-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
US PoliEra 2020 |OT 1| THE ANTI BENGHAZI (Read Staff Post)
- Thread starter TheHunter
- Start date
- Status
That makes sense though. They need those jobs to be super centralized to the campaign while the canvassing and phone banking volunteering are things anyone can do remotely.
Am I seeing this correct that Sanders isn't open to a Carbon Tax??WaPo recently updated their "Which of these 2020 Democrats agrees with you most?" quiz.
My results, below. Bottom three aren't surprising, nor Warren at the top, but would have expected Sanders a little higher. But then none of these questions are weighted like some other quizzes (ex. "How important is this issue to you?"). And a response that's close to a candidate's position, but not a match, is treated the same as a response that's not close at all. Still interesting to look at the various positions side by side like this.
Edit:
Bennett 13
Warren 12
Butt/Yang 11
Kob 10
….
Biden 8
Sanders 6
Gabbard 5
Yeah, but it kind of really sucks.
When the only options for volunteers are these super depressing, maybe not at all effective jobs... Not sure you're going to get as many volunteers as possible.
Donating money seems like the only effective thing to do but I'm unemployed so I have a lot of time and no money :/
Apparently, I stepped into some weird timeline
These are quite close to mine, but with Mayor Booty a bit higher. Some of the positions are dumbfounding to me from some of the candidates I'd have assumed were obviously for X or Y thing. And yes Warren is still my preferred candidate despite being in my lower half. Some of her stuff is pie in the sky healthcare that'll never get passed so I don't really hold it against her.Only Bennet and Yang support expanding nuclear power?
Anyway, here's my bizarro list...
Biden 2?! Man, that sounds legitimately challenging to pull off.
If you still have the quiz open you can click on "What the candidates said about X..." at the end of each question, to see where each candidate falls, and click on the candidate for details on their position. Or drill down to the appropriate section from this link.
Regarding Sanders and the carbon tax:
Genuinely surprised to see most of the candidates so close together - and also didn't expect Bernie to be so far behind! Also, I feel ashamed of myself that Senator Tula isn't dead last, and that she ranks so close to Warren.
Yeah, that was the biggest surprise for me too. Surely that has to be part of a multi-faceted approach to combating climate change?
Yeah, that was the biggest surprise for me too. Surely that has to be part of a multi-faceted approach to combating climate change?
Apparently, I stepped into some weird timeline
Only Bennet and Yang support expanding nuclear power?
Anyway, here's my bizarro list...
Yikes!
Mine was Sanders and Warren 16, in the other end Bloombito 2 Biden 1.
Basically i disagree with Biden on everything except abortion.
Didn't know Amy was opening to court packing. Maybe she'll be a trustworthy vote.
bernie: 14
warren: 14
yang: 11
bernie: 14
warren: 14
yang: 11
The GND is anti-nuke.
The GND is also anti-cap and trade.
In general I think the question of what power sources we should be aggressively pushing is a messy one. Clearly our long-term goal should be zero emission, and I think that includes nuclear waste. The question is whether we need a transitional step to get us from coal and oil to renewables at all, and whether that should be gas, which is still greenhouse-producing and requires fracking but is much cleaner than coal/oil, or nuclear, which is clean but unpopular and scary. At this point I think we should probably just jump straight for renewables since their cost has gotten so low, but I'm not an expert on this subject.
... I hate this quiz.
My list has Steyer and Bennet as my top two, but I have everyone but Biden, Sanders, and Gabbard in the 12-14 point range, so it's pretty much a nearly 8 way tie.
It's funny, they asked a decent number of questions where all the candidates were on the same page and a couple questions in which Biden doesn't have a position (I assume they sent out the questions to campaigns like they've done previously and Biden selectively replied again).
My list has Steyer and Bennet as my top two, but I have everyone but Biden, Sanders, and Gabbard in the 12-14 point range, so it's pretty much a nearly 8 way tie.
It's funny, they asked a decent number of questions where all the candidates were on the same page and a couple questions in which Biden doesn't have a position (I assume they sent out the questions to campaigns like they've done previously and Biden selectively replied again).
Warren:14
Butt:13
Steyer:13
Klob:11
.....
Sanders:8
Biden:7
Tulsi:7
Interesting seeing sanders against a bunch of liberal policies in that list. A true progressive indeed.
Butt:13
Steyer:13
Klob:11
.....
Sanders:8
Biden:7
Tulsi:7
Interesting seeing sanders against a bunch of liberal policies in that list. A true progressive indeed.
The question on nuclear power seriously bums me out and I consider a refusal to expand to be environmentally ignorant at this point. And yeah I know this isn't a terribly popular opinion here. We need either that to help the baseline for availability or a trillion dollars in battery storage tech that currently doesn't exist that could hold days worth of use for entire states in the event of, you know, clouds or lack of wind.
I'm also keen on a carbon tax and TPP... ironically TPP handled a ton of the complaints Trump keeps bitching about regarding Canada, Mexico, China and everyone else... Stuff on labor, intellectual property, climate, etc.
