FSTDT Forums
Community => Politics and Government => Topic started by: CaseAgainstFaith on November 08, 2012, 01:35:13 pm
-
Conservative leaders on Wednesday lashed out at Mitt Romney, saying his attempts to paint himself as a centrist and hide his principles cost him the presidency.
They vowed to wage a war to put the Tea Party in charge of the Republican Party by the time it nominates its next presidential candidate.
“The battle to take over the Republican Party begins today and the failed Republican leadership should resign,” said Richard Viguerie, a top activist and chairman of ConservativeHQ.com.
He said the lesson on Romney’s loss to President Obama on Tuesday is that the GOP must “never again” nominate a “a big government established conservative for president.”
Jenny Beth Martin of Tea Party Patriots said Romney failed to make the kind of strong case for conservatism that would have won the election.
She described Romney as a “weak, moderate candidate hand-picked by the country club elite Republican establishment.”
“They didn’t see a clear distinction so they went with what they know,” she said of voters.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/266649-conservatives-lambast-romney-vow-to-take-over-gop (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/266649-conservatives-lambast-romney-vow-to-take-over-gop)
Well we all knew this was going to happen. Keep going to the right into irrelevancy!
-
Yeah because it was centrists like Todd Akin, Richard Mourdock, George Allen, Joe Walsh and Allen West who lost...
I guess they'll truly never learn from their mistakes. Oh well.
-
RIght and up until they are less Republican party and more the fascist party, please, become irrelevant and let someone like the Libertarians or the Green party to come in to take over. Would be nice to see a fresh face on the party block.
But you can never get rid of democrats, they've been around since there were political parties!
Though the tea party motivation has dropped and mostly dropped off, so we'll probably see Republicans move towards the center.
-
Santorum, Bachman, and Perry ran in the primaries. People - actual Republicans - vote in primaries. If "actual Republicans" wanted an actual conservative, they had options. The fact is, Romney came out of primary season the winner.
-
By all means, Republicans, jump off the deep end. It'll make things so much easier for the left.
-
The libertarians are worse.
-
The libertarians are worse.
I disagree. Libertarians are a danger to their country, Fascists are a threat to all the countries around them.
-
The libertarians are worse.
How are libertarians worse?
I disagree with libertarians on most issues, but I disagree with conservatives on every issue.
Libertarians are in favor of ending the war on drugs, leaving marriage equality and abortion up to the states, scaling back the military, ending America's interventionist foreign policy, and protecting civil liberties and privacy rights.
I don't see conservatives supporting any of those things.
-
The libertarians are worse.
I disagree. Libertarians are a danger to their country, Fascists are a threat to all the countries around them.
You make a convincing argument. I take it back; neo-cons are the worst.
The libertarians are worse.
How are libertarians worse?
It's all very well to be able to marry, but if you're unemployed and starving it won't help you much, will it?
leaving marriage equality and abortion up to the states,
Ie, banning them...
-
I would feel bad for most of the Republicans if the party chose to revolve around the Tea Party axis.
-
I would feel bad for most of the Republicans if the party chose to revolve around the Tea Party axis.
It doesn't already?
-
Good luck there Tea Party. Your support is from Faux Noise which is the media arm of the very party you're attempting to take over. You don't have the money to take it over.
Ironbite-but good luck trying.
-
This was utterly predictable.
-
The libertarians are worse.
How are libertarians worse?
I disagree with libertarians on most issues, but I disagree with conservatives on every issue.
Libertarians are in favor of ending the war on drugs, leaving marriage equality and abortion up to the states...
Many Libertarians don't simply believe same-sex marriage and abortion rights should be left up to the states, they also actively support those measures.
-
I would feel bad for most of the Republicans if the party chose to revolve around the Tea Party axis.
It doesn't already?
Not enough according to them.
-
I wonder how they square their reasoning with the fact that Romney actually did better than McCain in 2008.
-
^Because we didn't know about Obama's socialist commie nazi homosexual muslamic satanic agenda, but he revealed it to us in this term.
-
Actually, looking at the numbers, Romney and McCain got roughly the same number of votes as each other. The difference in percentage is from an overall lower voter turnout (and less votes for Obama).
http://www.npr.org/news/specials/election2008/2008-election-map.html#/president?view=race08
vs.
