Bernie Sanders- Does He Have A Chance?

[brimstoneSalad]

Fucking idiot... Dimwit...dependent parasite.

I don't know what's going on here, but that seems to be coming out of nowhere and without context it looks kind of excessive.

@EquALLity The argument that Sanders may not have been exposed to as many pro-nuclear arguments because the focus is on accepting the science of climate change vs. denialism may be relevant, but then how was Warren exposed? Doesn't seem like there is a shortage of people arguing for these cases, they've probably just found Sanders dismissive or hostile and so stopped trying to engage with him. That's something that worries me. There are even articles criticizing him in the press for increasing reliance on coal power by shutting down that nuclear plant; he has been so active and so cited here that it's hard to imagine that he would not be aware unless he's been isolated by yes men or is senile... which would also worry me.

[EquALLity]

Fucking idiot... Dimwit...dependent parasite.

I don't know what's going on here, but that seems to be coming out of nowhere and without context it looks kind of excessive.

@EquALLity The argument that Sanders may not have been exposed to as many pro-nuclear arguments because the focus is on accepting the science of climate change vs. denialism may be relevant, but then how was Warren exposed? Doesn't seem like there is a shortage of people arguing for these cases, they've probably just found Sanders dismissive or hostile and so stopped trying to engage with him. That's something that worries me. There are even articles criticizing him in the press for increasing reliance on coal power by shutting down that nuclear plant; he has been so active and so cited here that it's hard to imagine that he would not be aware unless he's been isolated by yes men or is senile... which would also worry me.

I always take @Red 100% seriously.

Almost every political idea has probably been brought up to senators. Elizabeth Warren has probably heard pro-nuclear arguments before running for President as well, but after she was criticized in the news when she said we should phase out nuclear power, her campaign made a calculated decision that nobody could oppose her for expressing flexibility and caution. This didn't come from nuclear lobbyists talking to her and changing her mind, as she has probably been exposed to it before.

Just because an issue has been brought up doesn't mean it has been hashed out. Politicians are constantly meeting with lobbyists on different issues. Nuclear lobbyists are those working in the industry, not conscientious constituents. People like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren probably see them as just another corporate lobbyist group, the same type of people who are the reason the republican party is preventing anything from being done by climate change. There isn't momentum behind constituents talking to representatives about nuclear power, because it's not an issue that's on the table in general. If the country could move beyond the ridiculous debate about if climate change is real, then maybe it would be.

[Red]

I was expecting brimstone to get to this, but he/she seems to be busy these days so I'll respond to the best of my ability.

Almost every political idea has probably been brought up to senators. Elizabeth Warren has probably heard pro-nuclear arguments before running for President as well, but after she was criticized in the news when she said we should phase out nuclear power, her campaign made a calculated decision that nobody could oppose her for expressing flexibility and caution.

I don't think I am understanding you here. Are you saying that this was all just a campaign strategy, and Warren didn't actually change her mind on anything?

I am not sure what you're getting at here. Is this even responding to brimstone?

This didn't come from nuclear lobbyists talking to her and changing her mind, as she has probably been exposed to it before.

And Bernie has probably been exposed to the science as well. Has he ever changed his mind on anything like this?

Just because an issue has been brought up doesn't mean it has been hashed out. Politicians are constantly meeting with lobbyists on different issues. Nuclear lobbyists are those working in the industry, not conscientious constituents.

What are you getting at here? I think I'm missing something.

People like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren probably see them as just another corporate lobbyist group, the same type of people who are the reason the republican party is preventing anything from being done by climate change.

This was the part I really want to respond to.

Firstly, if the lobbyist groups are the reason why the Republicans don't do anything about Climate Change, why do they support Nuclear Energy, the best energy solution we have against it, and the only real threat to oil and coal?

Don't you think it's odd how the Oil industry has put out all this bullshit propaganda against Nuclear Energy, yet the Republicans still support it? In a parallel universe where Republicans opposed Nuclear, you would be giving a much more compelling argument (although I'd like to see evidence of it, not just seeing some connections and making conclusions based on those).

I still am not sure as to why you view these groups as puppet masters controlling how these people vote. If anything, if these people (fossil fuel lobbyist groups) are actually this influential, then wouldn't it make more sense for them to have Republicans run on Anti-Nuclear platforms? If Republicans are actually being 'bribed' to deny climate change, yet they still support Nuclear Energy, I don't really see where that gets them.

