Washington Post rules out endorsing 'threat to democracy' Donald Trump in brutal full-page editorial - Polidicks

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;50759619]If you don't like the Washington Post, how about a few other sources?[/QUOTE]Interesting you pick this single part of my large post to question, but you unfortunately missed the point. Citing yourself, no matter the circumstances, should be done with [U]extreme[/U] caution because it's a fine way to completely undermine your credibility. That aside, the point made by the Washington Post was that he said "article" and said a number greater than seven. Apparently they stopped teaching about context clues after I went through the first grade because it's easy to infer Trump meant [I]amendments[/I] rather than [I]articles[/I] and probably only said articles because that was the word he heard. I've done this, I've said "lizard" instead of "amphibian" when my little sister asked me what kinds of "lizards" live in water. (referring to frogs, she was four) Even if he literally meant articles and thinks that article and amendment are interchangeable terms I addressed that: there's an alarming number of elected officials in our government who are ignorant of the constitution. I'll quote myself rather than typing it again:[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50759324]Trump is not going to be any different than all those other people, so using any supposed ignorance on his part as some extraordinary reason why he's [I]just terrible[/I] is quite honestly absolutely fucking stupid.[/QUOTE][QUOTE]so using any supposed ignorance on his part as some extraordinary reason why he's [I]just terrible[/I] is quite honestly absolutely fucking stupid.[/QUOTE] Oh, and in case you were wondering or work for the Washington Post: the above self-quote is a good example of when it's okay to cite yourself.

[QUOTE=AaronM202;50759794]But why. Both choices are fucking terrible.[/QUOTE] Sitting out will still get you one of either choice. Put a vote in preferably the least terrible one (Hillary or a third party) because it's your right.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50759774] negligent in the use of emails[/QUOTE] the scope of Hillary's potential crime goes a little beyond negligent use of email and trying to paint it as lighter is disingenuous.

[QUOTE=AaronM202;50759760]Honestly, i get the feeling either option would end horribly, which is why im sitting this one out.[/QUOTE]pssssst, vote for Johnson [editline]FUCK[/editline] YOU FUCKING GUYS BROKE MY MERGE

[QUOTE=AaronM202;50759725]So vote for someone who's fucking insane, or vote for a criminal. Y'know this is the first year i'd be able to vote, but i think i'll pass.[/QUOTE] I don't care who you vote for but you [B]MUST[/B] vote in this election. Brexit happened because a fuckload more people voted than expected (73% turnout?). Brexit and this election have MAJOR consequences and you must pick a side or else you will feel completely helpless and without a voice when the results come back and your life is changed as part of a decision you weren't a part of.

[QUOTE=joshuadim;50759804]Sitting out will still get you one of either choice. Put a vote in preferably the least terrible one (Hillary or a third party) because it's your right.[/QUOTE] I dont want Hillary either, and isnt Johnson nuts too?

[QUOTE=AaronM202;50759812]I dont want Hillary either, and isnt Johnson nuts too?[/QUOTE] Ok then vote for Jill Stein like I am. Not really that difficult.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50759807]pssssst, vote for Johnson[/QUOTE] Voting [del]for Johnson[/del] [del]for Jill Stein[/del] 3rd party is just a "fuck you" move. In a practical sense it is the same as not voting because of the rigged two party system, but it shows how many people hate the way our country is run. Vote for who you want, but if you want to make any meaningful impact in the election you will vote for one of the main two candidates. If you REALLY REALLY hate Trump, and Clinton is the only one who has a chance of beating him, then voting for anyone other than Clinton is the same as letting Trump win, because he essentially got you to not vote against him. The same case is if you hate Clinton.

[QUOTE=Vodkavia;50759037]TBH I think people are really overestimating Trumps ability to actually get all of his craziness through the system (he's going to have bipartisan resistance) and underestimating how dangerous Clinton is.[/QUOTE] both of them fucking suck burn the 2 party system to the ground and remake it into a 3 party system or something less retarded only make it so people actually know that we have more than 2 parties, basically

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50759790]Nuclear is going fucking [B]NOWHERE[/B] right now, and almost all of our plants are going to go offline by 2050. Unless investors want to take the risk of constructing submerged or floating nuclear power plants, its going to take 10 years to get a traditional nuclear power plant online. Before you can even start construction you need to make nuclear energy competitive with other sources so people will invest in it, and right now nuclear is competing with subsidized renewable and cheap natural gas. The Democrats have solar and wind stuck so far up their assess they don't see that having an enormous renewable infrastructure entails having natural gas or coal to provide base load power and peak power when the sun doesn't shine. Coal is the [B]least[/B] concerning thing right now because it won't be able to compete with natural gas. Even if it can, the most important thing right now is that [B]WE GET NUCLEAR ONLINE, AND RIGHT NOW ONLY THE REPUBLICANS ARE EVEN LOOKING IN NUCLEAR'S DIRECTION[/B][/QUOTE] Actually, from someone who is working in construction of a new unit, nuclear is about to hit a massive fucking BOOM in the US. We're currently building 4 AP-1000s (2 at Vogtle, 2 at VC Summer), and the NRC has more permits being requested. Nuclear is starting it's comeback.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;50759850]Actually, from someone who is working in construction of a new unit, nuclear is about to hit a massive fucking BOOM in the US. We're currently building 4 AP-1000s (2 at Vogtle, 2 at VC Summer), and the NRC has more permits being requested. Nuclear is starting it's comeback.[/QUOTE] Thats good. Off topic but are you sure its impossible to get superpowers from jumping into a reactor?

