US Presidential Race

Hillary is a neocon, wasn't surprised when she said that.

As a curiosity Betty, what is it about Hillary that really "speaks to you"?

footyfan01 wrote:

Betty La Fea wrote:I went to the rally Sanders had in my city(Atlanta) this week with my sister. She has completely bought into the "Revolution", and I can see her getting our parents to vote for him too. Despite not being a fan of her intervention in taking out Colonel Gadaffi, Hillary just seems to speak more to me.

I got weird anti-China vibes from Sander's spiel about Kissinger opening up China during that last debate too. Cant really have that in a place where the majority of the people seeing me walk down the street automatically assume I am chinese.

Kissinger was a horrible person though - He was a war criminal, killed so many people for NO NEED. Hillary should be ashamed of being associated with that person. This guy was a disgrace to humanity.

Kissinger killed many people of East & South Asian descent in around Cambodia n stuff, he helped nations bomb the shit out of each other.When time came he switched & helped in the Chinese which severely impacted the US negatively.

BTW I am happy to hear your sister is feeling the bern, Georgia will be a Hillary win though.

His opening up China has led to a huge boom in the growth of Chinese Americans here, which is the largest way the minority group grows.

CBarca wrote:As a curiosity Betty, what is it about Hillary that really "speaks to you"?

The fact that her whole platform isn't built around an idea of revolution that won't happen as everybody is content. She has shown the ability to grow, and has the experience necessary to work this system to continue the good things Obama has done. Her message is just tailor made for my demographic. The group of people not moved by purely populist appeals.

Betty La Fea wrote:

footyfan01 wrote:

Betty La Fea wrote:I went to the rally Sanders had in my city(Atlanta) this week with my sister. She has completely bought into the "Revolution", and I can see her getting our parents to vote for him too. Despite not being a fan of her intervention in taking out Colonel Gadaffi, Hillary just seems to speak more to me.

I got weird anti-China vibes from Sander's spiel about Kissinger opening up China during that last debate too. Cant really have that in a place where the majority of the people seeing me walk down the street automatically assume I am chinese.

Kissinger was a horrible person though - He was a war criminal, killed so many people for NO NEED. Hillary should be ashamed of being associated with that person. This guy was a disgrace to humanity.

Kissinger killed many people of East & South Asian descent in around Cambodia n stuff, he helped nations bomb the shit out of each other.When time came he switched & helped in the Chinese which severely impacted the US negatively.

BTW I am happy to hear your sister is feeling the bern, Georgia will be a Hillary win though.

His opening up China has led to a huge boom in the growth of Chinese Americans here, which is the largest way the minority group grows.

CBarca wrote:As a curiosity Betty, what is it about Hillary that really "speaks to you"?

The fact that her whole platform isn't built around an idea of revolution that won't happen as everybody is content. She has shown the ability to grow, and has the experience necessary to work this system to continue the good things Obama has done. Her message is just tailor made for my demographic. The group of people not moved by purely populist appeals.

I am more of a pro-trade person & I don't oppose that. Kissinger is a war criminal & scum of the earth though.

^^But in that regard isn't that the position we all accept from the people put in positions of power. Its not all gumdrops and fairy tales. They have to make positions that often turn them into terrible people. Our current president drones innocents in the middle east. Such things come with the territory in the end.

I do feel his stand against Kissinger there is very important for his brand. Sanders seems to come directly from the late 60's hippy movement. From that to even his outdated cold war view of Nuclear energy, which would be the cleanest form of energy around. It seems like we are in 1976 more so than 2016.

Betty La Fea wrote:^^But in that regard isn't that the position we all accept from the people put in positions of power. Its not all gumdrops and fairy tales. They have to make positions that often turn them into terrible people. Our current president drones innocents in the middle east. Such things come with the territory in the end.

I do feel his stand against Kissinger there is very important for his brand. Sanders seems to come directly from the late 60's hippy movement. From that to even his outdated cold war view of Nuclear energy, which would be the cleanest form of energy around. It seems like we are in 1976 more so than 2016.

Nope he is a 2020 guy & USA is backwards. I used to be pro-Nuclear Energy 10 years back, very very pro for different reasons education included.

But the ship has failed & Nuclear energy has failed & the world must go beyond it. Japan & Germany are cutting nuclear power severely & now USA is taking all crap in.

It's a terrible safety issue - what happens incase of an earthquake or tsunami or any of those sorts. It's a waiting Mass Time Bomb & it just won't kill people - it will be disastrous. I am not in general going into the process safety.

My views on this has changed after Fukushima Daichi in Japan when I began studying this closely. The dumping of Nuclear material scrap(I think possibly in lead boxes or something what I read years back) is an issue - Big-time issue. I think they put them under-ground.