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president
Notice how Romney gained two states over McCain, while Obama didn't gain any states.
-
The libertarians are worse.
How are libertarians worse?
I disagree with libertarians on most issues, but I disagree with conservatives on every issue.
Libertarians are in favor of ending the war on drugs, leaving marriage equality and abortion up to the states...
Many Libertarians don't simply believe same-sex marriage and abortion rights should be left up to the states, they also actively support those measures.
And then you have libertarians like Ron Paul, who thinks that the courts shouldn't determine whether or not banning same-sex marriage is constitutional or not, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Same-sex_marriage) even though that's kind of their job. Not all libertarians are OK with social issues, and don't forget that "state's rights" allows everything, including things like, oh, sodomy laws. Or Jim Crow laws. Or anti-abortion laws.
-
Actually, looking at the numbers, Romney and McCain got roughly the same number of votes as each other. The difference in percentage is from an overall lower voter turnout (and less votes for Obama).
http://www.npr.org/news/specials/election2008/2008-election-map.html#/president?view=race08
vs.
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president
Notice how Romney gained two states over McCain, while Obama didn't gain any states.
I wonder how much of the lower voter turnout was due to the fundies who refused to vote for a Mormon?
-
Actually, looking at the numbers, Romney and McCain got roughly the same number of votes as each other. The difference in percentage is from an overall lower voter turnout (and less votes for Obama).
http://www.npr.org/news/specials/election2008/2008-election-map.html#/president?view=race08
vs.
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president
Notice how Romney gained two states over McCain, while Obama didn't gain any states.
I wonder how much of the lower voter turnout was due to the fundies who refused to vote for a Mormon?
My best friend's parents are what you just described. They think Mormons are crazy, so they voted for Obama instead, despite being hardcore Christians. Weirdly enough, they also are in LOVE with the Clintons.
-
Republicans, this kind of behavior is why even most moderates don't take your party seriously anymore.
-
And they drag themselves ever deeper. Suppose they'll fracture into couple new parties, or will their moderates just go libertarian?
-
Republicans, this kind of behavior is why even most moderates don't take your party seriously anymore.
At this point, I would say at this point they make Barry Goldwater look sane, and he was more or less "Teabagger Classic".The libertarians are worse.
How are libertarians worse?
I disagree with libertarians on most issues, but I disagree with conservatives on every issue.
Libertarians are in favor of ending the war on drugs, leaving marriage equality and abortion up to the states...
Many Libertarians don't simply believe same-sex marriage and abortion rights should be left up to the states, they also actively support those measures.
And then you have libertarians like Ron Paul, who thinks that the courts shouldn't determine whether or not banning same-sex marriage is constitutional or not, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Same-sex_marriage) even though that's kind of their job. Not all libertarians are OK with social issues, and don't forget that "state's rights" allows everything, including things like, oh, sodomy laws. Or Jim Crow laws. Or anti-abortion laws.
This is why as a left/progessive libertarian I've grown to dislike "Libertarians". And I have more respect for the Greens than the Libertarian Party itself.
-
Is that "utopia' libertarian island almost done so they can go and leave us alone.
-
Just gonna leave this here...
http://samuel-warde.com/2012/11/cry-babies-and-sore-losers/
-
I don't really care for the green party after reviewing their positions more thoroughly. I just like their election reforms.
-
The libertarians are worse.
How are libertarians worse?
I disagree with libertarians on most issues, but I disagree with conservatives on every issue.
Libertarians are in favor of ending the war on drugs, leaving marriage equality and abortion up to the states...
Many Libertarians don't simply believe same-sex marriage and abortion rights should be left up to the states, they also actively support those measures.
And then you have libertarians like Ron Paul, who thinks that the courts shouldn't determine whether or not banning same-sex marriage is constitutional or not, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Same-sex_marriage) even though that's kind of their job. Not all libertarians are OK with social issues, and don't forget that "state's rights" allows everything, including things like, oh, sodomy laws. Or Jim Crow laws. Or anti-abortion laws.
Ron Paul is more of a paelo-conservative. He doesn't support the federal government, but thinks states can do what they please, and is very anti-interventionist.
-
Oh, yes, please, p-l-e-a-s-e, please go even more tea partyish.
