Which is LITERALLY the point of the Superdelegate system. You might pick on the authors of that system more so than those who describe it accurately in prose.
2 Likes
You think we can get the Dems and Repubs to agree to do a do-over? I think this is one of the few times they might agree!
5 Likes
Citation needed.
7 Likes
Link already provided, given that he supports a moratorium on all new nuclear, and phasing out of all existing plants. The only possible way heâs not really a tacit supporter of the fossil fuel industry, is if heâs actually an enthusiastic supporter of rolling blackouts.
Yes, Bernieâs nuclear stance is one of the only things I disagree with.
However, heâs a reasonable person and the ânuclearâ he describes is the sort of plants that area at Fuki (i.e. crap ones). Heâs not an expert in the field and I donât expect him to be up on Thorium reactors and such.
He also respects science more than any of the other candidates, so there are factors in favor of him adjusting his stance.
(I favor nuclear as a transition to renewables myself)
Either way, your interpretation is a bit creative, one can be opposed to one thing without being instantly in favor of something else. Thatâs not how brains work.
6 Likes
Ah, the old ârenewables canât replace fossils, so despite its horrific and likely dangers, nuclear is the way to go.â Got it, I see where youâre coming from, thanks (and, no thanks).
5 Likes
Did you read the article linked to in my first post? Anything in specific you disagree with relating to actual things that have happened? Do you think thereâs something unique about the US that would lead to a different outcome?
There are little likely dangers with Nuclear btw, even in the worst case scenario of modern nuclear technology not even a tsunami managed to do much damage (aside from in the minds of paranoid people who have a very poor grasp of physics).
Either way, your interpretation is a bit creative, one can be opposed to one thing without being instantly in favor of something else. Thatâs not how brains work.
Heâs obviously not in favour of fossil fuels in his own mind, but itâs an inescapable consequence of his policies unfortunately so that doesnât really matter much at the end of the day. And I have far less faith in his ability to change tack before itâs far too late than you do (and while thereâs a good chance itâs already too late for a certain level of inescapable climate disaster, it could still get a lot lot worse).
Yeah, I used to be a nuke, I know the biz. Just clicked on the link and itâs pretty obvious info and not in line with my reply. Itâs pretty well trod ground.
I also disagree with your stance on conventional reactors (water cooled in particular, unless actually in the ocean). Those are old technologies and the catastrophic risk issue is severe. Itâs reasonable for somebody to want to get rid of them. (Edit: Other than WCRs in the ocean, for those the catastrophic risk ceases to exist) Weâve historically made some bad judgement calls with such risks and thereâs no reason to cling to them.
Iâm in favor of phasing out our old reactors and replacing them with modern, safe ones (Thorium, pebble bed, etc.) and maximizing use of renewables.
I donât consider Bernieâs stance âtacit supportâ, heâs very on record as being opposed to fossil fuels and just doesnât happen to be a subject matter expert on all things energy.
It appears youâre using the term âtacitâ incorrectly, it doesnât work when somebodyâs actively opposed to what theyâre being accused of supportingâŚit just happens that things are more nuanced than youâre implying.
11 Likes
I disagree with the automatism of coal plants replacing nuclear power generation
and Germany realised it would largely have to be filled by one thing: coal. This is more or less beyond doubt, because Germanyâs then Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel said so
Coal was a political decision, amended by all Merkel governments with supporting laws and decisions. The big four electricity producers in Germany are depending on big central power plants and own nearly all coal and nuclear plants.
Coal as energy source source is attractive for the social democratic party (Gabriel is the leader) because itâs partly mined in Germany (brown coal, an environmental disaster) and for the conservatives (Merkel is the leader) because of tight bounds with Corporate Germany.
Both coal and nuclear plants are inflexible and cannot really balance the fluctuating production of reneweble energy. But fast reacting natural gas plants were rejected - again a political decision.
4 Likes
Yeah, I used to be a nuke, I know the biz. Just clicked on the link and itâs pretty obvious info and not in line with my reply. Itâs pretty well trod ground.
That reply was to @anon15383236
I also disagree with your stance on conventional reactors (water cooled in particular, unless actually in the ocean). Those are old technologies and the catastrophic risk issue is severe. Itâs reasonable for somebody to want to get rid of them. (Edit: Other than WCRs in the ocean, for those the catastrophic risk ceases to exist) Weâve historically made some bad judgement calls with such risks and thereâs no reason to cling to them.
Iâm in favor of phasing out our old reactors and replacing them with modern, safe ones (Thorium, pebble bed, etc.) and maximizing use of renewables.
