RIP Russiagate

Post Reply New Topic

So if he did put forth a good healthcare plan that's the way you would look at it.

If Trump would legitimately give all Americans universal healthcare, , I might be tempted to vote for him, but I doubt that'll happen.

I don't love either trump or republicans. But I don't think he and them are satan and demons.
Nor do I hate democrats. But if they're going to portray themselves progressive pure goodness, I'm going to be more critical of them.

p
I have no problem with that statement, but your post seem to be pro Trump.

Well good maybe that will mean we can focus on the more pressing issue that climate change is. Because that is way more pressing then any russia U.S president candidate collusion. I mean why couldn't the investigation focused on how he is abusing presidential power to harm the environment and lower regulations to allow for more toxic substances to be pumped into the air? All in the name of his delusion that pollution isn't a problem.

More like I don't agree with a lot of the criticism. Like I didn't think he colluded with russia. Not because of pro feelings, but simply because I didn't think it happened. Like Crimadella I think he will probably try implementing a better healthcare plan, but out of ego, which isn't really a pro attitude. Just seems to me that some press and some people have gone way overboard with what seems like unreasoning hatred.

If Trump has such an idea of better health care, then he's been keeping it to himself all this time.

He hasn't been keeping it secret, he has to get rid of the Obama care first. I think his ego is a plus, without the ego of wanting to go down as one of the best, he wouldn't have a driving force to do good things. That's what I noticed and got tired of, people only care about get elected, then they do a string oof corrupt activities because they already secured their position. I string of events which has made every president we have had worse than the previous. He is already doing a way better job than Obama did in his full 8 years (IMO). I know we need to work on the environment, but we need the technology to be able to do that. What I have noticed that people fail to realise by pointing out places like the UK and solar power is our population greatly exceeds theirs, our cif cities have way more people than theirs, our demand for power greatly exceeds theirs. People are trying to compare 20 million people to 350 million people. That's a vast difference. We use way more power than the UK.

The UK has about 65 million people. Fitting into a much smaller land area.

I see I was wrong there so I looked some things up.


US renewable energy = 19.5%
20.3% nuclear (clean energy)

UK renewable energy = 33%

I cannot find any UK nuclear energy percentages. I guess they don't use nuclear?

So, we produce more clean energy than the UK and 5 to 6 times the population size and people say we are lacking behind?? 39.8% us clean energy to 33% UK renewable energy. Taking note that there biggest renewable energy is wind power and they have the best location for wind power. We aren't lacking behind as much as people are claiming, they are pretty much just lucky to be in a prime location for wind power.

People don't like nuclear power, because they are scared of it, it is still clean energy, so we technically produce more clean energy than the UK and people are pretending we are far behind, how does that work??

Nuclear power is scary for a very good reason.

There have been nuclear accidents which have affected a large amount of land....like Chenorbyl and Three Mile Island.

Leaking nuclear material carries considerable danger.

Yes I know, but it's not a danger for green house gasses. Plus, wasn't the island thing from nuclear bomb testing? There has only been one incident with a nuclear power plant right? I believe the main cause was from a big storm, a hurricane or something right? They can use precautions. If we want clean energy for right now, we could use more nuclear power plants. I'm sure they can learn from their mistakes and as a caution don't have the plant near people, I would say it would probably be best to put them in underground facilities, that would be much safer, and have plenty of back up generators. They just need to make them safer is all. It doesn't take away from the fact that it's clean energy.

There was a nuclear power plant disaster in Japan (Fukushima) caused by a tsunami in 2011.

One in Ukraine (Chernobyl) caused by a severely flawed Soviet era reactor design combined with human error in 1986.

One in the USA (Three Mile Island) because a cooling malfunction caused part of the core to melt in 1979.

The thing with all of these is they were very old. The Fukushima plant was built in 1967. The Chernobyl plant was built in 1977 and built very poorly. The Three Mile Island plant was built in 1968.

I'm sure we are better at designing and building nuclear power plants these days.

UK nuclear power info
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear ... ed_Kingdom

Why would he have to get rid of the ACA before having a plan of what to replace it with? That's fake news.

Also, population size & electricity use doesn't prevent the USA from generating "green," power from renewables vs. fossil fuels. That's fake news.