-
I have a feeling that the Repubs are gonna go so far right that they end up either becoming Fascists or they just implode from being filled with nutjobs.
-
Oh, yes, please, p-l-e-a-s-e, please go even more tea partyish.
YES. Destroy yourselves, and let something good come from the ashes. Tis time for the Repulicans to go the way of the dodo, and let a new party come into play.
...What would they call themselves, though...?
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Whig_Party
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Whig_Party
can this please happen? seriously?
(i think a correspondent on the Daily Show did a section that included a guy from the modern whig party, does anyone have the clip?)
EDIT: I found it (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-january-5-2012/the-elephant-in-the-room), so nevermind. The part with the Modern Whig Party guy was a lot shorter than I thought.
-
Yep, that's the problem with the Democrats. They have too much spine.
-
I don't really care for the green party after reviewing their positions more thoroughly. I just like their election reforms.
Greens seem fine to me, they seem to be a more liberal version of the Democratic Party, with more backbone.
Unless I'm missing some glaring flaws. I've just kind of skimmed their platform.
-
Considering that the Rebublicans basically took over the TEA party to bolster their own numbers it would be funny if the tables are turned.
-
Reasons Why Obama Won
#1 - Romney was insufficiently conservative
His refusal to push forward a synthesis of purely applied Objectivist economics and Dominionist theocracy as social policy failed to reach out to the all-important and large swathe of independent voters to whom such policies appeal.
#2 - A Vast Left Wing Conspiracy
The liberal media attempted to make Todd Akin sound like a bad guy, quoting him out of context and ignoring the fact that his 14th Century approach to our modern world can solve many of our problems, e.g.: the bubonic plague's potential contribution to overpopulation, the poll tax's potential for simplifying the absurdly complex federal taxation system, etc.
Similar attacks on Romney ignored the real implications of his remarks, such as his "binders full of women" comment, which actually exposed Bain Capital's contribution to developing real-life equivalents to Gallifreyan technology and therefore exposed the media's bias in ignoring the private sector's contributions to innovation and rising living standards.
#3 - Democrat voter fraud policies
Increased investment in the godless sciences has led to breakthroughs in intrinsic field research. This in turn has allowed for quantum superpowers which, in turn, have allowed certain test subjects to be in multiple places at once. This research, judiciously applied to selected individuals, allowed thousands of extra votes to derive from mere scores of voters. An examination of polling centre activity will reveal that most of these fraudulent extra voters voted in daylight, when the Cherenkov radiation emanating from them as a result of the research was less visible.
#4 - Obamanian Sorcery
Obama has become a) the first nonwhite President of the United States; b) the first President to appoint a Latina to the Supreme Court; c) the first President to vote early; d) the first President from Hawaii; e) the first Democrat to win without Missouri; f) the first President since FDR to get re-elected with unemployment higher than 7.2%.
The reason for all of these phenomena is simple: Obama possesses dark magic capabilities that warp the space and time around him, provoking circumstances that history would otherwise not create. It is possible that Obama could therefore, by generating a scenario in which it seemed impossible to win, use his infernal powers to guarantee victory.
#5 - Despite a poor economy, the Republican Party fielded unappealing candidates and outdated policies that don't address or recognise the nature of modern America
Evidence in favour: the narrative emerging from the lieberal lamestream media. Evidence against: it's a patently absurd notion.
Definitely a Poe. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Allan_Poe)
-
I must have missed the bit where Romney billed himself as a centrist. Unless of course we're talking centrist through the prism of the tea party world view.
-
I don't really care for the green party after reviewing their positions more thoroughly. I just like their election reforms.
Greens seem fine to me, they seem to be a more liberal version of the Democratic Party, with more backbone.
Unless I'm missing some glaring flaws. I've just kind of skimmed their platform.
They want to ban new nuclear power plants.
-
And then you have libertarians like Ron Paul, who thinks that the courts shouldn't determine whether or not banning same-sex marriage is constitutional or not, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Same-sex_marriage) even though that's kind of their job. Not all libertarians are OK with social issues, and don't forget that "state's rights" allows everything, including things like, oh, sodomy laws. Or Jim Crow laws. Or anti-abortion laws.
