By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Official 2020 US Election: Democratic Party Discussion

HylianSwordsman said:
the-pi-guy said:

Can't describe how much I want this to hold up.  

Warren or Bernie getting in, would be massive.  

I feel like either one would be a political seismic shift the likes of which we haven't seen since Reagan, or maybe even FDR.

And that is desperately needed. In the curve earlier I posted it is a shame that while the OECD countries on average still see slowly rising life expectancy, in the US it stagnates for more than a decade. And that is only one of the most troubling signs that something is wrong.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023

10 years greatest game event!

bets: [peak year] [+], [1], [2], [3], [4]

Around the Network

Fivethirtyeight has updated their statistics about the name recognition and net favorability of the candidates. This is the graph how it changed since May:

So Warren gets much more love, while Biden plummets. Yang got much more well known and converted it into good ratings.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023

10 years greatest game event!

bets: [peak year] [+], [1], [2], [3], [4]

Bofferbrauer2 said:

HylianSwordsman said:
Bofferbrauer, you're simply mistaken about battery storage not being enough. You're echoing right wing talking points, in fact. There will always be fluctuations, whether you have "base-load" or renewables with batteries. You're missing the point of the different business model. The demand will always fluctuate, but with sufficient storage and enough connected microgrids, and pricing electricity as a service instead of a per-kWh utility, the fluctuations are irrelevant.

Just look what I bolded. I don't know if I wasn't clear enough, but that was my entire point: That we don't have anywhere near sufficient storage yet to go full renewable and that we have to massively expand that capacity if we want to go there (which I'm 100% for). And that will take many years, if not many decades to realize, and thus we will need other power sources to bring a reliable and predictable power baseline until we have the necessary energy storage capacity. Trust me, I was working in the industry, I know what I'm talking about. Without anything to absorb that excess energy from solar and wind the entire grid will fry.

Hmm, I don't see how you support 100% wind and solar, in year 2017 the worlds daily electricity consumption was 58 000 GW, the global battery production for the whole year of 2018 was 285 GW. Good luck with those batteries.

Im cheering for Kamala Harris btw.

Last edited by Trumpstyle - on 27 August 2019

6x master league achiever in starcraft2

Beaten Sigrun on God of war mode

Beaten DOOM ultra-nightmare with NO endless ammo-rune, 2x super shotgun and no decoys on ps4 pro.

1-0 against Grubby in Wc3 frozen throne ladder!!

bug, somehow accidently did another post when I just wanted to edit previous post

Last edited by Trumpstyle - on 27 August 2019

6x master league achiever in starcraft2

Beaten Sigrun on God of war mode

Beaten DOOM ultra-nightmare with NO endless ammo-rune, 2x super shotgun and no decoys on ps4 pro.

1-0 against Grubby in Wc3 frozen throne ladder!!

Sorry, quotes and editing still not working for me. I maintain that it wouldn't take as long as you say Bofferbrauer. When I talk of microgrids, I'm talking about things like solar panels on the roof with batteries mounted on the side of the house, each getting enough energy to power an average home, and store several days worth of electricity. Then multiply that by every house in the neighborhood, and they all sell any excess electricity they couldn't store in their home battery back to the grid, where the local power plant has lots of extra storage, heck, it might not even need to be a power plant, it could probably just be a node of storage capacity on a network of such nodes, with a few power plants supplying excess demand to any parts of the grid that are taxing their stored energy and need the help.

I suppose the reason I'm skeptical of your argument is that of COURSE it would take years to do, it would take years to convert the grid to renewable even without storage, so I don't see the point here. If you consider the storage part of the price of construction, and build solar plants and solar home systems with accompanying storage, the necessary storage would get built along with the renewable energy. Unless I'm mistaken (I'm basing it mostly off my own shopping experience for home solar systems), that's already standard practice in the States, no need for special regulations. Why would you build a solar system for your home or a solar power plant if you didn't also plan to build storage for it? And why on earth would you build storage you don't plan to use? Your objections don't make sense to me. Though perhaps we're just both missing each other's points, since I think what you might be saying is that if the microgrids have batteries on each home, it would be possible, and that's precisely what I was proposing with the concept of a microgrid.