Another big reason of failure is Pure Economics - Due to the enormous cost of the plants - the safety measures, the amount of water required, the safety fund/insurance, the reactor & all other safety measures. The amount of fissile material may be less compared to the huge amount of energy generated, but the cost has failed.

It was meant to be cheap due to economies of scale & it has not been.

Solar has crashed globally & it is like 70-80% of what is was - A lot due to Chinese cheap solar panels flooding & a various other reasons. In many countries Solar Cost is now cheaper than coal.

And it is expected to come down around 30-40% and be significantly cheaper. Without much running costs, without any safety risk, without huge initial capital punishment.

Solar is the future & countries in the tropic & temperate zone must go bigtym solar if they want to save the earth

Betty La Fea wrote:^^But in that regard isn't that the position we all accept from the people put in positions of power. Its not all gumdrops and fairy tales. They have to make positions that often turn them into terrible people. Our current president drones innocents in the middle east. Such things come with the territory in the end.

I do feel his stand against Kissinger there is very important for his brand. Sanders seems to come directly from the late 60's hippy movement. From that to even his outdated cold war view of Nuclear energy, which would be the cleanest form of energy around. It seems like we are in 1976 more so than 2016.

Drone thing I don't support, but I can understand he has to hit ISIS & he is in a way at War with ISIS. Still I don't support.

But Kissinger you can't equate with him. He is mass murderer for no good reasons & he's got so much blood in his hands - Scourge of humanity

footyfan01 wrote:

Betty La Fea wrote:^^But in that regard isn't that the position we all accept from the people put in positions of power. Its not all gumdrops and fairy tales. They have to make positions that often turn them into terrible people. Our current president drones innocents in the middle east. Such things come with the territory in the end.

I do feel his stand against Kissinger there is very important for his brand. Sanders seems to come directly from the late 60's hippy movement. From that to even his outdated cold war view of Nuclear energy, which would be the cleanest form of energy around. It seems like we are in 1976 more so than 2016.

Nope he is a 2020 guy & USA is backwards. I used to be pro-Nuclear Energy 10 years back, very very pro for different reasons education included.

But the ship has failed & Nuclear energy has failed & the world must go beyond it. Japan & Germany are cutting nuclear power severely & now USA is taking all crap in.

It's a terrible safety issue - what happens incase of an earthquake or tsunami or any of those sorts. It's a waiting Mass Time Bomb & it just won't kill people - it will be disastrous. I am not in general going into the process safety.

My views on this has changed after Fukushima Daichi in Japan when I began studying this closely. The dumping of Nuclear material scrap(I think possibly in lead boxes or something what I read years back) is an issue - Big-time issue. I think they put them under-ground.

Another big reason of failure is Pure Economics - Due to the enormous cost of the plants - the safety measures, the amount of water required, the safety fund/insurance, the reactor & all other safety measures. The amount of fissile material may be less compared to the huge amount of energy generated, but the cost has failed.

It was meant to be cheap due to economies of scale & it has not been.

Solar has crashed globally & it is like 70-80% of what is was - A lot due to Chinese cheap solar panels flooding & a various other reasons. In many countries Solar Cost is now cheaper than coal.

And it is expected to come down around 30-40% and be significantly cheaper. Without much running costs, without any safety risk, without huge initial capital punishment.

Solar is the future & countries in the tropic & temperate zone must go bigtym solar if they want to save the earth

France has moved towards nuclear energy and it has been a success. It is a clean and relatively safe form of efficient energy. Solar on a mass scale is not as clean, and not as efficient in generating the power needed in the world we live in today. Good for small towns, or maybe even a single city? Yeah, but not on a wide scale. There is no completely safe energy source in this country, but the new reactor designs would come pretty close

Fukushima could never happen here either.It was a nearly half century old plant hit by one of the bigger natural disasters that could happen, and even after that NOBODY did, or has, died from direct exposure to radiation from the plant. The new reactors we have today would not be compromised like that, and we wouldnt have to deal with people from select clans, with no idea of what was going on, giving or hiding commands in order to protect other incompetent members of their clan. We don't have have the same clan based system which plagues Japanese corporations in our country.

Economically it all comes down to priorities. The output, and safety, we get from modern Nuclear energy means it is the future. Its all about whether or not we choose to be on the right side of history with it.

Also this primary is over. Bernie can hold out until the convention, but the best thing for the party is for him to quickly step aside so we can focus on stumping the trump.

CAPA21 Highlights Role of Asian Americans in Hillary Clinton’s Nevada Win
http://capa21.com/capa21-highlights-role-of-asian-americans-in-hillary-clintons-nevada-win/

Asians played a big role in Getting Hillary over the hump in Nevada last night. Hopefully she remembers what our Pac did for her.