[QUOTE=J!NX;50759839]both of them fucking suck burn the 2 party system to the ground and remake it into a 3 party system or something less retarded only make it so people actually know that we have more than 2 parties, basically[/QUOTE] The time to dismantle the Two Party system is not during the presidential elections. You need to force the public to get their representatives to pass legislation that enables 3rd parties to compete, or if that's not possible you have to force the everloving shit out of people to vote 3rd party in a small election. Winning small elections like city council members or even state representatives gives the 3rd party a presence to grow off of. In every presidential election the 3rd parties are just a lost cause because all the Republicans and Democrats who never vote in any other election come out to vote for president.

Can we just like, gather everyone and put together a party thats like, in the middle, with all the good shit everyone agrees is good shit from both sides, but none of the crazy stupid shit from both sides?

[QUOTE=AaronM202;50759864]Thats good. Off topic but are you sure its impossible to get superpowers from jumping into a reactor?[/QUOTE] I'm 100% positive the radiation inside containment would cook you alive in seconds. I'm also 100% positive that the snipers would kill you before you even made it to the cooling towers, much less to the actual reactor.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;50759850]Actually, from someone who is working in construction of a new unit, nuclear is about to hit a massive fucking BOOM in the US. We're currently building 4 AP-1000s (2 at Vogtle, 2 at VC Summer), and the NRC has more permits being requested. Nuclear is starting it's comeback.[/QUOTE] The US is building 6 reactors (not new plants) and we have nearly [B]100[/B] plants that will be shut down in the next few decades. You know that the NRC is slow as shit in getting permits reviewed and utilities change their mind with the market and legislation. What would REALLY help are carbon limits or incentives but they only exist for renewables at present. What we need is a fleet buildup on the order of France [B]just to replace our aging fleet[/B]. If you want to meet future energy demands and climate change carbon goals, [B]you need this buildup to be at least 3 times larger[/B]. I'm in Nuclear Engineering trying to figure out how in the fuck we will make this happen, but nuclear is [B]NOT[/B] on the path it has to be right now.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;50759924]I'm 100% positive the radiation inside containment would cook you alive in seconds. I'm also 100% positive that the snipers would kill you before you even made it to the cooling towers, much less to the actual reactor.[/QUOTE] Ok but what if i have sunblock and sniperblock on.

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50759926]The US is building 6 reactors (not new plants) and we have nearly [B]100[/B] plants that will be shut down in the next few decades. You know that the NRC is slow as shit in getting permits reviewed and utilities change their mind with the market and legislation. What would REALLY help are carbon limits or incentives but they only exist for renewables at present. What we need is a fleet buildup on the order of France [B]just to replace our aging fleet[/B]. If you want to meet future energy demands and climate change carbon goals, [B]you need this buildup to be at least 3 times larger[/B]. I'm in Nuclear Engineering trying to figure out how in the fuck we will make this happen, but nuclear is [B]NOT[/B] on the path it has to be right now.[/QUOTE] The NRC may be a little slow, but new reactor designs like the AP-1000 which are modular and can be constructed fairly quickly will help tremendously, especially after we've worked out all of the kinks in the building process with the 4 units we're doing.

I don't understand why people seem to believe that Trump being elected will change the current system in it's entirety- deconstruct it and rebuild it from the ground up, as it were. That's awfully idealistic, unrealistic and an absurd notion in general. This country's democratic system has been solidified by over 200 years of repetition, and one four year presidency from a politically incompetent and arrogant individual won't come close to forcing that system to rebuild itself. Trump becoming president will give us four more years of congressional, bipartisan gridlock wherein no party member wants to work with him at all- we will effectively waste four years of the US's time. The only prominent part of this electoral system that a Trump presidency will effectively tear apart is the GOP, and they were already on the way out the door. I understand that some of you want to ride this wave of populist and rebellious, anti-system ideals and there's nothing wrong with wanting to break the status quo(which is, in fact, a good thing to want to do), but I feel as if a Trump presidency will only damage our relations with the rest of the world-something we cannot afford to do-, damage the lives of the common individual in the US, waste an entire presidential cycle getting nothing of substance done and, for all intents in purposes, shooting ourselves in the foot.

