Bernie Sanders in 2020? Here is his long history with pseudoscience

[hal2kilo]

Why do you think nuclear is not the answer to global warming?

It's like believing in Clean Coal. Long term consequences which in the history of the nuclear industry have not been addressed. You gonna be the next civilization that opens that strange tomb?

 

[realibrad]

It's like believing in Clean Coal. Long term consequences which in the history of the nuclear industry have not been addressed. You gonna be the next civilization that opens that strange tomb?

You know that in large part it can be recycled right? The waste is radio active but after about 40 years its lost about 99.9% of its radioactivity.

You can also reuse most of it, so no need to bury it. The reason we do not do it in the US is because of Carter's fear, and recently Obama's fear of nuclear proliferation.

And yes, Obama did cancel plans for nuclear recycling.

 

[woolfe9998]

Well, here’s the deal. I have been watching some fishing videos, especially West Coast ones. You never know when society will collapse and you will have to feed yourself. So I think that’s why the first thing that jumped into my head reading and wishing to describe to you how I see the tack you have taken in this thread came up as it did like this:

Imagine you live in a village of starving people by the sea and you and your brother know how to fish, and you and he go down to the shore and spend the day arguing about which lure will catch the most fish. Now imagine an encyclopedic desplay of arguments pro and con presented in treatise form and how impressive it would be to the starving.

This is sort of what I mean by the term, pin head engineer.

Democracy is dead. Sanders not Clinton is the one that says it. Here you are talking about some money spent by veterans on acupuncture when there are huge issues among them that are all in their heads. What the fuck do you really know about how to heal them and even if you did what the f good would it do because democracy is dead.

Why not go for somebody who sees what the real issue is and harps on it, constantly points it out. Forest for the trees, man. Democracy is dead, purchased by the 1%. How about we tell the 99% they lost the class war. They are worried about which lure will catch the most fish while they starve to death and turn to cannibalism.

Sanders is no different in terms of wanting to take money out of politics than many other dems who are going to run, Warren for example. I'd rather nominate someone who is pro science.

 

[Moonbeam]

Sanders is no different in terms of wanting to take money out of politics than many other dems who are going to run, Warren for example. I'd rather nominate someone who is pro science.

I have no opinion yet as to who I will support. I will evaluate by whom I think will best address the fact that democracy is dead in their message.

 

[pmv]

The waste is radio active but after about 40 years its lost about 99.9% of its radioactivity.

You sure about that? That's not the way I've always heard it. At least '99.9%' may be misleading in that it remains dangerous for long after that.

e.g. this is more in line with what I thought

https://theweek.com/articles/485781/radioactive-fuel-rods-silent-threat

When the uranium fuel is used up, usually after about 18 months, the spent rods are generally moved to deep pools of circulating water to cool down for about 10 years, though they remain dangerously radioactive for about 10,000 years.

Another interesting discussion of the topic:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-waste-lethal-trash-or-renewable-energy-source/

However, this is why I struggle to have an opinion about nuclear power, it's at least as much a technical question as an ideological one, and honestly, I've forgotten what I used to know about it. It's just a depressing reminder that I no longer have the grasp of science that I did as a teenage geek.

Mainly the nuclear industry just seems so steeped in commercial interests and has such a history of creative-accounting and being economical-with-the-truth that I simply don't trust it. Partly of course it's because of its linkage to the nuclear weapons programs. Encouraging governments to be less than honest about it all.

 

[woolfe9998]

I have no opinion yet as to who I will support. I will evaluate by whom I think will best address the fact that democracy is dead in their message.

None of them will frame it the way you do. I'm not aware of Sanders ever having said "democracy is dead." He's said that money is corrupting our politics.

 

[realibrad]

You sure about that? That's not the way I've always heard it. At least '99.9%' may be misleading in that it remains dangerous for long after that.

e.g. this is more in line with what I thought

https://theweek.com/articles/485781/radioactive-fuel-rods-silent-threat



Another interesting discussion of the topic:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-waste-lethal-trash-or-renewable-energy-source/

However, this is why I struggle to have an opinion about nuclear power, it's at least as much a technical question as an ideological one, and honestly, I've forgotten what I used to know about it. It's just a depressing reminder that I no longer have the grasp of science that I did as a teenage geek.

