It's funny because now she might end up winning the popular vote by like 5 million now instead of 3 million, and she still would probably lose. I think you could switch Florida to Hillary just because he's wasting so much taxpayer money and will waste even more with the Mar-A-Lago visits. But that might be it, and Trump still wins the election just flipping Florida.
I'm not 100% positive this is the case. Trump just barely won PA/MI/WI/OH. Given the benefit of hindsight, you might just mobilize enough Democrats who didn't vote to make sure they do, and you might get a few Trump voters who now stay home, or hold their noses and vote Hillary.
I'm not saying it'd be a slam dunk for Hillary, given how the last calendar year has played out, but it might be enough to flip things.
I'm not 100% positive this is the case. Trump just barely won PA/MI/WI/OH. Given the benefit of hindsight, you might just mobilize enough Democrats who didn't vote to make sure they do, and you might get a few Trump voters who now stay home, or hold their noses and vote Hillary.
I'm not saying it'd be a slam dunk for Hillary, given how the last calendar year has played out, but it might be enough to flip things.
I think you might be right that those states would flip back a bit.
I would bet on some random dude who's name was picked out of a hat beating Trump ahead of Hillary beating him though.
Sad to see the US which is the source of some of the most exciting new innovations in Nuclear energy being exported and invested heavily by China.
Its bad enough people can't accept on the right the idea that we are contributing significantly to climate change, but also how on the left there is so much resistance to nuclear, the safest form of energy we have.
NOVA on PBS did an excellent look at the state of Nuclear energy today, and what the future holds, but it looks as if the leaders of this new future will be China, India and other nations who can't continue growth based on dirty coal, gas, oil..
Add to that you have Christian Dominionists and young earth creationists who think global climate disaster is simply not possible because only God decides when the world faces catastrophe, are now quite literally in charge of destroying the EPA and will make policy that affects the enviornment for decades to come, unless of course American's smarten up and drastically change congress, governorship's and the senate.
Thor, we are going to have to agree to disagree on how great Nuclear Power is. I used to be an advocate of all types of energy however I cannot support Nuclear Power.
I side with the former Prime Minister of Japan. The only safe Nuclear Power plant is no nuclear power plant. He may have a bit more experience with Nuclear Power than we do. See the below video and FF to 9:50 if you want to see his opinion.
there's no way, that if they held the election again tomorrow, that Hillary Clinton loses.
She'd still lose.
She's a poor candidate, and her speech last night reminded many of why they don't like her.
Now, whether Trump would still win is an open question.
I personally think that Johnson would end up getting a few more votes than he previously did, perhaps winning a state or two, and the election would be thrown into the House.
She's a poor candidate, and her speech last night reminded many of why they don't like her.
Now, whether Trump would still win is an open question.
I personally think that Johnson would end up getting a few more votes than he previously did, perhaps winning a state or two, and the election would be thrown into the House.
There is no universe where Johnson is anything other than a crappy punchline to a bad joke. No, he wouldn't win a single state and never had a chance at even coming close.
The Following User Says Thank You to ResAlien For This Useful Post:
Thor, we are going to have to agree to disagree on how great Nuclear Power is. I used to be an advocate of all types of energy however I cannot support Nuclear Power.
I side with the former Prime Minister of Japan. The only safe Nuclear Power plant is no nuclear power plant. He may have a bit more experience with Nuclear Power than we do. See the below video and FF to 9:50 if you want to see his opinion.
Do you side with him? You seem pretty pro-coal/oil/etc, while he's pushing for leaders to move away from that and towards renewable energy like solar and wind. He's basically the pro-environment anti-Trump.
Thoughts on American abandoning environment and health damaging energy resources and going to renewables?
Thor, we are going to have to agree to disagree on how great Nuclear Power is. I used to be an advocate of all types of energy however I cannot support Nuclear Power.
I side with the former Prime Minister of Japan. The only safe Nuclear Power plant is no nuclear power plant. He may have a bit more experience with Nuclear Power than we do. See the below video and FF to 9:50 if you want to see his opinion.
Did you watch the video? Japan had a massive earthquake and Tsunami on an ancient plant design. The new ones are so freakin safe its not even funny, Bill Gates, Musk, others are all trying to promote this.
__________________ Allskonar fyrir Aumingja!!
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Thor For This Useful Post:
Do you side with him? You seem pretty pro-coal/oil/etc, while he's pushing for leaders to move away from that and towards renewable energy like solar and wind. He's basically the pro-environment anti-Trump.
Thoughts on American abandoning environment and health damaging energy resources and going to renewables?
Already far more jobs in green energy than coal, and that will only widen.