I donât disagree that older reactors should be phased out for newer ones, though we shouldnât be limiting ourselves to speculative designs, we really should have been spending the last 20 years building large numbers of Gen III reactors. Even given the risk with water cooled reactors, the benefits far outweigh the costs imho (potential or otherwise). Far more damage has been done because of the ignorance surrounding nuclear power than from the incidents that have actually happened.
It appears youâre using the term âtacitâ incorrectly, it doesnât work when somebodyâs actively opposed to what theyâre being accused of supportingâŚit just happens that things are more nuanced than youâre implying.
Tacit just means that something is implied, normally used when someone means to imply it sure, but itâs hard to escape the implication in this case.
A thousand times, this. Sheâs pissed away votes for November. I wouldnât vote for her anyway, because the country does not need another 4-8 years of stagnation or her baggage, but other independents mightâve considered her if her campaign hadnât worked so damned hard to alienate Sanders supporters. Her online surrogates arenât helping her, either.
Thanks to this negativity, our next president will most likely be named Trump. ::golfclap:: Good show, Clinton, good show.
9 Likes
Technically possibly true, but only if we didnât have so many other advanced reactors.
I still say we keep the water cooled reactors in/on the ocean where they canât do any harm (I know this might scare people, but the science is solid. A WCR in a sub isnât any more dangerous than a pebble bed reactor on land)
Also, VERY agreed on the ignorance bit, and donât get me started on the London Convention and the ban on sediment bed disposal. Talk about shooting the whole planet in the foot rolls eyes
That being said, I still think itâs a bit of a stretch to use âTacit Supportâ when the subject is actively opposed to the object in questionâŚI think it doesnât become tacit until you force them to choose between the options, which I canât find anywhere on record (like I said, this is the subject on Bernieâs side that I disagree with) 
1 Like
Both coal and nuclear plants are inflexible and cannot really balance the fluctuating production of reneweble energy. But fast reacting natural gas plants were rejected - again a political decision.
I agree that nuclear in itâs present state is inflexible, though there will undoubtedly be lots of small scale modular nuclear solutions in the future.
However, a certain amount of inflexibility is a requirement for base load power generation, not the opposite, if you can generate that from geothermal or hyrdo then great, but there are severe limitations on where thatâs going to be feasible. Coal and nuclear are really the only stable alternatives, gas is not due to the issues regarding supply and storage (though gas should be favoured over coal where it makes sense for sure).
1 Like
Thatâs not how cause and effect work. Superdelegates are for the case where the âbestâ candidate doesnât get the majority of pledged delegates. A) It doesnât follow from just that statement that any conclusion can be drawn about who the best is by looking at who got the majority. And B) 59% is an arbitrary threshold based on how many delegates and superdelegates there are. If you go only by the numbers, how could it possibly make sense to declare someone must be the best if they have 41-49% of the delegates but not if they have 51-59%?
Clearly the superdelegates are supposed to be able to decide whoâs best by some other metric.
1 Like
And now weâre agreeing reasonably and stuff.
How annoying! 
Not a simple majority. A sufficient number, yes, but not simple majority as in 50%+1.
The super delegates have not voted and cannot for weeks yet. (Except for their original one man one vote vote, like the ones you and I get)
2 Likes
When did he pretend? He never said he was a democrat, but he has caucased with the democrats often and he ran as a democrat because the marginalization he was subject to would have been even more acute. He has a message, thatâs been rather popular actually, and heâs gotten it out by running as a democrat. The democratic party has claimed to be the âbig tent partyâ, but has consistently ignored progressives in their midst in favor of centrist (center-right) politics in the past few decades. The party should not expect us to fall in line when they donât represent our interests.
12 Likes
Yes, we both know that superdelegates cast the deciding votes if someone gets 50-59%. My point was that the articleâs author is trying to assert that if someone falls in that threshold, itâs the superdelegatesâ duty to vote for the other guy because the winner must not be strong enough.
We read that differently.
Which line(s) left you with your impression?
I got that surely it is their duty to, in the name of the party, select the candidate best suited for the job and who has the greatest chance to defeat the Republican in the fall, as the party believes that someone achieving 50%+1 is quite possibly NOT the best candidate. Created SuperDelegates for just that (this?) eventuality.
It is not their duty to announce before the first primary votes are cast, that their thumbs are collectively on the scale. I found that irresponsible, however probably within their rights. I think they have the duty to reconsider their allegiances, the ones announced before the process officially began, maybe I think they just have a responsibility to do so⌠at the very least least the right to reconsider.
2 Likes
