Random Politics & Religion #34

Thank you for the link to the query on google, but I really did want a link to an article you read and would share, like the other ones.

Anything NEW to the situation that this would be up in news again?

Spinning words out of context, business as usual.

Yes it's the norm from medias, even more now since it's plagued with opinion articles everywhere.

Which wouldn't be a problem if 95% of them didn't have practically identical opinions.

It's because people are stupid and confuse quantity with quality, EVERYONE seem really hung up on this fact. Ten people saying the same thing is not more valid that one person saying something different. Those ten could all of gotten their information from the same flawed source while the one person derived it from a more factually accurate source.

Right now ALL THE media is all pretty much the same source, one entity "leaks" information, then writes a story about it, then shares the information with the rest who also write a similar story. This has the effect of making it look like "everybody" is agreeing with something, while it's really just one flawed source that's been mirrored multiple times.

It's because people are stupid and confuse quantity with quality, liberals seem really hung up on this fact. Ten people saying the same thing is not more valid that one person saying something different. Those ten could all of gotten their information from the same flawed source while the one person derived it from a more factually accurate source.

Right now the left media is all pretty much the same source, one entity "leaks" information, then writes a story about it, then shares the information with the rest who also write a similar story. This has the effect of making it look like "everybody" is agreeing with something, while it's really just one flawed source that's been mirrored multiple times.

It's because people are stupid and confuse quantity with quality, liberals seem really hung up on this fact. Ten people saying the same thing is not more valid that one person saying something different. Those ten could all of gotten their information from the same flawed source while the one person derived it from a more factually accurate source.

Right now the left media is all pretty much the same source, one entity "leaks" information, then writes a story about it, then shares the information with the rest who also write a similar story. This has the effect of making it look like "everybody" is agreeing with something, while it's really just one flawed source that's been mirrored multiple times.

The right media does this too.

And far more often IMHO.

A crowdfunding campaign has raised over $1 million as of Tuesday for the opponent of Senator Susan Collins, R-Maine, if she votes to confirm Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court, a move she likened to bribery.

Liberal activist groups have posted the campaign on the platform Crowdpac, drawing supporters and critics.

“Senator Collins votes NO on Kavanaugh and you will not be charged, and no money will go to fund her future opponent,” the platform wrote. “Senator Collins votes YES on Kavanaugh and your pledge will go to her opponent's campaign, once that opponent has been identified.”

Had California and Germany invested $680 billion into new nuclear power plants instead of renewables like solar and wind farms, the two would already be generating 100% or more of their electricity from clean (low-emissions) energy sources, according to a new analysis by Environmental Progress.

The analysis comes the day before California plays host to a “Global Climate Action Summit,” which makes no mention of nuclear, despite it being the largest source of clean energy in the U.S. and Europe.

Here are the two main findings from EP's analysis:

Had Germany spent $580 billion on nuclear instead of renewables, it would have had enough energy to both replace all fossil fuels and biomass in its electricity sector and replace all of the petroleum it uses for cars and light trucks.

Had California spent an estimated $100 billion on nuclear instead of on wind and solar, it would have had enough energy to replace all fossil fuels in its in-state electricity mix.

It depends what was the goal, nuclear doesn't pollute the air with co2 (Inb4 nausi says it's not pollution), but it's not considered renewable energy and the nuclear waste is anything but clean.

I'm not sure if the goal was solely to reduce the co2 production or to have renewable, clean energy in these cases.

And creating a nuclear power plant wouldn't ...?


Point being, if it creates waste, it's not clean.

On a completely unrelated note, here's an interesting article from Forbes:

Had They Bet On Nuclear, Not Renewables, Germany & California Would Already Have 100% Clean Power

From the moment it's built, it is, which is the point ...

So literally no energy is clean then. Thanks for clearing that up.