TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

The General US Politics Thread

Go To

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

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#289301: Sep 5th 2019 at 5:54:41 AM

The United States could power itself entirely with renewables, eschewing nuclear plants. This would require an enormous investment and carries risks. It isn't just about installing solar panels, geothermal plants, wind farms, and hydroelectric dams. There needs to be a broad, holistic approach:

  • Gigawatt-scale battery storage to handle both peak demand and drops in supply.
  • Modernize the national electric grid to improve efficiency and allow for power generation by consumers.
  • Subsidize homeowners and developers to renovate their electrical wiring, paneling, and perform other efficiency improvements. A ton of our waste comes here. My home is fucking antiquated and consumes probably twice the power it could, but I can't afford tens of thousands of dollars to correct it.
  • Subsidize installation of home solar power.
  • Phase out internal combustion vehicles in favor of alternatives. This would mostly be Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs), but there are other technologies that might also work.
  • Long-term: work on social reforms to deemphasize detached, single-family housing and push apartment/duplex/condominium lifestyles. Yards are a waste of space and detached homes consume way more energy for a given size.
  • Reverse the cultural emphasis on independent ownership and driving of vehicles. We should use mass-transit whenever feasible, and we should have fleets of autonomous taxis rather than personally-owned cars. This would in turn mean less square footage devoted to driveways and garages, improving housing efficiency.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Demongodofchaos2 Face me now, bitch! from In a Cultivation World (Ancient one) Relationship Status: 700 wives and 300 concubines
Face me now, bitch!
#289302: Sep 5th 2019 at 6:50:30 AM

[up] Elon Musk is definitely trying his best with that Final point. Growing pains aside, I see it as the most feasible possibility in our current politcal climate.

Watch Symphogear
M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#289303: Sep 5th 2019 at 6:59:03 AM

We could also teach people to not be so shit-scared of nuclear power.

...Not sure which would be more difficult, tbh.

Edited by M84 on Sep 5th 2019 at 9:59:16 PM

Disgusted, but not surprised
Demongodofchaos2 Face me now, bitch! from In a Cultivation World (Ancient one) Relationship Status: 700 wives and 300 concubines
Face me now, bitch!
#289304: Sep 5th 2019 at 7:07:11 AM

I'm fine with nuclear power, but it won't the end all goal for a long time, not until a true fusion reactor is feasible.

Watch Symphogear
M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#289305: Sep 5th 2019 at 7:13:35 AM

I'm not saying it has to be an end goal. But it's a perfectly viable alternative energy source that we shouldn't demonize. Especially since it can help buy more time for other alternatives.

Edited by M84 on Sep 5th 2019 at 10:14:45 PM

Disgusted, but not surprised
PhysicalStamina i'm tired, my friend (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Coming soon to theaters
i'm tired, my friend
#289306: Sep 5th 2019 at 7:14:14 AM

The thing with nuclear power is that most people know it only as A) the thing the causes the end of the world in every post-apocalypse movie ever made, and B) the thing that caused the end of Hiroshima. Contrarily, when was the last time you heard the term "Solar War"? Or "Electric War"? You've probably never heard anyone talk about "solar/electric fallout" either. And enemy nations do not abstain from warring because of the threat of the sun.

My point is, you can go ahead and try to convince society that nuclear power can be used for good, but during those generations and generations of unlearning, we need to explore other options.

i'm tired, my friend
M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#289307: Sep 5th 2019 at 7:15:44 AM

One thing's for sure, candidates outright refusing to consider it at all does not help with that.

Disgusted, but not surprised
PhysicalStamina i'm tired, my friend (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Coming soon to theaters
i'm tired, my friend
#289308: Sep 5th 2019 at 7:19:09 AM

It could be an optics thing, at least partially. Nuclear power just isn't a pool that people want to dip their toes in. And like I said, convincing people otherwise is gonna take far longer than one election cycle.

i'm tired, my friend
M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#289309: Sep 5th 2019 at 7:23:20 AM

I don't know if Warren is genuinely misinformed, has her own biases against nuclear power, or if she's pandering to the anti-nuclear crowd.

Not that Sanders is any better on this front. He is also apparently against nuclear power.

Edited by M84 on Sep 5th 2019 at 10:26:13 PM

Disgusted, but not surprised
SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#289310: Sep 5th 2019 at 7:24:27 AM

Fourth option: She does not consider it necessary...

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#289311: Sep 5th 2019 at 7:25:44 AM

If one is serious about climate change, one should be willing to explore all options.

Disgusted, but not surprised
Demongodofchaos2 Face me now, bitch! from In a Cultivation World (Ancient one) Relationship Status: 700 wives and 300 concubines
Face me now, bitch!
#289312: Sep 5th 2019 at 7:32:15 AM

The nuclear Taboo is still Too ingrained at the moment for it to be an option right now.

It will take decades at least.

