US Presidential Election 2020

Rjd2

https://twitter.com/HotlineJosh/status/1147810594680201216

More head to heads with Trump. No ideal opponents whatsoever for him, but yet again a reminder that Biden is the one near cert to beat him. Trump for all his silliness knows this thus why he is constantly attacking him compared to the other front runners.

pixelburp

Only in US politics can the words "all time high..." be followed with "... of 47%". I know Obama's own popularity wasn't stellar but it's some doing to have 50% of the country think you're rubbish.

Danzy

Biden has a freshness and familiarity from being known, yet unknow at the same time.

Problem is he had fifty years of material that can be tracked through.

The more he is seen, the lower lower he'll go.

Dog Man Star

Biden hasn't a chance.

Elizabeth Warren will be the candidate, no question. And she will beat Trump easily.

Trump won't do the tv debates, not a hope. He will do rally after rally, but it won't be enough and Warren will win quite comfortably.

I would expect Trump, when the writing is on the wall that he will lose, to drop out due to "ill health" or other nonsense. Maybe, "his doctors said to drop out".

He will definitely not take part in the live TV debates, not a chance. She would tear him apart.

Warren, no question. No one else comes close.

Trump will be well beaten. I know no one wants to say it, but he will be well beaten. Most Americans are sick of him and his base hasn't changed. He won't win a single undecided voter over, not a chance.

If the 23 candidate democrats drop out early enough, I could see the Senate going to Democrats too. The Republicans will take decades to recover from the damage Trump has inflicted. What's more is that Fox News's future is in doubt. A Democratic House and Senate could put the kibosh on the propaganda channel which would make a massive difference to US political leanings.

I would speculate that if Trump does not win a second term, which I think he won't, the Republican party will be dead for at least three double-terms, 24 years. By then, white males will be a minority in the US and the party may be dead for good.

AOC will be 45 years old in 2035. She will easily see out 8 years as President then.

Good times ahead for the USA.

is_that_so

Dog Man Star wrote: »

Biden hasn't a chance.

Elizabeth Warren will be the candidate, no question. And she will beat Trump easily.

Trump won't do the tv debates, not a hope. He will do rally after rally, but it won't be enough and Warren will win quite comfortably.

Why is this going to happen? A bit of explanation would come in handy here.

eire4

pixelburp wrote: »

Only in US politics can the words "all time high..." be followed with "... of 47%". I know Obama's own popularity wasn't stellar but it's some doing to have 50% of the country think you're rubbish.

Agreed although I would also say the fact that that many Americans think this guy is doing well is scary indeed even if overall it is still a minority.

eire4

Dog Man Star wrote: »

Biden hasn't a chance.

Elizabeth Warren will be the candidate, no question. And she will beat Trump easily.

Trump won't do the tv debates, not a hope. He will do rally after rally, but it won't be enough and Warren will win quite comfortably.

I would expect Trump, when the writing is on the wall that he will lose, to drop out due to "ill health" or other nonsense. Maybe, "his doctors said to drop out".

He will definitely not take part in the live TV debates, not a chance. She would tear him apart.

Warren, no question. No one else comes close.

Trump will be well beaten. I know no one wants to say it, but he will be well beaten. Most Americans are sick of him and his base hasn't changed. He won't win a single undecided voter over, not a chance.

If the 23 candidate democrats drop out early enough, I could see the Senate going to Democrats too. The Republicans will take decades to recover from the damage Trump has inflicted. What's more is that Fox News's future is in doubt. A Democratic House and Senate could put the kibosh on the propaganda channel which would make a massive difference to US political leanings.

I would speculate that if Trump does not win a second term, which I think he won't, the Republican party will be dead for at least three double-terms, 24 years. By then, white males will be a minority in the US and the party may be dead for good.

AOC will be 45 years old in 2035. She will easily see out 8 years as President then.

Good times ahead for the USA.

