Ocasio-Cortez- I'm a big girl now!

[wmw999 2,121]

Billy, if either of your kids behaved like you, you’d smack them. 

Wendy P. 

[kallend 1,623]

On 3/27/2019 at 4:09 PM, BillyVance said:

Awwww... Poor Alexandria Cowfart-Cortez. The senate put her Green New Deal up for a vote and it was voted down 57-0, with 43 Dumbocrats voting "present", and Cowfart-Cortez has a meltdown. BWAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA

Most of us grew out of name-calling sometime around age 10 - 12.  

[airdvr 197]

While I'm not a huge fan I've come to appreciate her passion for her job.  We actually need more people like AOC (not necessarily with her views) who aren't afraid to challenge the status quo.  Congress has sold us out to the highest bidder.  I'm wondering how long it will take them to get to her.

[kallend 1,623]

7 hours ago, airdvr said:

While I'm not a huge fan I've come to appreciate her passion for her job.  We actually need more people like AOC (not necessarily with her views) who aren't afraid to challenge the status quo.  Congress has sold us out to the highest bidder.  I'm wondering how long it will take them to get to her.

Hey, we have the best government money can buy.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

11 hours ago, airdvr said:

While I'm not a huge fan I've come to appreciate her passion for her job.  We actually need more people like AOC (not necessarily with her views) who aren't afraid to challenge the status quo.  Congress has sold us out to the highest bidder.  I'm wondering how long it will take them to get to her.

I've heard reports that she isn't soliciting donations from big donors. Her social media presence is generating enough donations from 'small timers' that she doesn't need to.

As a result, she doesn't have to spend hours & hours on the phone, soliciting donations. So she is actually attending hearings & committee meetings.

You know, doing her job.

https://www.brennancenter.org/blog/netflix-democracy

[billvon 2,400]

3 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

I've heard reports that she isn't soliciting donations from big donors. Her social media presence is generating enough donations from 'small timers' that she doesn't need to.

As a result, she doesn't have to spend hours & hours on the phone, soliciting donations. So she is actually attending hearings & committee meetings.

You know, doing her job.

https://www.brennancenter.org/blog/netflix-democracy

No wonder the political establishment hates her.  She's making them look bad.

[airdvr 197]

She'll also have to learn fairly quickly that to accomplish something in DC requires a quid pro quo strategy.  As it is she seems to have both sides of the aisle squirming, and you won't get much accomplished like that.

[billvon 2,400]

9 minutes ago, airdvr said:

She'll also have to learn fairly quickly that to accomplish something in DC requires a quid pro quo strategy.  As it is she seems to have both sides of the aisle squirming, and you won't get much accomplished like that.

That's probably true, sadly.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

1 hour ago, airdvr said:

She'll also have to learn fairly quickly that to accomplish something in DC requires a quid pro quo strategy.  As it is she seems to have both sides of the aisle squirming, and you won't get much accomplished like that.

Well, that's at least part of why she got zero votes on her proposal. The fact that it was totally unrealistic is also part of it.
I have a feeling she will learn. 

Keep in mind 'quid pro quo' means she will get some support for her ideas if she supports those of others. 
While I disagree with her on a lot of things, I'd like to see her succeed at least some. 

It would be nice if others could have her integrity. Temper it with a bit of reality and she may go far.

[DJL 232]

On 3/29/2019 at 5:09 PM, wolfriverjoe said:

Keep in mind 'quid pro quo' means she will get some support for her ideas if she supports those of others. 
While I disagree with her on a lot of things, I'd like to see her succeed at least some. 

Something like this:  https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/sen-lamar-alexander-green-new-deal-would-cost-trillions-annually-heres-a-better-idea

This is an example of both parties getting to the middle ground.

Edited April 1, 2019 by DJL

[billvon 2,400]

20 minutes ago, DJL said:

Something like this:  https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/sen-lamar-alexander-green-new-deal-would-cost-trillions-annually-heres-a-better-idea

That is exactly what I was hoping for.  Nothing was happening, then AOC proposed the Green New Deal.  It made people angry and uneasy - and it got people talking about the problem.  Now a republican has said "that's out in left field!  But what about this:" with his own unworkable (but more realistic) proposal.  Now someone on the democratic side will come back with another proposal.  And they will get closer and closer to a real solution.

[gowlerk 1,912]

13 minutes ago, billvon said:

That is exactly what I was hoping for.  Nothing was happening, then AOC proposed the Green New Deal.  It made people angry and uneasy - and it got people talking about the problem.  Now a Republican has said "that's out in left field!  But what about this:" with his own unworkable (but more realistic) proposal.  Now someone on the democratic side will come back with another proposal.  And they will get closer and closer to a real solution.

And the best part is thinking about how people like Lamar Alexander would be ridiculing what is now his own position only one Congressional election cycle ago.

[DJL 232]

17 hours ago, gowlerk said:

And the best part is thinking about how people like Lamar Alexander would be ridiculing what is now his own position only one Congressional election cycle ago.

It would be great to see us take another look at nuke.  It's still a short term solution but those same people who were vehemently against it now prioritize it's issues below that of burning fossil fuels.  I see it as a way for Republicans to maintain their identity with an old-school power method.  In the meantime renewable are getting cheaper and cheaper and eventually they won't even be able to say there's a reason to prop up nuke energy.

[billvon 2,400]

53 minutes ago, DJL said:

It would be great to see us take another look at nuke.  It's still a short term solution but those same people who were vehemently against it now prioritize it's issues below that of burning fossil fuels.  I see it as a way for Republicans to maintain their identity with an old-school power method. 

