Issues

[Coyote]

I think I am starting to understand the Clinton voters now... Feelz before reals.

If they hadn't - then how much development would not have happened? Space travel? Is it worth it? I think so - I think the risks ultimately paid off, directly and indirectly through a lot of spin off technologies and military improvements as well.

Well that's cool that you think so... however if you think this constitutes some kind of proof or anything more than a poorly crafted opinion - you are completely mistaken.

It was capitalist USA who won the space war, not the centrally planned soviet union.

Nice bumpersticker logic there.

So where is all this privately funded R&D into space travel?

Plenty of private companies are into this.


And so what if they weren't. Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps using huge amount of funds to explore space may not be worth it? Oh, of course not, got to do it because you want to!

If you want something, fund it yourself. Don't force other people to fund your "substantial risk taking".

What "plenty of private companies" have funded research and development in space exploration?

That's not talking about companies that have jumped in once most of the R&D has been done and the risk becomes economically feasible.

Okay, if you admit outright that the risk is not economically feasible, then it should not be taken. It's painful how you can't see this.

But sure, the fed gov should act like a god damn casino! And people better pay for their crazy ideas, or prison.

Here is the list of private companies:

List of private spaceflight companies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You reek to me of someone who has no clue about anything. But hey the idea of space flight is nice, of course the govt should fund it!

That's a list of private spaceflight companies. That's not answering the question.

Which of those companies invested in the cost of research and development or, did they come about after the government stepped back? Many of them were private contractors paid to develop components of the space program - they took no financial risk, they were paid to provide and develop products.

While there has long been some private investment in space, it's largely been supplying governments with products. Risk taking and financial investment has been via governments. It's only relatively recently that real private investment in space is becoming a reality: The Reality Of Investing In Space Exploration

Space exploration has long been one of those endeavors that many try to argue has to be the domain of national governments. Not only does space exploration carry a huge price tag and uncertain economic returns that are anathema to companies, but many pundits and observers have worried that their involvement will somehow sully the virtues of pure science and/or lead to unrestrained land-grabs that will be hard to adjudicate in on-the-ground courtrooms.


Nevertheless, private company involvement in space is not only a reality today, but it has been reality for quite some time. NASA didn't build the Saturn-V rocket, Boeing did. Likewise, private companies have been building, launching and operating satellites for decades, as well as supplying NASA, the European Space Agency and other government/military space programs with vehicles, components and so on.


All of that said, it does seem that we are finally on the cusp of real private involvement in outer space. From space station resupply vessels to space tourism to, perhaps, even off-world mining, companies like Orbital Sciences, SpaceX and Virgin Galactic seem to be serious about establishing a viable place for private industry outside our atmosphere.

​

Would we be at this point without the initial government investment and willingness to take risks?

​

 

[Norman]

I think I am starting to understand the Clinton voters now... Feelz before reals.

Well that's cool that you think so... however if you think this constitutes some kind of proof or anything more than a poorly crafted opinion - you are completely mistaken.

It was capitalist USA who won the space war, not the centrally planned soviet union.

Nice bumpersticker logic there.

So where is all this privately funded R&D into space travel?

Plenty of private companies are into this.


And so what if they weren't. Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps using huge amount of funds to explore space may not be worth it? Oh, of course not, got to do it because you want to!

If you want something, fund it yourself. Don't force other people to fund your "substantial risk taking".

What "plenty of private companies" have funded research and development in space exploration?

That's not talking about companies that have jumped in once most of the R&D has been done and the risk becomes economically feasible.

Okay, if you admit outright that the risk is not economically feasible, then it should not be taken. It's painful how you can't see this.

But sure, the fed gov should act like a god damn casino! And people better pay for their crazy ideas, or prison.

Here is the list of private companies:

List of private spaceflight companies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You reek to me of someone who has no clue about anything. But hey the idea of space flight is nice, of course the govt should fund it!

That's a list of private spaceflight companies. That's not answering the question.

Which of those companies invested in the cost of research and development or, did they come about after the government stepped back? Many of them were private contractors paid to develop components of the space program - they took no financial risk, they were paid to provide and develop products.

While there has long been some private investment in space, it's largely been supplying governments with products. Risk taking and financial investment has been via governments. It's only relatively recently that real private investment in space is becoming a reality: The Reality Of Investing In Space Exploration

Space exploration has long been one of those endeavors that many try to argue has to be the domain of national governments. Not only does space exploration carry a huge price tag and uncertain economic returns that are anathema to companies, but many pundits and observers have worried that their involvement will somehow sully the virtues of pure science and/or lead to unrestrained land-grabs that will be hard to adjudicate in on-the-ground courtrooms.


Nevertheless, private company involvement in space is not only a reality today, but it has been reality for quite some time. NASA didn't build the Saturn-V rocket, Boeing did. Likewise, private companies have been building, launching and operating satellites for decades, as well as supplying NASA, the European Space Agency and other government/military space programs with vehicles, components and so on.


All of that said, it does seem that we are finally on the cusp of real private involvement in outer space. From space station resupply vessels to space tourism to, perhaps, even off-world mining, companies like Orbital Sciences, SpaceX and Virgin Galactic seem to be serious about establishing a viable place for private industry outside our atmosphere.

​

Would we be at this point without the initial government investment and willingness to take risks?

​

Yes, private companies invest into RnD... thanks for asking.

But this is not a business101 forum.


Again, if some people don't want to invest into what you want to see invested into, get over it!

 

[Coyote]

I think I am starting to understand the Clinton voters now... Feelz before reals.

Nice bumpersticker logic there.

So where is all this privately funded R&D into space travel?

Plenty of private companies are into this.


And so what if they weren't. Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps using huge amount of funds to explore space may not be worth it? Oh, of course not, got to do it because you want to!

If you want something, fund it yourself. Don't force other people to fund your "substantial risk taking".

What "plenty of private companies" have funded research and development in space exploration?

That's not talking about companies that have jumped in once most of the R&D has been done and the risk becomes economically feasible.

Okay, if you admit outright that the risk is not economically feasible, then it should not be taken. It's painful how you can't see this.

But sure, the fed gov should act like a god damn casino! And people better pay for their crazy ideas, or prison.

Here is the list of private companies:

List of private spaceflight companies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You reek to me of someone who has no clue about anything. But hey the idea of space flight is nice, of course the govt should fund it!

That's a list of private spaceflight companies. That's not answering the question.

Which of those companies invested in the cost of research and development or, did they come about after the government stepped back? Many of them were private contractors paid to develop components of the space program - they took no financial risk, they were paid to provide and develop products.

While there has long been some private investment in space, it's largely been supplying governments with products. Risk taking and financial investment has been via governments. It's only relatively recently that real private investment in space is becoming a reality: The Reality Of Investing In Space Exploration

Space exploration has long been one of those endeavors that many try to argue has to be the domain of national governments. Not only does space exploration carry a huge price tag and uncertain economic returns that are anathema to companies, but many pundits and observers have worried that their involvement will somehow sully the virtues of pure science and/or lead to unrestrained land-grabs that will be hard to adjudicate in on-the-ground courtrooms.


Nevertheless, private company involvement in space is not only a reality today, but it has been reality for quite some time. NASA didn't build the Saturn-V rocket, Boeing did. Likewise, private companies have been building, launching and operating satellites for decades, as well as supplying NASA, the European Space Agency and other government/military space programs with vehicles, components and so on.


All of that said, it does seem that we are finally on the cusp of real private involvement in outer space. From space station resupply vessels to space tourism to, perhaps, even off-world mining, companies like Orbital Sciences, SpaceX and Virgin Galactic seem to be serious about establishing a viable place for private industry outside our atmosphere.

​

Would we be at this point without the initial government investment and willingness to take risks?

​

Yes, private companies invest into RnD... thanks for asking.

But this is not a business101 forum.


Again, if some people don't want to invest into what you want to see invested into, get over it!

Get over what? I don't have a problem with it dude. This is what the democratic process is about. Chill out. Or, clean out your wheaties bowl.

 

[Norman]

Plenty of private companies are into this.


And so what if they weren't. Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps using huge amount of funds to explore space may not be worth it? Oh, of course not, got to do it because you want to!

If you want something, fund it yourself. Don't force other people to fund your "substantial risk taking".

What "plenty of private companies" have funded research and development in space exploration?

That's not talking about companies that have jumped in once most of the R&D has been done and the risk becomes economically feasible.

Okay, if you admit outright that the risk is not economically feasible, then it should not be taken. It's painful how you can't see this.

But sure, the fed gov should act like a god damn casino! And people better pay for their crazy ideas, or prison.

Here is the list of private companies:

List of private spaceflight companies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You reek to me of someone who has no clue about anything. But hey the idea of space flight is nice, of course the govt should fund it!

That's a list of private spaceflight companies. That's not answering the question.

Which of those companies invested in the cost of research and development or, did they come about after the government stepped back? Many of them were private contractors paid to develop components of the space program - they took no financial risk, they were paid to provide and develop products.