Love your optimistic outlook but cannot say I would have such a positive outlook myself. The American political system is broken. It is not a fully functioning democracy anymore but is rather an oligarchy IMHO and one that is leaning towards authoritarianism. About half of Americans do not vote and have checked out. The Supreme court is bought and paid for in terms of Republican agendas. The vast majority of state legislatures are Republican controlled. While the Democratic party while not anywhere near as bad as the Republican party is still at its core very much a corporate controlled entity which does not represent the best economic interests of most Americans.

Kimsang

I've been saying it for some time now, finally CNN agrees with me.

A big mistake for Democrats: underestimating Trump.

This ABC News/Washington Post poll was conducted by landline and cellular telephone June 28-July 1, 2019, in English and Spanish, among a random national sample of 1,008 adults. Results have a margin of sampling error of 3.5 points, including the design effect. Partisan divisions are 29-23-37%, Democrats-Republicans-independents.

Trump reaches career-high approval

CNN go on to suggest the dems need a candidate like:

Whether Biden or Elizabeth Warren or someone else, who can put together a powerful campaign that mobilizes the grassroots, commands ongoing media attention, and brings the party together with an inspiring agenda.

marno21

When 29% of people approve of his work on global warming you tend to fear not just for the future of the US but of the World.

The planet can ill afford another 4 years of environmental policy aimed at triggering liberals

Kimsang

marno21 wrote: »

When 29% of people approve of his work on global warming you tend to fear not just for the future of the US but of the World.

The planet can ill afford another 4 years of environmental policy aimed at triggering liberals

Agreed, but like we see in France, there are more pressing issues for some.

eire4

marno21 wrote: »

When 29% of people approve of his work on global warming you tend to fear not just for the future of the US but of the World.

The planet can ill afford another 4 years of environmental policy aimed at triggering liberals

I have siad it before like it or not the US is the powerful nation on earth. Who is their president matters to us all not just to Americans and when their country has lurched so far to the right already and is possibly going to go even further which is what would happen if he stays in office that is flat out scary.

marno21

Kimsang wrote: »

Agreed, but like we see in France, there are more pressing issues for some.

Indeed. Middle class people may be worried about climate change, but people on the breadline, with no health insurance, no job security, who aren't riding the crest of the wave because the S&P 500 is reaching all time highs like Trump keeps tweeting about have more immediate concerns.

As an aside though, whilst people may not have environmental concerns as their personal priority for addressing, it still is worrying that 29% of people believe his approach to the environment and related issues is worthy of approval.

Kimsang

marno21 wrote: »

It still is worrying that 29% of people believe his approach to the environment and related issues is worthy of approval.

You'll never reach some people. This group is rising though due to the increased division in politics I think.

In the case of nuclear energy, probably the cleanest and cheapest:

• 49% of Americans favor use of nuclear energy; 49% oppose
• 47% of Americans believe nuclear power plants are safe
• 65% of Republicans, 42% of Democrats favor use of nuclear energy

Source

As with most American policies, there is a lot of partisanship involved.

Honestly I think if things were better, we all could get on board with environmentalism. Its just being pushed to the back of the queue at the moment, unfortunately in a time when we need it front and centre the most.

FrostyJack

Kimsang wrote: »

In the case of nuclear energy, probably the cleanest and cheapest:

How is it possibly the cleanest and cheapest? It costs massive capital to build a plant and run it. Even without the scaremongering, how is it cleaner than solar, wind or tidal to name but a few. Even in the construction alone how many diesel powered truck journeys have to be made. I am pro-nuclear energy but that statement is incorrect, unless you weren't clear in the translation.

Brian?

Kimsang wrote: »

You'll never reach some people. This group is rising though due to the increased division in politics I think.

In the case of nuclear energy, probably the cleanest and cheapest:

It’s amazing how often you regurgitate this type of talking point, most of which are wrong.

In large parts of the world, including massive portions of the US, solar is the cheapest form of energy. In other countries wind is.

Nuclear power stations are incredibly expensive to build.