AND be able to say that they are cutting-edge, since many of the newer SMR designs represent very new energy paradigms.  (Reactors small enough for small cities, not just major metropolitan areas.)

[gowlerk 1,912]

2 hours ago, DJL said:

It would be great to see us take another look at nuke.

Not until someone can get a handle on what to do with the waste. Seriously, in my mind that is the only deal killer. All the other problems can be solved. And actually this one can be as well. In theory, but not as long as no one will accept it being anywhere near their area.

[DJL 232]

3 hours ago, billvon said:

AND be able to say that they are cutting-edge, since many of the newer SMR designs represent very new energy paradigms.  (Reactors small enough for small cities, not just major metropolitan areas.)

The dream solution would be plopping the apparatus into an existing coal plant.

https://energynews.us/2016/07/13/midwest/nuclear-advocates-eye-former-coal-plant-sites-for-small-reactors/

[DJL 232]

2 hours ago, gowlerk said:

Not until someone can get a handle on what to do with the waste. Seriously, in my mind that is the only deal killer. All the other problems can be solved. And actually this one can be as well. In theory, but not as long as no one will accept it being anywhere near their area.

Absolutely.  Full sprint to figure this out and figure out the cap on usage.

[billvon 2,400]

3 hours ago, gowlerk said:

Not until someone can get a handle on what to do with the waste. Seriously, in my mind that is the only deal killer. All the other problems can be solved. And actually this one can be as well. In theory, but not as long as no one will accept it being anywhere near their area.

With many SMR's, you put the entire reactor (fuel and all) on a boat or a train car, wheel it to the power plant, and install it.  When you are done you put it back on the boat and ship it back to the factory.  The factory opens it up, unloads the spent fuel, reloads it with new fuel, fixes anything that's wrong and ships it back out again.  The reactor is both the power generator and the shipping container for the fuel.

[gowlerk 1,912]

2 minutes ago, billvon said:

With many SMR's, you put the entire reactor (fuel and all) on a boat or a train car, wheel it to the power plant, and install it.  When you are done you put it back on the boat and ship it back to the factory.  The factory opens it up, unloads the spent fuel, reloads it with new fuel, fixes anything that's wrong and ships it back out again.  The reactor is both the power generator and the shipping container for the fuel.

That says absolutely nothing about where the spent fuel will be stored long term. And it introduces a host of transportation risks. I would assume that wherever this factory is would be stuck with the spent fuel. Just as existing plants are stuck with there. All sitting in pools of cooling water waiting for the day that society can no longer care for it.

[billvon 2,400]

1 minute ago, gowlerk said:

That says absolutely nothing about where the spent fuel will be stored long term. And it introduces a host of transportation risks.

It will likely be stored in the factory, just as all spent fuel from US reactors is stored on-site today.  And yes, there are transportation risks.  There are risks will all forms of power.

Quote

All sitting in pools of cooling water waiting for the day that society can no longer care for it.

Or until society needs it.

[gowlerk 1,912]

58 minutes ago, billvon said:

Or until society needs it.

For dirty bombs? But seriously, just saying it will be fine because it has been more or less fine so far is not all that realistic. In the US spent waste is sited in 120 or so odd locations. Many of them at closed or soon to be closed reactor sites. That someone will be looking to cut costs at. And that is just the US. This is a worldwide problem that is being more or less ignored. Like CO2 building up in the atmosphere has mostly been. Out of sight out of mind isn't going to cut it long term. Nuclear is wonderful tech and it's easy to be blinded by it. But there is a demon lurking within.

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-does-the-us-do-with-nuclear-waste/

Edited April 2, 2019 by gowlerk

[billvon 2,400]

10 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

For dirty bombs?

Or clean ones.  Or other reactors.  Radioisotopes are useful for a lot of stuff.

Quote

But seriously, just saying it will be fine because it has been more or less fine so far is not all that realistic.

?? I'm not.  I am saying it could be a problem.

But let's think about the worst case - there is a massive rail accident and 100 people are killed when a reactor derails.  Disaster!  Still, you could have one of those every year and it would still be far safer than coal, driving, general aviation or sunbathing.

Quote

In the US spent waste is sited in 120 or so odd locations. Many of them at closed or soon to be closed reactor sites. That someone will be looking to cut costs at. And that is just the US. This is a worldwide problem that is being more or less ignored. Like CO2 building up in the atmosphere has mostly been. Out of sight out of mind isn't going to cut it long term. 

No one is saying "out of sight, out of mind."  And it's not worldwide - it's pretty US centric because we have an irrational fear of nuclear power.  In France, for example, waste is reprocessed into new fuel.  The fuel that can't be reprocessed is vitrified - turned into glass and stored.

[kallend 1,623]

Nuclear reactors can't be dangerous, otherwise they never would have built the first ever one, experimental, not knowing how it would behave, with manually controlled shutdown by some guy with an axe, in the middle of the second largest city in the USA.  How much safer can you get?

[gowlerk 1,912]

20 minutes ago, kallend said:

Nuclear reactors can't be dangerous, otherwise they never would have built the first ever one, experimental, not knowing how it would behave, with manually controlled shutdown by some guy with an axe, in the middle of the second largest city in the USA.  How much safer can you get?

It was wartime ya know. Ya pays yer money and ya takes yer chance.

[airdvr 197]

I think we might just put it all in the trunk of a Tesla Roadster and shoot it into the sun.