Ron Paul wants to define life as starting at conception (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2597:), build a fence along the US-Mexico border (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll446.xml), prevent the Supreme Court from hearing cases on the Establishment Clause or the right to privacy, permitting the return of sodomy laws and the like (a bill which he has repeatedly re-introduced) (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.300:), pull out of the UN (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1146:), disband NATO (http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr033004.htm), end birthright citizenship (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.J.RES.46:), deny federal funding to any organisation which "which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style" along with destroying public education and social security, (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:h.r.7955:), and abolish the Federal Reserve (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2755:) in order to put America back on the gold standard (http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr021506.htm). He was also the sole vote against divesting US federal government investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan. (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2007-764)
Oh, and he believes that the Left is waging a war on religion and Christmas (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html), he's against gay marriage (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul197.html), is against the popular vote (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul214.html), opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html), wants the estate tax repealed (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul328.html), is STILL making racist remarks (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/06/02/ron_paul/), believes that the Panama Canal should be the property of the United States (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:h.con.res.231:), and believes in New World Order conspiracy theories (http://www.infowars.com/articles/nwo/ron_paul_first_bush_was_working_towards_nwo.htm), not to mention his belief that the International Baccalaureate program is UN mind control. (http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r109:E14AP5-0007:)
Ron Paul is fucking batshit crazy.
-
And then you have libertarians like Ron Paul, who thinks that the courts shouldn't determine whether or not banning same-sex marriage is constitutional or not, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Same-sex_marriage) even though that's kind of their job. Not all libertarians are OK with social issues, and don't forget that "state's rights" allows everything, including things like, oh, sodomy laws. Or Jim Crow laws. Or anti-abortion laws.
Ron Paul wants to define life as starting at conception (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2597:), build a fence along the US-Mexico border (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll446.xml), prevent the Supreme Court from hearing cases on the Establishment Clause or the right to privacy, permitting the return of sodomy laws and the like (a bill which he has repeatedly re-introduced) (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.300:), pull out of the UN (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1146:), disband NATO (http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr033004.htm), end birthright citizenship (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.J.RES.46:), deny federal funding to any organisation which "which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style" along with destroying public education and social security, (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:h.r.7955:), and abolish the Federal Reserve (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2755:) in order to put America back on the gold standard (http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr021506.htm). He was also the sole vote against divesting US federal government investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan. (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2007-764)
Oh, and he believes that the Left is waging a war on religion and Christmas (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html), he's against gay marriage (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul197.html), is against the popular vote (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul214.html), opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html), wants the estate tax repealed (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul328.html), is STILL making racist remarks (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/06/02/ron_paul/), believes that the Panama Canal should be the property of the United States (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:h.con.res.231:), and believes in New World Order conspiracy theories (http://www.infowars.com/articles/nwo/ron_paul_first_bush_was_working_towards_nwo.htm), not to mention his belief that the International Baccalaureate program is UN mind control. (http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r109:E14AP5-0007:)
Ron Paul is fucking batshit crazy.
(http://thatschurch.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/tumblr_maq77ecMHG1qejf6u.gif)
(http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/yes-rudy1.gif)
(http://www.othercinema.com/otherzine/otherzine20/nelson/joker-clap.gif)
-
Umm...VS wins the thread. My fucking god...how the fuck does anyone take that rambling troglodyte seriously? I'd call him a man, but that'd be an insult to the rest of the male gender.
Ron Paul, get out of my gender, my species, and my planet. Go live on the sun, I hear the locals there are absolutely cuckoo for state's rights.
-
And then you have libertarians like Ron Paul, who thinks that the courts shouldn't determine whether or not banning same-sex marriage is constitutional or not, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Same-sex_marriage) even though that's kind of their job. Not all libertarians are OK with social issues, and don't forget that "state's rights" allows everything, including things like, oh, sodomy laws. Or Jim Crow laws. Or anti-abortion laws.