While there has long been some private investment in space, it's largely been supplying governments with products. Risk taking and financial investment has been via governments. It's only relatively recently that real private investment in space is becoming a reality: The Reality Of Investing In Space Exploration

Space exploration has long been one of those endeavors that many try to argue has to be the domain of national governments. Not only does space exploration carry a huge price tag and uncertain economic returns that are anathema to companies, but many pundits and observers have worried that their involvement will somehow sully the virtues of pure science and/or lead to unrestrained land-grabs that will be hard to adjudicate in on-the-ground courtrooms.


Nevertheless, private company involvement in space is not only a reality today, but it has been reality for quite some time. NASA didn't build the Saturn-V rocket, Boeing did. Likewise, private companies have been building, launching and operating satellites for decades, as well as supplying NASA, the European Space Agency and other government/military space programs with vehicles, components and so on.


All of that said, it does seem that we are finally on the cusp of real private involvement in outer space. From space station resupply vessels to space tourism to, perhaps, even off-world mining, companies like Orbital Sciences, SpaceX and Virgin Galactic seem to be serious about establishing a viable place for private industry outside our atmosphere.

​

Would we be at this point without the initial government investment and willingness to take risks?

​

Yes, private companies invest into RnD... thanks for asking.

But this is not a business101 forum.


Again, if some people don't want to invest into what you want to see invested into, get over it!

Get over what? I don't have a problem with it dude. This is what the democratic process is about. Chill out. Or, clean out your wheaties bowl.

No democratic process is not about how to invest other people's money. Especially not at the federal level. Get over it... and get a job so you can invest into what you want to see.

 

[Kosh]

Yes we know you are a far left drone and Hilary supporter/voter..

You obviously found a bias site to promote your bias, nothing new here!

Don't know if the site is biased or not - it just lists quotes and positions. If you think it is - why don't you supply some of your own for discussion?

Then the Burdon of proof of that is on you to prove the site to fit your bias!

Don't be so childish Kosh. There is no burden on me to prove anything about the site I sourced. Generally - the burden is on the person making the claim that something is blah blah blah. That would be you.

Either way - feel free to add your own sites on various positions on the issue - no need for just mine.

Sorry proving your propaganda wrong is does not make a discussion, if you think that then you should step down as a mod on this site.

You haven't proved anything. Please feel free to supply sources if you think mine are biased. No one is stopping you.

I think I've already said this 3 times...but what the hell...

Yes that is the far left drone mentality on this board, post known propaganda and expect others to prove you wrong!

Kind of how it usually works but...here goes. Again. You don't seem to be able to actually discuss the issues, instead, you keep complaining about the source while steadfastly refusing to provide any of your own. Ok...what about the source Kosh?

From Wiki: On the Issues - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On the Issues or OnTheIssues is an American non-partisan, non-profit organization providing information to voters about candidates, primarily via their web site.[1] The organization was started in 1996, went non-profit in 2000, and is currently run primarily by volunteers.[2]


The owner and CEO of On the Issues is Dr. Naomi Lichtenberg. The editor-in-chief and content manager is Jesse Gordon. The organization is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts and Missoula, Montana.[3]


The organization's stated mission is to help voters pick candidates "based on issues rather than on personalities and popularity." They obtain their information from newspapers, speeches, press releases, book excerpts, House and Senate voting records, Congressional bill sponsorships, political affiliations and ratings, and campaign websites from the Internet.[3]​

There were no particular controversies noted with the sight either on wiki or a general search.

You need to prove that these are the stances of these two candidates, especially Trump since doe snot have a voting record.

I don't really need to prove anything. If you actually looked at the links (which you clearly didn't) - you will see each candidate has a list of quotes, stated positions and votes (if there is a record) on an issue. In addition you can link to the complete quote in context. You can then draw your own conclusions.

OBVIOUSLY (duh) - we can only go on Trumps quotes to try to determine his position, which is what we are doing since he has no voting or public record.

IF you think those stances are incorrect - then it's up to YOU to dispute them. Can you? What's incorrect? What evidence do you base this on? Provide something besides roboresponses Kosh.

This is a failed far left thread started by a far left drone that should not be a mod..

Just admit you do not understand what a discussion/debate is and then we can move on..

If you have an issue with moderation Kosh, you know where to take it. In the meantime, let's see if you can expand on this discussion with your views on the issues - not on me? Are you up to the challenge kiddo?

Yes many sites claim they are non-partisan yet they are..

Pushing far left propaganda is not a discussion.

If you want to have a real discussion show and prove the content you posted, otherwise you are pushing your far left agenda,

More proof why you should not be a mod on this site.

The burden of proof is on you to show what you posted is factual and not up to others to prove you wrong!

That is were and why you far left drones fail!

 

[Coyote]

Don't know if the site is biased or not - it just lists quotes and positions. If you think it is - why don't you supply some of your own for discussion?

Then the Burdon of proof of that is on you to prove the site to fit your bias!

Don't be so childish Kosh. There is no burden on me to prove anything about the site I sourced. Generally - the burden is on the person making the claim that something is blah blah blah. That would be you.

Either way - feel free to add your own sites on various positions on the issue - no need for just mine.

Sorry proving your propaganda wrong is does not make a discussion, if you think that then you should step down as a mod on this site.

You haven't proved anything. Please feel free to supply sources if you think mine are biased. No one is stopping you.

I think I've already said this 3 times...but what the hell...

Yes that is the far left drone mentality on this board, post known propaganda and expect others to prove you wrong!

Kind of how it usually works but...here goes. Again. You don't seem to be able to actually discuss the issues, instead, you keep complaining about the source while steadfastly refusing to provide any of your own. Ok...what about the source Kosh?

From Wiki: On the Issues - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On the Issues or OnTheIssues is an American non-partisan, non-profit organization providing information to voters about candidates, primarily via their web site.[1] The organization was started in 1996, went non-profit in 2000, and is currently run primarily by volunteers.[2]


The owner and CEO of On the Issues is Dr. Naomi Lichtenberg. The editor-in-chief and content manager is Jesse Gordon. The organization is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts and Missoula, Montana.[3]


The organization's stated mission is to help voters pick candidates "based on issues rather than on personalities and popularity." They obtain their information from newspapers, speeches, press releases, book excerpts, House and Senate voting records, Congressional bill sponsorships, political affiliations and ratings, and campaign websites from the Internet.[3]​

There were no particular controversies noted with the sight either on wiki or a general search.

You need to prove that these are the stances of these two candidates, especially Trump since doe snot have a voting record.

I don't really need to prove anything. If you actually looked at the links (which you clearly didn't) - you will see each candidate has a list of quotes, stated positions and votes (if there is a record) on an issue. In addition you can link to the complete quote in context. You can then draw your own conclusions.

OBVIOUSLY (duh) - we can only go on Trumps quotes to try to determine his position, which is what we are doing since he has no voting or public record.

IF you think those stances are incorrect - then it's up to YOU to dispute them. Can you? What's incorrect? What evidence do you base this on? Provide something besides roboresponses Kosh.

This is a failed far left thread started by a far left drone that should not be a mod..

Just admit you do not understand what a discussion/debate is and then we can move on..

If you have an issue with moderation Kosh, you know where to take it. In the meantime, let's see if you can expand on this discussion with your views on the issues - not on me? Are you up to the challenge kiddo?

Yes many sites claim they are non-partisan yet they are..

Pushing far left propaganda is not a discussion.

If you want to have a real discussion show and prove the content you posted, otherwise you are pushing your far left agenda,

More proof why you should not be a mod on this site.

The burden of proof is on you to show what you posted is factual and not up to others to prove you wrong!

That is were and why you far left drones fail!

You make no sense Kosh. In a debate, the person who is making a claim needs to prove it. I "proved" my claim by providing sources (which I might add had links to entire quotes and/or background). That's about the limit of what I need to "prove" at this point.

Now it's your turn to come up with something substantive.

What specifically are you disputing? What specific position or quote? Once you figure that out, then you need to provide some sort of proof that it is wrong by offering a counter-argument complete with sources.

In summary - my only claim was that these are the positions on these issues by these two candidates based on this particular source.

You're up at bat dude. Can you handle it?

 

[Kosh]

Then the Burdon of proof of that is on you to prove the site to fit your bias!

Don't be so childish Kosh. There is no burden on me to prove anything about the site I sourced. Generally - the burden is on the person making the claim that something is blah blah blah. That would be you.

Either way - feel free to add your own sites on various positions on the issue - no need for just mine.

Sorry proving your propaganda wrong is does not make a discussion, if you think that then you should step down as a mod on this site.

You haven't proved anything. Please feel free to supply sources if you think mine are biased. No one is stopping you.

I think I've already said this 3 times...but what the hell...

Yes that is the far left drone mentality on this board, post known propaganda and expect others to prove you wrong!

Kind of how it usually works but...here goes. Again. You don't seem to be able to actually discuss the issues, instead, you keep complaining about the source while steadfastly refusing to provide any of your own. Ok...what about the source Kosh?

