Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Agreed.
To be fair, for the most part I'm seeing more people take issue with the specific part of the Green New Deal instead of AOC herself.
The harshest person has been M84 and he's not even wrong, I like AOC a lot but she isn't a wonk and this is simply an example of that.
Snappy, I like it
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Feb 7th 2019 at 3:11:04 PM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangThe term “wonk” is overused. Paul Ryan’s proposals were always Ayn Randian grade A bullshit, but he was proclaimed the wonk in chief *eyeroll*
AOC doesn’t need to be an expert on everything; she needs to be good at identifying reliable, substantive experts and turning their research into policy. Which she seems to be doing an excellent job at.
Re: nuclear- I’m not as concerned about it as everyone else seems to be. Storing nuclear waste is an issue, and I doubt a flat nuclear ban would ever get passed. The Green New Deal is aspirational; trying to develop nuclear alternatives rather than relying too heavily on nuclear is a good goal.
Edited by wisewillow on Feb 7th 2019 at 3:21:06 PM
@ Larkman
Sure, not easy to deal with, but it can be dealt with. Just bury the waste where no one will reach it, or render it inaccessible after the storage capacity for the waste is filled. Linguistics aside, it's highly unlikely someone will go poking about in an empty wasteland for that of all things - Humans Are Morons for certes, but give us some credit, for heaven's sake.
While we like to think of adventure archaeologists as digging around, it never works that way. So the chances of someone stumbling across a nuclear waste storage site and digging for buried treasure is ridiculously tiny.
Hardly a problem so big that it needs to hold up further development. As you said, it can be tackled as opposed to dealing with Fossil Fuel headaches.
I hold the secrets of the machine.The problem with nuclear power is very low compared to climate change but the problems with the United States' nuclear power (and the potential for incidents like in Japan) is great.
John Oliver made it clear the problem is that the US handles nuclear problems VERY BADLY and shows no sign of getting any better.
I am curious what she intends to replace nuclear power with, honestly since hydroelectric power can and is incredibly economically as well ecologically dangerous.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Feb 7th 2019 at 12:33:58 PM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.I’d note that nuclear fearmongering is actually pretty mainstream in the US, unlike the anti-GMO or anti-vaccine movement.
Like I’m disappointed, but it’s a pretty standard position to be unreasonably afraid of nuclear.
Also building nuclear is certain parts of the US is a bad idea, tectonic faultlines are no joke.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranNuclear power is very safe if you have a place to dispose of it and don't have a nuclear reactor that is still an enormously hazardous waste-zone.
Solar power as a supplementary power source is also something we can build in massive amounts with no problem to reduce our dependence on other types.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Feb 7th 2019 at 12:40:13 PM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.AOC doesn’t need to be an expert on everything; she needs to be good at identifying reliable, substantive experts and turning their research into policy. Which she seems to be doing an excellent job at.
Just because wonk is abused does not mean it's a useless phrase, and while it's true that she doesn't need to be an expert at everything that doesn't mean that pandering to anti-nuclear ignorance is justified.
If the best thing you can say for something is that it's not possible then maybe it's not worth defending?
I absolutely disagree that moving away from nuclear power at this juncture is in any way a good thing, not when we have to deal with moving away from fossil fuels. Even if de-nuclearizing the economy is a net positive that doesn't change the fact that adding it to the plan when there is a much more pressing issue (fossil fuels) is highly counterproductive.
It was a bad decision on AOC's part then and it's a bad decision now.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangInteresting article by Jamelle Bouie at the NYTimes
regarding what makes a centrist or a moderate.
...
What connects them (and similar politicians) is a belief that meaningful progress is possible without a fundamental challenge to those who hold most of the wealth and power in our society. For Biden, you don’t need to demonize the richest Americans or their Republican supporters to reduce income inequality; you can find a mutually beneficial solution. Bloomberg, a billionaire, may have a personal reason for rejecting wealth taxes, but he may also see them as unnecessary and antagonistic if the goal is winning powerful interests over to your side. Mc Auliffe governed Virginia with an eye toward the business community. Sweeping social programs might be popular, but they might alienate that powerful constituency. And Schultz wants a Democratic Party less hostile to those he calls “people of means,” who otherwise back goals like gun control.