__________________ Allskonar fyrir Aumingja!!
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Thor For This Useful Post:
She's a poor candidate, and her speech last night reminded many of why they don't like her.
Now, whether Trump would still win is an open question.
I personally think that Johnson would end up getting a few more votes than he previously did, perhaps winning a state or two, and the election would be thrown into the House.
Indeed, Johnson would likely win more votes than he previously did, from Libertarian/Republican types.
I feel like some of the more democratic leaning independents who did vote Johnson, aiding Trump in gaining victory, might flip their votes to Clinton, negating his added votes from the other side, and giving Clinton the win. A whole lot of those Johnson voters ticked his name on their ballot because he's in favor of legalizing marijuana. Trump puts in an AG who wants to crack down on marijuana laws. Knowing that giving Trump a victory gives a guy like Sessions the power to grab at their weed access could make them vote for Clinton.
Again, Trump won by the narrowest margin over 4 states in a perfect crapstorm of political upheaval. It would be hard to make that happen again, seeing what's transpired since Inauguration Day. It's not impossible, obviously, this last year has shown the power of Angry Lower Middle Class White People (because don't forget, Clinton won handily among people making less than 30k/year, and still won even those making up to 50k), but the mess that allowed Trump the victory would be hard to replicate.
Honestly I think she would have won if they'd just re-done it the next day. Pretty sure a lot of people woke up going "holy ####, I thought she was a lock... guess I should have voted."
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Honestly I think she would have won if they'd just re-done it the next day. Pretty sure a lot of people woke up going "holy ####, I thought she was a lock... guess I should have voted."
Anecdotal and in a blue state she won but I saw a lot of "Hillary's polling so well it looks like I can vote my conscience" sentiment leading up to the election. I don't think you're that far off.
Thor, we are going to have to agree to disagree on how great Nuclear Power is. I used to be an advocate of all types of energy however I cannot support Nuclear Power.
I side with the former Prime Minister of Japan. The only safe Nuclear Power plant is no nuclear power plant. He may have a bit more experience with Nuclear Power than we do. See the below video and FF to 9:50 if you want to see his opinion.
So let me get this straight. There are 92 nuclear power plants in the US, generating 20% of our energy needs, and there has been one incident of note. That makes nuclear power unsafe? Seems like another over-reaction.
You haven't even thought about different types of reactors and how they could be used. A molten salt reactor has many benefits and doesn't have the meltdown issues associated with the currently implemented technology. This reactor is actually the safest for our needs and could be built on scale to meet community needs. Best of all, these reactors actually use the waste from the current crop, and don't produce plutonium as a biproduct. A perfect solution that has been held back by the many powerful lobbies in Washington, including the fossil fuel lobby.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
So let me get this straight. There are 92 nuclear power plants in the US, generating 20% of our energy needs, and there has been one incident of note. That makes nuclear power unsafe? Seems like another over-reaction.
ba dump
__________________
Pass the bacon.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to DuffMan For This Useful Post:
Which is why despite all the "fake news" about how cheap solar and wind is, their inherent high costs and lack of reliability will ensure they never produce a significant amount of energy in a large, developed country, as the failure of Germany's Energiewende has already proven.
The Following User Says Thank You to accord1999 For This Useful Post:
Which is why despite all the "fake news" about how cheap solar and wind is, their inherent high costs and lack of reliability will ensure they never produce a significant amount of energy in a large, developed country, as the failure of Germany's Energiewende has already proven.
What a disingenuous post. The reality is that coal use for power production reached its peak under Reagan and has been in decline since the late 80s. It has gone from the most widely used source of electricity generation (60%) to a close second to natural gas (32%). The only reason coal is still a leader is because it takes time to spin up new generation facilities and retire the old ones. Also, you don't make systemic changes overnight. Moving to a more sustainable energy economy takes time and commitment. It also takes political will.
Frankly, this post comes off as a defense by someone in the fossil fuel lobby. Why is it that you ignore the reality the nation and the planet faces, and just suggest we continue to plow along with the very thing that is killing us? I also don't buy the garbage the line that we cannot develop a sustainable power grid through the use of green and nuclear technology. We have not even made a dent in penetration with solar technology or wind technology. We have not leveraged cheap hydro. We have no explored the use of tidal to any great degree. And we have not even begun to push for new nuclear power generation. The reality is we have to get off fossil fuels, and coal is the first one we need to stop using.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
That awful PBS which we should defund immediately has also covered the future of battery technology, which right now is the biggest issue facing renewables like solar and wind, we need on demand energy and right now these technologies are not very strong because of that.
