Presidential Election Polls

[Clizby WampusCat]

Forgotten Three Miles Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima?

Near Chernobyl, millions were not evacuated because there was no place to move then to. Several thousand deaths from cancer in the following decades. With Fukushima, it were dozens of millions. And now imagine something like this happens in the USA and you should evacuate the region from NYC to Baltimore ...

Three mile island did not release hardly any radioactivity, it was human error not the technology. Chernobyl was not designed correctly (cheaply) and had inadequately trained people like most things in Russia. Fukushima was the result of an earthquake and tsunami where the generators were flooded and stopped so pump could not cool the reactor core. Maybe they should not have built it there.

The US operates reactors quite safely, not perfect though. The US Navy has about 160 operating reactors in subs and aircraft carriers all the time. I think a discussion on the pros and cons is warranted.

 

[mark46]

Forgotten Three Miles Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima?

Near Chernobyl, millions were not evacuated because there was no place to move then to. Several thousand deaths from cancer in the following decades. With Fukushima, it were dozens of millions. And now imagine something like this happens in the USA and you should evacuate the region from NYC to Baltimore ...

Please list the deaths from nuclear accidents, oil plant accidents and gas plant accidents. And then, list those for the US.

 

[helmut]

Trump had the lowest unemployment in 50 years before the shutdowns. The economy was very strong. Was that due to Trump policies or Obama's?

How much reduction unemployment was in the time before actions by the Trump administration became effective, i.e. in the first two years of Trump's presidency? How much is rather short termed, because it will be eaten up by the costs of a damaged environment in the next 5 or 10 years?

I define unwarranted as environmental regulations that have no effect on the environment or that are unachievable. Note that I am not saying no regulation, I am saying smart regulations that actually do something. Considering the consequences of one regulation on another part of the environment is needed.

To such rather abstract sentences there is no objection. But I am not sure whether I agree with you what regulations are unwarranted or not. Can you give an example?

What is your plan for China? How do we get them to comply with environmental regulations?

Well, we got China to comply in a new climate policy, I suppose this is a good model for other issues.

American cars have the same fuel efficiencies as foreign cars for the most part.

Fact is, they consume more. Maybe they could, if the industry lays stress on that, maybe because of some incentive for that (e.g. a higher oil price).

The US produces 3.99E12 kWh/year in electricity. We consume 4.83E12 kWh of gasoline for cars/trucks each year. If we want to eliminate internal combustion engines we need to double the electrical output of the nation.

You can reduce energy consumption. More efficient refrigerators, less light in the night (that wouild be a benefit for insects living in the night...), and other ways.

No, not at all. The air was a lot worse in cities when I was a little kid.

That's about pollution by gas (nitrogen compounds, carbon monoxide etc.) and dust, I wrote about the amount of oxygen produced and consumed in the USA.

What if a 100% renewable society is not achievable? We should have a plan for this instead of running into disaster wishing we will get there.

A really 100% "renewable society" is not available, and no-one who goes into details demands it.

 

[helmut]

Three mile island did not release hardly any radioactivity,

Fake news by the company that owned three miles island. The amount was not much compared to Chernobyl, but is was enough to be threat locally.

it was human error not the technology.

A technology that does not allow human errors without leading into catastrophe is not safe in practice, whatever "theory" may say.

Chernobyl was not designed correctly (cheaply) and had inadequately trained people like most things in Russia.

The team was well-trained. In a sense, too well - they began to think they could master anything, and so made a rather dangerous experiment.

Fukushima was the result of an earthquake and tsunami where the generators were flooded and stopped so pump could not cool the reactor core. Maybe they should not have built it there.

It was the result of a scenario almost no-one ever anticipated. Before that, the nuclear plants of japan wre considered to be of most highest safety level - sounds familiar?

The US operates reactors quite safely, not perfect though.

Until there is a scenario that no expert has expected ...

The US Navy has about 160 operating reactors in subs and aircraft carriers all the time. I think a discussion on the pros and cons is warranted.

Those little reactors are not a big problem. Even the worst scenario would be a rather small incident. This has the advantage a "normal" incident could be covered up smoothly, like the 2009 incident at three miles island.

 

[helmut]

Please list the deaths from nuclear accidents, oil plant accidents and gas plant accidents. And then, list those for the US.

How do you list a rise in cancer death during the 20 years after an incident?

Unless is is a large incident, like Chernobyl, you might even not be able to detect it. 100 deaths a year over 20 years mean 2000 deaths, and if they are distributed in a population of 10 millions, they vanish in the statistic.

From the various incidents which released radioactivity, one can calculate that thousands have died from them, plus the large incidents like Chernobyl, where such a rise can be seen in the statistic.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

How much reduction unemployment was in the time before actions by the Trump administration became effective, i.e. in the first two years of Trump's presidency? How much is rather short termed, because it will be eaten up by the costs of a damaged environment in the next 5 or 10 years?