I believe these microgrids could really help the as-a-service business model, and as for the energy consumption issue, that can be alleviated by offering a discount to customers who generate more electricity than they use. They're supplying the grid, not taxing it, so any consumer of an as-a-service plan should only receive a marginal charge on days they use no electricity, much like the current model also has a similar charge for simply being connected, separate from generation and distribution. Perhaps if they meet a certain threshold of energy fed into the grid, they could even have their bill be $0 for the month? There will always be those who waste tons of energy, and those people would actually keep the business alive if the company has them in the right ratio with those who feed into the grid. A certain percentage massively overgenerate and are connected for free (perhaps even paid, to incentivize keeping them connected to the grid?), another percentage don't contribute as much but still have a steep discount, another percentage pay the normal price because they draw from the grid about as much as they contribute, and another percentage might reach a certain cap, much like internet plans have a data cap, and would have to start paying by the kilowatt-hour.

Oh, and another benefit of these microgrids? They're decentralized by nature, which gives them incredible resiliency against terrorist attacks on the power grid.



Around the Network

My fav Krystal Ball back at it again, on her show The Rising she calls Elizabeth Warren's coziness to the Democratic establishment into question. She cites a new well reported piece in The New York Times in which Warren is supposedly vigorously reassuring the Democratic establishment that she's a team player and that she's aligned with them. Ball's breakdown and analysis of the situation is well articulated and makes a lot of sense. I HIGHLY recommend watching the video before commenting so you can better understand what I'm talking about, you can watch it here.

With this new information coming into light has your opinion on Elizabeth Warren changed? Do you favor her more or less now?

For me personally this really worries me a lot, she's still my second choice and by far a better candidate in every way compared to the rest of the field, apart from Bernie of course. Hopefully this doesn't mean she'll buckle under pressure from corporate establishment Democrats if she gets the nomination and becomes president but it's definitely worrying for me.

Last edited by tsogud - on 28 August 2019

 

tsogud said:

My fav Krystal Ball back at it again, on her show The Rising she calls Elizabeth Warren's coziness to the Democratic establishment into question. She cites a new well reported piece in The New York Times in which Warren is supposedly vigorously reassuring the Democratic establishment that she's a team player and that she's aligned with them. Ball's breakdown and analysis of the situation is well articulated and makes a lot of sense. I HIGHLY recommend you watch it here.

With this new information coming into light has your opinion on Elizabeth Warren changed? Do you favor her more or less now?

For me personally this really worries me a lot, she's still my second choice and by far a better candidate in every way compared to the rest of the field, apart from Bernie of course. Hopefully this doesn't mean she'll buckle under pressure from corporate establishment Democrats if she gets the nomination and becomes president but it's definitely worrying for me.

Is not the Democratic Party the one that she belongs to?

Anyway, I have no issue with Elizabeth Warren being able to work with her own political party; in fact, it surprises me that Bernie is actually kind of weak in this regard, I was under the exact opposite impression. While she might get along with established politicians in her party, there has been no indication that she is anything but opposed to the dying breed of neoliberal "corporate establishment Democrats," - neoliberalism is primarily the realm of the Republican party nowadays; even in the latest debates there's only 1 or 2 of them out of 20, and they are not popular. She seems to have a very antagonistic relationship with the corporate establishment guys like Delaney.

She definitely isn't anti-corporation, she's mainly anti-upper-class corporate domination; she's definitely very pro-working and middle class. Personally speaking, I'm someone who feels that corporations should be run by middle-class individuals involved with the business/industries they're invested in. She also seems to have a strong interest in policy that gives a path for the working class to move into the middle class.

I haven't checked out your source, but as a rule, I don't trust American news because they're all agenda based. Especially when they are labelling Bernie Sanders as an "existential threat" in their description, what the hell are they talking about?