From Wiki: On the Issues - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On the Issues or OnTheIssues is an American non-partisan, non-profit organization providing information to voters about candidates, primarily via their web site.[1] The organization was started in 1996, went non-profit in 2000, and is currently run primarily by volunteers.[2]


The owner and CEO of On the Issues is Dr. Naomi Lichtenberg. The editor-in-chief and content manager is Jesse Gordon. The organization is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts and Missoula, Montana.[3]


The organization's stated mission is to help voters pick candidates "based on issues rather than on personalities and popularity." They obtain their information from newspapers, speeches, press releases, book excerpts, House and Senate voting records, Congressional bill sponsorships, political affiliations and ratings, and campaign websites from the Internet.[3]​

There were no particular controversies noted with the sight either on wiki or a general search.

You need to prove that these are the stances of these two candidates, especially Trump since doe snot have a voting record.

I don't really need to prove anything. If you actually looked at the links (which you clearly didn't) - you will see each candidate has a list of quotes, stated positions and votes (if there is a record) on an issue. In addition you can link to the complete quote in context. You can then draw your own conclusions.

OBVIOUSLY (duh) - we can only go on Trumps quotes to try to determine his position, which is what we are doing since he has no voting or public record.

IF you think those stances are incorrect - then it's up to YOU to dispute them. Can you? What's incorrect? What evidence do you base this on? Provide something besides roboresponses Kosh.

This is a failed far left thread started by a far left drone that should not be a mod..

Just admit you do not understand what a discussion/debate is and then we can move on..

If you have an issue with moderation Kosh, you know where to take it. In the meantime, let's see if you can expand on this discussion with your views on the issues - not on me? Are you up to the challenge kiddo?

Yes many sites claim they are non-partisan yet they are..

Pushing far left propaganda is not a discussion.

If you want to have a real discussion show and prove the content you posted, otherwise you are pushing your far left agenda,

More proof why you should not be a mod on this site.

The burden of proof is on you to show what you posted is factual and not up to others to prove you wrong!

That is were and why you far left drones fail!

You make no sense Kosh. In a debate, the person who is making a claim needs to prove it. I "proved" my claim by providing sources (which I might add had links to entire quotes and/or background). That's about the limit of what I need to "prove" at this point.

Now it's your turn to come up with something substantive.

What specifically are you disputing? What specific position or quote? Once you figure that out, then you need to provide some sort of proof that it is wrong by offering a counter-argument complete with sources.

In summary - my only claim was that these are the positions on these issues by these two candidates based on this particular source.

You're up at bat dude. Can you handle it?

Yes I know the far left drone tactics well, you have yet to prove from your link that any or all of it is factual and true.

You assume it is because it fits your far left religious bias and then want others to prove you wrong!

Even after being proven wrong you still persist that what you posted is factual.

Providing any source or link does not prove the information is factual, but that proves why you should not be a mod on this site.

Prove that this site is correct on Trump, show his voting record and it to be true. The burden of proof is always on you drones when you post religious dogma!

 

[Coyote]

Don't be so childish Kosh. There is no burden on me to prove anything about the site I sourced. Generally - the burden is on the person making the claim that something is blah blah blah. That would be you.

Either way - feel free to add your own sites on various positions on the issue - no need for just mine.

Sorry proving your propaganda wrong is does not make a discussion, if you think that then you should step down as a mod on this site.

You haven't proved anything. Please feel free to supply sources if you think mine are biased. No one is stopping you.

I think I've already said this 3 times...but what the hell...

Yes that is the far left drone mentality on this board, post known propaganda and expect others to prove you wrong!

Kind of how it usually works but...here goes. Again. You don't seem to be able to actually discuss the issues, instead, you keep complaining about the source while steadfastly refusing to provide any of your own. Ok...what about the source Kosh?

From Wiki: On the Issues - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On the Issues or OnTheIssues is an American non-partisan, non-profit organization providing information to voters about candidates, primarily via their web site.[1] The organization was started in 1996, went non-profit in 2000, and is currently run primarily by volunteers.[2]


The owner and CEO of On the Issues is Dr. Naomi Lichtenberg. The editor-in-chief and content manager is Jesse Gordon. The organization is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts and Missoula, Montana.[3]


The organization's stated mission is to help voters pick candidates "based on issues rather than on personalities and popularity." They obtain their information from newspapers, speeches, press releases, book excerpts, House and Senate voting records, Congressional bill sponsorships, political affiliations and ratings, and campaign websites from the Internet.[3]​

There were no particular controversies noted with the sight either on wiki or a general search.

You need to prove that these are the stances of these two candidates, especially Trump since doe snot have a voting record.

I don't really need to prove anything. If you actually looked at the links (which you clearly didn't) - you will see each candidate has a list of quotes, stated positions and votes (if there is a record) on an issue. In addition you can link to the complete quote in context. You can then draw your own conclusions.

OBVIOUSLY (duh) - we can only go on Trumps quotes to try to determine his position, which is what we are doing since he has no voting or public record.

IF you think those stances are incorrect - then it's up to YOU to dispute them. Can you? What's incorrect? What evidence do you base this on? Provide something besides roboresponses Kosh.

This is a failed far left thread started by a far left drone that should not be a mod..

Just admit you do not understand what a discussion/debate is and then we can move on..

If you have an issue with moderation Kosh, you know where to take it. In the meantime, let's see if you can expand on this discussion with your views on the issues - not on me? Are you up to the challenge kiddo?

Yes many sites claim they are non-partisan yet they are..

Pushing far left propaganda is not a discussion.

If you want to have a real discussion show and prove the content you posted, otherwise you are pushing your far left agenda,

More proof why you should not be a mod on this site.

The burden of proof is on you to show what you posted is factual and not up to others to prove you wrong!

That is were and why you far left drones fail!

You make no sense Kosh. In a debate, the person who is making a claim needs to prove it. I "proved" my claim by providing sources (which I might add had links to entire quotes and/or background). That's about the limit of what I need to "prove" at this point.

Now it's your turn to come up with something substantive.

What specifically are you disputing? What specific position or quote? Once you figure that out, then you need to provide some sort of proof that it is wrong by offering a counter-argument complete with sources.

In summary - my only claim was that these are the positions on these issues by these two candidates based on this particular source.

You're up at bat dude. Can you handle it?

Yes I know the far left drone tactics well, you have yet to prove from your link that any or all of it is factual and true.

You assume it is because it fits your far left religious bias and then want others to prove you wrong!

Even after being proven wrong you still persist that what you posted is factual.

Providing any source or link does not prove the information is factual, but that proves why you should not be a mod on this site.

Prove that this site is correct on Trump, show his voting record and it to be true. The burden of proof is always on you drones when you post religious dogma!

We've already established he has no voting record. No claims are made about his voting record. You get that right?

His record is his statements. Links were provided in the source to the full context of the statements.

Let's move on shall we? Or are you trolling Kosh?

And, enough talk about moderation - got a problem? Take it up via PM. But you know this, yes?

 

[Kosh]

Sorry proving your propaganda wrong is does not make a discussion, if you think that then you should step down as a mod on this site.

You haven't proved anything. Please feel free to supply sources if you think mine are biased. No one is stopping you.

I think I've already said this 3 times...but what the hell...

Yes that is the far left drone mentality on this board, post known propaganda and expect others to prove you wrong!

Kind of how it usually works but...here goes. Again. You don't seem to be able to actually discuss the issues, instead, you keep complaining about the source while steadfastly refusing to provide any of your own. Ok...what about the source Kosh?

From Wiki: On the Issues - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On the Issues or OnTheIssues is an American non-partisan, non-profit organization providing information to voters about candidates, primarily via their web site.[1] The organization was started in 1996, went non-profit in 2000, and is currently run primarily by volunteers.[2]


The owner and CEO of On the Issues is Dr. Naomi Lichtenberg. The editor-in-chief and content manager is Jesse Gordon. The organization is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts and Missoula, Montana.[3]


The organization's stated mission is to help voters pick candidates "based on issues rather than on personalities and popularity." They obtain their information from newspapers, speeches, press releases, book excerpts, House and Senate voting records, Congressional bill sponsorships, political affiliations and ratings, and campaign websites from the Internet.[3]​

There were no particular controversies noted with the sight either on wiki or a general search.

You need to prove that these are the stances of these two candidates, especially Trump since doe snot have a voting record.

I don't really need to prove anything. If you actually looked at the links (which you clearly didn't) - you will see each candidate has a list of quotes, stated positions and votes (if there is a record) on an issue. In addition you can link to the complete quote in context. You can then draw your own conclusions.

OBVIOUSLY (duh) - we can only go on Trumps quotes to try to determine his position, which is what we are doing since he has no voting or public record.

IF you think those stances are incorrect - then it's up to YOU to dispute them. Can you? What's incorrect? What evidence do you base this on? Provide something besides roboresponses Kosh.

This is a failed far left thread started by a far left drone that should not be a mod..

Just admit you do not understand what a discussion/debate is and then we can move on..