[QUOTE=AaronM202;50759916]Can we just like, gather everyone and put together a party thats like, in the middle, with all the good shit everyone agrees is good shit from both sides, but none of the crazy stupid shit from both sides?[/QUOTE] If you want to take on the two party system that way go for it. You'd be another nobody party until you got seats in local and then regional offices. I was really hoping Bernie would jump ship and run independent, Cruz would get the RNC nomination and then Trump would run independent so we would have a competitive 4 way race. Everything disappointed me, I wanted to see the Republican Party burn to the ground by nominating someone few voted for.

[QUOTE=AaronM202;50759933]Ok but what if i have sunblock and sniperblock on.[/QUOTE] They will kill you with an apache. The US does NOT play around when it comes to nuclear safety for good reason. I've learned so much at my job, and have become more confident in Nuclear than ever before.

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50759808]I don't care who you vote for but you [B]MUST[/B] vote in this election.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50759829]Voting [del]for Johnson[/del] [del]for Jill Stein[/del] 3rd party is just a "fuck you" move.[/QUOTE] I'm getting mixed messages here.

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50758267]Half the articles this article mentions are written by the Washington post. And as far as I can tell, even in the videos, I'm not seeing any references or sources.[/QUOTE] do those articles have sources though why do i have a feeling you didn't actually bother to check

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;50759937]The NRC may be a little slow, but new reactor designs like the AP-1000 which are modular and can be constructed fairly quickly will help tremendously, especially after we've worked out all of the kinks in the building process with the 4 units we're doing.[/QUOTE] You and I need to have a private discussion about this. The designs are new to the industry but were designed in the 70's. All of the new reactors are top secret and guarded by the U.S. Navy, or in early design stages at universities. The construction issue is that everything has been built on land in a remote location. I know that your site is basically an assembly zone where parts come in pre-constructed which helps, but its an improvement to a failed system rather than a revolutionary idea. The other designs I mentioned are constructed in shipyards and then taken out to sea where they can be relocated to another coastline or brought back to the shipyard for maintenance rather than specialized on site service. But were getting off track here. Republicans will have my vote for energy purposes until the Democrats acknowledge nuclear as the solution to climate change. [editline]22nd July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=plunger435;50759953]I'm getting mixed messages here.[/QUOTE] If you want to say fuck you to the system then go ahead. Not enough people vote, and we need to get into the habit of showing up to polling stations. [editline]22nd July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=ZombieWaffle;50759939]I don't understand why people seem to believe that Trump being elected will change the current system in it's entirety- deconstruct it and rebuild it from the ground up, as it were. That's awfully idealistic, unrealistic and an absurd notion in general. This country's democratic system has been solidified by over 200 years of repetition, and one four year presidency from a politically incompetent and arrogant individual won't come close to forcing that system to rebuild itself. Trump becoming president will give us four more years of congressional, bipartisan gridlock wherein no party member wants to work with him at all- we will effectively waste four years of the US's time. The only prominent part of this electoral system that a Trump presidency will effectively tear apart is the GOP, and they were already on the way out the door. I understand that some of you want to ride this wave of populist and rebellious, anti-system ideals and there's nothing wrong with wanting to break the status quo(which is, in fact, a good thing to want to do), but I feel as if a Trump presidency will only damage our relations with the rest of the world-something we cannot afford to do-, damage the lives of the common individual in the US, waste an entire presidential cycle getting nothing of substance done and, for all intents in purposes, shooting ourselves in the foot.[/QUOTE] Assume that everything bad happens in Trump's presidency. The world hates us, obamacare is gone, Mexico doesn't pay for the wall. Do you guys see him NOT acting on the promises he's made, with rebuilding infrastructure, taking care of the veterans, rebuilding the military, restoring education, lowering taxes? The vibe I'm getting from everyone is that rather than disagreeing with policies and stances that he will implement you think he will do absolutely nothing for Americans except ruin our reputation to the world.

[QUOTE=AaronM202;50759812]I dont want Hillary either, and isnt Johnson nuts too?[/QUOTE]No, he's basically a Republican that's super big on the small government part of the platform and that's about it. [QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50759829]Voting [del]for Johnson[/del] [del]for Jill Stein[/del] 3rd party is just a "fuck you" move. In a practical sense it is the same as not voting because of the rigged two party system, but it shows how many people hate the way our country is run. Vote for who you want, but if you want to make any meaningful impact in the election you will vote for one of the main two candidates.[/QUOTE]Pushing third party hard enough can maybe, possibly get voting reform on the table. There's plenty of ways to do this and plenty of methods to fix our current problems but we need to get the ball rolling somehow.