• 49% of Americans favor use of nuclear energy; 49% oppose
• 47% of Americans believe nuclear power plants are safe
• 65% of Republicans, 42% of Democrats favor use of nuclear energy

Source

As with most American policies, there is a lot of partisanship involved.

Honestly I think if things were better, we all could get on board with environmentalism. Its just being pushed to the back of the queue at the moment, unfortunately in a time when we need it front and centre the most.

I’m shocked so many people are pro nuclear to be honest, but imo it’s largely due to the misinformation out there about the viability of renewable energy sources.

The reason “environmentalism” is at the back of the queue is because the GOP and the Dems use it as a political football at the behest of their donors from oil, coal, gas etc. .

What is actually your point here? You seem to think everyone should support “clean and cheap” nuclear power and the opposition is partisan. Given that you’re fundamentally incorrect about the prices and cleanliness of nuclear power, does that scupper your entire point?

Kimsang

Brian? wrote: »

It’s amazing how often you regurgitate this type of talking point, most of which are wrong.

In large parts of the world, including massive portions of the US, solar is the cheapest form of energy. In other countries wind is.

Nuclear power stations are incredibly expensive to build.

Its amazing how resolute you are in your accusation of me, while at the same time stating that solar is the cheapest form of energy, and nuclear power stations are incredibly expensive. Not just unfounded, but ludicrous.

Just goes to show the partisanship.

eagle eye

Kimsang wrote:

Its amazing how resolute you are in your accusation of me, while at the same time stating that solar is the cheapest form of energy, and nuclear power stations are incredibly expensive. Not just unfounded, but ludicrous.

Just goes to show the partisanship.

How much does it cost to build a solar power station?
How much does it cost to build a nuclear one?

marno21

The cost of construction of solar power facilities vs nuclear power stations becomes moot when you remember this: both solar and wind power are intermittent.

The declining cost of solar and wind power is fantastic but they are both intermittent and need to have adequate substitute power sources when it's dark or the wind isn't blowing. At present, the only viable alternative is fossil fuel power plants or nuclear power plants (aside from hydro which geographically restricted).

eagle eye

marno21 wrote:

The cost of construction of solar power facilities vs nuclear power stations becomes moot when you remember this: both solar and wind power are intermittent.

You are answering a question I did not ask. Can you answer the ones I did ask please?

marno21 wrote:

The declining cost of solar and wind power is fantastic but they are both intermittent and need to have adequate substitute power sources when it's dark or the wind isn't blowing. At present, the only viable alternative is fossil fuel power plants or nuclear power plants (aside from hydro which geographically restricted).

Thanks for the info/your opinion but I only want to know the costs of building those plants.

marno21

eagle eye wrote: »

You are answering a question I did not ask. Can you answer the ones I did ask please?

Thanks for the info/your opinion but I only want to know the costs of building those plants.

I have edited my post, I did not mean to quote yours.

Kimsang

eagle eye wrote: »

How much does it cost to build a solar power station?
How much does it cost to build a nuclear one?

I think the question was less about 'cost' and more about cost to the environment.

Solar cells require a lot of energy to mine/process/produce, releasing many green house gases. They do not last long. It is also expensive and releases green house gases to recycle.

Nuclear plants are expensive but over their long life will end up having much less of an impact on the environment.

Kimsang

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/23/if-solar-panels-are-so-clean-why-do-they-produce-so-much-toxic-waste/#4e580b4121cc

• The problem of solar panel disposal “will explode with full force in two or three decades and wreck the environment” because it “is a huge amount of waste and they are not easy to recycle.”
• “The reality is that there is a problem now, and it’s only going to get larger, expanding as rapidly as the PV industry expanded 10 years ago.”
• “Contrary to previous assumptions, pollutants such as lead or carcinogenic cadmium can be almost completely washed out of the fragments of solar modules over a period of several months, for example by rainwater.”

Were these statements made by the right-wing Heritage Foundation? Koch-funded global warming deniers? The editorial board of the Wall Street Journal?
None of the above. Rather, the quotes come from a senior Chinese solar official, a 40-year veteran of the U.S. solar industry, and research scientists with the German Stuttgart Institute for Photovoltaics.

