So how bout that West Virginia primary election ? (the one Obama nearly lost)

[Kashiwaba Tomoe]

Yeah you cant make this shit up; real life is indeed stranger than fiction.

 

A guy in jail got 41% of the vote in the states primary election.

 

That means if the guy had gotten just a few percent more votes, he would have been on the ballot for president for the Democrat party in place of Obama.

 

Picture of guy

 

 

 

ok real picture

 

 

 

 

 

 

[totheresq]

Alright, so I usually just lurk around and don't post, but as a West Virginian, I figured I'd at least say something about why it seems this happened.

 

West Virginia is a state deeply rooted in the coal mines. By supporting cleaner energy and regulation of greenhouse gases, Obama has gotten himself the reputation of being "anti-coal" and therefore against West Virginia. While this may seem like this is taking it to a much more personal level than politics should be taken, there are plenty of voices here shouting the general idea that Obama hates West Virginia. So, when it came down to it, 41% decided to vote for someone they knew nothing about rather than the guy who's out to take away the lifeblood of our state.

 

Also, sadly, some of it's racism, but that's the sad side effect of having a culture that's shielded from a lot of outside influences for so long. Of course that isn't an excuse, but it goes far to explain the slow progress of tolerance in some mountain cultures.

 

I, for one, am glad it happened since it'll force our state to reevaluate their ballot procedures.

[Kashiwaba Tomoe]

Why SHOUDLNT it be took to a personal level, btw ?

 

President makes it clear he hates one of the biggest historical parts of your states economy, which means lots of folks there loosing jobs, so they vote for anyone but him.

 

And yeah, I kinda guessed it was protest votes, but was too funny to pass up.

I mean fuck look at that guys picture.

 

Also: What states need is a 'none of the above' option, as well as a 'anyone But (insert person(s) ) option, as a way to protest vote against someone without having to cast a ballot for some random guy. (IE: if you vote none of the above, and it wins, all candidates are disqualified from further involvement in that election)

 

Also I doubt too much of it is racism, that said the Democrat party WAS once the party of the Klan (not to mention the party of slavery, historically in the US)

[totheresq]

Well, honestly, there's a lot of good potential here for clean energy. Wind farms seem to be very promising, and in the end could replace the incredibly dangerous mining jobs. Of course, that isn't going to happen quickly enough or smoothly enough to avoid the hit our economy will take in the process. In the end, though, coal isn't a sustainable fuel source or job market. It's been here long enough to have worked it's way into almost all aspects of our lives, but it can't be that way forever. Either we switch to cleaner energy now, and have some control over the flood of the unemployed as mines shut down one by one, or we wait until we run out and, depending on the availability and demand at that time, have an uncontrolled collapse later that could have a much greater effect on the country at large.

 

I'm saying it shouldn't be taken that personally because I doubt the president is thinking of new ways he can fuck over the people in Putnam County, West Virginia.

 

And you may be shocked how much of it is racism. You can hear some pretty insensitive things said around the voting booths. Of course, the dumbest do seem to talk the loudest in those situations. I don't think that the majority of my fellow West Virginians take race into consideration when choosing an elected official, but there still seems to be a disconcerting percentage.

 

I did have a good laugh about it the whole thing, though. I've read that he has tried to get on the WV ballot before, but didn't make deadlines or something. I wonder how many votes he would have gotten if he had made it on the ballot before.

[Kashiwaba Tomoe]

Actually, wind farms have been shown to warm the area they're installed in.

They keep the cold air from settling as well at night, not to mention modern coal isn't that bad.

 

As for sustainable, it is MUCH more sustainable that Oil (not to mention the US is the saudi arabia of coal).

 

I'm saying it shouldn't be taken that personally because I doubt the president is thinking of new ways he can fuck over the people in Putnam County, West Virginia.

 

Actually he's long been on record saying he DOES want to drive coal out of buisness.

 

As for the ballot, the guy apparently does it for giggles, gets on whatever ballots he can.

[totheresq]

Saying something is more sustainable than oil isn't saying much. Coal lasting 100 years longer is still just that, only 100 years. And some estimates I've read have lowered the amount of coal we have left world-wide to less than 120 years at current production levels. Do you not agree that weening us off of a non-sustainable resource over the course of 120 (or more) years would be a bit easier than yanking out a huge part of the economy in the last 20 years of the "era of coal"?

 

As far as I've read, reports show that the local temperature change (which was less than .8 degrees C) caused by wind farms doesn't affect a large area, and I haven't read of any research that says that it's harmful in any way. Of course, I'm not an expert on climate change, and if you have sources that outline the harmful effects of temperature change caused by windfarms, I'd love to read it.

 

Also, being against coal is not a war against the people who make a living off of it anymore than banning the use of radioactive materials to make your water "better for you" was a personal attack on the people who made the Radium Spa. All in all, I will support coal because right now, we need it. I'd love to see more boys come out of the mines and find safer, healthier jobs on the surface, but I do understand that can't be done overnight. And no one, including Obama, is going to be able to make the country stop using fossil fuels immediately. It's going to be a process that will probably stretch over the next several decades. A very painful process.

[Kashiwaba Tomoe]

Yeah, but what's being done now is moving to tech that RELIES on it.

 

Electric cars ?

 

Powered by coal plants.

 

Solar Panels ? Plants keep going out of business.

 

Wind power ? recent studies show it WARMS the area it's in thru not letting cold air settle at night.

 

They all have their drawbacks still.

