381–390 of 483 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Greenpeace is directly working against nuclear energy, which is the best way to have clean energy in the future for a large portion of humanity.
I don't think that changes how much the Koch's donated to climate change deniers.
Apologies if this is covered in the article, which I can't get to, but what is he doing to make amends? Or is this just empty, placatory words?
Judging by the title of his new book, I’d suggest he is going for the Cameron-esque Big Society argument for reducing taxes this time. U.K. food bank use is at record highs [1]. 1. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jun/03/record-numbe...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would love to see a poll where this comment gets presented without context and people have to decide what group it is describing.
The web of deceit surrounding the Republican Party at this point is undeniable unless you have chosen to abandon reality entirely at the point it chafes your opinion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
See a transcript of Alito's speech this week. It's a hour of ranting against democracy. He didn't even hide the fact that he doesn't care that gay marriage or other issues were approved by voters; he would judicially end gay marriage in the name of "religious freedom." But this freedom only extends to particular forms of Christianity, as Alito is quite comfortable with restricting the religious practices of Muslims a…
> See a transcript of Alito's speech this week. Does anyone have a link to the transcript? I can only find video clips of the keynote speech.
https://reason.com/volokh/2020/11/12/video-and-transcript-of...
Shouldn't have been allowed to have undemocratic control over that amount of political power (wealth) to begin with.
Elections are in the public interest and therefore should be publicly funded -- exclusively. Each registered candidate with more than a certain number of signatures of support should be given a budget of money and pre-paid airtime on all major networks by the FEC, and that's it. Once it's out, it's out. All other contributions (including in-kind) to political campaigns are tantamount to bribery and should just be ill…
So me, as a private citizen, should be outlawed from making a sign on my front yard in support of a candidate with my own money? Should I be prevented from making my own website in support of issues and candidates I care about? Can I create YouTube videos with my own money to support issues and candidates I care about with my own money? This is supporting a candidate with funds outside of the public funds -- clearly illegal under your proposal! At what point is it no longer individuals expressing their own opinions in public?
I encourage you to actually read the Citizens United opinion. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/558/310
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apparently you are the arbiter of Energy production. I am sorry for questioning your wisdom /sarcasm.
Well done.. missing the point entirely. Quite an art.
> This line dismisses .. pretty much anyone advocating for change. "I proposed a solution that works for me. They don't like it. They must wish to protect the identity." Pure poppycock.
I never claimed that applied for anyone that is advocating for change.
In this case the nuclear power solution could be a viable solution (I don't care for your expertise on the subject). They have rejected a viable solution that could get us X% of the way there. Therefore that tells me they aren't interested in an actual solution. That in tells me they wish to be advocates rather than solving an issue. Therefore anything they tell me is suspect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's also, like, 4x more expensive per kWh (probably 2x more expensive with variability taken into account) than wind or solar and is uninsurable without a government backstop. I really wonder why people are so keen on it. It made sense to build them 40 years ago to deal with global warming. Today it's only financially viable if it's massively subsidized compared to wind/solar. What is it that makes that extra cost s…
The biggest thing it has going for it is constant power without fossil fuels. The grid needs backing power. I've seen a lot of other efforts at this, but (correct me if I'm wrong) there are still none that work, scale, and are affordable.
Nat gas plants that can be swapped out for storage solutions makes the most sense to me to solve that problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
As a former Wisconsin teacher, I resent your mischaracterization of these events.
I also don't blame the individuals who benefit from public sector unions, and if we somehow manage to overcome the power of the Democratic-Party/public-sector-union/media trifeca, and transition to a non captured/unionized public sector, I think the former union members should be fully compensated for what they lost.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Koch has spent a fortune on destabilizing public infrastructure in midwest cities. If he "believed in people", he could show it by not tearing down public transit systems which disenfranchises poorer people.
Is public transit bottom up? I'd say just the opposite.
The USA needs a law that limits individuals to only donating something like $5,000 per person to any political campaign entity such as PACs, Super PACs, and political campaigns. Companies should not be able to contribute anything, only citizens. CA Props should also have this limit. Otherwise, the USA will be defacto ruled by whichever entities are able to contribute the most to campaigns and advertising for politici…
The USA had exactly such laws, before they were struck down in the Supreme Court as unconstitutional in the landmark case Citizens United. The reasoning was that the right to free speech was protected at all scales and all categories absolutely, and thusvspending any amount on any political speech like buying ads was protected. The only way for such a law to pass now would be to either have the Supreme Court overturn…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_(organization)...