If you have an issue with moderation Kosh, you know where to take it. In the meantime, let's see if you can expand on this discussion with your views on the issues - not on me? Are you up to the challenge kiddo?

Yes many sites claim they are non-partisan yet they are..

Pushing far left propaganda is not a discussion.

If you want to have a real discussion show and prove the content you posted, otherwise you are pushing your far left agenda,

More proof why you should not be a mod on this site.

The burden of proof is on you to show what you posted is factual and not up to others to prove you wrong!

That is were and why you far left drones fail!

You make no sense Kosh. In a debate, the person who is making a claim needs to prove it. I "proved" my claim by providing sources (which I might add had links to entire quotes and/or background). That's about the limit of what I need to "prove" at this point.

Now it's your turn to come up with something substantive.

What specifically are you disputing? What specific position or quote? Once you figure that out, then you need to provide some sort of proof that it is wrong by offering a counter-argument complete with sources.

In summary - my only claim was that these are the positions on these issues by these two candidates based on this particular source.

You're up at bat dude. Can you handle it?

Yes I know the far left drone tactics well, you have yet to prove from your link that any or all of it is factual and true.

You assume it is because it fits your far left religious bias and then want others to prove you wrong!

Even after being proven wrong you still persist that what you posted is factual.

Providing any source or link does not prove the information is factual, but that proves why you should not be a mod on this site.

Prove that this site is correct on Trump, show his voting record and it to be true. The burden of proof is always on you drones when you post religious dogma!

We've already established he has no voting record. No claims are made about his voting record. You get that right?

His record is his statements. Links were provided in the source to the full context of the statements.

Let's move on shall we? Or are you trolling Kosh?

And, enough talk about moderation - got a problem? Take it up via PM. But you know this, yes?

I will voice my opposition to anything and anyone and if you do not like it that is another reason why you should not be a mod.

I can openly claim you should not be a mod and use thread as an example, if you do not like that is on you! Because this is not about a specific action of moderation you have taken as it written in the rules. My understand from the admins here is we are free to voice our opinions about mods as long as it is not about specific actions they have taken. You have a problem with that then you need to discuss with the admins to change the rules that no ne is allowed to openly criticize any mod and their abilities.

And if we are take only words into account then you need to take Hilary's words vs voting record, including the new leaks of what Clinton has said.

So once again your source is bunk!

You have proven you are pushing the far left religious agenda, now just be an adult and own it!

So once you admit you are wrong and can own up and admit your source is partisan and there is no way to prove anything Trump says if or when he gets elected.

On the other hand much of your "source" on Clinton can be easily debunked, but instead of admitting that much of it is bunk, you continue to push the assertion it is all 100% fact!

That is why you far left drones will always fail at discussions or debates.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Actually the issues that are the most relevant to the voters are:

Your issue is next to the last on the minds of the citizens of this country. That doesn't mean it isn't important, but it is not as pressing as the others. Trump leads in the top issues.
And yes, Bill is running. Hitlery has already told us since he did so "well" with NAFTA, she's wants to put him in charge of redistributing our wealth to the Pacific rim and beyond...

All the while, regardless of which personalites the public fawns over at the moment, the redistribution of wealth out of american socliety as a whole and into the pockets of fewer and fewer of the substantial people continues unabated as it has for about a half century now.

About time to abate it. We're broke.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What are you actually trying to say? Throughout this discussion you've said plenty of private business' take these economically unfeasible risks (I think you called it "venture capital") then you turn around and say those risks should not be taken if it's not economically feasible.

Private entities won't take those risks. Governments can - typically because it's tied in with national security or some other governmental role as space travel was.

If you never take the risks associated with R&D, then you won't achieve much. We would not have had space travel, and the associated spinoffs. So we shouldn't have taken the risk?

And where are all these private companies that invested in space r&d? You keep avoiding that.

Space travel is no excuse to spend money in any direction the government desires.

We all benefit because of space travel. Installing satellites helps in our national defense. It allowed us to have worldwide communication between internet and cell phones. It allowed us to track weather and storm systems that save lives.

Green energy is not the same. I could care less about green energy and so do a lot of Americans. It only benefits those who bought into this global warming nonsense. And as I mentioned before, no matter how much we do towards a cleaner earth, environmentalists will never be happy. So ALL of our tax money goes to pander to only a portion of our society.

It's an apples and oranges comparison.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Most of those large estates consists of income realized from capital gains that were never taxed in the first place. No government share was paid to begin with.

It's not "fair" per se, but a lot of things aren't and we're told to suck it up. For example - I pay more taxes than a person like Trump, despite the fact I earn a fraction of what he does.

The estate tax doesn't leave anyone impoverished or even close to it, effects very few people and helps fund needed services.

That's still no excuse to steal dead peoples money. And you have no idea what people paid while they created their wealth. It's more likely that they paid a lot more to government than you ever did. Robbing people in their graves is immoral as anything can get. It's no different than those people that used to open up coffins and take jewelry off of corpses. There is no reason that government should get a larger share of a persons money than his or her heirs themselves.

 

[flacaltenn]

Another important issue for me is Environment.

Trump

• Eminent domain is something you need very strongly. (Feb 2016)
• Cut the EPA; what they do is a disgrace. (Oct 2015)
• Eminent domain pays more than fair market value. (Oct 2015)
• Eminent domain is a very useful tool for job creation. (Oct 2015)
• My sons love trophy hunting, but I'm not a believer. (Sep 2015)
• Won't go to circuses that cut elephants due to animal rights. (Mar 2015)
• Partner with environmentalists when undertaking projects. (Apr 2010)
• Good development enhances the environment. (Jan 2008)
• Asbestos got a bad rap from miners & mob-led movement. (Oct 1997)
• Asbestos got a bad rap from miners & mob-led movement. (Oct 1997)
• Humiliated NYC Mayor by finishing ice rink on time on budget. (Oct 1997)
• Bureaucratic land use reviews make projects unbuildable. (Oct 1997)
• FactCheck: Yes, hybrid family vehicles are available in US

On this - Trump loses me on some, but I agree with on others. The abuse of elephants in circus is well documented - these highly intelligent and endangered animals need our protection, not abuse. Asbestos got a bad rap? WTF? It's bad stuff.

Now - two things I agree on: "Good development (can) enhances the environment" and "Partner with environmentalists when undertaking projects". Often the most successful enviornmental protections come from partnering with ranchers, developers, etc to help them realize that there is value in preserving wetlands, or setting aside conservation areas and that it CAN be done in conjunction with their livelihoods - it does not have to be adversarial. Nature Conservancy is an organization that is strong in this, and which I support.

Clinton

• We need green energy jobs & to build on Paris Agreement. (Mar 2016)
• Federal takeover of Flint water supply if state can't fix it. (Feb 2016)
• FactCheck: No, Hillary didn't grant eminent domain to China. (Mar 2009)
• $5B for green-collar jobs in economic stimulus package. (Jan 2008)
• Voted against and consistently opposed to Yucca Mountain. (Jan 2008)
• A comprehensive energy plan as our Apollo moon shot. (Jan 2008)
• Advocate a cap and trade system. (Dec 2007)
• Better track kids’ products for exposures to toxic materials. (Dec 2007)
• Support green-collar job training. (Aug 2007)
• Launched EPA study of air quality at Ground Zero. (Jun 2007)
• Scored 100% on Humane Society Scorecard on animal protection. (Jan 2007)
• Stands for clean air and funding the EPA. (Sep 2000)
• Reduce air pollution to improve children’s health. (Jun 1998)
• Voted YES on including oil & gas smokestacks in mercury regulations. (Sep 2005)
• Remove PCBs from Hudson River by dredging 200 miles. (Apr 2001)
• Rated 89% by the LCV, indicating pro-environment votes. (Dec 2003)
• EPA must do better on mercury clean-up. (Apr 2004)
• Sponsored bill for tax credit to remove lead-based paint. (Nov 2005)
• Grants for beach water pollution under Clean Water Act. (Apr 2008)
• Inter-state compact for Great Lakes water resources. (Jul 2008)
• Strengthen prohibitions against animal fighting. (Jan 2007)

Clinton's record is lengthy - and much of it I support. Part of her record also ties in to children's issues - lead paint, Flint clean water etc. I would like to know more about how somethings would be paid for (dredging the Hudson) - but I agree with the positions. I would like to see all animal fighting prohibited.

I got some problems with the Clinton record here. Don't KNOW if Trump really knows anything about the issue other than what Sean Hannity tells him.

1) The largest current DANGEROUS enviro disaster in US was caused by FED govt at their nuclear weapons plants in the 60s/70s. There are THOUSANDS of leaking barrels of nuclear waste at Savannah River, Hanford and other sites. No clean-up plan on the horizon. This is why OPPOSING a national nuclear waste site that was PROMISED at Yucca Mtn is stupid. Almost as stupid as not planning for the BILLIONS of pounds of recycled and smash Lithium batteries from all the EVehicles that are being pushed.