Mainly the nuclear industry just seems so steeped in commercial interests and has such a history of creative-accounting and being economical-with-the-truth that I simply don't trust it. Partly of course it's because of its linkage to the nuclear weapons programs. Encouraging governments to be less than honest about it all.

Your "theweek" link got themselves confused. It may take 10,000 years for it to go back to being as radioactive as natural uranium, but, that does not mean its dangerous for 9,999 years.

But, yes that 99.9% reduces is still harmful and should be sealed away. Storing that is relatively easy and can be extremely safe. You just need mass to absorb the particles and it turns into heat.

The biggest issue for nuclear by far is regulation based on fear. Most of that fear is not based on reality.

 

[Moonbeam]

The biggest issue for nuclear by far is regulation based on fear. Most of that fear is not based on reality.

Every nuclear accident was believed not to correspond to reality before it happened. All nuclear assurances are hollow. One error can be catastrophic. Not worth the gamble.

 

[realibrad]

Every nuclear accident was believed not to correspond to reality before it happened. All nuclear assurances are hollow. One error can be catastrophic. Not worth the gamble.

All energy creation has downsides. All errors can be catastrophic.

 

[Moonbeam]

None of them will frame it the way you do. I'm not aware of Sanders ever having said "democracy is dead." He's said that money is corrupting our politics.

Maybe we just have different interpretations of what we hear:

Sanders Issues(Third on his list)
Getting Big Money Out of Politics and Restoring Democracy



On November 19, 1863, standing on the bloodstained battlefield of Gettysburg, Abraham Lincoln delivered one of the most significant and best remembered speeches in American history. At the conclusion of the Gettysburg Address, Lincoln stated “that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain…that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom…and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

In the year 2016, with a political campaign finance system that is corrupt and increasingly controlled by billionaires and special interests, I fear very much that, in fact, government of the people, by the people, and for the people is beginning to perish in the United States of America.

We cannot allow that to happen.

Six years ago, as a result of the disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision, by a 5-to-4 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court essentially said to the wealthiest people in this country: you already own much of the American economy. Now, we are going to give you the opportunity to purchase the U.S. Government, the White House, the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House, Governors’ seats, legislatures, and State judicial branches as well.

The Citizens United decision hinges on the absurd notion that money is speech, corporations are people, and giving huge piles of undisclosed cash to politicians in exchange for access and influence does not constitute corruption.

During the 2016 campaign cycle, billions of dollars from the wealthiest people in this country flooded the political process. Super PACs – a direct outgrowth of the Citizens United decision – are enabling the wealthiest people and the largest corporations in this country to contribute unlimited amounts of money to campaigns.

The situation has become so absurd that super PACs, which theoretically operate independently of the actual candidates, have more money and more influence over campaigns than the candidates themselves.

Let’s be honest and acknowledge what we are talking about. We are talking about a rapid movement in this country toward a political system in which a handful of very wealthy people and special interests will determine who gets elected or who does not get elected. That is not what this country is supposed to be about. That was not Abraham Lincoln’s vision of a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

As former President Jimmy Carter recently said, unlimited money in politics, “violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political system. Now, it’s just an oligarchy, with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or to elect the president. And the same thing applies to governors and U.S. Senators and congress members. So now we’ve just seen a complete subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors, who want and expect and sometimes get favors for themselves after the election’s over.”

The need for real campaign finance reform is not a progressive issue. It is not a conservative issue. It is an American issue. It is an issue that should concern all Americans, regardless of their political point of view, who wish to preserve the essence of the longest standing democracy in the world, a government that represents all of the people and not a handful of powerful and wealthy special interests.

Real campaign finance reform must happen as soon as possible. That is why we must overturn, through a constitutional amendment, the disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision as well as the Buckley v. Valeo decision. That is why we need to pass legislation to require wealthy individuals and corporations who make large campaign contributions to disclose where their money is going. More importantly, it is why we need to move toward the public funding of elections.

Our vision for American democracy should be a nation in which all people, regardless of their income, can participate in the political process, can run for office without begging for contributions from the wealthy and the powerful.

Our vision for the future of this country should be one in which candidates are not telling billionaires at special forums what they can do for them.