This has been discussed ad nauseum on the forum, and brimstone even mentioned it, but the Democrats who oppose Nuclear (Like Sanders) are better supporters for Fossil Fuels than Republicans.

Republicans support Nuclear Energy for the same reason they support Fossil Fuels; it's good energy. Good energy is good for the country, and good for the economy. It's also why they don't support Renewables, at least not as fanatically as some Democrats. The Republican Party can be made up of some serious nutters, but, unfortunately, they are accidentally right on possibly the most important political issue right now.

Obviously, the best energy solution has minimal reliance on Fossil Fuels, but again, what I said about good energy.

What really scares me about the Democratic nomination is that of the 4 likely candidates (Sanders, Warren, Biden, Buttigieg), Sanders is the only one who is Anti-Nuclear, and is getting a lot of support. If he wins the nomination, I'll have to become a theist and pray for the well being of the citizens of the Earth, since Trump is only somewhat less of the two evils.

Although Republicans aren't much more scientifically literate than Sanders on these issues, I have far more respect for them here since they aren't the ones running on an Environmentalist platform with counterproductive solutions.

There isn't momentum behind constituents talking to representatives about nuclear power, because it's not an issue that's on the table in general.

Right, and that's something else that worries me; Nuclear never even being considered. I'm honestly pretty damn tired of the whole dichotomy of 'Renewables vs Fossil Fuels'.

However, just because something isn't talked about much in discourse or with Representatives doesn't mean that Sanders won't do anything about Nuclear; Especially considering how Climate Change and the various surrounding issues are such big subjects, and Sanders has firmly established his position on it, I wouldn't be surprised that he closes a good amount of Nuclear Plants within his first 100 days in office (and he's already done a lot of damage on that front, if I'm not mistaken he also helped block Obama from building more plants).

If the country could move beyond the ridiculous debate about if climate change is real, then maybe it would be.

Do we have time for that? 10 years? Not a very significant time frame we're looking at.
I think for now just worry about getting Pro-Nuclear candidates in office, then worry about fixing education from the ground up.

[EquALLity]

I don't think I am understanding you here. Are you saying that this was all just a campaign strategy, and Warren didn't actually change her mind on anything?

Yes, like she changed her mind on healthcare.

I am not sure what you're getting at here. Is this even responding to brimstone?

No

And Bernie has probably been exposed to the science as well. Has he ever changed his mind on anything like this?

I'm pointing out that both Bernie and Elizabeth Warren have already been exposed to it and not changed their minds. Therefore, it's unlikely Elizabeth Warren all of a sudden became so open minded.

Anywyay, Elizabeth Warren doesn't seem to be getting the nomination... Bernie, Buttigieg, Klobuchar.

What are you getting at here? I think I'm missing something.

There hasn't been enough debate on nuclear energy. Just because it has been brought up to politicians doesn't mean it has been discussed enough. Politicians meet with lobbyists constantly and have to grapple with many issues that are much more politically prominent than nuclear energy.

Firstly, if the lobbyist groups are the reason why the Republicans don't do anything about Climate Change, why do they support Nuclear Energy, the best energy solution we have against it, and the only real threat to oil and coal?

The only real threat? Nobody even talks about it.

Don't you think it's odd how the Oil industry has put out all this bullshit propaganda against Nuclear Energy, yet the Republicans still support it? In a parallel universe where Republicans opposed Nuclear, you would be giving a much more compelling argument (although I'd like to see evidence of it, not just seeing some connections and making conclusions based on those).

What propanda is the oil industry putting out currently?

I still am not sure as to why you view these groups as puppet masters controlling how these people vote. If anything, if these people (fossil fuel lobbyist groups) are actually this influential, then wouldn't it make more sense for them to have Republicans run on Anti-Nuclear platforms? If Republicans are actually being 'bribed' to deny climate change, yet they still support Nuclear Energy, I don't really see where that gets them.

It doesn't matter if republicans have the opinions they do because of oil companies, or if oil companies support republicans who already have their view. Even if these are just republicans who already don't care about climate change, oil companies are supporting them financially, making them more likely to get elected.

