[DEBATE] Presidential Election - 2016 (closing Nov 22)

Having spend most of my last 25 years working on building and upgrading coal power plants. I can tell you the EPA regulations shifted the plants to use low sulfur coal out of western mines to save money. Cheaper to use low sulfur coal then build scrubbers, but it brought another problem that no one talks about, but that is another subject. The power company signed long time contracts with the railroad to haul the coal which kept western coal at an artificially low price.
Now that the rail contract expired and the cost to bring western coal east has substantially risen , your are seeing a major boom in coal fired plants upgrading to scrubbers to burn high sulfur coal and with that an uptick in production levels in eastern coal mining. Also why you are seeing companies like Peabody coal looking at reorganization,who had sold most of there eastern mine holdings and bought the ones west. From a personal perspective I will tell you I love cheap energy, but I really wish there was an better option then coal, because of what I have seen that comes out of those stacks....

I'm not keen on breathing in coal pollution either and look forward to the day when it's no longer necessary. In the meantime though, the EPA's new carbon emission standards will force ever larger numbers of coal plant closures as a result of increasing compliance costs, regardless of sulfur content. We have large, proven reserves of natural gas which by and large seems to the be the primary base load replacement choice of most major utilities. That's all well and good. I just don't relish the prospect of forcing tens of thousands of people throughout the already poverty ridden region of Appalachia and elsewhere on the dole in the meantime. Any shot term gains from improved pollution control equipment are just a temporary deviation from the longer industry trend of regulatory mandated contraction. I just think the transition process could be accomplished more gradually to allow people more time to adjust. I also have not seen a convincing environmental argument as to why we should incur such potentially equally high social costs in the rush to go green. The people pushing hardest are generally part of the intellectual and political classes and are insulated from the more damaging side effects of their policies.

Both evolution and global warming are theorys in science that are FACT. which means both have been tried, retested, duplicated, looked at from another angle, and submitted for refutation and come up short so many times that the only way you can contest it is with an opposing study following similar rules. There has been no certifiable evidence proving otherwise just like there hasnt been any evidence refuting the theory of gravity, or the theory of atomic energy

I think evolution and global warming are factual and logically consistent. There's plenty of evidence to support them both. But the fact also remains that no human being alive has ever witnessed and documented the creation of an entirely new species as a result of natural selection nor is there a method as of yet of reproducing past climate conditions through modeling or future climate changes based upon present conditions. This distinguishes these particular areas of scientific study from other disciplines. In the case of climate change, at the moment we're very rapidly, and forcefully I might add, restructuring our entire societies based upon incomplete information. It just makes me unsettled.

Gravitational attraction can be demonstrated through experiments. Atoms can be observed in real time with scanning tunneling microscopes.

You see, Donald Trump is a loser. I mean, he's not even that smart.

April Fools Day! Haha, I see what you did there.

I feel like this is somewhat relevant: check Newgrounds today

Anybody watch the Democratic debate last night?

On the closing statements, people were chanting Bernie's name AND he got a standing ovation.

I kind of felt bad for Clinton as she seemed shaken and off balance. Her statement also impressed me as having little meat to it. She leaned on her (past) incumbency, a reference to 911, and a call to minorities who I understand she has had strong support from so far. I didn't really hear anything concrete regarding her plans although I would not expect too much of that in a closing statement.

This election cycle has been odd and full of surprises. It is no wonder there has been so much interest and so early in the campaign.

Something that threw me off when she was giving her closing statement. She said, and I quote

"We won't just make promises we can't keep, we will deliver results..."

To me, just, in that scenario, infers that she will make promises she won't keep. Am I alone here?

EDIT:
For example.
"I won't just kill you, I will skin you alive until you die."

Lol. That is funny. At least she is being honest. All politicians make promises they can't keep.

How about how Cruz is going to take the republican nomination from Trump at a contested convention.

I think she was trying to suggest or reinforce the perception that Sander's policies can't be implemented either by lack of funding or through the opposition he (or anyone for that matter) will face through partisanship.

I think he has a good chance of it. I've read about some of the things his campaign has done and they are outdoing Trump in political strategy/tactics in spite of their relative popularity. Sort of like how Clinton is ahead of Sanders due mainly to Democratic Super Delegates.

It is rumored that Mitt Romney may try to step in.

I'm not a Trump fan but I worry more about the religious fanaticism of Cruz. So I really wish Trump would be the republican nominee.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/14/does-ted-cruz-think-he-s-the-messiah.html

Did you follow the link to the campaign video clips in the second paragraph? The end especially is rather amusing. It reminded me of trying to record an answering machine message that I like.

I think those sort of behind the scenes clips are more valuable than the finished product if you want to see the real people. I would be interested in seeing the other candidates' if any are available.

Breaking news!

Donald Trump wins in Indiana giving him the final edge he needs to become the Republican Nominee.

In other news, Ted Cruz dropped out of the Election.

You may discuss now

Republican Nominee will be Donald Trump unless the contested convention goes awry.
Actually, Donald Trump has a chance to hit the magic number now.

Indiana has been called for Bernie. As of now, 53.3 Sanders - 46.7 Clinton
If it stays like this, he will win 44 delegates which 538 says he needs to win for him to stay on the winning track.

Wow this thread is still going.

cruz dropped out and i dont think kasich will stay in either tbh cause although he can contest the convention he wont win it and will just waste republican money

bernie will go to the dem convention from there its a dice roll