2) Tossing money at Green Jobs has already been tried for 8 yrs. The Feds are lousy at picking market winners and losers and have lost TONS of tax money on their stupid bets. The problem there is that wind and solar are MATURE technologies, and do not require a lot of "general research" grants. They are now commodity items sold mainly on price. And in ADDITION that are not "alternatives" to reliable 24/7/365 power. When the nation is less scared by nuclear than they are by Global Warming -- I'll believe in efforts to reduce CO2. Because nuclear is the clearest path to that goal. IF -- indeed you want to believe the over-hyped 1980s GW projections that have constantly been being revised DOWNwards with little notice by the press and panicked herd.

I see. And what of the billions of old lead acid batteries sitting around? You mean that there are not billions of lead acid batteries sitting around? That they have been recycled into new batteries? And what is keeping us from doing that with lithium batteries? Non-issue.

Yes, the spent rod pools in our nuke sites that contain up to five times that amount of rods they were designed for are a real problem. We should use the French method of vitrifying the radioactive waste. That would make the storage at the Yucca site a much safer proposition. But it would also substancialy add to the cost of the electricity from the nuke plants. Then you have Hanford. Lordy, lordy.

Hanford has NOTHING to do with commercial nuclear power. Those disaster are at the National Nuclear Weapons facilities. And if we could REPROCESS nuclear waste -- like the French do -- You could PAY for the lead virtriation with the proceeds. But we're stupid.

Lead acid batteries by volume and weight and lifetime are no where NEAR the problem of used EVehicle batteries. THere's ONE PbAcid battery in a car. There are about 400 or 500 pounds of lithium batteries in an EV. Not to mention the waste load from grid buffering facilities that are needed primarily for sketchy wind and solar. Or off-grid solar. ALL of these together can be a quick enviro disaster. Not only in properly handling the waste, because it's toxic LONGER than nuclear -- but in the mining and production as well.

Already is a waste chain for PbAcid batteries. Takes 1/2 a ton to put a small solar home off grid. And the lifetime can be as short as 4 to 5 years.

 

[Coyote]

Another important issue for me is Environment.

Trump

• Eminent domain is something you need very strongly. (Feb 2016)
• Cut the EPA; what they do is a disgrace. (Oct 2015)
• Eminent domain pays more than fair market value. (Oct 2015)
• Eminent domain is a very useful tool for job creation. (Oct 2015)
• My sons love trophy hunting, but I'm not a believer. (Sep 2015)
• Won't go to circuses that cut elephants due to animal rights. (Mar 2015)
• Partner with environmentalists when undertaking projects. (Apr 2010)
• Good development enhances the environment. (Jan 2008)
• Asbestos got a bad rap from miners & mob-led movement. (Oct 1997)
• Asbestos got a bad rap from miners & mob-led movement. (Oct 1997)
• Humiliated NYC Mayor by finishing ice rink on time on budget. (Oct 1997)
• Bureaucratic land use reviews make projects unbuildable. (Oct 1997)
• FactCheck: Yes, hybrid family vehicles are available in US

On this - Trump loses me on some, but I agree with on others. The abuse of elephants in circus is well documented - these highly intelligent and endangered animals need our protection, not abuse. Asbestos got a bad rap? WTF? It's bad stuff.

Now - two things I agree on: "Good development (can) enhances the environment" and "Partner with environmentalists when undertaking projects". Often the most successful enviornmental protections come from partnering with ranchers, developers, etc to help them realize that there is value in preserving wetlands, or setting aside conservation areas and that it CAN be done in conjunction with their livelihoods - it does not have to be adversarial. Nature Conservancy is an organization that is strong in this, and which I support.

Clinton

• We need green energy jobs & to build on Paris Agreement. (Mar 2016)
• Federal takeover of Flint water supply if state can't fix it. (Feb 2016)
• FactCheck: No, Hillary didn't grant eminent domain to China. (Mar 2009)
• $5B for green-collar jobs in economic stimulus package. (Jan 2008)
• Voted against and consistently opposed to Yucca Mountain. (Jan 2008)
• A comprehensive energy plan as our Apollo moon shot. (Jan 2008)
• Advocate a cap and trade system. (Dec 2007)
• Better track kids’ products for exposures to toxic materials. (Dec 2007)
• Support green-collar job training. (Aug 2007)
• Launched EPA study of air quality at Ground Zero. (Jun 2007)
• Scored 100% on Humane Society Scorecard on animal protection. (Jan 2007)
• Stands for clean air and funding the EPA. (Sep 2000)
• Reduce air pollution to improve children’s health. (Jun 1998)
• Voted YES on including oil & gas smokestacks in mercury regulations. (Sep 2005)
• Remove PCBs from Hudson River by dredging 200 miles. (Apr 2001)
• Rated 89% by the LCV, indicating pro-environment votes. (Dec 2003)
• EPA must do better on mercury clean-up. (Apr 2004)
• Sponsored bill for tax credit to remove lead-based paint. (Nov 2005)
• Grants for beach water pollution under Clean Water Act. (Apr 2008)
• Inter-state compact for Great Lakes water resources. (Jul 2008)
• Strengthen prohibitions against animal fighting. (Jan 2007)

Clinton's record is lengthy - and much of it I support. Part of her record also ties in to children's issues - lead paint, Flint clean water etc. I would like to know more about how somethings would be paid for (dredging the Hudson) - but I agree with the positions. I would like to see all animal fighting prohibited.

I got some problems with the Clinton record here. Don't KNOW if Trump really knows anything about the issue other than what Sean Hannity tells him.

1) The largest current DANGEROUS enviro disaster in US was caused by FED govt at their nuclear weapons plants in the 60s/70s. There are THOUSANDS of leaking barrels of nuclear waste at Savannah River, Hanford and other sites. No clean-up plan on the horizon. This is why OPPOSING a national nuclear waste site that was PROMISED at Yucca Mtn is stupid. Almost as stupid as not planning for the BILLIONS of pounds of recycled and smash Lithium batteries from all the EVehicles that are being pushed.

2) Tossing money at Green Jobs has already been tried for 8 yrs. The Feds are lousy at picking market winners and losers and have lost TONS of tax money on their stupid bets. The problem there is that wind and solar are MATURE technologies, and do not require a lot of "general research" grants. They are now commodity items sold mainly on price. And in ADDITION that are not "alternatives" to reliable 24/7/365 power. When the nation is less scared by nuclear than they are by Global Warming -- I'll believe in efforts to reduce CO2. Because nuclear is the clearest path to that goal. IF -- indeed you want to believe the over-hyped 1980s GW projections that have constantly been being revised DOWNwards with little notice by the press and panicked herd.

I see. And what of the billions of old lead acid batteries sitting around? You mean that there are not billions of lead acid batteries sitting around? That they have been recycled into new batteries? And what is keeping us from doing that with lithium batteries? Non-issue.

Yes, the spent rod pools in our nuke sites that contain up to five times that amount of rods they were designed for are a real problem. We should use the French method of vitrifying the radioactive waste. That would make the storage at the Yucca site a much safer proposition. But it would also substancialy add to the cost of the electricity from the nuke plants. Then you have Hanford. Lordy, lordy.

Hanford has NOTHING to do with commercial nuclear power. Those disaster are at the National Nuclear Weapons facilities. And if we could REPROCESS nuclear waste -- like the French do -- You could PAY for the lead virtriation with the proceeds. But we're stupid.

Lead acid batteries by volume and weight and lifetime are no where NEAR the problem of used EVehicle batteries. THere's ONE PbAcid battery in a car. There are about 400 or 500 pounds of lithium batteries in an EV. Not to mention the waste load from grid buffering facilities that are needed primarily for sketchy wind and solar. Or off-grid solar. ALL of these together can be a quick enviro disaster. Not only in properly handling the waste, because it's toxic LONGER than nuclear -- but in the mining and production as well.

Already is a waste chain for PbAcid batteries. Takes 1/2 a ton to put a small solar home off grid. And the lifetime can be as short as 4 to 5 years.

Seriously - why aren't we doing this? We aren't stupid....is there some reason?

 

[Coyote]

Most of those large estates consists of income realized from capital gains that were never taxed in the first place. No government share was paid to begin with.

It's not "fair" per se, but a lot of things aren't and we're told to suck it up. For example - I pay more taxes than a person like Trump, despite the fact I earn a fraction of what he does.

The estate tax doesn't leave anyone impoverished or even close to it, effects very few people and helps fund needed services.

That's still no excuse to steal dead peoples money. And you have no idea what people paid while they created their wealth. It's more likely that they paid a lot more to government than you ever did. Robbing people in their graves is immoral as anything can get. It's no different than those people that used to open up coffins and take jewelry off of corpses. There is no reason that government should get a larger share of a persons money than his or her heirs themselves.

I don't see it in that way at all.

There's a lot of unfairness in life, to me - this is the least of it.

 

[Coyote]

What are you actually trying to say? Throughout this discussion you've said plenty of private business' take these economically unfeasible risks (I think you called it "venture capital") then you turn around and say those risks should not be taken if it's not economically feasible.