Edited by Demongodofchaos2 on Sep 5th 2019 at 10:33:35 AM

Watch Symphogear
Mio Since: Jan, 2001
#289313: Sep 5th 2019 at 7:33:13 AM

[up][up]At this point the most we can do is try to keep the remaining reactors from being shutdown and maybe build some supplemental reactors in conjunction with the rest of a hypothetical green grid.

Trying to replace a large chunk of the power grid with nuclear energy probably won’t be much more efficient or cost effective then converting it to solar and wind.

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#289314: Sep 5th 2019 at 7:37:39 AM

It's kind of disturbing that pretty much the only frontrunner to even be considering funding new nuclear technologies is Biden of all people.

And even he's not committing to actually building new plants.

Not even being willing to consider the option is...it's giving in to fear. It's akin to pandering to anti-GMO people. Shit, I'm pretty sure there's some overlap between the anti-GMO crowd and the anti-nuclear crowd.

Edited by M84 on Sep 5th 2019 at 10:42:31 PM

Disgusted, but not surprised
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#289315: Sep 5th 2019 at 7:44:21 AM

I'm not going to let support for nuclear power be a do-or-die policy position to secure my vote.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#289316: Sep 5th 2019 at 7:45:50 AM

Good idea, considering almost none of the front-runners are even going to consider supporting it.

Edited by M84 on Sep 5th 2019 at 10:49:02 PM

Disgusted, but not surprised
CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#289317: Sep 5th 2019 at 7:50:10 AM

Biden has been bringing out Obama's playbook left and right, which included constructing 40 new nuclear power plants.

I wouldn't be surprised if he went with that later in his campaign as a climate change angle.

I think that's a bad idea until we have a dedicated nuclear waste disposal center. America may need nuclear power but its infrastructure to deal with nuclear waste is completely inadequate.

As someone who lives in a place with horrible consequences from environmental disposal mismanagement—I think it needs the infrastructure first.

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Sep 5th 2019 at 7:52:59 AM

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#289318: Sep 5th 2019 at 7:53:28 AM

[up]But that's not an argument for outright abandoning it as an option.

Also, Sanders is one to talk about nuclear waste issues.

Edited by M84 on Sep 5th 2019 at 10:57:25 PM

Disgusted, but not surprised
archonspeaks Since: Jun, 2013
#289319: Sep 5th 2019 at 7:59:37 AM

[up][up] DOE has enough secondary storage sites (plus commercial storage) to handle the next few decades. We can work on getting our infrastructure ready at the same time as we build new plants.

Edited by archonspeaks on Sep 5th 2019 at 7:59:52 AM

They should have sent a poet.
Mio Since: Jan, 2001
#289320: Sep 5th 2019 at 8:00:24 AM

[up][up]Has he talked about Nuclear Waste as of late?

Edited by Mio on Sep 5th 2019 at 11:00:46 AM

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#289321: Sep 5th 2019 at 8:01:14 AM

[up]It's mentioned in his plan for energy as to why he's against nuclear power. His plan is the most hostile to nuclear energy of all the candidates' plans.

Edited by M84 on Sep 5th 2019 at 11:02:15 PM

Disgusted, but not surprised
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#289322: Sep 5th 2019 at 8:01:36 AM

Saying we shouldn't pursue nuclear power because of the waste disposal problem is a form of the Begging The Question fallacy: it assumes that we can't or won't figure out how to dispose of the waste; therefore building new plants is a bad idea.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#289323: Sep 5th 2019 at 8:14:25 AM

I feel it's more like the Elephant in the Room because we haven't figured out a solution in sixty years and our one solution to the problem (The Yucca Mountain Waste Disposal facility) was killed in Congress, by the locals, and not a particularly good place for it to begin with. We've been trying to find a solution for decades and no progress has been made.

It's like banking on fusion power.

There's also the fact that we do have a nuclear disaster zone in the United States with Washington's Hanford Site. Something we still haven't and can't clean up. I think a lot of nuclear enthusiasts are lowballing the issues because they want to believe in a clean nuclear future but human idiocy is the problem here.

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Sep 5th 2019 at 8:14:51 AM

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
archonspeaks Since: Jun, 2013
#289324: Sep 5th 2019 at 8:18:46 AM

[up] Yucca mountain was a fine site, the problem was the NIMBYs. That’s the issue with any disposal site, nobody wants it near them.

Comparing nuclear disposal to fusion power is just silly.

Edited by archonspeaks on Sep 5th 2019 at 8:19:45 AM

They should have sent a poet.
CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#289325: Sep 5th 2019 at 8:22:05 AM

The earthquake potential is certainly there.

And yes, people being worried about that is their right.

Comparing nuclear disposal to fusion power is just silly.

I disagree. Same with space elevators or Elon Musk's work. You can't make decisions based on solutions that are expected to happen.

Only on what has and is set up to happen.

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Sep 5th 2019 at 8:23:20 AM

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.

Total posts: 417,856
Top