Our vision for democracy should be one in which candidates are speaking to the vast majority of our people – working people, the middle class, low-income people, the elderly, the children, the sick, and the poor – and discussing with them their ideas as to how we can improve lives for all of the people in this country.
It is essential that we:

• Only appoint Supreme Court justices who will make it a priority to overturn Citizens United and who understand that corruption in politics means more than just quid pro quo.
• Fight to pass a constitutional amendment making it clear that Congress and the states have the power to regulate money in elections. I have been a proud sponsor and leading champion of such an amendment in the Senate.
• Fight for a publicly financed, transparent system of campaign financing that amplifies small donations, along the lines of the Fair Elections Now Act that I have been pleased to co-sponsor, and an effective public financing system for president.
• Insist on complete transparency regarding the funding of campaigns, including through disclosure of contributions to outside spending groups, via legislation, action by the Securities and Exchange Commission, Federal Election Commission, and Federal Communication Commission, and an executive order requiring government contractors to disclose their political spending.
• Fight to eliminate super PACs and other outside spending abuses.
• Work to aggressively enforce campaign finance rules.

Getting big money out of politics is vital, but much more needs to be done to restore our democracy. Notably, we must ensure that all Americans are guaranteed an effective right to vote. Campaign finance reform must be accompanied by efforts to strengthen voting rights – restoring the full protections of the Voting Rights Act, expanding early voting and vote-by-mail, implementing automatic voter registration, ending gerrymandering and making Election Day a national holiday, among others. When nearly two-thirds of the electorate did not vote in 2014 midterm elections, it is clear we need radical change to bring more people into the political system. Our democracy cannot be truly representative unless elected officials hear from all of their constituents, not just the wealthy and the powerful.

Returning to a government of, by, and for the people – not the billionaires and giant corporations – will not be easy. We need not some, but all of the measures highlighted here. This will require agreement of Congress or, in the case of a constitutional amendment, two-thirds of the Congress and three-quarters of the states. We’re going to get there by building a movement – a movement with enough power not only to elect a president but to insist that all of our elected representatives return power to the people, a movement that not only identifies the deep corruption of our politics but rejects cynicism and instead insists on solutions, action and accountability.

 

[woolfe9998]

Maybe we just have different interpretations of what we hear:

Sanders Issues(Third on his list)
Getting Big Money Out of Politics and Restoring Democracy



On November 19, 1863, standing on the bloodstained battlefield of Gettysburg, Abraham Lincoln delivered one of the most significant and best remembered speeches in American history. At the conclusion of the Gettysburg Address, Lincoln stated “that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain…that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom…and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

In the year 2016, with a political campaign finance system that is corrupt and increasingly controlled by billionaires and special interests, I fear very much that, in fact, government of the people, by the people, and for the people is beginning to perish in the United States of America.

We cannot allow that to happen.

Six years ago, as a result of the disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision, by a 5-to-4 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court essentially said to the wealthiest people in this country: you already own much of the American economy. Now, we are going to give you the opportunity to purchase the U.S. Government, the White House, the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House, Governors’ seats, legislatures, and State judicial branches as well.

The Citizens United decision hinges on the absurd notion that money is speech, corporations are people, and giving huge piles of undisclosed cash to politicians in exchange for access and influence does not constitute corruption.

During the 2016 campaign cycle, billions of dollars from the wealthiest people in this country flooded the political process. Super PACs – a direct outgrowth of the Citizens United decision – are enabling the wealthiest people and the largest corporations in this country to contribute unlimited amounts of money to campaigns.

The situation has become so absurd that super PACs, which theoretically operate independently of the actual candidates, have more money and more influence over campaigns than the candidates themselves.

Let’s be honest and acknowledge what we are talking about. We are talking about a rapid movement in this country toward a political system in which a handful of very wealthy people and special interests will determine who gets elected or who does not get elected. That is not what this country is supposed to be about. That was not Abraham Lincoln’s vision of a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

As former President Jimmy Carter recently said, unlimited money in politics, “violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political system. Now, it’s just an oligarchy, with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or to elect the president. And the same thing applies to governors and U.S. Senators and congress members. So now we’ve just seen a complete subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors, who want and expect and sometimes get favors for themselves after the election’s over.”

The need for real campaign finance reform is not a progressive issue. It is not a conservative issue. It is an American issue. It is an issue that should concern all Americans, regardless of their political point of view, who wish to preserve the essence of the longest standing democracy in the world, a government that represents all of the people and not a handful of powerful and wealthy special interests.