Last edited by Jumpin - on 28 August 2019

I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

The democrats habe no chance to compete with trump the candidates are Dope



REQUIESCAT IN PACE

I Hate REMASTERS

I Hate PLAYSTATION PLUS

Jumpin said:
tsogud said:

My fav Krystal Ball back at it again, on her show The Rising she calls Elizabeth Warren's coziness to the Democratic establishment into question. She cites a new well reported piece in The New York Times in which Warren is supposedly vigorously reassuring the Democratic establishment that she's a team player and that she's aligned with them. Ball's breakdown and analysis of the situation is well articulated and makes a lot of sense. I HIGHLY recommend you watch it here.

With this new information coming into light has your opinion on Elizabeth Warren changed? Do you favor her more or less now?

For me personally this really worries me a lot, she's still my second choice and by far a better candidate in every way compared to the rest of the field, apart from Bernie of course. Hopefully this doesn't mean she'll buckle under pressure from corporate establishment Democrats if she gets the nomination and becomes president but it's definitely worrying for me.

Is not the Democratic Party the one that she belongs to?

Anyway, I have no issue with Elizabeth Warren being able to work with her own political party; in fact, it surprises me that Bernie is actually kind of weak in this regard, I was under the exact opposite impression. While she might get along with established politicians in her party, there has been no indication that she is anything but opposed to the dying breed of neoliberal "corporate establishment Democrats," - neoliberalism is primarily the realm of the Republican party nowadays; even in the latest debates there's only 1 or 2 of them out of 20, and they are not popular. She seems to have a very antagonistic relationship with the corporate establishment guys like Delaney.

She definitely isn't anti-corporation, she's mainly anti-upper-class corporate domination; she's definitely very pro-working and middle class. Personally speaking, I'm someone who feels that corporations should be run by middle-class individuals involved with the business/industries they're invested in. She also seems to have a strong interest in policy that gives a path for the working class to move into the middle class.

I haven't checked out your source, but as a rule, I don't trust American news because they're all agenda based. Especially when they are labelling Bernie Sanders as an "existential threat" in their description, what the hell are they talking about?

The video explains it, they're pretty fair and balanced though. Krystal is more progressive and she favors Sanders but she's still objective and fair to the other candidates. Even Saagar, who is conservative is completely fair and objective when it comes to the democratic candidates and he is even agrees with Sanders' policies sometimes and isn't afraid to admit it. To me, The Rising, has showed me that there are still some actual journalists out there that aren't some talking heads with a hidden agenda. They have their personal biases sure but they're open and honest about them and it doesn't get in the way when they're reporting the news. And yeah I agree, as a rule, I'm very skeptical of American news as well.

Last edited by tsogud - on 30 August 2019

 

Wow. Bernie Sanders people are even more narrow-minded than I thought. ELIZABETH WARREN, who is running on a platform objectively LEFT OF Bernie's (think not just single-payer health care and tuition-free college and a $15/hour minimum wage, but also breaking up the tech giants, giving workers a minimum 40% ownership stake in the companies they work for, etc.), is a pro-corporate, establishment tool? Really?

There's no question that Warren is a registered and committed partisan Democrat, but I guess that's just not a dividing line for me when it comes to candidates running to be the Democratic Party's nominee for president

There is also no question that she has a race problem when it comes to who is supporting her as yet, but would point out that so did Bernie Sanders back in 2016 when the nation was first being introduced to him at this same level. But Krystal Ball is full of it when it comes to the income breakdown of her supporters. Warren regularly polls in third among low-income Americans, mirroring her overall position in the polls (which has mostly been third place). I would also duly remind the reader that Warren's average campaign contribution size in the second quarter was $28, which is exactly what that of Bernie Sanders was in 2016, and is only half that of candidates like Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg. And that Warren does not take corporate donations or attend high-dollar fundraisers.

As to all this "glowing media coverage" that Warren has received, one wonders whether Krystal Ball has been paying attention in the last two weeks because most of it that I've seen has focused on her "Pocahantas problem", as it's being termed, now that it's clear she's not going away.

If Bernie Sanders supporters really and truly believe that ELIZABETH WARREN is the establishment candidate in this race and their worst enemy bar none, then I have to conclude that what Bernie Sanders has going for him is called a personality cult.

This message brought to you by one of those "wealthy white liberal elites" on food stamps who supports Elizabeth Warren.

Last edited by Jaicee - on 28 August 2019