Ron Paul wants to define life as starting at conception (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2597:), build a fence along the US-Mexico border (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll446.xml), prevent the Supreme Court from hearing cases on the Establishment Clause or the right to privacy, permitting the return of sodomy laws and the like (a bill which he has repeatedly re-introduced) (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.300:), pull out of the UN (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1146:), disband NATO (http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr033004.htm), end birthright citizenship (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.J.RES.46:), deny federal funding to any organisation which "which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style" along with destroying public education and social security, (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:h.r.7955:), and abolish the Federal Reserve (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2755:) in order to put America back on the gold standard (http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr021506.htm). He was also the sole vote against divesting US federal government investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan. (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2007-764)
Oh, and he believes that the Left is waging a war on religion and Christmas (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html), he's against gay marriage (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul197.html), is against the popular vote (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul214.html), opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html), wants the estate tax repealed (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul328.html), is STILL making racist remarks (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/06/02/ron_paul/), believes that the Panama Canal should be the property of the United States (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:h.con.res.231:), and believes in New World Order conspiracy theories (http://www.infowars.com/articles/nwo/ron_paul_first_bush_was_working_towards_nwo.htm), not to mention his belief that the International Baccalaureate program is UN mind control. (http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r109:E14AP5-0007:)
Ron Paul is fucking batshit crazy.
(http://thatschurch.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/tumblr_maq77ecMHG1qejf6u.gif)
(http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/yes-rudy1.gif)
(http://www.othercinema.com/otherzine/otherzine20/nelson/joker-clap.gif)
The "IB is UN mind control" thing is an obscure little conspiracy theory that I've heard only from the right-wing, conservative Christian, anti-United Nations crowd. One of the objections they have to it (at least from what I've read) is that the IB history classes supposedly teach kids that America has made some dick moves in its history, thus undermining both their patriotism and their faith in God and the government.
If this is really the case, then I applaud IB history classes.
Also, I remember reading once that Ron Paul was the lone dissenting vote against a bill that would have banned importing children's toys with lead paint in them. Because free market.
-
Oh, yes, please, p-l-e-a-s-e, please go even more tea partyish.
YES. Destroy yourselves, and let something good come from the ashes. Tis time for the Repulicans to go the way of the dodo, and let a new party come into play.
...What would they call themselves, though...?
This.
Besides, this is Fundies Say the Darndest things - what these tea partiers have basically said is let's get fundier, and madder and darn it all to heck!
(http://community.us.playstation.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/22573iB5E31DDDB1300A8E/image-size/original?v=mpbl-1&px=-1)
-
I think these guys need more like Ron Paul and Ol' Frothy...fucked up, but bear with me. The more they put up these insane assholes, the less people agree with them, and I don't mean the slightly nutty kind, I mean the kind of scum that's so vile, all but the most heartless, soulless monster wouldn't deign vote for them, or even give them any real consideration. Their presence weakens the party and its popularity, as it begins to dip further and further into insanity, and eventually, they will consume themselves, die, and something will come to take its place.
So long as they manage to do no damage, or that the damage they manage to do isn't serious...I say, go apeshit! Get the most bat-fuck insane pieces of shit you can find, GOP. Put them up as your candidates, and the prime examples of your political and social platforms. Your party is ailing, and must be put down in the most humane manner possible...self-termination.
-
I don't really care for the green party after reviewing their positions more thoroughly. I just like their election reforms.
Greens seem fine to me, they seem to be a more liberal version of the Democratic Party, with more backbone.
Unless I'm missing some glaring flaws. I've just kind of skimmed their platform.
They want to ban new nuclear power plants.
Also apparently they view the American Revolution as throwing off "Corporate Overlords" and that the Education is controlled at a federal level and want to move it to a community one (Which is not at all how it works.)
-
I don't really care for the green party after reviewing their positions more thoroughly. I just like their election reforms.
Greens seem fine to me, they seem to be a more liberal version of the Democratic Party, with more backbone.
Unless I'm missing some glaring flaws. I've just kind of skimmed their platform.
They want to ban new nuclear power plants.
I really wish people would get out of this moronic 1950's mindset regarding nuclear power. Its been 60+ years, we're not banging rocks together, we know what we're doing. It'd free up a lot of petrol and natural gas for other applications.
-
I don't really care for the green party after reviewing their positions more thoroughly. I just like their election reforms.
Greens seem fine to me, they seem to be a more liberal version of the Democratic Party, with more backbone.
Unless I'm missing some glaring flaws. I've just kind of skimmed their platform.
They want to ban new nuclear power plants.
I really wish people would get out of this moronic 1950's mindset regarding nuclear power. Its been 60+ years, we're not banging rocks together, we know what we're doing. It'd free up a lot of petrol and natural gas for other applications.