Never understood the anti-nuclear sentiment from liberals. Cannot get behind it at all. Nuclear is definitely the best option going forward as we switch to cleaner energy on a large scale. France has done amazing things with it, and the fact that many countries are downsizing plans for nuclear is something I don't understand

CBarca wrote:Never understood the anti-nuclear sentiment from liberals. Cannot get behind it at all. Nuclear is definitely the best option going forward as we switch to cleaner energy on a large scale. France has done amazing things with it, and the fact that many countries are downsizing plans for nuclear is something I don't understand

It comes out of the 60's cold war era where nuclear was seen as something that would destroy the earth. It is simply bad science. Another hippy late 60's view of his is his voting to decrease NASA funding. He doesn't want to utilize the best clean reliable energy source on earth, and he doesn't want to fund us exploring other planets.

That is suspect. We are suppose to be the side of knowledge.

Early reports suggesting the Republican Nevada caucus is an absolute cluster****. Can't wait to see the circus surrounding this from the teams of the candidates who don't do well there.

Is Hillary actually for nuclear power? As far as I've read she's been for it and "agnostic" about it in the past, which is unsurprising from her. She is opposed to Yucca Mountain, which is an anti-nuclear stance.

Also Bernie Sanders has said he is "generally for" funding NASA, but that he would like to focus on other areas. A view I don't agree with but can see where he's coming from. Whether that would mean votes to reduce NASA funding is another question.

Anyway, the fact that Trump is running away with it right now is actually embarrassing for the US as a nation. I can't believe what I'm seeing. I have also heard that Nevada was a circus

CBarca wrote:Is Hillary actually for nuclear power? As far as I've read she's been for it and "agnostic" about it in the past, which is unsurprising from her. She is opposed to Yucca Mountain, which is an anti-nuclear stance.

Also Bernie Sanders has said he is "generally for" funding NASA, but that he would like to focus on other areas. A view I don't agree with but can see where he's coming from. Whether that would mean votes to reduce NASA funding is another question.

Anyway, the fact that Trump is running away with it right now is actually embarrassing for the US as a nation. I can't believe what I'm seeing. I have also heard that Nevada was a circus

Hillary would be pushed towards Nuclear power by her advisors. She has proved to be moveable. If the crowd is anti-nuclear she will pretend to be. She's a basic politician. I think Sanders will stick by his word more.

Sanders has voted to not only decrease Nasa, but also against promoting private space travel as seen by private companies such as SpaceX. When called out on it in a reddit AMA he gave some weak excuse about "Saving the children"

Yeah I just looked at the reddit AMA and his voting record doesn't seem to indicate he is pro-NASA. Context is needed etc etc but I agree he doesn't seem pro NASA, which I disagree with.

I'm not convinced Hillary will be pro-nuclear. The climate right now isn't pro-nuclear. We're moving away from nuclear power as are many others--what about Hillary makes you think she's willing to move against the political climate and go pro-nuclear? Yeah you're right, she is movable, but do we think she's movable against the current climate? IIRC, the energy plan she put out did not call for more nuclear (though she hasn't called for a reduction in nuclear which is fair).

You're right, she could be pro nuclear, but she could also not be. That's what you get with Hillary. Either way, I prefer her to Sanders on the issue. Not a big issue to me though, it's just an issue I've always found liberals take a disappointing view towards.

CBarca wrote:Yeah I just looked at the reddit AMA and his voting record doesn't seem to indicate he is pro-NASA. Context is needed etc etc but I agree he doesn't seem pro NASA, which I disagree with.

I'm not convinced Hillary will be pro-nuclear. The climate right now isn't pro-nuclear. We're moving away from nuclear power as are many others--what about Hillary makes you think she's willing to move against the political climate and go pro-nuclear? Yeah you're right, she is movable, but do we think she's movable against the current climate? IIRC, the energy plan she put out did not call for more nuclear (though she hasn't called for a reduction in nuclear which is fair).

You're right, she could be pro nuclear, but she could also not be. That's what you get with Hillary. Either way, I prefer her to Sanders on the issue. Not a big issue to me though, it's just an issue I've always found liberals take a disappointing view towards.

I could see Hillary being moved by $$$$. When money goes for it, she will follow. She said Nuclear should be a part of our energy plan even if she didnt mention how specifically.

Barring a meltdown in the next few days she will be getting my vote Tuesday.

Okay I'm a pro-Nuclear person but if you guys have understood the issue, you would not have been -

Let us consider -

Safety Risk - It is not how old the the Fuku reactors or the set-up were. Nuclear power plants need huge water & are thus set-up in coastal areas which is based in a seismic zone, prone to earthquakes & tsunamis & it is a big risk. The dumping of nuclear material in lead containers & the possibility of spreading radiation among workers is an added risk.

For me when clean safe energies are available, it makes no sense to take this risk.

