[Julian658]

We both know you will not provide evidence for this claim.

Also, Antifa and incels are two separate groups.

But regardless of actual numbers, the history of violence in the last few years clearly shows that white supremacists and white nationalists are far more of a threat than people opposed to fascism.

People opposed to fascism are only a threat to fascists.



Do you mean these two specific groups, or white supremacy in general?

POD
I do not believe white people are supreme. There is nothing special about whiteness. Most white people are unaware they are white. They do not think about that sort of thing.

[Rich]

Do you think the people who walk around Seig Heiling and carrying Tiki torches are not Trump voters?

You've exposed your own hideous racism here. As if there was something wrong with saying "hail victory" in German or promoting South Pacific culture.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Julian658

Answer the questions.

Exactly how many white nationalists are there in the USA?

[Julian658]

@Julian658

Answer the questions.

Exactly how many white nationalists are there in the USA?

I don't know POD. Most white people feel good about being white, others never thought about it, and some have white guilt. Honestly, I do not think the KKK or the NAZI party is a problem.

If you define white nationalism as those that vote for Trump then half the nation is nationalist.

The notion that one’s culture is superior to all others solely because it represents the traditions of one’s ancestors, is regarded as chauvinism if claimed by a majority—but as “ethnic” pride if claimed by a minority.
Ayn Rand

[Pants-of-dog]

@Julian658

Then I guess you better Google it. But thanks for admitting that you made a claim that you cannot support and that you do not know if it is true.

[Julian658]

@Julian658

Then I guess you better Google it. But thanks for admitting that you made a claim that you cannot support and that you do not know if it is true.

Thanks for admitting you are a google devotee. I suggest you google a far left website to get your info.
POD, your question has no accurate answer.

Why are you unable to answer simple questions:
Are you willing to condemn the authoritarianism and repression in communists states?
IS there a NO-GO zone on the extreme left?
Do you have a spine?

[Pants-of-dog]

@Julian658

If you cannot answer the question, then I will assume that you deliberately lied when you claimed that you did know.

And since you are not making any factual claims, this conversation is useless.

[Julian658]

@Julian658

If you cannot answer the question, then I will assume that you deliberately lied when you claimed that you did know.

And since you are not making any factual claims, this conversation is useless.

POD runs away.
Got it!
No spine

[late]

France decided to go nuclear. Near 100% of the French energy is nuclear and they make very little carbon in the process. Furthermore the energy in France is cheap whereas it is extremely expensive in Germany.

The French plants are old, and there isn't much enthusiasm, at least not that I am aware of, to build new ones.

The politics are a nightmare.

We should prob work up some new designs first, but I'd like to see a number built. Good luck getting them built in Cal, what with all the earthquakes.

[Julian658]

The French plants are old, and there isn't much enthusiasm, at least not that I am aware of, to build new ones.

The politics are a nightmare.

We should prob work up some new designs first, but I'd like to see a number built. Good luck getting them built in Cal, what with all the earthquakes.

German electricity was nearly 10 times dirtier than France's in 2016
In 2016, Germany generated 545 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity at an average rate of approximately 560 grams of carbon dioxide emitted per kWh. By contrast, France generated 530 TWh of electricity at an average rate of approximately 58 grams of carbon dioxide emitted per kWh. In terms of carbon emissions from electricity, this means that Germany emitted almost exactly ten times as much as France -- over 300 million metric tonnes.

Germany closed the Nuclear plants.
Not only did new solar and wind not make up for the lost nuclear, the amount of solar and wind electricity produced in 2016 actually decreased from 2015 despite new additions of solar capacity and extensive additions of wind capacity.
https://environmentalprogress.org/big-n ... 0per%20kWh.

Germany Solar and Wind is Triple the Cost of France’s Nuclear and Will Last Half as Long

France’s nuclear energy spending was 60% of what Germany spent on renewables. France gets about 400 Terawatt hour per year from nuclear but Germany gets 226 Terawatt-hours each year. 45 Terawatt-hours of Germany’s renewable power comes from burning biomass which generates air pollution.

Germany’s solar farms will have to be rebuilt every 15-25 years. The wind farms will need to be rebuilt every 20-25 years. Nuclear plants can last 40-80+ years. This means that it guaranteed that the solar and wind farms will have to be rebuilt in 15-25 years. The maintenance costs will increase as wind turbines or solar panels are replaced. The old turbines and solar panels will need to be replaced.

France completed construction on 76% of its current 58 reactors at an inflation-adjusted cost of $330 billion (€290 billion). The complete buildout of the 58 reactors was less €400 billion. Germany has spent about €500 billion over the last 20 years to get to 35% renewables. 7% of this is burning biomass. France gets almost double the TWh from nuclear than Germany gets from renewables (solar, wind, biomass, hydro). France has gotten about 400 TWh per year from nuclear while all of Germany’s renewables (solar, wind and biomass) amounts to about 220 TWh.

https://energycentral.com/c/ec/germany- ... -half-long

[Pants-of-dog]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/nation ... Ef8_j2Lhk8

Internal document shows Trump officials were told to make comments sympathetic to Kyle Rittenhouse

In prepping DHS officials for questions about Rittenhouse, the document suggests they say he took a gun to Kenosha "to help defend small business owners."