Private entities won't take those risks. Governments can - typically because it's tied in with national security or some other governmental role as space travel was.

If you never take the risks associated with R&D, then you won't achieve much. We would not have had space travel, and the associated spinoffs. So we shouldn't have taken the risk?

And where are all these private companies that invested in space r&d? You keep avoiding that.

Space travel is no excuse to spend money in any direction the government desires.

We all benefit because of space travel. Installing satellites helps in our national defense. It allowed us to have worldwide communication between internet and cell phones. It allowed us to track weather and storm systems that save lives.

Green energy is not the same. I could care less about green energy and so do a lot of Americans. It only benefits those who bought into this global warming nonsense. And as I mentioned before, no matter how much we do towards a cleaner earth, environmentalists will never be happy. So ALL of our tax money goes to pander to only a portion of our society.

It's an apples and oranges comparison.

I don't agree that it's "apples and oranges" - it depends on your personal priorities.

I see space travel and green energy as being publically beneficial - not pandering to anyone.

You may call global warming nonsense (and we'll disagree on that as well) - but let's take it out of the equation.

Fossil fuels are finite - at some point, it is going to be cost prohibitive to keep extracting them. If you have nothing already developed - and that includes necessary infrastructure - then you're eventually going to be screwed, having to attempt to invent it all in a very short time frame that allows no time for mistakes (like Solyndra).

And no - ALL our tax money doesn't go to this. If you look at ENERGY alone - traditional energy sources receive substantial subsidies. We've been subsidizing the energy sector for ages. Are we pandering to a small....and very lucrative portion of our society? If we subsidize the fossil fuel portion, well why not the alternative industries?

 

[flacaltenn]

Another important issue for me is Environment.

Trump

• Eminent domain is something you need very strongly. (Feb 2016)
• Cut the EPA; what they do is a disgrace. (Oct 2015)
• Eminent domain pays more than fair market value. (Oct 2015)
• Eminent domain is a very useful tool for job creation. (Oct 2015)
• My sons love trophy hunting, but I'm not a believer. (Sep 2015)
• Won't go to circuses that cut elephants due to animal rights. (Mar 2015)
• Partner with environmentalists when undertaking projects. (Apr 2010)
• Good development enhances the environment. (Jan 2008)
• Asbestos got a bad rap from miners & mob-led movement. (Oct 1997)
• Asbestos got a bad rap from miners & mob-led movement. (Oct 1997)
• Humiliated NYC Mayor by finishing ice rink on time on budget. (Oct 1997)
• Bureaucratic land use reviews make projects unbuildable. (Oct 1997)
• FactCheck: Yes, hybrid family vehicles are available in US

On this - Trump loses me on some, but I agree with on others. The abuse of elephants in circus is well documented - these highly intelligent and endangered animals need our protection, not abuse. Asbestos got a bad rap? WTF? It's bad stuff.

Now - two things I agree on: "Good development (can) enhances the environment" and "Partner with environmentalists when undertaking projects". Often the most successful enviornmental protections come from partnering with ranchers, developers, etc to help them realize that there is value in preserving wetlands, or setting aside conservation areas and that it CAN be done in conjunction with their livelihoods - it does not have to be adversarial. Nature Conservancy is an organization that is strong in this, and which I support.

Clinton

• We need green energy jobs & to build on Paris Agreement. (Mar 2016)
• Federal takeover of Flint water supply if state can't fix it. (Feb 2016)
• FactCheck: No, Hillary didn't grant eminent domain to China. (Mar 2009)
• $5B for green-collar jobs in economic stimulus package. (Jan 2008)
• Voted against and consistently opposed to Yucca Mountain. (Jan 2008)
• A comprehensive energy plan as our Apollo moon shot. (Jan 2008)
• Advocate a cap and trade system. (Dec 2007)
• Better track kids’ products for exposures to toxic materials. (Dec 2007)
• Support green-collar job training. (Aug 2007)
• Launched EPA study of air quality at Ground Zero. (Jun 2007)
• Scored 100% on Humane Society Scorecard on animal protection. (Jan 2007)
• Stands for clean air and funding the EPA. (Sep 2000)
• Reduce air pollution to improve children’s health. (Jun 1998)
• Voted YES on including oil & gas smokestacks in mercury regulations. (Sep 2005)
• Remove PCBs from Hudson River by dredging 200 miles. (Apr 2001)
• Rated 89% by the LCV, indicating pro-environment votes. (Dec 2003)
• EPA must do better on mercury clean-up. (Apr 2004)
• Sponsored bill for tax credit to remove lead-based paint. (Nov 2005)
• Grants for beach water pollution under Clean Water Act. (Apr 2008)
• Inter-state compact for Great Lakes water resources. (Jul 2008)
• Strengthen prohibitions against animal fighting. (Jan 2007)

Clinton's record is lengthy - and much of it I support. Part of her record also ties in to children's issues - lead paint, Flint clean water etc. I would like to know more about how somethings would be paid for (dredging the Hudson) - but I agree with the positions. I would like to see all animal fighting prohibited.

I got some problems with the Clinton record here. Don't KNOW if Trump really knows anything about the issue other than what Sean Hannity tells him.

1) The largest current DANGEROUS enviro disaster in US was caused by FED govt at their nuclear weapons plants in the 60s/70s. There are THOUSANDS of leaking barrels of nuclear waste at Savannah River, Hanford and other sites. No clean-up plan on the horizon. This is why OPPOSING a national nuclear waste site that was PROMISED at Yucca Mtn is stupid. Almost as stupid as not planning for the BILLIONS of pounds of recycled and smash Lithium batteries from all the EVehicles that are being pushed.

2) Tossing money at Green Jobs has already been tried for 8 yrs. The Feds are lousy at picking market winners and losers and have lost TONS of tax money on their stupid bets. The problem there is that wind and solar are MATURE technologies, and do not require a lot of "general research" grants. They are now commodity items sold mainly on price. And in ADDITION that are not "alternatives" to reliable 24/7/365 power. When the nation is less scared by nuclear than they are by Global Warming -- I'll believe in efforts to reduce CO2. Because nuclear is the clearest path to that goal. IF -- indeed you want to believe the over-hyped 1980s GW projections that have constantly been being revised DOWNwards with little notice by the press and panicked herd.

I see. And what of the billions of old lead acid batteries sitting around? You mean that there are not billions of lead acid batteries sitting around? That they have been recycled into new batteries? And what is keeping us from doing that with lithium batteries? Non-issue.

Yes, the spent rod pools in our nuke sites that contain up to five times that amount of rods they were designed for are a real problem. We should use the French method of vitrifying the radioactive waste. That would make the storage at the Yucca site a much safer proposition. But it would also substancialy add to the cost of the electricity from the nuke plants. Then you have Hanford. Lordy, lordy.

Hanford has NOTHING to do with commercial nuclear power. Those disaster are at the National Nuclear Weapons facilities. And if we could REPROCESS nuclear waste -- like the French do -- You could PAY for the lead virtriation with the proceeds. But we're stupid.

Lead acid batteries by volume and weight and lifetime are no where NEAR the problem of used EVehicle batteries. THere's ONE PbAcid battery in a car. There are about 400 or 500 pounds of lithium batteries in an EV. Not to mention the waste load from grid buffering facilities that are needed primarily for sketchy wind and solar. Or off-grid solar. ALL of these together can be a quick enviro disaster. Not only in properly handling the waste, because it's toxic LONGER than nuclear -- but in the mining and production as well.

Already is a waste chain for PbAcid batteries. Takes 1/2 a ton to put a small solar home off grid. And the lifetime can be as short as 4 to 5 years.

Seriously - why aren't we doing this? We aren't stupid....is there some reason?

If you're talking about the nuclear waste issue, it's because 30 years ago, the govt PROMISED to open a Nat. Nuclear Waste site. And they spent a lot of money on Yucca. So -- because they had a place for used rods, they also decided not to allow "reprocessing" of spent fuel because they deemed it a "security risk". Since the reprocessed fuel is closer to weapons grade material. Not more dangerous than pure uranium, but maybe more "steal-able".

Our 40 reactors are over 50 years old. I know, I've designed critical replacement parts for the control rooms. It's hard to keep them running anymore. Meanwhile, 3 NEWER generations of designs have come along. Designs that OTHER countries are installing and using. And they make the fuel handling much easier than the 12 ton rod packs in the old designs. Some are pebble size fuels that can be reloaded without shutdowns.

It's silly that the left is more scared of nuclear power than they are GW. Tells you something about the perceived threats. But with nuclear, there is ZERO CO2 emissions, no air pollution at all.. Even major enviromentalists have signed papers URGING the adoption of INCREASED nuclear capacity. GW exists. It's just never gonna be the disaster that the ORIGINAL estimates exaggerated...

Tearing down some damns, freeing the rivers and the salmon and getting rid of coal --- would all be great reasons to push on nuclear -- even without hyping a GW crisis.. That and you need INCREASED grid capacity to charge EVehicles. THat's never gonna come from wind and solar.