But this is a faulty view of how progress happens. Struggle against the powerful, not accommodation of their interests, is how Americans produced the conditions for its greatest social accomplishments like the creation of the welfare state and the toppling of Jim Crow. Without radical labor activism that identifies capitalism — and the bosses — as the vector for oppression and disadvantage, there is no New Deal. Without a confrontational (and at times militant) black freedom movement, there is no Civil Rights Act. If one of the central problems of the present is an elite economic class that hoards resources and opportunity at the expense of the public as a whole, then it’s naïve and ahistoric to believe the beneficiaries of that arrangement will willingly relinquish their power and privilege.
If there’s a major division within Democratic politics, it’s between those who confront and those who seek to accommodate. Because we lack a varied vocabulary in mainstream political discourse, we call the latter “moderates” or “centrists,” which doesn’t capture the dynamic at work.
The full article is really worth a read. It’s a perspective I hadn’t considered, but I think he’s 100% right.
I identify myself as a centrist, but I always do it with the addition "in the European context" for a reason. Because I have noticed that in the context of US politics so called centrist are in my eyes more right wingers who don't want to admit to themselves that they are right wingers and moderates...I have frankly no idea what a moderte actually is in a political landscape which is that polarized. I mean if healthcare for all is treated as some sort of radical idea or change, what the hell is then a moderate idea, and what are they calling actual radical ideas? Well, Radical ideas on the left side of the spectrum that is.
Edited by Swanpride on Feb 7th 2019 at 1:27:45 AM
![]()
![]()
My position is this: It'd be nice to go 100% renewable, but it's not possible yet. It'd be nice to have a solution for nuclear waste, but we don't have that yet. It's necessary to get away from fossil fuels. So obviously "whoo, go nuclear!"
As long as we don't ignore the fact that there's an eventual limit to what we can do with nuclear waste (and thus fund research on how to safely dispose of it. I believe we'll eventually be able to, but only if we actually, you know, try).
Edited by Larkmarn on Feb 7th 2019 at 4:29:22 AM
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.![]()
You do realize that Costa Rica is 100% renewable?
Look, I am not saying that you should start with turning of the nuclear plants you currently have, but how about focussing on using as many renewables as possible?
When Germany started to go into the direction, the claim was that it would never be able to cover more than 4% of its energy with renewable. By now, half of the energy is based on renewables, and the percentage is rising. If not for the decision to turn of the nuclear plants before the coal plants, I think we would have been able to replace all coal plants without the need to built more nuclear plants.
I think a mistake a lot of people often make is to think "okay, but what if the sun isn't shining, the wind isn't blowing aso".
There is hydropower, solar power, geothermal power, wind power, if you use all of them you can be completely renewable for long stretches of time. And new methods are constantly developed. Germany is currently working on turning Co 2 into power (and naturally on the pesky storage problem).
Edited by Swanpride on Feb 7th 2019 at 1:39:08 AM
To provide some context for those who are undecided about the justifiability of moving away from nuclear power while pursuing 100% renewables, Vox has an excellent article on the viability of 100% renewable
.
Essentially experts are divided by how viable it is or isn't but if it is viable including Nuclear Power as a renewable will make it much easier. Which is extremely important when talking about something as herculean and serious as moving our economy away from fossil fuels.
I still strongly support the Green New Deal but this ban on Nuclear Power should not be pursued by anyone, Climate Change is too serious to limit ourselves in such a manner.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
It's a good goal to have, and it is easy to find a compromise by saying "okay, we start with shutting down the fossil fuel plants and once we have replaced all of this with renewables, we can look at the nuclear plants".
And, btw, it is quite notable that the study which Vox is quoting isn't saying that using nuclear power is more environment friendly way, it is saying that it is cheaper.
Edited by Swanpride on Feb 7th 2019 at 1:45:17 AM
Exactly my thoughts, even if moving away from Nuclear Power was 100% justified it's a terrible idea to talk about doing it now.
Honestly, my most optimistic hope is that it was just included to remove later in a show of reasonableness.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangI did think long and hard before making this post because several pages have passed since it was last discussed. However, I decided to in the end because the point I want to raise is about how science should be used and interpreted, not about Elizabeth Warren — although she's made a convenient example to clarify what I want to say about how to talk about the results of DNA tests that are done to study ancestry. The reason I want to say this is because no-one should ever interpret DNA test results like this. It's completely incorrect to do this.