Oct. 1, 2020, 3:00 AM MDT
By Julia Ainsley

WASHINGTON — Federal law enforcement officials were directed to make public comments sympathetic to Kyle Rittenhouse, the teenager charged with fatally shooting two protesters in Kenosha, Wisconsin, according to internal Department of Homeland Security talking points obtained by NBC News.

In preparing Homeland Security officials for questions about Rittenhouse from the media, the document suggests that they note that he "took his rifle to the scene of the rioting to help defend small business owners."

Another set of talking points distributed to Homeland Security officials said the media were incorrectly labeling the group Patriot Prayer as racists after clashes erupted between the group and protesters in Portland, Oregon.

It is unclear whether any of the talking points originated at the White House or within Homeland Security's own press office.

Rittenhouse, 17, supported Trump and police on his social media pages before he traveled from his home in Antioch, Illinois, to Kenosha on Aug. 25 with an AR-15-style rifle, authorities said. Rittenhouse was arrested on first-degree murder charges and is fighting extradition to Wisconsin. His attorneys argue that he was acting in self-defense.

Four former Homeland Security officials, two of whom worked for Republican administrations, said it was unusual for law enforcement officials to be instructed to weigh in on a case involving a particular group or individual before investigations had concluded.

"It is as unprecedented as it is wrong," said Peter Boogaard, who was a spokesperson for Homeland Security during the Obama administration.

"What strikes me about the talking points is that they didn't call for calm among the public,” said Elizabeth Neumann, who served as DHS's assistant secretary for threat prevention and security policy in the Trump administration. “Even in the early hours after the incident, it was known private militias had self-deployed. …They seemed more interested in Rittenhouse's reputation than calling for calm and actual law and order.”

Neumann, who left the Trump administration in April, recently endorsed former Vice President Joe Biden for president.

The Rittenhouse talking points also say, "Kyle was seen being chased and attacked by rioters before allegedly shooting three of them, killing two."

"Subsequent video has emerged reportedly showing that there were 'multiple gunmen' involved, which would lend more credence to the self-defense claims."

The document instructs officials, if they are asked about Rittenhouse, to say they are not going to comment on an ongoing investigation and to say that "what I will say is that Rittenhouse, just like everyone else in America, is innocent until proven guilty and deserves a fair trial based on all the facts, not just the ones that support a certain narrative. This is why we try the accused in the court of law, not the star chamber of public opinion."

Officials were instructed to bring conversations back to the need to preserve law and order: "This is also why we need to stop the violence in our cities. Chaotic and violent situations lead to chaotic, violent and tragic outcomes. Everyone needs law and order."

Asked for comment, a spokesperson said Homeland Security "does not comment on alleged leaked documents."

Trump has expressed sympathy for Rittenhouse, saying it appeared that he was "trying to get away from them," referring to the protesters he is accused of having fatally shot.

Despite the talking points, Homeland Security officials have not gone as far to support Rittenhouse. Ken Cuccinelli, the official performing the duties of deputy Homeland Security secretary, said on Twitter after the shooting that the Rittenhouse case shows "the complexities involved in an investigation and why it can take some time to reach conclusions."

By contrast, Trump and other officials in his administration have been quick to blame left-wing extremists. Acting Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Mark Morgan has repeated Trump's claim that organized black-clad members of "antifa" were being flown to protests across the country to incite violence.

In Tuesday night's debate, Trump refused to condemn white supremacy and instead blamed left-wing groups.

"The Proud Boys," said Trump, referring to a right-wing group that has rallied in his support and against anti-racism protesters. "Stand back and stand by."

"But I'll tell you what, I'll tell you what, somebody's got to do something about antifa and the left, because this is not a right-wing problem," he said.

So here we see the Trump administration doing three things that fascists like to do:

1. Glorification of violence and readiness to use it in politics. The government is literally telling people that this kid was right to bring weapons to a protest.

2. Portraying themselves as the law and order people, despite point 1.

3. Defining themselves as a bulwark against some imagined enemy. In this case, the enemies are literally called anti-fascists.

Also, the whole thing where government colluded to sway the press is pretty anti-democratic.

[Sivad]

Four former Homeland Security officials, two of whom worked for Republican administrations, said it was unusual for law enforcement officials to be instructed to weigh in on a case involving a particular group or individual before investigations had concluded.

"It is as unprecedented as it is wrong," said Peter Boogaard, who was a spokesperson for Homeland Security during the Obama administration.

What a fucking joke, Justice, DHS, FBI, all routinely politicize the fuck out of cases. It's what they do. Peter Boogard is just another deep state faker trying to score establishment brownie points with a lame attempt at undermining the Trump administration.