Cost - Due to economies of scale, it was supposed to be VERY VERY cheap which is not the case now due to very high capital cost, insurance liabilities & safety requirements. It thus does make sense to me.

Potential of Solar Energy -
174 petawatts (PW) of energy comes in form of solar radiation (or insolation) hits our atmosphere. Almost one third of this is reflected back into space. The rest is absorbed – one hour of insolation is the equivalent to more than the world’s energy consumption for an entire year.Solar energy is by far the largest energy resource on the Earth.

One year’s worth of solar energy reaching the surface of the Earth would be twice the amount of all non-renewable resources, including fossil fuels and nuclear uranium.
The solar energy that hits one square mile in a year is equivalent to 4 million barrels of oil.

Renewable vs Non-Renewable - The fissile material (Thorium/Uranium) is extracted from the earth & generates a tremendous amount of energy per unit making it almost renewable, however it is not - Most Countries do not have a stock of fissile ex tractable material.

I am pro-Nuclear vs Coal - I would rather have Nuclear than Coal as the pollution is much less. But if the tropical & temperate zone went bullish on Solar Energy it could satisfy the entire earth's energy needs. Solar has 0 Operating Pollution.

People have to have a vision & thing long term - what kind of planet you want?

Betty La Fea wrote:

CBarca wrote:Yeah I just looked at the reddit AMA and his voting record doesn't seem to indicate he is pro-NASA. Context is needed etc etc but I agree he doesn't seem pro NASA, which I disagree with.

I'm not convinced Hillary will be pro-nuclear. The climate right now isn't pro-nuclear. We're moving away from nuclear power as are many others--what about Hillary makes you think she's willing to move against the political climate and go pro-nuclear? Yeah you're right, she is movable, but do we think she's movable against the current climate? IIRC, the energy plan she put out did not call for more nuclear (though she hasn't called for a reduction in nuclear which is fair).

You're right, she could be pro nuclear, but she could also not be. That's what you get with Hillary. Either way, I prefer her to Sanders on the issue. Not a big issue to me though, it's just an issue I've always found liberals take a disappointing view towards.

I could see Hillary being moved by $$$$. When money goes for it, she will follow. She said Nuclear should be a part of our energy plan even if she didnt mention how specifically.

Barring a meltdown in the next few days she will be getting my vote Tuesday.

Won South Carolina with 84% odd of Black votes & is loosing every other demographic but sweeping the black votes. Almost 50 point victory - Huge huge victory.

I think it is important to go out & vote  - Whether it is for Hillary or Trump. I expect Hillary to loose in the general as she has 0 appeal outside the democrat base - Among Independents, Young people, GOP voters & you can't win without those.

People turned down a historic chance & voted for Hillary - More bloodshed, corruption & Conservatism & DESERVE what they get.

People can't go & undo their Bush vote & won't be able to undo their Hillary vote. If she wins, people deserve what they get.

Same could be said of Trump as well...which is why Rubio is probably a more dangerous general election opponent to Hillary.

What's worrying for her is that the young black vote still favors Bernie though.

Tbh Hillary comes across as a very bland character. Young people supporting Bernie is pretty much the same as young people supporting Jeremy Corbyn in England. Both are quite alike in many ways

McLewis wrote:Same could be said of Trump as well...which is why Rubio is probably a more dangerous general election opponent to Hillary.

What's worrying for her is that the young black vote still favors Bernie though.

Rubio will beat Hillary badly in a GE, he is a very strong general candidate.

They're all the same though - Rubio, Trump, Hillary, Cruz - Endless wars & bloodshed's & loyal to corporate owners (bar Trump who is self-funding)

Self-funding sounds great on the campaign trail, but it all changes when campaigning turns into governing. Trump's billions won't really help him there if (FSM help us) he wins not only the nomination, but the whole damn general election.

Beyond Trump and Sanders (to a degree) though, the other 3 are all corporate shills.

McLewis wrote:Same could be said of Trump as well...which is why Rubio is probably a more dangerous general election opponent to Hillary.

What's worrying for her is that the young black vote still favors Bernie though.

Lucky for her that young black(and people of all races really) don't vote anyways. Young people will netflix and chill on election day when given the chance, and banking on them to be your revolution will always end in failure.

Hillary won every significant demographic in South Carolina:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/27/us/elections/south-carolina-democrat-poll.html?_r=0

Sanders only won white men and the 17-29 demographic.

RealGunner wrote:Tbh Hillary comes across as a very bland character. Young people supporting Bernie is pretty much the same as young people supporting Jeremy Corbyn in England. Both are quite alike in many ways

You gotta agree though. That victory speech last night was the best political speech in this country since Obama's stump speech:


Thats a game changing speech.

Would Hillary have signed the same Iran deal as Obama?