 

[Coyote]

Another important issue for me is Environment.

Trump

• Eminent domain is something you need very strongly. (Feb 2016)
• Cut the EPA; what they do is a disgrace. (Oct 2015)
• Eminent domain pays more than fair market value. (Oct 2015)
• Eminent domain is a very useful tool for job creation. (Oct 2015)
• My sons love trophy hunting, but I'm not a believer. (Sep 2015)
• Won't go to circuses that cut elephants due to animal rights. (Mar 2015)
• Partner with environmentalists when undertaking projects. (Apr 2010)
• Good development enhances the environment. (Jan 2008)
• Asbestos got a bad rap from miners & mob-led movement. (Oct 1997)
• Asbestos got a bad rap from miners & mob-led movement. (Oct 1997)
• Humiliated NYC Mayor by finishing ice rink on time on budget. (Oct 1997)
• Bureaucratic land use reviews make projects unbuildable. (Oct 1997)
• FactCheck: Yes, hybrid family vehicles are available in US

On this - Trump loses me on some, but I agree with on others. The abuse of elephants in circus is well documented - these highly intelligent and endangered animals need our protection, not abuse. Asbestos got a bad rap? WTF? It's bad stuff.

Now - two things I agree on: "Good development (can) enhances the environment" and "Partner with environmentalists when undertaking projects". Often the most successful enviornmental protections come from partnering with ranchers, developers, etc to help them realize that there is value in preserving wetlands, or setting aside conservation areas and that it CAN be done in conjunction with their livelihoods - it does not have to be adversarial. Nature Conservancy is an organization that is strong in this, and which I support.

Clinton

• We need green energy jobs & to build on Paris Agreement. (Mar 2016)
• Federal takeover of Flint water supply if state can't fix it. (Feb 2016)
• FactCheck: No, Hillary didn't grant eminent domain to China. (Mar 2009)
• $5B for green-collar jobs in economic stimulus package. (Jan 2008)
• Voted against and consistently opposed to Yucca Mountain. (Jan 2008)
• A comprehensive energy plan as our Apollo moon shot. (Jan 2008)
• Advocate a cap and trade system. (Dec 2007)
• Better track kids’ products for exposures to toxic materials. (Dec 2007)
• Support green-collar job training. (Aug 2007)
• Launched EPA study of air quality at Ground Zero. (Jun 2007)
• Scored 100% on Humane Society Scorecard on animal protection. (Jan 2007)
• Stands for clean air and funding the EPA. (Sep 2000)
• Reduce air pollution to improve children’s health. (Jun 1998)
• Voted YES on including oil & gas smokestacks in mercury regulations. (Sep 2005)
• Remove PCBs from Hudson River by dredging 200 miles. (Apr 2001)
• Rated 89% by the LCV, indicating pro-environment votes. (Dec 2003)
• EPA must do better on mercury clean-up. (Apr 2004)
• Sponsored bill for tax credit to remove lead-based paint. (Nov 2005)
• Grants for beach water pollution under Clean Water Act. (Apr 2008)
• Inter-state compact for Great Lakes water resources. (Jul 2008)
• Strengthen prohibitions against animal fighting. (Jan 2007)

Clinton's record is lengthy - and much of it I support. Part of her record also ties in to children's issues - lead paint, Flint clean water etc. I would like to know more about how somethings would be paid for (dredging the Hudson) - but I agree with the positions. I would like to see all animal fighting prohibited.

I got some problems with the Clinton record here. Don't KNOW if Trump really knows anything about the issue other than what Sean Hannity tells him.

1) The largest current DANGEROUS enviro disaster in US was caused by FED govt at their nuclear weapons plants in the 60s/70s. There are THOUSANDS of leaking barrels of nuclear waste at Savannah River, Hanford and other sites. No clean-up plan on the horizon. This is why OPPOSING a national nuclear waste site that was PROMISED at Yucca Mtn is stupid. Almost as stupid as not planning for the BILLIONS of pounds of recycled and smash Lithium batteries from all the EVehicles that are being pushed.

2) Tossing money at Green Jobs has already been tried for 8 yrs. The Feds are lousy at picking market winners and losers and have lost TONS of tax money on their stupid bets. The problem there is that wind and solar are MATURE technologies, and do not require a lot of "general research" grants. They are now commodity items sold mainly on price. And in ADDITION that are not "alternatives" to reliable 24/7/365 power. When the nation is less scared by nuclear than they are by Global Warming -- I'll believe in efforts to reduce CO2. Because nuclear is the clearest path to that goal. IF -- indeed you want to believe the over-hyped 1980s GW projections that have constantly been being revised DOWNwards with little notice by the press and panicked herd.

I see. And what of the billions of old lead acid batteries sitting around? You mean that there are not billions of lead acid batteries sitting around? That they have been recycled into new batteries? And what is keeping us from doing that with lithium batteries? Non-issue.

Yes, the spent rod pools in our nuke sites that contain up to five times that amount of rods they were designed for are a real problem. We should use the French method of vitrifying the radioactive waste. That would make the storage at the Yucca site a much safer proposition. But it would also substancialy add to the cost of the electricity from the nuke plants. Then you have Hanford. Lordy, lordy.

Hanford has NOTHING to do with commercial nuclear power. Those disaster are at the National Nuclear Weapons facilities. And if we could REPROCESS nuclear waste -- like the French do -- You could PAY for the lead virtriation with the proceeds. But we're stupid.

Lead acid batteries by volume and weight and lifetime are no where NEAR the problem of used EVehicle batteries. THere's ONE PbAcid battery in a car. There are about 400 or 500 pounds of lithium batteries in an EV. Not to mention the waste load from grid buffering facilities that are needed primarily for sketchy wind and solar. Or off-grid solar. ALL of these together can be a quick enviro disaster. Not only in properly handling the waste, because it's toxic LONGER than nuclear -- but in the mining and production as well.

Already is a waste chain for PbAcid batteries. Takes 1/2 a ton to put a small solar home off grid. And the lifetime can be as short as 4 to 5 years.

Seriously - why aren't we doing this? We aren't stupid....is there some reason?

If you're talking about the nuclear waste issue, it's because 30 years ago, the govt PROMISED to open a Nat. Nuclear Waste site. And they spent a lot of money on Yucca. So -- because they had a place for used rods, they also decided not to allow "reprocessing" of spent fuel because they deemed it a "security risk". Since the reprocessed fuel is closer to weapons grade material. Not more dangerous than pure uranium, but maybe more "steal-able".

Our 40 reactors are over 50 years old. I know, I've designed critical replacement parts for the control rooms. It's hard to keep them running anymore. Meanwhile, 3 NEWER generations of designs have come along. Designs that OTHER countries are installing and using. And they make the fuel handling much easier than the 12 ton rod packs in the old designs. Some are pebble size fuels that can be reloaded without shutdowns.

It's silly that the left is more scared of nuclear power than they are GW. Tells you something about the perceived threats. But with nuclear, there is ZERO CO2 emissions, no air pollution at all.. Even major enviromentalists have signed papers URGING the adoption of INCREASED nuclear capacity. GW exists. It's just never gonna be the disaster that the ORIGINAL estimates exaggerated...

I know what you mean about perceived risks...and GW is hard to get a handle on as a risk - it's not immediate, touchable, directly impacting - it's diffuse. Nuclear energy has a lot of fear factor. But some of it is legitimate - Fukushima is one example. A natural disaster - an earthquake (in a region prone) has caused a problem that is ongoing and maybe not fixable. I would feel better about nuclear generally if we had good plans for the waste and were careful in where it's located. I don't rule it out however, as one of the many energy sources we need to develop.

Global warming - (I'm sure you're not surprised it's my view ) - but don't entirely agree with you. We don't know what the effects will be. We have a lot of possible scenarios, but we don't really know one way or the other except it is occurring. The scary part of the "I'm not sure" stuff is if we pass the point of no return...we're just going to have to deal with it. And it might be ugly. Or it might not. More than likely though, it will adversely effect some of the world's most vulnerable populations far more than us.

Tearing some damns, freeing the rivers and the salmon and getting rid of coal --- would all be great reasons to push on nuclear -- even without hyping a GW crisis.. That and you need INCREASED grid capacity to charge EVehicles. THat's never gonna come from wind and solar.

But wind and solar...and geothermal and ocean - can be an important part of it. No one energy source should be what is totally relied on. Diversity is safer and stronger imo.

 

[flacaltenn]

I got some problems with the Clinton record here. Don't KNOW if Trump really knows anything about the issue other than what Sean Hannity tells him.

1) The largest current DANGEROUS enviro disaster in US was caused by FED govt at their nuclear weapons plants in the 60s/70s. There are THOUSANDS of leaking barrels of nuclear waste at Savannah River, Hanford and other sites. No clean-up plan on the horizon. This is why OPPOSING a national nuclear waste site that was PROMISED at Yucca Mtn is stupid. Almost as stupid as not planning for the BILLIONS of pounds of recycled and smash Lithium batteries from all the EVehicles that are being pushed.