Rittenhouse was clearly justified in shooting his three assailants, it's a travesty that he was even charged.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Sivad

Are you arguing that it is right that the current administration and the DHS politicize these killings because these types of things are routinely politicized?

[Sivad]

@Sivad

Are you arguing that it is right that the current administration and the DHS politicize these killings because these types of things are routinely politicized?

I doubt the administration issued any such directives. Peter Boogard probably had an underling draft the document and fake the header to manufacture another bullshit hoax against the Trump administration. These people have already manufactured multiple gigantic hoaxes, falsified documents, engaged in malicious prosecutions, perjured themselves before congress. I don't believe anything coming out of the deep state and I don't put anything past the deep state when it comes to politically sabotaging the Trump administration.

[late]

"If you think Britain has a tough job replacing its ageing fleet of nuclear reactors, spare a thought for France. The world champion of atomic energy is approaching a cliff edge in its electricity production. The bulk of its fleet of 58 nuclear reactors was built in a remarkable 15-year burst of construction in the 1980s and 1990s. France has not brought on stream a new reactor for 20 years. Even if the lives of its plants were extended from 40 to 60 years, in itself an expensive proposition, 75 per cent of its nuclear generating capacity would be gone by 2050.

One of the big choices was how quickly to scale back nuclear, which accounted for 71 per cent of electricity generation last year.

At the same time, the president said France would close 14 reactors by 2035, starting with the two oldest at Fessenheim, on the Rhine, in two years."
https://www.ft.com/content/c7421fbe-f32 ... f9881e729f

Like I said, no interest in building new reactors.

[Rich]

At the same time, the president said France would close 14 reactors by 2035, starting with the two oldest at Fessenheim, on the Rhine, in two years."
https://www.ft.com/content/c7421fbe-f32 ... f9881e729f

Like I said, no interest in building new reactors.

Its not just the left that opposes nuclear power. Jewish supremacists oppose the building of new nuclear power stations because they oppose anything that would give justification for Iran or any other potential enemy of Israel to expand their nuclear programmes.

[Julian658]

"If you think Britain has a tough job replacing its ageing fleet of nuclear reactors, spare a thought for France. The world champion of atomic energy is approaching a cliff edge in its electricity production. The bulk of its fleet of 58 nuclear reactors was built in a remarkable 15-year burst of construction in the 1980s and 1990s. France has not brought on stream a new reactor for 20 years. Even if the lives of its plants were extended from 40 to 60 years, in itself an expensive proposition, 75 per cent of its nuclear generating capacity would be gone by 2050.

One of the big choices was how quickly to scale back nuclear, which accounted for 71 per cent of electricity generation last year.

At the same time, the president said France would close 14 reactors by 2035, starting with the two oldest at Fessenheim, on the Rhine, in two years."
https://www.ft.com/content/c7421fbe-f32 ... f9881e729f

Like I said, no interest in building new reactors.

Nuclear weapons and the nuclear accidents create fear. Flying an airplane is safer than driving a car. Nuclear energy is actually safer than other forms of energy creation. However, people reason with emotion ---and passion too.

“Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions.”

“The truth springs from arguments amongst friends.”

“A wise man apportions his beliefs to the evidence.”
― David Hume

All they need to do is transition to Thorium which is cheaper, easier to maintain, not prone to accidents, and with MUCH less short lived nuclear waste. However, the left has irrational fear of nuclear. Irrationality is common in both extremes of the political spectrum.

[late]

All they need to do is transition to Thorium which is cheaper, easier to maintain, not prone to accidents, and with MUCH less short lived nuclear waste.

However, the left has irrational fear of nuclear. Irrationality is common in both extremes of the political spectrum.

You are preaching to the choir.

It's NIMBY more than the Left. If it wasn't, you'd see a bunch of Republicans pushing for it.

I think this is a 'only Nixon could go to China' moment. Not that I actually think i only Nixon could have done it...

Anyway, we are going to need to have Progressives in control of Congress and the White House. Even then, it's going to be a political nightmare. But you could get one (Yes, Count one, one beautiful reactor) built somewhere.

People might start to get used to the idea after that.

[Julian658]

You are preaching to the choir.

It's NIMBY more than the Left. If it wasn't, you'd see a bunch of Republicans pushing for it.

I think this is a 'only Nixon could go to China' moment. Not that I actually think i only Nixon could have done it...

Anyway, we are going to need to have Progressives in control of Congress and the White House. Even then, it's going to be a political nightmare. But you could get one (Yes, Count one, one beautiful reactor) built somewhere.

People might start to get used to the idea after that.

Life is not perfect. There will always be a chance of accident, but Nuclear Power has killed much less that fossil fuel systems.
By the way solar farms would required thousands of acres covered by solar panels. This would cause massive ecological damage and destroy the local vegetation and wildlife. The wind turbines may lead extinction of some birds and bats. I don't have any negatives about hydroelectric power.

[Rugoz]

Nuclear is being phased out because it's too expensive, if you look at total lifetime costs. It's not competitive.