What might the effect be on the election?

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

Post by djolds1 »

TallDave wrote:
Nothing THAT big could be suppressed.
Ha, next you'll tell me a major network news show could never broadcast supposed 1971 memos proving a sitting President received special treatment in the National Guard that were actually crudely forged in Microsoft Word mere weeks before the election.
You mean Rathergate, the self-destruction, shame and fall of one of the most reliably liberal old guard news anchors? That incident? The one that was shreded by the Blogosphere within hours?

Fox and the Blogosphere have broken the hold of the MSM.

Sure the MSM can broadcast it. Being believed and getting away with attempted forgery however are now much more difficult.
TallDave wrote:Makes you wonder how much we never hear about.
Yes.

Everything before 2002 is done and buried. 2004 and points onward are a new world.

Duane
Vae Victis

TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

Yeah, I was one of the bloggers involved (peripherally). It was weeks before they acknowledged we were right, and that only after a pretty vehement defense. Had the forgery been a little less crude, it would have held up at least through the election. To this day, Mapes and Rather claim the story was solid.

There's not much limit to what they're capable of, especially with a candidate they love this much.

In the 1930s, Walter Duranty won a Pulitzer Prize for telling the world how great Stalin's collectivization program was going even as millions of Ukrainians died horrible deaths in forced famines. I'm not sure a whole lot has changed since then.
Fox and the Blogosphere have broken the hold of the MSM.
I wish that were true, but it isn't. The MSM has somewhat less control over the gates of information, but they still produce 90% of the original news and they're much more partisan than before. This is partly because of the self-selection problem (social justice seekers are more likely to work in journalism despite low pay because of the chance to advocate), partly a result of the labor contraction in journalism, which is pushing older, fairer, more expensive journos out and replacing them with young Turks who want to change the world, and partly a result of the success of Fox and Rush Limbaugh and clones, which has led them to feel like they not only have less duty to be fair but an incentive to slant.

The last debate was a perfect example: twenty years ago a moderator writing a book called "Age of Obama" to be publuished on Inauguration Day would have been excoriated for the blatant conflict of interest. Today, it's met with a shrug.

classicpenny
Posts: 106
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 5:50 pm
Location: Port Angeles WA USA
Contact:

Post by classicpenny »

TallDave wrote:Do you see nuclear power anywhere in his current platform?
Yes, but I would say his attitude is somewhat short of enthusiastic.
Go to http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newenergy
Click on "Read the full version of The Obama-Biden New Energy for America plan" and you will download a pdf. Check the bottom of page 6 and the top of page 7 in that pdf. Sorry, I don't know how to copy and paste it into here or I would. Bottom line: he doesn't rule it out, but he wants the waste problem addressed before there's any expansion of nuclear capability. Looks to me like he's giving himself enough manuvering room to go either way.

Bill Flint

Chuck Connors
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 11:23 pm

Post by Chuck Connors »

Are we talking Nuclear….or Polywell? I know this point has been mentioned repeatedly, but there is a big difference between the perceptions of nuclear fission and nuclear fusion. I think both candidates as well as the majority of the American people understand this difference even in simple terms, with fission (old & dirty) and fusion (new & clean)….however flawed these views may be realistically.

If there is one thing the Green push has done lately is educate people at least in terms of glossy overviews. Polywell would definitely fall under the ‘Clean’ energy platform regardless of its nuclear origins.

Here's a 3rd October surprise-- If Polywell and the Navy claimed success in the very short term, McCain would take it as his own with the Navy being involved, and Obama would trumpet the success of our Armed Forces thereby looking like a Commander in Chief. A win-win for either party. Bussard & Nebel would of course receive well deserved accolades being hailed as heroes at a time when energy and economy are the hot button issues right now.

Would this change the outcome of the race? Not likely. Would either candidate back the full financing of Polywell and the Navy further?