I'm also keen on a carbon tax and TPP... ironically TPP handled a ton of the complaints Trump keeps bitching about regarding Canada, Mexico, China and everyone else... Stuff on labor, intellectual property, climate, etc.
Genuinely surprised to see most of the candidates so close together - and also didn't expect Bernie to be so far behind! Also, I feel ashamed of myself that Senator Tula isn't dead last, and that she ranks so close to Warren.
Yeah, that was the biggest surprise for me too. Surely that has to be part of a multi-faceted approach to combating climate change?
They say they are open to it as part of a bigger approach, but it's pretty much the least you can do at this point. We need a much more drastic policy that the biggest polluters won't just be able to get around with money. If I were asked this question (like I was in this quiz) I would say no because I know what the intent of the question is. The same could be said for the UBI question. Should UBI be considered? Yes, but at the expense of other government entitlements like Yang's plan? which is basically how the debate is framed? Then no it should not be considered.
I mean, in the long term we'll need that battery technology anyway, right? We should get moving on it!
Biden lol. Steyer coming in surprisingly strong...
Well, at least this makes it pretty clear who your second choice candidate ought to be.
I mean, battery technology is being moved on, probably the most funded thing on Earth due to various demands, it's just not there and it likely won't be there for a long long time.
Unanswered/unclear responses (for these 20 positions):
- 4: Gabbard: (gun reg, wealth tax, deportation, debt); Klobuchar: (gun reg, wealth tax, nuclear, TPP)
- 2: Buttigieg: (UBI, TPP), Biden: (deportation, nuclear)
- 1: Patrick: (pack SCOTUS)
If only policy positions were the only metric in choosing a candidate ;(
I can guess which ones you would have a reasonable opposition to (guns, pack court, nuclear power), but you could do the exact same thing with Warren on prisoners voting rights, deportations, paid leave, student debt. UBI and carbon tax are not as simple as support or don't in this case.
Really? She's like a female Tim Karen to me. give me someone charismatic or give me someone more liberal.
Morris estimates we need a D+2.5% PV margin to win the electoral college - in other words, a hair better than Hillary. Obviously, we want as large a margin as possible for insurance and a larger win than 278-260 if we can get it, but we don't have to win by some obscene margin. As he implies, Trump losing the PV by A LOT but still winning the EC is possible, but not extraordinarily likely... though still too likely for comfort.
get a load of this neoliberal who doesn't support feeding all people
That's super long term, but studies have shown that even if we have a dramatically gigantic battery system that could almost entirely handle days upon days of needs, there still needs to be a fairly substantive baseline generation. Backup carbon generation for times of high demand is also an option, but, like, that kinda defeats the whole point of all of this.
Are you going to be able to convince Americans to accept brownouts in the peak heat of summer and coldest days of winter because we refused to create a better nuclear baseline? Hell fucking no. For now we'll also just ignore the fact that this kind of battery tech doesn't really exist, that the infrastructure for it doesn't exist, that there's only like a tenth of the wind and solar we'd need to pull it off, and that there aren't enough rare earth metals discovered on the entire planet that could be used to construct all of this stuff.
Or we could build some fucking nuclear power plants to buy us some time to better sort this out... is basically what I'm saying.
What do we do with the nuclear waste, in your view? Historically we have been pretty bad on this topic. Eventually we will run out of Native American reservations to deliberately poison with it and we'll need to find another angle.
Amusingly, I was Googling this topic to figure out whether it was a reasonable question to ask and I discovered that somebody just published a study today that says the current model of waste disposal will not work because we underestimated the corrosion, so that's really good: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41563-019-0579-x
The thing about Trump polls was that this was always going to be a 3-5 point election. he was always going to get at least 44-46% of the vote, so his approval ratings lower than that were all about embarrassed Republicans. It's if you start seeing him in national polling 47% plus that it's time to either panic or tune out and watch the country ride into the abyss.
I'd actually agree with the point about his being guaranteed 44-46% of the vote. Luckily, only needing a 2.5% margin gives us a little room to work with and reinforces just how narrow his initial victory was.
Technically your cited paper is suggesting that some materials are fine for long term storage, but some commonly used materials had not been considered as problematic in concert with others. Basically, don't make the storage containers out of certain combinations of materials, but do make them with other certain combinations of materials. Either case, the current overland dry casks are working and it should also be noted that uranium and plutonium lose 99% of their ambient radioactivity in a decade of storage. That's the "don't eat it, but you can be within several feet of it without any problem" stage, it isn't entirely about half-lives.
Right around the time of the 2016 election I heard someone, in response to Trump's "low chances", say "Yes, but would you get on an airplane if those were the chances of you crashing?" That has stuck with me.
We start using the Yucca mountain facility we already spent all that tax money on and say 'tough' to the people who are upset nuclear waste is going to speed past them on a train. Right now, those 'nimbys' are keeping nuclear waste at the nuclear power station, and anyone who lives in the vicinity is exposed to whatever level of radiation day in day out.
^ Shocking no-one.
- Status