People tend to think that DNA is inherited equally through the generations: a parent is 50%, a grandparent is 25%, a great-grandparent is 12.5%, etc. This is wrong. DNA does not work like this. DNA inheritance is not equal. A person's genetic ancestry is made up of 'strong contributors' and 'weak contributors', where some ancestors have contributed a lot of DNA, some a small amount, and some have not contributed any. There is an estimated 13% chance that a person will inherit no DNA from an ancestor eight generations removed and an estimated 50% chance they'll inherit no DNA from an ancestor ten generations removed.
This should explain why Native Americans do not like using DNA tests to evidence whether or not someone is genetically Native American. It's also why a test like Warren's does not list fractions or percentages. In her case, it made what was considered to be a conservative estimate that the ancestor was 6-10 generations ago. From this reference, the media gained the 1/1024th Native American and 98.44% European figures from. This is wrong. Do not interpret test results like this.
To test for genetic ancestry, reference samples have to be used as a comparison for the sample being tested. For example, Warren's test had three main reference groups: a British sample, a Utah sample and a sample containing contributions from several countries around the world that also contained Native American DNA (from Colombia, Mexico, Peru). Her sample contained five Native American segments out of the total number of segments. The reference samples showed she had 12.4 times the amount of Native American DNA as the British sample and 10.5 times the amount of the Utah sample.
In this kind of DNA testing, that is considered a strong result.
My point is that, when you see these kinds of stories in future, please bear in mind how DNA inheritance works, and how DNA tests should be interpreted: it's the comparison to the reference samples that are important, and generation-based percentages and fractions should never be used.
Edited by Wyldchyld on Feb 7th 2019 at 10:02:07 AM
If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.![]()
Oh, don't get me wrong here: I am strictly against building new nuclear plants. By the time they are done, they will most likely not be needed anymore, and there is a danger that renewables won't be pushed as much as they should just to save money.
you know, I always felt that those DNA tests are quite silly, but I am now starting to wonder how they decide what a typical "Utah" sample is.
Edited by Swanpride on Feb 7th 2019 at 1:52:47 AM
There are different methodologies used for building up, and testing against, reference samples. By all accounts, the one she used as a good reputation for its methodology. However, I'm not sure what that methodology is in this particular case. It will vary from company to company, however.
What I will say is that, where ancestry testing is concerned, there isn't really any such thing as 'typical', which is where talking in averages can also be a mistake (because there isn't really any such thing as an 'average' genetic make-up of the US population, or of sub-groups within the US).
I'd therefore advise against relying on what might be considered 'typical', too.
Edited to add: It occurs to me that I could post this on the Science thread, since this is more about science than Warren.
Edited by Wyldchyld on Feb 7th 2019 at 9:57:45 AM
If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.Honestly, I should point out that it's weird questioning whether someone has Native ancestry biologically. I'm sure a large chunk of America has Native ancestry. All of Virginia's old families have some DNA from Pochahontas. They even made a law about it to prevent them from being reclassified as non-white.
Lies and racial supremacy doctrine have been behind covering up the mixing of races in America.
Like Harry Potter, everyone has a little Muggle in them.
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.Maybe, regardless if this is true or not it doesn't change the fact that declaring that Nuclear Power should be decommissioned is a really bad idea at this juncture.
So my point stands.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangI'm going to take issue with people saying we shouldn't judge AOC for this because she's young and inexperienced and she has time to get better.
IMHO, she should be judged for this mistake. It was her first actual policy proposal. It was her first real contribution that wasn't just populist rhetoric and getting into Twitter fights with GOP assholes.
And she messed up. She bought into anti-nuclear fearmongering that is more suited to Green Party nutbars. And no, I'm not saying she needs to be an expert on this matter. I doubt most of us here are nuclear engineers and we are still aware that outright banning nuclear energy is a horrible fucking idea.
My opinion of her will improve when (or if) she improves.
Edited by M84 on Feb 7th 2019 at 6:02:23 PM
Disgusted, but not surprised

Op-ed I know but Democratic focus groups may have identified a hidden vulnerability for Trump
: That his renegotiated NAFTA would extend pharma patents and that might increase pharma prices, something many voters react negatively to - to the point of possibly being a "game changer". And Elizabeth Warren has already commented on this point.
This is important because the renegotiated treaty has to be approved by Congress and Pelosi almost certainly won't rubber stamp his treaty text. After we've done with shutdowns this will likely become a major public policy topic. And because concerns about pro-corporate perks in trade treaties are real issues that cannot be handwaved as "stupid populism".
Edited by SeptimusHeap on Feb 7th 2019 at 9:06:58 PM
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman