A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff
Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.
A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.
May: Unprecedented wildfires in Alberta cause thousands to evacuate. Probably set by Justin Trudeau because he hates Canada, and God-fearing Albertans most of all!
July: Record temperatures. More wildfires. Curse you Trudeau!
August: Alberta makes suprise announcement of moratorium on all renewable energy.
November: Guys we just can't do renewable energy, it's just not possible, and also, you can't make us.
For those who don't know Danielle Smith, her thing is proposing terrible bills to make headlines. Alberta is not allowed to ignore Federal laws. Saying you plan to ignore them is just a way to get attention, and the Federal law she's planning to ignore doesn't even exist yet. It's proposed legislation.
She has also said she wants to replace Federal police with a provincial police force and replace Federal pensions with a provincial pension. She scores political points for saying she'll defy anything the Federal government does, which is literally what the Sovereignty Act is about. It's a statement saying she can ignore any Federal laws if she doesn't like it, and it was the first Act she passed after she was elected.
This means nothing. She is not a dictator. She knows this will fail but will take up Alberta’s time and resources in a losing court battle, all the while she’s also put a block against any and all green energy initiatives in the province.
She’s bad for Alberta, Canada, and the planet.
And she isn’t conservative, she’s a libertarian.
Instead of downvoting me, have an actual discussion you coward.
Breaks rule 1
I’m all for clean energy but it should be converted as the old system hits end of life.
I’d rather see the United States invest in more nuclear power. It’s a clean solution to all it energy needs.
I also wish democrats would stop focusing on things like gas stoves. Jesus that is stupid. Gas is superior for cooking.
I’m all for clean energy but it should be converted as the old system hits end of life.
We don't have time for that unfortunately. We are way behind pace for transitioning to clean sources (including nuclear).
I also wish democrats would stop focusing on things like gas stoves. Jesus that is stupid. Gas is superior for cooking
The culture only thinks that gas is better because fossil fuel companies saw the writing on the wall and wanted to get yet another foot in the door. So they started a massive campaign advertisement campaign to make people think it's better. If people ran gas lines to their houses, the chances of them using gas to heat their homes increased, making money for the fossil fuel industry.
I've cooked on both, they're not any different cooking wise tbh.
And democrats aren't really focusing on it. It's a side issue at most. I've seen maybe 4 articles on it from leftist subs in the last few years.
But the argument to get rid of them is there, because they are terrible for home air quality. My girlfriend has asthma and it is such a fucking life saver to be able to use an electric one without killing her. Reducing dependence on fossil fuels is a good side benefit as well.
Yes, nuclear, wind, solar, tidal, hydro and geothermal - so many great ways to help solve the climate crisis.
I dont see any democrats focussing on gas stoves, and certainly not because of climate issues - I do recall, Richard Trumka Jr., one commissioner (of seven) of the CPSC saying "Any option is on the table. Products that can't be made safe can be banned" in regards to indoor safety of gas appliances.
Because no one wants to be harmed by faulty or poorly installed gas stoves now, do we?
edit:typo
Eugene which is south of me is banning new gas stoves. To me it myopic to focus on gas stoves.
I love hydroelectric but it’s does cause other problems. Salmon stocks have declined because of the dams. Salmon ladders don’t really work. I’d love to use hydro but we can destroy our environment doing it.
Everyone is skittish about nuclear but it’s the best source for clean energy. It’s very safe if it’s done correctly. Chernobyl was a product of communism.
Chernobyl was a product of communism
No, Chernobyl was a result of bad engineering. And bad engineering can happen regardless of your chosen economic system.
A capitalist system would never cut corners on safety measures.
I sincerely hope this is sarcasm. I legitimately cannot tell around a place like this.
My mother once banned me from my Nintendo. It was harsh, but I don't think it's fair to say that all mothers are focussing too much on banning me from Nintendos. I realise you are no fan of the democrats, but let's not allow anecdotes to take the place of facts and stats.
https://pitlochry-scotland.co.uk/local-walks/pitlochry-dam-and-fish-ladder-walk.php
Here is an article about a salmon ladder in scotland that has been in operation for 71 years! And only one of many such successful salmon ladders across the world! Wonderful stuff, and the fish are doing great. Maybe the private enterprises are doing a poor job of constructing the ladders? Hopefully the government will step in to regulate better ladders in the USA, as it is clearly falling behind in its commitment to the wellbeing of the salmon.
And finally, what about three mile island? fukushima? I am well aware of the shortcomings of the RBMK reactors of the generation used in the Chornobyl NPP, however nuclear meltdowns do not seem to directly correlate to how much communism is fed into the reactor. The problem was a cheaply designed reactor core and the use of graphite on the cooling rods, in essence it was penny pinching and a poor understanding of the technology, which can happen anywhere.
edit: so many typos and some grammar, and adding a link I forgot :D
Three Mile Island is a sign of success. There was very little damage outside of the reactor. It could have been much worse and we have 40 years of reactor experience behind us. We have successfully run hundreds of reactors in our Naval Fleet with no major issues. To me that is validation nuclear is the way to go.
https://e360.yale.edu/features/blocked_migration_fish_ladders_on_us_dams_are_not_effective
Here is some Oregon history for you, Oregon use to have many canneries in Astoria and other parts of Oregon. The Salmon were plentiful and it provided a fish for all the canneries.