[QUOTE=AaronM202;50759725]So vote for someone who's fucking insane, or vote for a criminal. Y'know this is the first year i'd be able to vote, but i think i'll pass.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=AaronM202;50759760]Honestly, i get the feeling either option would end horribly, which is why im sitting this one out.[/QUOTE] I was on this fence up until now, but now I'm fully anti-Trump, which does not mean pro-Hillary. If you don't vote, don't complain about who wins. [QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50759801]Interesting you pick this single part of my large post to question, but you unfortunately missed the point. Citing yourself, no matter the circumstances, should be done with [U]extreme[/U] caution because it's a fine way to completely undermine your credibility. That aside, the point made by the Washington Post was that he said "article" and said a number greater than seven. Apparently they stopped teaching about context clues after I went through the first grade because it's easy to infer Trump meant [I]amendments[/I] rather than [I]articles[/I] and probably only said articles because that was the word he heard. I've done this, I've said "lizard" instead of "amphibian" when my little sister asked me what kinds of "lizards" live in water. (referring to frogs, she was four) Even if he literally meant articles and thinks that article and amendment are interchangeable terms I addressed that: there's an alarming number of elected officials in our government who are ignorant of the constitution. I'll quote myself rather than typing it again: Oh, and in case you were wondering or work for the Washington Post: the above self-quote is a good example of when it's okay to cite yourself.[/QUOTE] I just randomly picked that one because to go through debunking all his points would take a very long time. The meeting was closed doors, so the only words are from reporters, which I'm sure you'll argue "have a bias" or "trying to distort his words" in which case it becomes impossible to argue with you. And I would really like a president who knows what the constitution is. I'd be surprised if he knew what Amendments he cited.

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;50760025] I just randomly picked that one because to go through debunking all his points would take a very long time. The meeting was closed doors, so the only words are from reporters, which I'm sure you'll argue "have a bias" or "trying to distort his words" in which case it becomes impossible to argue with you. And I would really like a president who knows what the constitution is. I'd be surprised if he knew what Amendments he cited.[/QUOTE] I'm not defending Trump for not knowing the Constitution but isn't knowledge of it more important for the Legislative and Judicial branches rather than the Executive? The president enforces existing laws and policies. All the Republicans complaining Clinton is going to take away their guns don't realize that you would need a new ruling from SCOTUS to reinterpret the 2nd Amendment to do that. Then again, Clinton could appoint more judges that could do just that.

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50760068]I'm not defending Trump for not knowing the Constitution but isn't knowledge of it more important for the Legislative and Judicial branches rather than the Executive? The president enforces existing laws and policies. All the Republicans complaining Clinton is going to take away their guns don't realize that you would need a new ruling from SCOTUS to reinterpret the 2nd Amendment to do that. Then again, Clinton could appoint more judges that could do just that.[/QUOTE] I would say that basic knowledge of the constitution is in fact very important for someone aspiring to be the president

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50759974]You and I need to have a private discussion about this. The designs are new to the industry but were designed in the 70's. All of the new reactors are top secret and guarded by the U.S. Navy, or in early design stages at universities.[/QUOTE] Agreed, however I can't go into ANY site specifics for obvious reasons. Which reminds me, if anyone is looking to see what actually goes into building a Nuclear power unit, [URL="https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLHS8z9CYkZokSqMkFq-l0DHh9St4MRqNO"]Georgia Power has a playlist on youtube that they update about the construction of Vogtle Units 3 and 4.[/URL] [QUOTE]The construction issue is that everything has been built on land in a remote location. I know that your site is basically an assembly zone where parts come in pre-constructed which helps, but its an improvement to a failed system rather than a revolutionary idea. The other designs I mentioned are constructed in shipyards and then taken out to sea where they can be relocated to another coastline or brought back to the shipyard for maintenance rather than specialized on site service.[/QUOTE] From a reactor generation/technology standpoint, yeah, the PWR designs have been around since the 70s. I was only speaking from a constructability POV, not a reactor technology POV. Having parts pre-fabed and shipped to the site is a major plus when it comes to construction time and efficiency. But agreed, we are getting off topic.

I enjoy when Trump supporters make the argument that people are twisting Trump's words to make him look bad, as if his words actually need any twisting to accomplish that.

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50760068]I'm not defending Trump for not knowing the Constitution but isn't knowledge of it more important for the Legislative and Judicial branches rather than the Executive? The president enforces existing laws and policies. All the Republicans complaining Clinton is going to take away their guns don't realize that you would need a new ruling from SCOTUS to reinterpret the 2nd Amendment to do that. Then again, Clinton could appoint more judges that could do just that.[/QUOTE] But we're not talking about the legislative or judicial branch right now. We're talking about the executive branch: the presidency. I would like a president that knows what the constitution is and what checks and balances means.