There still lies the problem of natural disasters like the Japan tsunami and what to do with the waste when we're done with it.
-
I don't really care for the green party after reviewing their positions more thoroughly. I just like their election reforms.
Greens seem fine to me, they seem to be a more liberal version of the Democratic Party, with more backbone.
Unless I'm missing some glaring flaws. I've just kind of skimmed their platform.
They want to ban new nuclear power plants.
I really wish people would get out of this moronic 1950's mindset regarding nuclear power. Its been 60+ years, we're not banging rocks together, we know what we're doing. It'd free up a lot of petrol and natural gas for other applications.
There still lies the problem of natural disasters like the Japan tsunami and what to do with the waste when we're done with it.
Fukashima which didn't kill anyone in a scientifically provable way? And won't for many years? Also the answer is granite pebble reactions.
Waste can be reused as fuel if people would fund research and make fast breeding reactors possible. They keep trying to set them up but keep getting blocked because their worried that the waste being converted will get stolen and turned into nuclear weapons before it can be burned up. This is like... what conspiracy theory logic is made of.
Lastly, Nuclear Fission will give way to nuclear fusion given sufficient money and time for research. Which turns hydrogen into helium.
-
Fukashima which didn't kill anyone in a scientifically provable way? And won't for many years? Also the answer is granite pebble reactions.
Waste can be reused as fuel if people would fund research and make fast breeding reactors possible. They keep trying to set them up but keep getting blocked because their worried that the waste being converted will get stolen and turned into nuclear weapons before it can be burned up. This is like... what conspiracy theory logic is made of.
Lastly, Nuclear Fission will give way to nuclear fusion given sufficient money and time for research. Which turns hydrogen into helium.
Which reminds me, if this immortality thing isn't inventable or desirable, I'd like to die in a scientifically provable way.
Also, my concern about nuclear power is that, pretty much throughout its entire history, it's never made sense economically (admittedly that's due to regulation and suchlike); the inevitable question is how much the breeders (which I'm of the understanding are safer if using thorium or similar materials) change that side of things. As you can tell, this is where my knowledge on the subject runs out.
-
Fukashima which didn't kill anyone in a scientifically provable way? And won't for many years? Also the answer is granite pebble reactions.
Waste can be reused as fuel if people would fund research and make fast breeding reactors possible. They keep trying to set them up but keep getting blocked because their worried that the waste being converted will get stolen and turned into nuclear weapons before it can be burned up. This is like... what conspiracy theory logic is made of.
Lastly, Nuclear Fission will give way to nuclear fusion given sufficient money and time for research. Which turns hydrogen into helium.
Which reminds me, if this immortality thing isn't inventable or desirable, I'd like to die in a scientifically provable way.
Also, my concern about nuclear power is that, pretty much throughout its entire history, it's never made sense economically (admittedly that's due to regulation and suchlike); the inevitable question is how much the breeders (which I'm of the understanding are safer if using thorium or similar materials) change that side of things. As you can tell, this is where my knowledge on the subject runs out.
Fast Breeders turn U-235 into plutonium or use already available plutonium (If dust, converted into metal form) into fuel. Since Nuclear reactions destroy mass during the process and the waste product is the fuel itself, eventually all the waste product will be turned into energy. Also, it enables us to convert active nuclear weapons into fuel to be used up. Realistically, it's the only option of stopping proliferation in the long term. Beyond shooting them into space or something.
Most of Nuclear powers costs are setup and regulation. Running costs tend to be low in comparison and fuel costs would probably be better than free if we got to fast breeders. Since people with nuclear waste might be required to sell to the waste to the plant to take care of.
All nuclear reactors require 'breeders' though. It's the process of turning fuel into waste and generating power, or turning U-235 into plutonium that can then be made weapons-grade. Just fast breeders essentially make the U-235 and plutonium processing into a energy advantageous reaction, and can reprocess the plutonium.
Nuclear Fusion has dipped below the energy cost to create compared to what it generates, as in it generates more than it consumes to make, but only slightly and is still not economically viable.
-
My problem with nuclear power is not that we don't have the knowledge or technology to run it safely or properly, I just simply don't trust the state or private business to do so. The Fukushima plant was built in the 70s, the company running it had been found to be taking shortcuts reducing safety and the plant should have been decommissioned years ago, but it wasn't. Similar to Chernobyl, the Soviets were doing stuff they shouldn't have been doing in the plant and they fucked up massively.
