer heard those people talking, they might be sorely tempted to slap the living shit out of them.

Saying that nuclear power is "clean" isn't science. Its politics. The same with those claiming wind, lithium batteries or solar power are "dirty" or "environmentally damaging".


A two party system represents democracy. Having a choice.

Single party system is totalitarianism. It represents having no choice.

I feel like the two party system is under attack by those who wish to push the 2nd option.

Well, of course. There is no such thing as clean mining.

I would maintain that comparing lithium (a battery) to oil or natural gas (an energy source) is an awkward comparison. In general I don't think the jury is out on whether this actually is good or bad yet, its ultimately relatively new technologies whose implications we are not yet familiar with.

Also, that article does not say you can use lithium waste to turn it into medicine. That sounds like a pretty big jump. Add to that, when it comes to pharmaceutical ingredients the quality standards involved are insanely high at all levels. And batteries have a ton of other things in them aside from lithium, many of which are extremely toxic (whose environmental implications are also extremely relevant for that matter). It'd take a fair bit of effort to grab a huge ass battery, take out the lithium and make it into something that would be medicine grade so to speak. I won't go as far as saying its impossible but it will definitely not be simple and there isn't any information I could find on the internet about it.

I will also note that science absolutely supports the use of nuclear power (in this case fission). It's got no emissions and the waste actually is manageable. The fukishima disaster happened not because nuclear energy is invariably unsafe but because the plant was mismanaged and obsolete... This is human error, not an issue nuclear energy itself.

didn't tesla think something to the effect of nuclear energy being impossible? for all his greatness, this wasn't his finest moment...

Sure but... how does that relate to my point? I wasn't advocating for a single party system, I was simply saying that having many parties isn't necessarily better.

 

[M3J]

Well, not 3 parties but more than 2 and not more than a lot due to how fragmented the whole thing would be. But yeah, not sure how anyone could interpret kick as advocating for a single-party system.

 

[Newkerzy]

I don't think the issue with the US is the two party system. At least not necessarily. Having a ton of parties at the same time can also result in chaos and an inability to govern at all... The issue the US has is representation. There are a ton of issues which actually have a majority support from the population (say, medicare for all) but you still have the entirety of the republican party and a substantial part of the democratic party against it. Which is utterly absurd.

Pretty much. Look no further than my place where we barely get anything done due to various fractions, and overloading the population with random candidates every election, and thus, you have in many cases, people just randomly voting at the legislative level like I do. As a result, there’s more shit politicians than ever at the legislative level.

At least the US has some level of competency.

 

[Sanity Check]

Pretty sure he and others are pushing for 3 parties, while Republicans (at least the voters) push for totalitarianism.

Aren't you the guy who sees...

# Democrats try to abolish the electoral college (to win the election on popular vote)
# Democrats try to reduce the legal voting age to 16 years old (to expand their voter base)
# Democrats try to make it legal for convicted felons in prison to vote (to expand their voter base)
# Democrats try to abolish ID being necessary to vote (to expand their illegal immigrant voting base)

Who then concludes republicans are moving the goalposts, changing rules, trying to steal the elections?

 

[M3J]

Aren't you the guy who sees...

# Democrats try to abolish the electoral college (to win the election on popular vote)
# Democrats try to reduce the legal voting age to 16 years old (to expand their voter base)
# Democrats try to make it legal for convicted felons in prison to vote (to expand their voter base)
# Democrats try to abolish ID being necessary to vote (to expand their illegal immigrant voting base)

Who then concludes republicans are moving the goalposts, changing rules, trying to steal the elections?

1. No. I was neutral, but now I'm actually kind of opposed to it as it seems to have been created to give slaveowners more say as the South wasn't as populated as the North? I forgot, but it's the product of slavery. I don't believe I shared this here though, so that's a figment of your imagination.

I don't support reducing the voting age to 16. It also would expand the Republicans' voter base as well.

Felons have a right to vote because they still live in the country and are still affected by policies. Is there proof that this would expand Democrats' voter base significantly compared to Republicans'? And even if majority of the felons do support Democrats, that says more about the failures of the Republican party.

I feel like there's more to the ID abolishment that you either are conveniently leaving out, or your sources neglect to mention in order to get you riled up against Democrats. I highly doubt undocumented immigrants would be able to vote without some form of ID anyway.

I mean, it's obvious that's still Republicans with how they're committing voter fraud left and right, gerrymandering, reducing polling places to one in areas dominated by Democrats, and etc. The way Republicans will project onto others while ignoring their own crimes or bs. It's really amazing.