Real campaign finance reform must happen as soon as possible. That is why we must overturn, through a constitutional amendment, the disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision as well as the Buckley v. Valeo decision. That is why we need to pass legislation to require wealthy individuals and corporations who make large campaign contributions to disclose where their money is going. More importantly, it is why we need to move toward the public funding of elections.

Our vision for American democracy should be a nation in which all people, regardless of their income, can participate in the political process, can run for office without begging for contributions from the wealthy and the powerful.

Our vision for the future of this country should be one in which candidates are not telling billionaires at special forums what they can do for them.

Our vision for democracy should be one in which candidates are speaking to the vast majority of our people – working people, the middle class, low-income people, the elderly, the children, the sick, and the poor – and discussing with them their ideas as to how we can improve lives for all of the people in this country.
It is essential that we:

• Only appoint Supreme Court justices who will make it a priority to overturn Citizens United and who understand that corruption in politics means more than just quid pro quo.
• Fight to pass a constitutional amendment making it clear that Congress and the states have the power to regulate money in elections. I have been a proud sponsor and leading champion of such an amendment in the Senate.
• Fight for a publicly financed, transparent system of campaign financing that amplifies small donations, along the lines of the Fair Elections Now Act that I have been pleased to co-sponsor, and an effective public financing system for president.
• Insist on complete transparency regarding the funding of campaigns, including through disclosure of contributions to outside spending groups, via legislation, action by the Securities and Exchange Commission, Federal Election Commission, and Federal Communication Commission, and an executive order requiring government contractors to disclose their political spending.
• Fight to eliminate super PACs and other outside spending abuses.
• Work to aggressively enforce campaign finance rules.

Getting big money out of politics is vital, but much more needs to be done to restore our democracy. Notably, we must ensure that all Americans are guaranteed an effective right to vote. Campaign finance reform must be accompanied by efforts to strengthen voting rights – restoring the full protections of the Voting Rights Act, expanding early voting and vote-by-mail, implementing automatic voter registration, ending gerrymandering and making Election Day a national holiday, among others. When nearly two-thirds of the electorate did not vote in 2014 midterm elections, it is clear we need radical change to bring more people into the political system. Our democracy cannot be truly representative unless elected officials hear from all of their constituents, not just the wealthy and the powerful.

Returning to a government of, by, and for the people – not the billionaires and giant corporations – will not be easy. We need not some, but all of the measures highlighted here. This will require agreement of Congress or, in the case of a constitutional amendment, two-thirds of the Congress and three-quarters of the states. We’re going to get there by building a movement – a movement with enough power not only to elect a president but to insist that all of our elected representatives return power to the people, a movement that not only identifies the deep corruption of our politics but rejects cynicism and instead insists on solutions, action and accountability.

Yes, I read that as him thinking democracy is eroding, not that it's dead. That's pretty much my opinion on it as well. And the opinion of many democrats.

 

[Moonbeam]

All energy creation has downsides. All errors can be catastrophic.

The downsides of nuclear outweigh any upsides because the catastrophic consequences are far far greater.

 

[realibrad]

The downsides of nuclear outweigh any upsides because the catastrophic consequences are far far greater.

No.

 

[Moonbeam]

Yes, I read that as him thinking democracy is eroding, not that it's dead. That's pretty much my opinion on it as well. And the opinion of many democrats.

Then I think you don't see the consequences of your thinking. Sanders had that message and took small donations but you voted for Clinton who is heavily supported by corporate money and she lost and you said that is what would have happened to Sanders. That is why democracy is dead. Even you can't think straight.

I don't blame you. Nobody wants to know that because they can't really believe that democracy is dead is the reason it's dead. If the people who can see it is dying can't get behind others who see the same, that there is only really that one issue, then it will stay dead. If you can't see the implication of democracy dying and continuing to do so is death, I can't help you. I would love to be ideologically enraged and call you a monster, but to me the issue is psychological, not political. There are so many other issues to focus on as realibrad will tell you.

 

[Moonbeam]

No.

Nuclear is dead. I win.

 

[Amused]

I saw that too. Some of his "science" is absolutely precious.

Example?

 

[woolfe9998]

Then I think you don't see the consequences of your thinking. Sanders had that message and took small donations but you voted for Clinton who is heavily supported by corporate money and she lost and you said that is what would have happened to Sanders. That is why democracy is dead. Even you can't think straight.