Between overfishing and the dams, there are now zero canneries in Oregon. Bumble Bee Food started in Oregon canning Salmon.
Do all successful reactors melt down? Sorry that wasn't fair, but I think you can agree that a melt down can hardly be considered a success just because it didn't fail as badly as Chornobyl :D
Nuclear Power is generally safe, on this we agree, I just think you are letting your feelings about the scary soviets affect your opinions about what was a genuinely sad event which should not be made light of.
Overfishing does not sound like salmon ladders failing to me, it sounds like a very obvious failure of capitalism and the greed it inevitably engenders. Have a great night <3
The reactor didn’t melt down. There was a partial meltdown but nothing on a large scale.
You use such weird language when you write. Have you ever thought about writing like an adult? Chernobyl very much was a product of communism.
So it did melt down then?
Partial meltdown. Proof of the safety of the design.
So a meltdown then?
I am not sure the point you are trying to make.
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-facts-know-about-three-mile-island
No deaths. No injuries. No damage to the environment.
It shows the safety of nuclear power.
Yes it safely melted down.
and?
To quote you from earlier:
The reactor didn’t melt down.
I am merely asking that you admit you were incorrect in that statement and retract it.
This is like talking to a politician, you are incapable of admitting wrongdoing, it's very difficult to get you to talk honestly about these things.
To further quote someone I spoke to earlier "You use such weird language when you write. Have you ever thought about writing like an adult?"
It was a partial meltdown. It wasn't a full meltdown. It was an event like Chernobyl.
So it was a meltdown then, regardless of the qualifiers you are putting in there to save face? Thank you.
In future, please try to leave your ego at the door when talking about statements of fact.
Thanks for at least somewhat reluctantly admitting that you were wrong, even if it took far too long and you couldn't do it without trying to save face by arguing unimportant details.
This is progress! Well done.
Most people when they talk about meltdowns are talking about nuclear disasters and full meltdowns. They’re not taking about a partial meltdown.
You seem to struggle with words and the meanings of them. You’re so focused on being “right” that you just look foolish.
Do you disagree that three mile island is a success of our nuclear program? Or you just going to circle jerk in the corner for no apparent reason ?
I'm talking about the word meltdown, and how it refers to a meltdown.
That is how language works.
I'm sorry you are having trouble with it, but please stop with the ad hominems, they are childish and should be beneath you. You should really know better at your age.
The government document list it as a partial meltdown. That’s the official term being used.
I didn’t use an ad hominem. You seem to struggle with words. I used the term the government used and try to use it as an attack towards me. You now can’t stay on topic and can’t focus on the touch.
Do you disagree that three Mile was a success?
Yes, the government DOES list it as a meltdown, thank you. Honestly it can be so difficult to get through to you sometimes.
Speaking of words and grasping their meaning, when you childishly accused me of 'circlejerking in the corner' just a moment ago, in an obvious and unnecessary attack on my character, aka an ad hominem, you actually used that phrase incorrectly as well!
Allow me to explain - a circle jerk is when a minimum of two men jerk one another off, creating a "circle" of "Jerking".
When you lost your temper and began throwing meaningless insults in a manner very inappropriate for this forum, the term you would use more correctly would have simply been "Jerking it", as you were accusing me of masturbating ON MY OWN in the corner.
Please work on both your manners and your grasp of the English language if you are going to continue to insist on asking for my attention.
edit:typo
Partial meltdown. It’s in the cite I supplied.
I haven’t lost my temper. I’m just baffled by your behavior.
I’ll ask for at least the third time.
Do you see three Mile island as a success of the safety of our nuclear power ?
So if you didn't lose your temper, were you genuinely asking me direct inappropriate questions of a sexual nature?
I mean losing your temper is one thing, but this is beginning to look like you are making unwarranted sexual comments to a stranger.
Please do not do that, I am not interested and I do not consent to you talking about me in a sexual manner. I will consider any further talk in this manner sexual harrasment.
You’re acting in bad faith and trolling again. You refuse to stay on topic and want to circle jerking some imaginary victory instead of having a discussion.
You refuse to answer the question and instead what troll. Have a good day.
I asked you to kindly stop with the ad hominems, and if they are not ad hominems, to kindly refrain from making allusions about any sexual acts I may or may not be a part in.
I hope you learn to either control your temper or respect the boundaries of strangers.
All this because you dont want to admit to yourself that a partial meltdown is a meltdown. I hope you can learn and grow from this exchange.
Warning: Rule 3
Pre-emptively characterizing future responses as sexual harassment is textbook bad faith.
Also, you both should've stopped a long time ago. Or, if you insisted on continuing, should've clarified the terms of discussion, which clearly revolved around what "meltdown" meant.
Sounds like youre once again doin a stellar job of moderating there buddy, keep up the amazing work. This is why everyone respects you so highly <3