 

[kkck]

Aren't you the guy who sees...

# Democrats try to abolish the electoral college (to win the election on popular vote)
# Democrats try to reduce the legal voting age to 16 years old (to expand their voter base)
# Democrats try to make it legal for convicted felons in prison to vote (to expand their voter base)
# Democrats try to abolish ID being necessary to vote (to expand their illegal immigrant voting base)

Who then concludes republicans are moving the goalposts, changing rules, trying to steal the elections?

The electoral college is in fact incompatible with a real democracy though. It's just people in the US who have been brainwashed into thinking this is reasonable... it makes zero sense to even have the possibility of people with less votes win elections.

But the US also has some of the worst incarceration rates in the world. And also an absurd amount of non violent offenders. And also an absurd amount of people who have needlessly harsh prison sentences because of 3 strikes laws. Add to that there being over 3 million people incarcerated at a time. In other countries I wouldn't support this but the US has the equivalent or a small country in prison.


Democrats don't oppose voter IDs, they simply call bullshit on obtaining voter IDs being conveniently difficult to obtain for their bases.

 

[Sanity Check]

The electoral college is in fact incompatible with a real democracy though. It's just people in the US who have been brainwashed into thinking this is reasonable... it makes zero sense to even have the possibility of people with less votes win elections.

The electoral college is the voting equivalent of affirmative action or scholarships for minorities.

They are in place to promote equality of states and not award unfair privilege or favortism to certain regions with disproportionately higher populations.

Democrats don't oppose voter IDs, they simply call bullshit on obtaining voter IDs being conveniently difficult to obtain for their bases.

This goes back to AOC having less than 10 residents of her district donate money to her campaign.

Real americans don't like AOC or Ilhan Omar. The only ones voting for them are uneducated, uninformed, illegal immigrants who have trouble getting legit voting IDs.

The same with Sadiq Khan in london and all the other leftist shills who are only in office thanks to voter fraud.

 

[shionoro]

The electoral college is the voting equivalent of affirmative action or scholarships for minorities.

That is a common but faulty argument.
The senate is there to ensure that states cannot just be ruled by a president who might not represent them at all. Every state has equal say in the senate.

But there is no reason when it comes to binary choices like who is president to have this weighting. After all, it just means that only about 6-10 states matter when it comes to elections, which also means that presidents have to cater to these states.


A small state like Montana does not benefit at all from the electoral college just because it has 3 votes in it. Nobody cares for Montana when it comes to that, people care for Montana due to the senate. All the electoral college in presidential elections does is making presidential bids less honest and enabling minorities to influence the election more than they should be able to.

Because white women in the suburbs of pennsylvania are more important than all the voters in california or alabama now, because california is blue anyway and alabama is red anyway.

 

[Sanity Check]

That is a common but faulty argument.
The senate is there to ensure that states cannot just be ruled by a president who might not represent them at all. Every state has equal say in the senate.

But there is no reason when it comes to binary choices like who is president to have this weighting. After all, it just means that only about 6-10 states matter when it comes to elections, which also means that presidents have to cater to these states.


A small state like Montana does not benefit at all from the electoral college just because it has 3 votes in it. Nobody cares for Montana when it comes to that, people care for Montana due to the senate. All the electoral college in presidential elections does is making presidential bids less honest and enabling minorities to influence the election more than they should be able to.

Because white women in the suburbs of pennsylvania are more important than all the voters in california or alabama now, because california is blue anyway and alabama is red anyway.

Casting votes by geographic area rather than population size makes sense.

It diminishes the unfair advantage densely populated cities have over rural areas dominated by farm land.

And does not penalize states which contain many environmentally friendly wildlife preserves.

 

[shionoro]

Casting votes by geographic area rather than population size makes sense.

It diminishes the unfair advantage densely populated cities have over rural areas dominated by farm land.

And does not penalize states which contain many environmentally friendly wildlife preserves.

Which scarcely populated rural states get advantages from this in presidential elections in your opinion? Name 5.
I do flat out not think that there are states with a low population that get empowered via the electoral college.

I just did the math. The bottom 25 of 50 states have about 80 EC votes, 80 of 531. They don't decide anything.

This 2020 election will be decided in Pennsylvania and Florida. Yes, other states matter too, the battleground states. Almost none of them is a state of the bottom 25 by population. The only two small states that parties actively fight over are Nevada and Iowa right now, with Nevada hardly being a farmer state. The electoral college seeing that there is a balance is a complete fabrication.

What the electoral college does is making the votes of a lot of people irrelevant and it invites voter suppression games.