 

And no one, including Obama, is going to be able to make the country stop using fossil fuels immediately.

Go to 2:17

[video=youtube]

So if somebody wants to build a coal powerd plant' date=' they can. It's just that it will bankrupt them becasue htey're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted.[/quote']

[totheresq]

I can't address electric cars and solar plants fully right now, but there is certainly new solar technology that may help address both of those issues in the near future.

 

I do think I addressed the temperature rise around windfarms, though

 

As far as I've read, reports show that the local temperature change (which was less than .8 degrees C) caused by wind farms doesn't affect a large area, and I haven't read of any research that says that it's harmful in any way. Of course, I'm not an expert on climate change, and if you have sources that outline the harmful effects of temperature change caused by windfarms, I'd love to read it.

 

And, for the video you posted, I didn't just skip ahead to 2:14, and the general message he seems to be getting across is that if you want to use energy sources that are known to pollute, you have to pay to offset that. The more pollution you can cut down, the more money you save. That would encourage companies to invest in finding either cleaner ways to use coal (or nuclear power, or whatever the case may be), or switch to a cleaner alternative. Either way, through the fines they'd have to pay or through private research funding by companies, more money will be dedicated to finding better ways to power the world. How, exactly, is this a bad thing in the long run?

[Kashiwaba Tomoe]

The windfarm stuff is just as big as global warming, in so far as serious data for it (considering NASA probes have shown the other planets in the solar system have had warming similar to earth)

 

Also, that carbon share bullshit won't work because of countries like china that just don't give a fuck.

 

Fact is most of the west is ALLREADY clean as fuck, main issue really is the really big cities and their smog, of course I was in Atlanta a few months back at the start of spring, and apparently the trees there are the bigggest polluters, with all that pollen .

[totheresq]

When you mention NASA and heating on other planets, I really hope that you're not referring to runaway global heating on Venus. Because that would only back up the "get rid of carbon emissions" argument. And, no, wind farms are not the same threat that global warming is. Where the hell are you getting that? I can't find any "serious data" showing that it effects anything but a very local area around the wind farms themselves. Again, if you have links to studies showing differently, I would love to see them.

 

And saying "why should we do it if China won't" isn't a very good argument, either. That's like me saying, "Susie's mom doesn't make HER eat HER vegetables, so I shouldn't have to!" And, I'll tell ya, that argument didn't work on my mother one single, solitary time.

[Kashiwaba Tomoe]

No, on locations ranging from Mars to Pluto, in ammounts similar to what's been observed on Earth.

 

Also, if we cut two, and china adds ten, what do we gain by cutting ourselves, especially when unlike us they don't attempt anything to filter their plants, complete with a smog in some areas that makes old London look like nothing.

 

 

As for warming, keep in mind, the Earth is still coming OUT of an ice age, combined with more output from the sun which is supported by the warming on other planets, and all that adds up to natural causes.

 

Not that pollution isn't bad, it's really fucking bad, but fucking ourselves in the ass without lube to bring into use tech that's nowhere near ready yet isn't the solution.

[totheresq]

Alright, if you're using global warming as an argument against wind farms, I don't see why you're discrediting the global warming theory. Yes, we are still coming out of an ice age, and in fact we're still recovering from a cooler climate that happened after the Medieval Climate Optimum. But that doesn't change the fact that we do know that higher levels of carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases DO cause climate change.

 

And, other than Pluto not being a planet and not comparable to Earth, it is true that there are effects of global warming on other planets. But the environments on those planets range from vastly different to hugely different to our own. To find a comparable model to Earth, we'd have to find a planet that receives approximately the same amount of energy from the sun as we do along with energy from plate tectonics. Without going into lengthy explanations, Venus seems to be the closest model for this, though it's closer to the sun. And that's a very grim model.

 

Oh, and I've never said that we should OMG STOP USING FOSSIL FUELS RIGHT NOW OR WE'LL ALL DIE, I said that it'll be a gradual process. I certainly hope we'll figure out another form of energy in the next hundred years. Not exactly fucking ourselves in the ass.

[Kashiwaba Tomoe]

1- Global warming is being hyped. back in the 70s and a bit in the 80s it existed with the same hype (from Algore among others) under the name global cooling.

2- If MULTIPLE other plants, as you just conceeded, are ALL experincing warming, that means a good chance a common factor exists, such as the sun, not man (or martin soccer moms in SUV flying saucers) (also fuck you Pluto is still a planet in my book )

3- Venus is also MUCH closer to the sun. Furthermore, CO2 is easy to deal with. More plants. Of course pollution is GREAT for us, if plants hadn't turned our primarially Co2 atmosphere into one with oxygen, we would ahve trouble breathing.

4- I know you didn't say it, but it's what OBAMA wants, which is how this discussion releates to the thread (aside from the fact that it's fun to argue when both sides remain polite and reasonable despite disagrements)

 

Oh also: It's funny electric cars today get similar mileage to electric cars 100 years ago, execpt today they use extremly toxic batteries..... made in china, with minimal if any care for the local pollution.

[Ashal]

Starting a thread just to start hating on politicians you don't personally agree with isn't being civil, it's just repackaging the argument you started in the last thread. Your clearly more interested in blame and convincing others of where to direct their blame while ignoring any argument they might have had themselves then actually discussing these issues in a civil manner.

 

I'm sick of seeing it and honestly it's stuff like this that is wrong with american politics, blaming convenient people rather than looking at the root cause.

 

Strong moderation will be taken in the future, this is your first and only warning.