Politics

Out of context: Reply #19276

  • Started
  • Last post
  • 33,469 Responses
  • nb4

    @ben_ Here's one example of why Hillary is a better choice:

    Hillary: I want half a billion solar panels installed. I want to power all US homes with renewable energy within 10 years.

    Trump: "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."

    nb 4Permalink
    UpvoteDownvote
    Flag
    • That's what I'm looking for. It would be good to understand people's understanding of the policies.ben_
    • /\ and less of this.ben_
    • policies go where the money tells it to go with clinton /endyurimon
    • You'll notice that people like yurimon & drake can't argue on policy, they can only give vague platitudes and generalizations. It's common.nb
    • I'm a little worried that there's only one real response so far.ben_
    • i dont think clintons policy matters just like last administrations policy promises matter compared to results. waste of typing.yurimon
    • you guys want to masterbate to details of marketing schemes to get votes be my guest.yurimon
    • I don't disagree with you that politicians in general don't hold true to their policies, but within all these posts it's super unclear as to why anyone wouldben_
    • How is half a billion solar panels installed a good thing? the second statement is a blanket im not even going to concern myself with...deathboy
    • vote for someone like Trump or Clinton. Seems like the options are pretty brutal either way, which is I guess why it descends into bickering.ben_
    • Will the poor be able to maintain them and the infrastructure needed? will an artificial increase in solar demand increase other energy costs where solar isdeathboy
    • unavailable. i'll humor the statement but i'd very much like to see a real hypothesis as to why it is "good". i knwo there was jsut a PR job open for a solar codeathboy
    • to lobby teachers to teach all green technology is good to grade school kids and thats simply it. just teach its good. glad the person didnt take itdeathboy
    • http://image.prntscr…terry_cloth
    • believing anything that hillary says, an I will never understand the hive mind. OBAMA: I Will close guantanamo, etc,etc ...GeorgesII
    • Nuclear isn't safe on fault lines, nor is it a long term energy solution. Do you have a better idea for energy needs? Honest question.nb
    • do you value good for environment over good for standard of living of people?deathboy
    • i actually believe the invisible hand of the free market would be best for everyone. im not opposed to any alternative energy but im skeptical of an energy bubbdeathboy
    • I might argue that "good for environment" is also good for standard of living, long term. Anyway, how does adding solar reduce the standard of living?nb
    • le. look at what we did to diesal. while europe prospered in that tech. i think renewables are just aspirational branding by politiciansdeathboy
    • if it increases cost for poor people who cant use solar. artifical demands have the tendency to create negative consequences in other sectorsdeathboy
    • right now solar in nevada is hurting everyone not using it because they all have to subsidize it. why elon is getting the bootdeathboy
    • anyways. jsut dont take such statements for granted unless they really have a good hypothesis. think she has a prediction on job losses in ten years?deathboy
    • these people know no better than anyone. why i believe everyone knows better and them serving self interests has proven to work out pretty welldeathboy
    • The idea that US energy production has been a result of the free market is simply inaccurate. There has always been govt intervention.nb
    • of course. a purely free market is simply an ideal to strive for. but where ther eis gov intervention look at the consequences adn bubble vs where there wasntdeathboy
    • and im not an anarchist. the gov has a role in providing for the protection for the people. certain EPA measures are good, but a lot are also over killdeathboy
    • you can regulate to the point the returns aren't worth it. where regulation is more harmful. again everything needs to be looked at objectivelydeathboy
    • Right. Shifting incentives from nuclear to solar should be looked at objectively. Don't assume that adding solar means "more" regulation. :)nb
    • nuclear has only had regulations and hurdles, where as solar has only had subsidizations. big differences. gov is picking solar as a winnerdeathboy
    • and im skeptical if they are picking correctly. again let people decide. look back at regulatiosn after 3 mile and see if they are to constrictingdeathboy
    • seem if it was regulated to death, and if the regulations were created out of politcial posturing.deathboy
    • I removed 3 of 4 cats in my exhaust (no smog county registration) increase in HP-Torq + 8mi to the gallon. Better off.deathboy
    Show [[ numHiddenNotes ]] more notesAdd Note
    SaveCancel

View thread