If the announcement stand up to scrutiny...without question.

rcain
Posts: 992
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 2:43 pm
Contact:

Post by rcain »

classicpenny wrote:
TallDave wrote:Do you see nuclear power anywhere in his current platform?
Yes, but I would say his attitude is somewhat short of enthusiastic.
Go to http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newenergy
Click on "Read the full version of The Obama-Biden New Energy for America plan" and you will download a pdf. Check the bottom of page 6 and the top of page 7 in that pdf. Sorry, I don't know how to copy and paste it into here or I would. Bottom line: he doesn't rule it out, but he wants the waste problem addressed before there's any expansion of nuclear capability. Looks to me like he's giving himself enough manuvering room to go either way.

Bill Flint
Hi classicpenny
speaking as a (non-typical) european/brit/non-american - i would like to say:

i havent read OB's energy paper yet, but now i will. many thanks. i expect he will soon become one of the most powerful and influential individuals in the world. it is nice to know what he thinks (at least publicly, and i suppose predominantly to an American audience).

i have to say, from what i know so far, OB's views on Energy, Environment and Foreign Affairs certainly more in-phase with the rest of the developed world - where-ever they may actually reside.

i would also agree with him that nuclear waste disposal is an issue - otherwise it would need little legal regulation - which is not the case. cross-generational issues aside.

for my money, 'transmutation-'reactor technology is a viable and positive direction for both research and development.

within the existing nuclear industry world-wide we already have successful fast-breeder programmes operating or explored.

within the fusion programmes, we not only have a viable alternative, non-toxic, energy supply, but also the possibility of creating the energy conditions necessary for 'extended' navigation down through a greater variety of transmutation pathways.

thus our historical nuclear waste stockpiles all of a sudden become vast and cheap energy sources once again.

the alchemist's green dream :)

MSimon
Posts: 14332
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

rcain,

You needn't worry about what Obama thinks. That is a non-issue.

Get enough supporters and he thinks what you think.

Even if he has to pretend what he once thought is not what he ever thought. Hence, under the bus.

If he gets in I give him 2 years. Then Congress sends him packing. Rezko. Blago. And Levine. Think Spiro Agnew as President.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

rcain
Posts: 992
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 2:43 pm
Contact:

Post by rcain »

MSimon wrote:rcain,

You needn't worry about what Obama thinks. That is a non-issue.

Get enough supporters and he thinks what you think.

Even if he has to pretend what he once thought is not what he ever thought. Hence, under the bus.

If he gets in I give him 2 years. Then Congress sends him packing. Rezko. Blago. And Levine. Think Spiro Agnew as President.
msimon

i dont think i ever suggested he was in any way less duplicitous, or less 'expedient with l'actualité' or less willing to apply the praxis of 'ad captandum' than than any other politician on the planet. that is their nature, the world over, wheresoever on the political spectrum they purport to stand, throughout all history.

i am far more cynical that you might have imaged. i have lived too long.

i you asking me to believe that some other politician is a saint? i think not.

at least OB is making the effort to sound-off in the right direction.

as to scandal and skeletons in the closet and all that - so long as hes not as criminal as nixon, and has the council of clinton - i reckon he'll get away with it. or do yu know different?

(note: i know nothing of how the US Libel Laws operate on this forum)

imho.

ps. erm ... as to the influence of our favorite topic to the outcome of your national elections - i agree with you, none, unless someone else breaks news first on the fusion front; then the news will be 'assimilated' and 're-transcribed' though all your favorite political channels; whatever they may be. but, America wants to get their first, you say? we will see.

MSimon
Posts: 14332
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

re: libel laws.

In America you can say just about anything by prefacing it with "I have heard...." or "there is a rumor going around....". Truth is always a defense.

==========

Obama is as crooked as Spiro Agnew i.e. more crooked than Nixon.

And not to put too fine a point on it: there is bad blood between Clinton and Obama.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

I tend to think Obama will either be fairly good overall, or will be so catastrophically bad he won't survive his first term.

ravingdave
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:41 am

Post by ravingdave »

TallDave wrote:I tend to think Obama will either be fairly good overall, or will be so catastrophically bad he won't survive his first term.

I have wanted to say something several times on this topic, thought better of it, and backed out, only to do it all again several more times. I guess i'll say this.



