Talk-Polywell.org

Not sure if this is pushing the limit of the forum, but here goes: who do you think would be the best US President to have if Polywell pans out? The few people I speak to about Polywell (everyone I know thinks I’m nuts for bothering to follow Polywell development), think the following:

1. McCain:
a. Lefties say: not good, in the pocket of big oil. He will kill the program, OR,
b. Righties say: he will go 100% if it is proven. He well lean toward private ownership. This tech will head in the cell phone direction. A bunch of smaller units all over, leapfrogging long distance distribution.
2. Obama:
a. Righties say: not good, if it helps the USA, it is bad and his liberal friends will have him kill the program.
b. Lefties say: he will go 100% if it is proven, but will lean toward long-term federal control. He’ll push this stuff out to third world countries as well.
3. Clinton:
a. Righties and Lefties say: Don’t care. Few around here like her and don’t want to imagine her as President.

What do you say?

I can't see either McCain or Obama (Clinton irrelevant) getting anything other than 100% behind any technology that could cleanly and cost-effectively provide essentially unlimited energy.

The suggestion that Obama would be opposed because it would be good for the US is simply idiotic. I understand that most political discourse in the US in recent years has consisted of offensively absurd mischaracterizations of those naive elitist Jesus-hating liberals who detest freedom and love taxes and want to force everyone to marry a gay terrorist. But come on.

If you can get the science and the engineering down well enough to show that it will work (that still seems a long way off) it won't matter who the POTUS is.

Wittgenstein wrote:I can't see either McCain or Obama (Clinton irrelevant) getting anything other than 100% behind any technology that could cleanly and cost-effectively provide essentially unlimited energy.

I tend to agree.

The suggestion that Obama would be opposed because it would be good for the US is simply idiotic. I understand that most political discourse in the US in recent years has consisted of offensively absurd mischaracterizations of those naive elitist Jesus-hating liberals who detest freedom and love taxes and want to force everyone to marry a gay terrorist. But come on.

And the rest of the liberals are Clinton supporters. ;-)

If you can get the science and the engineering down well enough to show that it will work (that still seems a long way off) it won't matter who the POTUS is.

If we get positive results before the election they will be throwing money at it. Especially McCain who has a Naval interest.

The vehemence of each side is what disturbs me. They think Polywell is like cold fusion or perpetual motion. Why would they even have an opinion; but when I bring up the candidates, there is no middle ground in their opinions. The candidate they don’t like is not just wrong, but VERY wrong. The worst possible choice ever.

I agree that if it pans out everyone will be 100% for it.

On an off topic, I mentioned the other day that I felt sort of like Brian Doyle-Murray’s character in Caddyshack. You know that scene near the end where the ball doesn’t quite fall into the hole and everyone is going nuts because they think the bad guys have won? Then the explosions start and Brian Doyle-Murray’s character is very quietly watching the ball and waiting…

That’s when the person I was talking to rolled her eyes and walked off. Perhaps I am not as quiet as I should be?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APiQ1Yug8kA

rj40 wrote:but here goes: who do you think would be the best US President to have if Polywell pans out?

Why would that even be important.... ?

I'm not sure what Liberals are saying McCain is in the pockets of big oil, but they sound real frick stupid, are you sure you didnt say George Bush ?

See this list ?

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contr ... =n00006424

No oil companies there.

Are you sure they were libs ? Did they say they were libs, or do you see them as libs ?

Fusion power will do more to change the political landscape than any politician ever could.

But for the next year or two we may need their help.

MSimon wrote:Fusion power will do more to change the political landscape than any politician ever could.

Exactly.

Its sort of like asking which candidate would be good for the Wright Brothers airplane ......

Rj40, I think you have missed the mark, my a mile. The Airplane transcended politics. As MSimon points out, fusion will transcend politics.

What have I missed the mark by a mile on? I agree that any candidate will go 100% on this tech if it proves true.

Perhaps you mean my interpretation of “lefty” and “righty?” Well, in this case anyway, those I labeled “lefty” almost all want to vote for Obama and those I labeled “righty” almost all wanted to vote for McCain. I did not intend to offend with the terms. I should have been clearer. These are people I have spoken to – not a nationwide poll. A lot of people think any Republican is the pocket of big oil, and any Democrat is in the pocket of left-wing nut-jobs. I don’t, but many of the folks I interact with do. A pity.

I do think this is a good question. Even though I think any of the candidates would support this tech, the question I have is the HOW of how they would support it. Would it be more government run? For how long? How much will the private sector be allowed to participate? When? The HOW of this may very well depend on the next president.

I hope this transcends politics, at least a little. But I don’t have high hopes. The Wright Brothers and the Airplane happened in a different time. Look at GM food today – you’d think people would be all over it.

Anyway, this is yet another case where I hope I am wrong and politics will not interfere once demonstrated.

Thanks for the link!

Oh, I almost forgot. I didn't really press anyone on why they think what they think. I wouldn't be surprised if those responses (which I paraphrased) would be moderated if I pressed.

I can't see either McCain or Obama (Clinton irrelevant) getting anything other than 100% behind any technology that could cleanly and cost-effectively provide essentially unlimited energy.

Exactly.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/John_Mc ... _+_Oil.htm

He seems to be strong for alternative sources of energy -- but of course everyone is now, with oil at $135.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_ ... _+_Oil.htm

He too is pretty strong, but less so on "nuclear." That probably means fission. Not sure how the greens will feel about fusion (D-D isn't exactly clean, but it doesn't make any carbon).

I'd have to give a slight edge to McCain, because M Simon actually discussed it with his aides.

rj40 wrote: A lot of people think any Republican is the pocket of big oil, and any Democrat is in the pocket of left-wing nut-jobs. I don’t, but many of the folks I interact with do. A pity.

Yes, a pity. I knew McCain has taken a lot of financial institution money, and I remember the Keating 5, so I googled opensecrets+McCain.

rj40 wrote:

Look at GM food today – you’d think people would be all over it.

Yeah right, its been years only now, and its just starting to get some traction, IIRC Sen Boxer seems to be on the issue, as well as hormones being used. Monsanto is on the wrong track.

Wittgenstein wrote:I can't see either McCain or Obama (Clinton irrelevant) getting anything other than 100% behind any technology that could cleanly and cost-effectively provide essentially unlimited energy.

You're overlooking one critical factor.

The Polywell has the word 'nuclear' associated with it. And 'nuclear' is still a bogyman. This isn't rational, and will not be treated rationally by the issue activists who have made their careers on yelling it down.

Wittgenstein wrote:I understand that most political discourse in the US in recent years has consisted of offensively absurd mischaracterizations of those naive elitist Jesus-hating liberals who detest freedom and love taxes and want to force everyone to marry a gay terrorist. But come on.

IMO its about political power. The power to declare that many things must be rationed is extreme power to control. Saying you're doing so "to save the earth" is rationalization, but does let you play the saintly savior.

Duane