-
My problem with nuclear power is not that we don't have the knowledge or technology to run it safely or properly, I just simply don't trust the state or private business to do so. The Fukushima plant was built in the 70s, the company running it had been found to be taking shortcuts reducing safety and the plant should have been decommissioned years ago, but it wasn't. Similar to Chernobyl, the Soviets were doing stuff they shouldn't have been doing in the plant and they fucked up massively.
In all fairness, the Soviets weren't exactly known for caring about human lives.
Having lived within an hour's drive of the San Onofre nuclear plant almost my entire life, I can testify that the things are completely safe if handled correctly. To this end, government certainly has more to gain by not cutting corners than business does.
-
My problem with nuclear power is not that we don't have the knowledge or technology to run it safely or properly, I just simply don't trust the state or private business to do so. The Fukushima plant was built in the 70s, the company running it had been found to be taking shortcuts reducing safety and the plant should have been decommissioned years ago, but it wasn't. Similar to Chernobyl, the Soviets were doing stuff they shouldn't have been doing in the plant and they fucked up massively.
If 30 deaths in the existence of a power source is 'not running safely' what the hell is wind power still on the market? It has 76 deaths claimed in its existence (They have a startling tendency to explode if the wind blows too hard). Coal power kills, confirmedly, hundreds of people a YEAR from air pollution. Nuclear power, but watt/hour of energy produced, is even safer than solar (Due to people getting themselves hurt and killed by installing solar panels on their roofs primarily.) If Nuclear Power is unsafe by that standard of safety, we might as well turn off our lights and go back to huts. Nuclear power tends to be like Airplanes. Its more safe than cars, but when something does go wrong, it's quite dramatic.
I'll agree on properly, but there needs to be commercialization push to make sure the research needed does go on or the Government needs to take it more seriously for research. Because we should of had fast breeding facilities decades ago, but stalling against it has left nuclear power gathering dust.
CHerbonyl is a very special case (So is long island) in which the human operators INTENTIONALLY fucked with things. They drained the coolant to see what would happen. Long Island decided that the safety alarm would go off (Which it did and nobody noticed because it was a tiny ass light) and Cherbonyl decided it'd be fun to leave a warm reactor running without coolant and a known electrical surge issue. Cherbonyl, unlike Long Island and current gen reactors, had no reactor shield, thus causing the major problems.
-
Personally, I don't have a huge problem with nuclear power plants. What bothers me, however, is what the fuck do we do with the spent fuel rods once they're no longer a viable fuel source for the power plant. If we could find a way to either recycle the rods or eliminate the radioactivity from them, then I'd be much more on board than I am now.
As it stands? I'd rather see more development in wind, solar and hydro electric power plants.
-
Personally, I don't have a huge problem with nuclear power plants. What bothers me, however, is what the fuck do we do with the spent fuel rods once they're no longer a viable fuel source for the power plant. If we could find a way to either recycle the rods or eliminate the radioactivity from them, then I'd be much more on board than I am now.
As it stands? I'd rather see more development in wind, solar and hydro electric power plants.
Right now they are stored as plutonium-(Something) dust in lead lined containers. Elimination would be in the form of either blasting them off in space (They would take millions of years to lose radioactivity normally) or researching fast breeding nuclear fission plants to viability.
WInd has issues with exploding, taking up crap tons of space, and positioning (Too fast and they explode. Too slow and they don't make a viable energy benefit). Hydro can destroy aquatic environments. Solars good, but economically the worst option (Even with new improvements) until a new type of solar energy collection is developed.
-
Personally, I don't have a huge problem with nuclear power plants. What bothers me, however, is what the fuck do we do with the spent fuel rods once they're no longer a viable fuel source for the power plant. If we could find a way to either recycle the rods or eliminate the radioactivity from them, then I'd be much more on board than I am now.
As it stands? I'd rather see more development in wind, solar and hydro electric power plants.
Right now they are stored as plutonium-(Something) dust in lead lined containers. Elimination would be in the form of either blasting them off in space (They would take millions of years to lose radioactivity normally) or researching fast breeding nuclear fission plants to viability.