I don't know, you seem to be making a claim.

To such rather abstract sentences there is no objection. But I am not sure whether I agree with you what regulations are unwarranted or not. Can you give an example?

Changes to the endangered species act. One was to revise the rule that treats threatened species the same as endangered species. The new rule will evaluate the threats to newly listed threatened species, and tailor the conservation measures to each species’ needs.

Well, we got China to comply in a new climate policy, I suppose this is a good model for other issues.

We will see what they actually do.

Fact is, they consume more. Maybe they could, if the industry lays stress on that, maybe because of some incentive for that (e.g. a higher oil price).

The don't. As I said American cars have similar efficiencies as Asian and German cars. A Chevy Cruz 1.6L has a combined efficiency of 37 MPG, the Nissan Altima 2.0L has a combined 32 MPG. You can find all ranges of efficiencies in all makes.

You can reduce energy consumption. More efficient refrigerators, less light in the night (that wouild be a benefit for insects living in the night...), and other ways.

Sure, have you done the calculations to show this will provide enough energy to power electric cars for everyone?

A really 100% "renewable society" is not available, and no-one who goes into details demands it.

I agree. The Dems think we can.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Fake news by the company that owned three miles island. The amount was not much compared to Chernobyl, but is was enough to be threat locally.

You are wrong. Studies showed the most radiation anyone received from one dose was 100 millirems and the average person within 10 miles received 8 millirems. An x-ray exposes you to more than 8. You receive over 600 millirems from nature yearly. There was never a study that showed an increase in cancer from around the area.

A technology that does not allow human errors without leading into catastrophe is not safe in practice, whatever "theory" may say.

Then stop driving cars.

The team was well-trained. In a sense, too well - they began to think they could master anything, and so made a rather dangerous experiment.

The operators were not trained. The reports all state this.

It was the result of a scenario almost no-one ever anticipated. Before that, the nuclear plants of japan wre considered to be of most highest safety level - sounds familiar?

When was the last US nuclear accident that you heard about?

Those little reactors are not a big problem. Even the worst scenario would be a rather small incident. This has the advantage a "normal" incident could be covered up smoothly, like the 2009 incident at three miles island.

It was not covered up. You can read official reports of the incident. Do you know what happened in 2009?

 

[keith99]

Please list the deaths from nuclear accidents, oil plant accidents and gas plant accidents. And then, list those for the US.

The uncounted dead from this one accident dwarfs all American deaths from nuclear accidents.

Texas City disaster - Wikipedia

One interesting fact not included in the Wiki is that initially there was concern over ammunition in a small arms locker. The whole ship was the biggest bomb ever to explode (as in size, not yeild) but at that time most people were not aware nitrates were explosive.

The ships 2 ton anchor was found over a mile away!

I remember there was a railroad accident where oil cars were thrown at least thousands of feet. I'll see if I can find it.

 

[keith99]

I found this while trying to find the old and spectacular oil train incident. Perhaps nothing huge, but a lot of current incidents and some impressive pictures. Current as in the last few years!

BOOM

 

[FredVB]

What policies will Biden implement? Also how will he going to get China to implement them as well? The US alone cannot stop climate change.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...fa95ec-2915-11eb-92b7-6ef17b3fe3b4_story.html

What a Joe Biden presidency would mean for five key science issues

Can Joe Biden make good on his revolutionary climate agenda?

There could be any greater number of links to the information. Don't bother giving a response that you don't buy any of that news. I expect there are individuals like that, I don't care. I chose not to say it stronger to not have my post deleted. But those of you dismissing truth and news sources lost. Thank God! This time anyway.

 

[Ragdoll]

Latest poll has Trump up 5 points over Biden.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Full Document attached of Newest Jan 2024 Harvard-CAPS-Harris Poll. Source. Harvard CAPS / Harris Poll

According to this poll, taken Jan 17-18, if the election were held "today":

Trump wins race handily, +8 points, in a 3 way race between Trump, Joe Biden, and Kennedy.

Trump wins by an even larger margin, +11 points, when the race has Trump, Joe Biden, Kennedy, Jill Stein and West on the ballot.

 

[helmut]

I read the report PDF, and was astonished that 52& say Trump is a threat to democracy, but in the answer whether they would vote for Biden or Trump (no other choice), 53% prefer Trump.
Which means that at least 5% will rather vote for a threat to democracy (Trump in their opinion) than vote for Biden.

I feel the time of the USA being a true democracy are ending.

 

[Ragdoll]

I read the report PDF, and was astonished that 52& say Trump is a threat to democracy, but in the answer whether they would vote for Biden or Trump (no other choice), 53% prefer Trump.
Which means that at least 5% will rather vote for a threat to democracy (Trump in their opinion) than vote for Biden.

I feel the time of the USA being a true democracy are ending.

I'm gonna change the subject a little and then get back on track.
On the subject of green energy and cars. Biden openly said many times that he wants to abolish fossil fuels and cars that run on fossil fuels. He wants to force Americans to buy a $60,000 electric car, electric stove, and everything electric.