I don't blame you. Nobody wants to know that because they can't really believe that democracy is dead is the reason it's dead. If the people who can see it is dying can't get behind others who see the same, that there is only really that one issue, then it will stay dead. If you can't see the implication of democracy dying and continuing to do so is death, I can't help you. I would love to be ideologically enraged and call you a monster, but to me the issue is psychological, not political. There are so many other issues to focus on as realibrad will tell you.

No, I just believe, and still believe, that Sanders does not have a good chance in a general election. I agree with his message that democracy is eroding. I just don't agree that this alone guarentees electoral victory. We needed to stop Trump in 2016. Didn't work out but that was the idea.

 

[Moonbeam]

Why do you think nuclear is not the answer to global warming?

Nuclear engineers are generally pin heads.

 

[Blackjack200]

Example?

Sanders said following a vote in 2001 that he had “very serious concerns about the long-term goals of an increasingly powerful and profit-motivated biotechnology industry.” In a later vote, he warned of the dangers of “owners of technology” who are “primarily interested in how much money they can make rather than the betterment of society.”

This is bang-on.

 

[Texashiker]

implying Bernie will still be alive in 2 years, much less in 6 years to finish his term.

I love some of Bernies ideas, but he needs to pass the torch.

 

[Moonbeam]

No, I just believe, and still believe, that Sanders does not have a good chance in a general election. I agree with his message that democracy is eroding. I just don't agree that this alone guarentees electoral victory. We needed to stop Trump in 2016. Didn't work out but that was the idea.

Warned you it might not work out. I'm doing the same thing now. Message message message message message until so many people see that democracy is dead they decide to do something about it. Until then, whoever wins will be limited by the money that will be thrown against them. Democracy is dead. 'All your politic are belong to them, the wealthy'. You are just a battery that powers the machine.

 

[Amused]

Sanders said following a vote in 2001 that he had “very serious concerns about the long-term goals of an increasingly powerful and profit-motivated biotechnology industry.” In a later vote, he warned of the dangers of “owners of technology” who are “primarily interested in how much money they can make rather than the betterment of society.”

This is bang-on.

No, this is conspiracy mongering and bio-tech fear mongering.

Meanwhile, golden rice, a biotech that could prevent blindness in hundreds of thousand of people a year is demonized by this very propaganda. BTW, the IP of Golden Rice was donated to non-profits.

So much for the conspiracy.

It's funny, the very same people who will belittle others for being anti-vaxx or climate change deniers spread the SAME science denialist bullshit over GMOs, biotech, and the organic food scam. The consensus on GMO and biotech safety is every bit as strong as the consensus on vaccines and climate change.

Just as the tobacco companies did with the tobacco/cancer debate, and just as the energy companies are currently doing with climate change denial propaganda, the organic food growers union is doing with GMOs and biotech.

 

[Moonbeam]

Sanders said following a vote in 2001 that he had “very serious concerns about the long-term goals of an increasingly powerful and profit-motivated biotechnology industry.” In a later vote, he warned of the dangers of “owners of technology” who are “primarily interested in how much money they can make rather than the betterment of society.”

This is bang-on.

Really? I heard lab grown human liver is cheap to make and delicious. It even grown in it's own green husk wrappings in non GMO corn.

 

[woolfe9998]

No, this is conspiracy mongering and bio-tech fear mongering.

Meanwhile, golden rice, a biotech that could prevent blindness in hundreds of thousand of people a year is demonized by this very propaganda. BTW, the IP of Golden Rice was donated to non-profits.

So much for the conspiracy.

It's funny, the very same people who will belittle others for being anti-vaxx or climate change deniers spread the SAME science denialist bullshit over GMOs, biotech, and the organic food scam. The consensus on GMO and biotech safety is every bit as strong as the consensus on vaccines and climate change.

Just as the tobacco companies did with the tobacco/cancer debate, and just as the energy companies are currently doing with climate change denial propaganda, the organic food growers union is doing with GMOs and biotech.

Yup, you either accept a scientific consensus or you do not. You don't get to pick and choose based on your personal predilections and/or your ideology.

 

[Texashiker]

Maybe we just have different interpretations of what we hear:

Sanders Issues(Third on his list)Getting Big Money Out of Politics and Restoring Democracy
.

When someone says they want a democracy, all they really want is mob rules.

In other words, they are going to use propaganda to take stuff away from minority groups. Not minority as in race, but wealthy people, gun owners... etc.