I rather not blast them to space.
That stuff would then be irretrievable should we find them useful in the future. Unless we are talking about the moon.
-
Personally, I don't have a huge problem with nuclear power plants. What bothers me, however, is what the fuck do we do with the spent fuel rods once they're no longer a viable fuel source for the power plant. If we could find a way to either recycle the rods or eliminate the radioactivity from them, then I'd be much more on board than I am now.
As it stands? I'd rather see more development in wind, solar and hydro electric power plants.
Right now they are stored as plutonium-(Something) dust in lead lined containers. Elimination would be in the form of either blasting them off in space (They would take millions of years to lose radioactivity normally) or researching fast breeding nuclear fission plants to viability.
I rather not blast them to space.
That stuff would then be irretrievable should we find them useful in the future. Unless we are talking about the moon.
It's more or less a joke. "So you want to remove nuclear power from the future? What are you going to do with all this waste because you are unwilling to research the solution?" I mean, shooting them into the sun could make the sun nova if the sun attempted to fuse them in the core. If Iron gives the sun 22 seconds before it dies, how long would Plutonium take? Though it would create an element up in the 400s... so would be an interesting science experiment if we had a sun to spare.
-
ATTENTION PEOPLE!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor
Generation IV reactors (coming 2030 if we keep working on them) will create waste that is only radioactive for few centuries rather than milleniums!
And guess what else? They can use the waste from older reactors as fuel.
And this is just one of the reasons why science is cool.
-
Personally, I don't have a huge problem with nuclear power plants. What bothers me, however, is what the fuck do we do with the spent fuel rods once they're no longer a viable fuel source for the power plant. If we could find a way to either recycle the rods or eliminate the radioactivity from them, then I'd be much more on board than I am now.
As it stands? I'd rather see more development in wind, solar and hydro electric power plants.
Right now they are stored as plutonium-(Something) dust in lead lined containers. Elimination would be in the form of either blasting them off in space (They would take millions of years to lose radioactivity normally) or researching fast breeding nuclear fission plants to viability.
WInd has issues with exploding, taking up crap tons of space, and positioning (Too fast and they explode. Too slow and they don't make a viable energy benefit). Hydro can destroy aquatic environments. Solars good, but economically the worst option (Even with new improvements) until a new type of solar energy collection is developed.
Solar is or will soon be cheaper than nuclear, as will be wind pretty soon. Economically speaking, solar is the best bet. Politically, special pleading from the nuclear industry (and the obvious military application) is unlikely to actually lead to any more plants. The most expensive option is coal, by far.
As my brother has pointed out, it has seriously useful application in certain areas, notably space travel. But at the moment we should use the cheapest form of generating power: solar. There's no reason why any country should have a single coal fired station open.
-
Solar power will work in the regions where there is enough sunlight during the entire year but as we go further from the equator and winter sun is less and less visible... It is simply impossible to use solar power in the Finnish winter as the sole source of electricity. And at least for now it is not viable to make the power in the equator and ship the electricity north (and south.)
Wave and tidal power is also quite good in the regions where using it is possible and wind turbines will help a bit (currently there is only a little pay off, it will take years untill a wind turbine has paid back the initial investment and you only get like 5 years when you are actually making profit with it untill repair is too expensive.) so we will still need several different sources of power.
And even though I support studying and using all clean energy sources I still consider nuclear power to be one of the cleaner forms of electricity production. (Maybe Fusion plants when we finally get them figured out.)
And don't forget the Generation IV Reactors.
-
Finland is a good point. You guys can't really use a whole lot of solar power, can you?
The trouble with nuclear power is that the expected payoff from R and D is so low. If the payoff from Nuclear R and D is one dollar of improved efficiency for every dollar of investment, the ratio for solar is 1:50. Almost no money has been spent on solar R and D, and yet it's had astounding efficiency returns. By contrast, the dumptrucks of money poured in nuclear (and coal and oil...) have done almost nothing.
-
ATTENTION PEOPLE!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor
Generation IV reactors (coming 2030 if we keep working on them) will create waste that is only radioactive for few centuries rather than milleniums!
And guess what else? They can use the waste from older reactors as fuel.
And this is just one of the reasons why science is cool.
Now if there were some way to recycle the bullshit from politicians' mouths.