Trump's position here is that he will allow both cars that run on fossil fuels and electric cars as to allow for a more competitive market. He is allowing the people to decide what car they want to buy. But Biden wants to decide for you what you will drive and what you will cook your food on.
Which Candidate is more friendly to democracy? Which Candidate is a true Capitalist?

 

[Vambram]

I'm gonna change the subject a little and then get back on track.
On the subject of green energy and cars. Biden openly said many times that he wants to abolish fossil fuels and cars that run on fossil fuels. He wants to force Americans to buy a $60,000 electric car, electric stove, and everything electric.

Trump's position here is that he will allow both cars that run on fossil fuels and electric cars as to allow for a more competitive market. He is allowing the people to decide what car they want to buy. But Biden wants to decide for you what you will drive and what you will cook your food on.
Which Candidate is more friendly to democracy? Which Candidate is a true Capitalist?

Excellent post and great questions.
I've no doubt as to who my answers are, and there is no way I would answer those 2 questions with Biden, OR any other leader of the Democratic Party.

 

[helmut]

I'm gonna change the subject a little and then get back on track.

You did not get back to what I wrote. The point was: in one poll more than 5% said they would vote for a person they saw as a danger to democracy. This is the problem - democracy does not count for them compared to allegiance to their leader.

On the subject of green energy and cars. Biden openly said many times that he wants to abolish fossil fuels and cars that run on fossil fuels. He wants to force Americans to buy a $60,000 electric car, electric stove, and everything electric.

Trump's position here is that he will allow both cars that run on fossil fuels and electric cars as to allow for a more competitive market. He is allowing the people to decide what car they want to buy. But Biden wants to decide for you what you will drive and what you will cook your food on.
Which Candidate is more friendly to democracy?

A selected example proves nothing. I can show you a Bible verse where the textus receptus (the medieval Greek NT text on which e.g. the KJV is based) ha a version that could be used to "prove" it rejects the notion of Jesus being YHWH (and hence, God) …

Trump has spread lie above lie, he disrespects any rule (and a democracy can only function by following the rules set forth in constitution and law), and when he lost the election he tried to steal it from Biden by instigating a coup d'état.

Many dictators got into power by elections, Hitler in Germany, I Seung-Man (aka Syngman Rhee) in Korea, Ergoğan in Turkey, Orban in Hungary, and Putin in Russia (a person admired by Trump). There are certainly more that I just can't recall by now. The next presidential elections may be the last free ones if Trump wins.

On the other hand, there is no danger that Biden will claim victory when he loses and recruit extremists that storm the capitol …

Which Candidate is a true Capitalist?

A Capitalist is a person whom lives from his capital (i.e. money). Maybe he is a busy entrepreneur, or maybe he is a lazy guy that lives from the interest he gets on his billion dollars or so. The word capitalism was used for an economy dominated by capitalists, and then became a communist catch-word for free market economy.

Unlimited free market makes the rich ones richer and the poor ones poorer. The opposite, i.e. equal distribution of wealth, ruin the economy. There need to be a sort of compromise: Some transfer of money from the rich ones to the poor ones to counter the natural flow from the poor ones to the rich ones, in order to achieve a sort of equilibrium.

The amount of transfer is different in the USA than in Europe, with the expected result - you have more wealth on the average, we have less poor people (in percentages). Therefore, you accuse us of being somewhat socialist (and propaganda links socialism to communism, whether the propaganda is left wing or right wing).

 

[One God and Father of All]

When it is talked about so-and- so and his supporters , it is not referring to the American people, but to those who have the money to support a campaign.
Races for the presidency, or any other office, are not based upon the support of the Amearican people but upon those who are willing to finance a campaign. It is therefore the interest of the supporters who have influence over the candidate and peole. If the candidate succeeds, so do the donors.
Welcome to America.

 

[One God and Father of All]

The only reason Nikki Haley was to maintain her campaign for presidency is because she had donors who were willing to finance her campaign. If she were to win, she would be responsible to repay their contributions. Just as anyone who took money to buy a house or whatever.
A campaign therefore relies on the interest of the rich rather than those of the common people.
Welcome to American

 

[helmut]

A campaign therefore relies on the interest of the rich rather than those of the common people.
Welcome to American

In the good old days,a politician could decide to focus on the interest on his voters, and up to a certain point neglect the interest of his supporters without telling them.

Then came the sunshine-laws (in the 1970s, AFAIK), and voters and supporters could get detailed informations about his real actions in politics. Those who could afford to hire an analyst (or whatsoever expert you need for that) could then confront him with every »wrong« step against their interests. On the other hand, most voters do not take any look on what »their« politician does in the commission or even in parliament, unless this can be seen on TV or read in the newspaper.

So now the rich have full control over those who want some support from them in the next campaign (i.e. virtually every politician).