Years ago I came up with something I call my theory of "enlightened hypocrisy". It is an effor to explain why people sometimes go against their own beliefs. The first example that came to mind is the one that i'll mention now.


Suppose you are on a lifeboat with many other people and you have no idea if or when you might be rescued. On the Lifeboat there is food and water, and most people want to eat and drink it all up right away. You think we should ration and conserve it as long as possible but you are shouted down and out voted. Do you (A) Conserve your share as you suggested ? or (B) Gobble it all down quickly, the same as everyone else ?


The answer is obvious but hypocritical. "Enlightened Hypocrasy" is doing something which is against your beliefs in order to prevent putting yourself at a severe disadvantage against people who INSIST on going the wrong direction.

Obviously if you had chosen to save your food, the others would have taken it away from you when they got hungry.


Well my friends, the U.S. of A is the Lifeboat, and we are the people in the lifeboat. The ignorant and short sighted majority is about to do something monumentally stupid. I hope they die of hunger before I do. they may be decent people but they will have brought it on themselves.


David


P.s. "Enlightened Hypocrisy" is basic human nature. We all practice it whether we realize it or not.

TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

ravingdave,

I tend to agree, but politics seems to move in cycles.

http://graphjam.com/2008/10/13/song-cha ... cal-cycle/

It's their turn again.

Right now the public remembers Katrina, the problems in Iraq, "wide stance," Mark Foley, economic distress, etc. Socialism, pacificism, and protectionism are starting to sound like the logical response, even though they've never worked before.

Right now the public is very unhappy and tends to blame Republicans more than Dems, fairly or not. We'll see how things look after a couple years of Dem control.

ravingdave
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:41 am

Post by ravingdave »

TallDave wrote:ravingdave,

I tend to agree, but politics seems to move in cycles.

http://graphjam.com/2008/10/13/song-cha ... cal-cycle/

It's their turn again.

Right now the public remembers Katrina, the problems in Iraq, "wide stance," Mark Foley, economic distress, etc. Socialism, pacificism, and protectionism are starting to sound like the logical response, even though they've never worked before.

Right now the public is very unhappy and tends to blame Republicans more than Dems, fairly or not. We'll see how things look after a couple years of Dem control.

Well, yes it does, but this however is an unnatural cycle. If you chart the direction of America and the World, everything has been moving further leftward year after year. (except in russia and china where it is moving the opposite direction.) There are swings in the cycle, but the leftward swings are far deeper than the rightward swings. (there is undue influence from people who favor the forces of chaos.)


I foresee ( and have for the last 30 years ) that leftward ideology is going to kill millions of people here in this country. Reality is going to eventually intrude on the spending party.



David

JohnSmith
Posts: 161
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 3:04 pm
Location: University

Post by JohnSmith »

Maybe I'm off base here, but since the US is a democracy and all, with "the will of the people" in charge, isn't it a good thing if the president listens instead of, oh I don't know, dragging the country into a war? Or ignores a power source just because he personally doesn't like it?

TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

John,

Most wars start with very high approval. This is true even in non-democracies. Look back at the polls at the time on Iraq and Afghanistan.
If you chart the direction of America and the World, everything has been moving further leftward year after year. (except in russia and china where it is moving the opposite direction.)
To some extent. OTOH, iirc righties have won in Canada, France, Germany, Italy, the Ukraine, Poland, and appear poised to win in the UK.

And Fidel stepped down. So who knows.

ravingdave
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:41 am

Post by ravingdave »

JohnSmith wrote:Maybe I'm off base here, but since the US is a democracy and all, with "the will of the people" in charge, isn't it a good thing if the president listens instead of, oh I don't know, dragging the country into a war? Or ignores a power source just because he personally doesn't like it?

The U.S. has/is become(ing) a Democracy. It was founded as a Republic. The Founders were mortally terrified of Democracy, and considered it to be as objectionable as Monarchy.

The Roman Republic lasted a very long time. The Greek Democracy experiment, not so much.


David

Post Reply