<edit>The writer of this article is a democrat who self describes as "an American author, environmental policy writer, cofounder of Breakthrough Institute and founder of Environmental Progress."</edit>

FrostyJack

eagle eye wrote:

How much does it cost to build a solar power station? How much does it cost to build a nuclear one?

Come on man, if you build a solar panel the size of America it will be more expensive than a nuclear power station the size of a car, it is simple Trumpenomics.

A 30 second google says it costs 2000 dollars for solar for the equivalent 6000 dollars for nuclear. The average cost for plant is 9 billion in 2009. The cost of panels are getting cheaper every year despite Trump and co's best efforts, so long term it will be even better. Now lets not bother with cleaner claim because I am sure there will be a similar amount of differential to what is accurate.

Kimsang

marno21 wrote: »

The cost of construction of solar power facilities vs nuclear power stations becomes moot when you remember this: both solar and wind power are intermittent.

If we had a revolutionary new battery this would be a game changer

Dyson have been investing large amounts into a new solid-state battery.

Kimsang

FrostyJack wrote: »

A 30 second google says it costs 2000 dollars for solar for the equivalent 6000 dollars for nuclear. The average cost for plant is 9 billion in 2009. The cost of panels are getting cheaper every year despite Trump and co's best efforts, so long term it will be even better. Now lets not bother with cleaner claim because I am sure there will be a similar amount of differential to what is accurate.

Maybe that's the problem with a 30second google. Is it something you regularly do for topics like this?

• You are not factoring the cost of recycling the solar cells.
• You are also not factoring the cost to the environment of creating solar cells.
• You are not factoring in the life of solar cells.
• You are not factoring in the intermittent availability of power from solar cells.
• You are not factoring in solar cells can only be placed in some areas.

I'm sure there are other things, I'm not an expert in any of this.

Brian?

Kimsang wrote: »

Its amazing how resolute you are in your accusation of me, while at the same time stating that solar is the cheapest form of energy, and nuclear power stations are incredibly expensive. Not just unfounded, but ludicrous.

Just goes to show the partisanship.

So a five second google solves this debate:

https://www.powerengineeringint.com/articles/2018/11/solar-and-wind-now-the-cheapest-power-source-says-bloombergnef.html

The only ludicrous thing is that you didn’t google it.

Brian?

Kimsang wrote: »

If we had a revolutionary new battery this would be a game changer

Dyson have been investing large amounts into a new solid-state battery.

We don’t need new batteries. We need To build
Storage into every network. There are a lot more simple ways of storing energy than batteries. Pumping water uphill, compressed air in salt caves, low friction flywheels, super capacitors. There’s no one size fits all solution.

Brian?

Kimsang wrote: »

I'm sure there are other things, I'm not an expert in any of this.

Maybe stop there then.

FrostyJack

Kimsang wrote:

Maybe that's the problem with a 30second google. Is it something you regularly do for topics like this? You are not factoring the cost of recycling the solar cells. You are also not factoring the cost to the environment of creating solar cells. You are not factoring in the life of solar cells. You are not factoring in the intermittent availability of power from solar cells. You are not factoring in solar cells can only be placed in some areas. I'm sure there are other things, I'm not an expert in any of this.

You are not factoring nuclear waste and bi-products. The 9 year construction and all the aspects of that diesel, building materials, waste etc. Does nuclear material grow on trees or does it have to be mined? I am pro-nuclear in the long term but short term it is not ideal. In ten years it takes to get up and running safely panel efficiency and cost could change dramatically.

Kimsang

Brian? wrote: »

So a five second google solves this debate:

https://www.powerengineeringint.com/articles/2018/11/solar-and-wind-now-the-cheapest-power-source-says-bloombergnef.html

The only ludicrous thing is that you didn’t google it.

What about this, is not going to work here I'm afraid. Try to deal with a topic I've mentioned already and I'll happily and kindly reply.