This has been discussed ad nauseum on the forum, and brimstone even mentioned it, but the Democrats who oppose Nuclear (Like Sanders) are better supporters for Fossil Fuels than Republicans.

Have I discussed it?

No democratic politician would have pulled the US out of the Paris Agreement and undermined the global consensus to act on climate change. That single decision may be the main reason climate change won't be fixed.

Right, and that's something else that worries me; Nuclear never even being considered. I'm honestly pretty damn tired of the whole dichotomy of 'Renewables vs Fossil Fuels'.

However, just because something isn't talked about much in discourse or with Representatives doesn't mean that Sanders won't do anything about Nuclear; Especially considering how Climate Change and the various surrounding issues are such big subjects, and Sanders has firmly established his position on it, I wouldn't be surprised that he closes a good amount of Nuclear Plants within his first 100 days in office (and he's already done a lot of damage on that front, if I'm not mistaken he also helped block Obama from building more plants).

Does he have the power to do that?

Do we have time for that? 10 years? Not a very significant time frame we're looking at.
I think for now just worry about getting Pro-Nuclear candidates in office, then worry about fixing education from the ground up.

Well that's the issue. The longer it's put off, the worse the problem becomes.

[Red]

I don't think I am understanding you here. Are you saying that this was all just a campaign strategy, and Warren didn't actually change her mind on anything?

Yes, like she changed her mind on healthcare.

Sorry what? Not sure if I follow.

I'm pointing out that both Bernie and Elizabeth Warren have already been exposed to it and not changed their minds. Therefore, it's unlikely Elizabeth Warren all of a sudden became so open minded.

See, I don't like it when you do this; assuming people's motives. I think it's rude, and makes you think you know everyone's reasoning and mindset behind things.

If Bernie were to change his mind tomorrow on Nuclear Energy, I wouldn't take that as him changing policy to seem open minded to the public; I'd take that as him having seen the evidence and actually realizing that he was wrong, despite public opinion on Nuclear Energy. In that case, my respect for him will be restored.

Maybe she did change her mind to seem more open minded. Or maybe she was just introduced to some evidence and legitimately changed her mind on this. Do you know for sure? I think Occam's Razor favours the latter. Until we have conclusive evidence, we can't just assume that she did it just for public support. Is it not possible that Warren is now seeing more of the arguments since she's seeking one of the most powerful offices in the world, and wants to be sure she's right on the important things?

This is speculative, but I thought a lot of people don't like it when politicians change their minds. Remember Bush and Kerry? The Bush campaign constantly highlighted how Kerry 'flip flopped' on the Iraq War, and it was probably very effective.

Anywyay, Elizabeth Warren doesn't seem to be getting the nomination... Bernie, Buttigieg, Klobuchar.

I find it funny how I only heard about Klobuchar just a few days ago. Not sure how I missed it (then again, I am trying my best to avoid these types of politics).

There hasn't been enough debate on nuclear energy. Just because it has been brought up to politicians doesn't mean it has been discussed enough. Politicians meet with lobbyists constantly and have to grapple with many issues that are much more politically prominent than nuclear energy.

Firstly, if the lobbyist groups are the reason why the Republicans don't do anything about Climate Change, why do they support Nuclear Energy, the best energy solution we have against it, and the only real threat to oil and coal?

The only real threat? Nobody even talks about it.

They don't talk about it because not many people or politicians truly understand how much of a threat it is.

Nuclear is the only 'power class' energy source that can replace fossil fuels. Solar and Wind? Not so much.

What propanda is the oil industry putting out currently?

Lots. Nuclear is dangerous (especially after Chernobyl), waste is a huge issue, the supply will only last a few years, etc.
It's been going on for years.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilvers ... 1abe2e7453
https://atomicinsights.com/how-importan ... -movement/

Here's a few quotes from the first article:

In 1970, a leader of the petroleum industry and the head of the Atlantic Richfield Co. named Robert O. Anderson contributed $200,000 to fund Friends of the Earth, an organization that is strident in its opposition to nuclear energy, citing both safety and cost issues. The topic is part of a book by F. William Engdahl titled Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Orders, says Rod Adams, author of the blog Atomic Insights.