2) Tossing money at Green Jobs has already been tried for 8 yrs. The Feds are lousy at picking market winners and losers and have lost TONS of tax money on their stupid bets. The problem there is that wind and solar are MATURE technologies, and do not require a lot of "general research" grants. They are now commodity items sold mainly on price. And in ADDITION that are not "alternatives" to reliable 24/7/365 power. When the nation is less scared by nuclear than they are by Global Warming -- I'll believe in efforts to reduce CO2. Because nuclear is the clearest path to that goal. IF -- indeed you want to believe the over-hyped 1980s GW projections that have constantly been being revised DOWNwards with little notice by the press and panicked herd.

I see. And what of the billions of old lead acid batteries sitting around? You mean that there are not billions of lead acid batteries sitting around? That they have been recycled into new batteries? And what is keeping us from doing that with lithium batteries? Non-issue.

Yes, the spent rod pools in our nuke sites that contain up to five times that amount of rods they were designed for are a real problem. We should use the French method of vitrifying the radioactive waste. That would make the storage at the Yucca site a much safer proposition. But it would also substancialy add to the cost of the electricity from the nuke plants. Then you have Hanford. Lordy, lordy.

Hanford has NOTHING to do with commercial nuclear power. Those disaster are at the National Nuclear Weapons facilities. And if we could REPROCESS nuclear waste -- like the French do -- You could PAY for the lead virtriation with the proceeds. But we're stupid.

Lead acid batteries by volume and weight and lifetime are no where NEAR the problem of used EVehicle batteries. THere's ONE PbAcid battery in a car. There are about 400 or 500 pounds of lithium batteries in an EV. Not to mention the waste load from grid buffering facilities that are needed primarily for sketchy wind and solar. Or off-grid solar. ALL of these together can be a quick enviro disaster. Not only in properly handling the waste, because it's toxic LONGER than nuclear -- but in the mining and production as well.

Already is a waste chain for PbAcid batteries. Takes 1/2 a ton to put a small solar home off grid. And the lifetime can be as short as 4 to 5 years.

Seriously - why aren't we doing this? We aren't stupid....is there some reason?

If you're talking about the nuclear waste issue, it's because 30 years ago, the govt PROMISED to open a Nat. Nuclear Waste site. And they spent a lot of money on Yucca. So -- because they had a place for used rods, they also decided not to allow "reprocessing" of spent fuel because they deemed it a "security risk". Since the reprocessed fuel is closer to weapons grade material. Not more dangerous than pure uranium, but maybe more "steal-able".

Our 40 reactors are over 50 years old. I know, I've designed critical replacement parts for the control rooms. It's hard to keep them running anymore. Meanwhile, 3 NEWER generations of designs have come along. Designs that OTHER countries are installing and using. And they make the fuel handling much easier than the 12 ton rod packs in the old designs. Some are pebble size fuels that can be reloaded without shutdowns.

It's silly that the left is more scared of nuclear power than they are GW. Tells you something about the perceived threats. But with nuclear, there is ZERO CO2 emissions, no air pollution at all.. Even major enviromentalists have signed papers URGING the adoption of INCREASED nuclear capacity. GW exists. It's just never gonna be the disaster that the ORIGINAL estimates exaggerated...

I know what you mean about perceived risks...and GW is hard to get a handle on as a risk - it's not immediate, touchable, directly impacting - it's diffuse. Nuclear energy has a lot of fear factor. But some of it is legitimate - Fukushima is one example. A natural disaster - an earthquake (in a region prone) has caused a problem that is ongoing and maybe not fixable. I would feel better about nuclear generally if we had good plans for the waste and were careful in where it's located. I don't rule it out however, as one of the many energy sources we need to develop.

Global warming - (I'm sure you're not surprised it's my view ) - but don't entirely agree with you. We don't know what the effects will be. We have a lot of possible scenarios, but we don't really know one way or the other except it is occurring. The scary part of the "I'm not sure" stuff is if we pass the point of no return...we're just going to have to deal with it. And it might be ugly. Or it might not. More than likely though, it will adversely effect some of the world's most vulnerable populations far more than us.

Tearing some damns, freeing the rivers and the salmon and getting rid of coal --- would all be great reasons to push on nuclear -- even without hyping a GW crisis.. That and you need INCREASED grid capacity to charge EVehicles. THat's never gonna come from wind and solar.

But wind and solar...and geothermal and ocean - can be an important part of it. No one energy source should be what is totally relied on. Diversity is safer and stronger imo.

At some point --- we could go into the GW theories.. I'm glad you brought up the "point of no return" or "trigger point" theory. That's the largest part of what I don't buy into. And that part -- that the Earth will literally commit suicide if we reach a 2deg "trigger" is VERY unsettled science. Not universally accepted at all. As is the actual number for the trigger. So folks who call me "a denier" usually have no clue that I ACCEPT the Earth has experienced a warming spike since the "Little Ice Age" in the 1700s, and I ACCEPT that CO2 is partly responsible for that. BUT -- there is so much else theory that leads to these apocalyptic early projections that most folks who are believers are not even aware of. Like the "trigger" issue or postulated positive feedbacks that are NOT settled either.

Other biggest issue is the accuracy and meaning of ice core, tree ring and mud bug studies that ESTIMATE what past temperatures and CO2 content have been. These have been grossly misrepresented in the media and a small handful of activist scientists in labcoats have ENCOURAGED those misrepresentations to make statements comparing our REALLY MEASURED 0.6 degC change in your lifetime as "unusual or extraordinary". But there is not the time resolution or measurement accuracy in those "proxies" for ancient temperature to MAKE such blatant scientific representations.

Better quit. I could do this for literally weeks.

 

[flacaltenn]

But wind and solar...and geothermal and ocean - can be an important part of it. No one energy source should be what is totally relied on. Diversity is safer and stronger imo.

The sun shines maybe 6 peak hours a day. For panels that don't MOVE with the sun position. This is good for meeting daytime peak demand. But the summer demand at 10PM is 80% of the daytime peak. That's a major problem and why solar is a SUPPLEMENT -- not an alternative. And for cloudy, stormy days, or snow on the panels, you need to have a back-up PRIMARY source of power. You don't idle a coal plant to take just 20 minutes of wind gust. Takes HOURS to get up and down in electrical output. So hydro and nat gas are more responsive and can respond in MINUTES. But this is complication to contracting for and scheduling deliveries of either solar or wind and you don't CLOSE any plants, you just have big inefficiencies idling the primary sources to take wind/solar onto the grid. More wear and tear and the folks just sit around eating doughnuts like Homer Simpson.

Wind is even worse. Because it's there for 20minutes, gone for hour. Doesn't show up for work at all 2 or 3 days a week. And --- it's hard to BUY over the grid -- because you can't make schedules and contracts.

Geothermal is great in the limited number of places where you tap it. But -- It's a dirty mining operation. It is very similar to fracking as a matter of fact. A fact that escapes many Greenies who consider themselves environmentalists but have no clue of the enviro impacts. The steam and water that comes back up is very NATURALLY toxic and corrosive and tears the heck out of the plumbing and needs to be put back into reservoirs ((think fracking mini-earthquakes) . So I condone it. But it's not green, and it's not truly renewable. Because the hot spots peter out and the drill point has to move or new bores started.

Tidal is another "not green" idea. It sounds great as a cute little experiment. But on large scales it is a biozone disaster. Think large Cuisinarts in very sensitive tidal areas. Like bays, estuaries and other places with enough energy to justify. The impact on EVERY type of salt, fresh, brackish marine life can be devastating. And to boot, the actual large scale installations that have been built -- ENHANCE the tidal flow by modifying the actual tidal basin with jetties, dredging and other man-made barriers to focus the tidal energy thru the blades. For Tidal and Geotherm -- I have no freaking idea how they can be called a "green" source of power. Some people will just glom on to anything that sounds different without understanding the enviro devastation that it cause. Much like the early hydro projects were championed by "green" interests and 20 years later -- the Sierra Club and others wanted to start tearing down the damns.

I am an enviro nut. And I'm appalled at the misrepresentation of these "alternatives". The Sierra Club is maybe one of the few who understand the impacts of Geothermal and don't approve of it. Many geotherm plants have been shut down in sensitive areas (like Hawaii) because of the stench and toxic blowouts from the wells. As many enviro groups similarly oppose tidal when the actual designs are presented.

Worse part is -- as someone that DOES care about enviro issues, the GWarming circus is the WORSE thing to hit the enviro movement in my lifetime. Because the hype and fear has sucked the very life out of multitude of other pressing enviro issues. The fans of GW have TRIED to roll almost every other issue into GW, but it just makes them look ridiculous claiming that every specie problem we currently see is suffering from that 0.6deg C in average temp during our lifetimes. I'm sick of ocean garbage, I'm sick of ignoring REAL pollution, and I'm sick of other issues not getting the least bit of attention because GW is the worlds LARGEST enviro threat.