American Politics

[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.

 

[M3J]

Republicans know that without voter suppression and electoral, they have no chance of having power whatsoever, which is why they and Trump keep lying about how mail-in ballots will result in fraud while completely ignoring the fraud from their own party.

 

[Xeroxed]

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.

That article does not say what you think it does. Those batteries are only there for the purpose of "load balancing" and they only have enough capacity to cover an electricity outage of 15 minutes at worst for those 30k households. (Probably less. They probably only cover a fraction of that output. But I'm being generous and take them at their words.) So why are they there? Well in first you have to understand how energy generators like wind and solar interact with the energy grid. Wind and Solar are variable energy sources were the output increases and decreases randomly over time. In order to make that energy at all useful you need to combine it with a conventional energy source that can rev up and down quickly to cover the spikes and falls in energy. There are three such power sources available. Coal, gas and hydro power. Two of them are fossil fuel and the last is limited to rainy mountainous areas and are not available in most of the world.

So why the batteries? Well, it takes time to increase the output of coal, gas and hydro. So if the wind stops blowing you need something to go in between for a couple of minutes. If you dont have this then you have to produce more electricity than you use and then waste the excess to make sure you dont run out. This as you can imagine is very expensive and not good for the environment. This is probably also where that 90%cost saving claim comes from.

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?

Only one of those powerplants are currently in use. The diablo canyon one. And that one is scheduled to close in a couple of years. This is one of the major reasons for all the brown outs in Cali. They literally dont have any stable base power left.

Here is a youtube video that looks at the energy storage problem for California. And Cali is really the ideal place to have sun and wind as they have plenty of that year round and use the most energy in the summer when you get the most sun. Everywhere else will be even more troublesome.

 

[kkck]

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.





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.

I know about that bit with the states. And I will make this point: What you are suggesting is tyrany. And something people in the US either have been brainwashed to believe or are disingenuous enough to push for because they know that without this they would never get their policies past. What you are suggesting is not a reason for presidential elections to be decided via electoral college. Every time a president is elected without a popular vote victory you are electing a president without a real mandate who is actually opposed by the majority of people.

What? That's a lie... AOC and ilmar where not elected by illegal immigrants. And why do you get to decide what real americans can want? You are shameless.

 

[M3J]

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.

Thank you once again, for proving that you truly are bigoted and know nothing about anything. Real Americans love America and making sure Americans do well. Right wingers like you, Trump, and others are not real Americans, just hateful, gullible bigots who will blindly believe whatever agrees with them. You don't even have any stats or evidence for anything you say, yet it doesn't stop you from making dumb claims. You're an embarrassment to America, but unfortunately you are also a representation of what part of America is about.

You'll bring up other countries but conveniently ignore that republicans are actually committing voter fraud, like in CA, and suppressing voters and taking away their rights to vote as it's the only way they have a chance of winning. You don't know what a real American is, it'd be nice if you and your ilk stopped talking about them.

 

[xi0]

There's no such thing as a "real American", such discussions only devolve into logical fallacies that are meaningless. You could be the most jingoistic buffoon that prays to Ronald Reagan every night, or someone who wipes their ass with the flag and neither are more or less American than the other. That's how this entire "experiment" works. But you know, this kind of appeal to purity spiel is the type of the thing that gets some conservatives side-eyed.

 

[hokageji]

There's no such thing as a "real American"

natives are real americans.

 

[kkck]

That's... not what xi0 meant. And even native americans came from asia through alaska centuries earlier....

 

[hokageji]

That's... not what xi0 meant. And even native americans came from asia through alaska centuries earlier....

i know.... but they were the first inhabitants of teh land and they've stayed here since, so if anyone can claim to be real americans, its them.... strong emphasis on "if anyone"...

 

[xi0]

natives are real americans.

Their land isn't "America" though. Within this framework, yeah, America is indeed a construct, I guess.

Was talking about Americans as in citizens of the USA though...

 

[M3J]

Indigenous people are the original human inhabitants of the Americas, but that's about it. White colonists were beyond messed up because they were okay with killing people just to get land.

--- Double Post Merged, Oct 23, 2020, Original Post Date: Oct 22, 2020 ---

I see Trump was full of shit as usual during the debate. Shame his cult does not believe in fact checking.