“The discovery moved Anderson up to exhibit number one in my long-running effort to prove that the illogically tight linkage between ‘environmental groups’ and ‘antinuclear groups’ can be traced directly to the need for the oil and gas industry to discourage the use of nuclear energy,” writes Adams.

He goes on to say that oil and gas marketers are savvy and realize that transparent donations would be viewed with a jaundiced eye by journalists and others. By surreptitiously giving money, Adams says that those in the fossil fuel sector could establish proxies to do their fighting for them. Why?

The oil industry had long-been concerned that “atomic fission” could replace oil, or at a minimum, significantly undercut its price. Fission occurs when an atom is split into two parts and it results in the generation of electricity from a nuclear power plant.

It doesn't matter if republicans have the opinions they do because of oil companies, or if oil companies support republicans who already have their view. Even if these are just republicans who already don't care about climate change, oil companies are supporting them financially, making them more likely to get elected.

Meaning having more people in Congress and other offices who support Nuclear Energy.

This has been discussed ad nauseum on the forum, and brimstone even mentioned it, but the Democrats who oppose Nuclear (Like Sanders) are better supporters for Fossil Fuels than Republicans.

Have I discussed it?

It's been a while.

In summary, if you try to get rid of or even restrict fossil fuels without viable alternatives, you'll just be forced to use fossil fuels eventually (and don't even get me started on what would happen to places like China). It's even worse with Sanders; Even Agent Blue, who likes Sanders, linked me an article a while back about how Sanders shutting down a nuclear plant meant needing more coal. Nuclear energy can provide for the energy needs of so many people without hurting the environment.

No democratic politician would have pulled the US out of the Paris Agreement and undermined the global consensus to act on climate change. That single decision may be the main reason climate change won't be fixed.

This definitely plays a part, though I don't think it's the be all end all. Again, no nuclear, no environmentalism.

Given what I said however, if someone like Sanders were elected, I'm sure that he would've stayed, but he would've violated the agreement worse than Trump if he stayed.

BTW, I don't think the US is officially out just yet. Though to be fair, we've implemented enough policies to offset it.

Does he have the power to do that?

President has a lot of power in this area since these things can get through Congress with relative ease (especially if Sanders has a majority in the houses), since there is enough fear around it (Public support for Nuclear has fallen to less than half). I can think of a few energy related examples of Trump getting things passed, and I think he can also pass a few Executive Orders here. Sanders already helped shut down a Nuclear Plant without being President. Many Nuclear plants are already under the threat of being shut down.

You might say that even if there is a majority Democrat in Congress with Sanders as President, enough Democrats would be pro-nuclear to prevent that. But what's unfortunate is that even Pro-Nuclear Democrats still support legislation that opposes nuclear if it's under the guise of environmentalism (Even Cory Booker, who I like, supported the GND even before it started becoming more open to Nuclear).

Even let's say there is a majority Pro-Nuclear Republican in Congress; Sanders still has the power to block any pro-nuclear legislation that comes to his desk.

Even if it isn't too likely for him to put a serious dent in Nuclear (which I doubt), it isn't a risk I am willing to take. I think it's more likely he'll get around to doing that after seeing how difficult it is getting his social policies implemented.

Do we have time for that? 10 years? Not a very significant time frame we're looking at.
I think for now just worry about getting Pro-Nuclear candidates in office, then worry about fixing education from the ground up.

Well that's the issue. The longer it's put off, the worse the problem becomes.

Right, so let's support more pro-nuclear politicians in the meantime.

[Red]

Oh yeah I should probably mention that before September of last year her stance on Nuclear energy was unclear. Probably should have added that in earlier.

[Red]

Warren dropped out, so now it's between Biden and Sanders. What do you guys think?

[Jebus]

The only way Biden can lose the nomination at this point is by dying.

[Red]

The only way Biden can lose the nomination at this point is by dying.

Hey, anything can happen.

I don't really like Biden on social policy, but I still prefer him over Sanders.

Of course, I have a feeling that if he wins the left will smear him as corrupt and hand the election over the Trump yet again. We'll see.

[brimstoneSalad]

The only way Biden can lose the nomination at this point is by dying.

Did you end up placing any bets about Trump being the republican candidate? I'm guessing they have the odds very different now.

And yes, there is a good chance Trump will win the election again against Biden.