Election 2016

Republican Platform: Some Science Policy Proposals to Cheer About

No mandatory GMO labels, no energy subsidies, open Yucca Mountain, encourage thorium reactors, etc.

|

GOPElephant
GOP

My Reason colleagues have highlighted some of the more egregious and confused areas of the 2016 Republican Party Platform with respect to gay marriage, domestic spying, criminal justice reform, and defense policy. A quick look at the sections of the platform that broadly addresses science policy uncovers some proposals about which to be at least mildly hopeful.

We oppose the mandatory labeling of genetically modified food, which has proven to be safe, healthy, and a literal life-saver for millions in the developing world.

Sadly, Congress has just passed legislation mandating federal GMO labeling. Admittedly this was done to obviate the proliferation of various confusing and conflicting state labeling mandates.

Government should not play favorites among energy producers. The taxpayers will not soon forget the current Administration's subsidies to companies that went bankrupt without producing a kilowatt of energy. … We support the development of all forms of energy that are marketable in a free economy without subsidies, including coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear power, and hydropower. …

We respect the states' proven ability to regulate the use of hydraulic fracturing, methane emissions, and horizontal drilling, and we will end the Administration's disregard of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act with respect to the long-term storage of nuclear waste. We encourage the cost-effective development of renewable energy sources — wind, solar, biomass, biofuel, geothermal, and tidal energy — by private capital.

There is a lot to like in these particular planks. It would, however, have been nice if the platformers had explicitly proposed eliminating federal biofuel mandates. It's great that the platform calls out Obama for violating the law in order to appease Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) who opposes opening the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste facility. After all, ratepayers have supplied $32 billion to pay for sequestering nuclear waste and it's way past time to open Yucca Mountain. In addition, there is no scientific evidence that fracking is causing significant health or environmental problems that would call for EPA regulation.

We support lifting restrictions to allow responsible development of nuclear energy, including research into alternative processes like thorium nuclear energy.

Great idea but would like a little more information on how restrictions would be lifted.

We assert that private ownership has been the best guarantee of conscientious stewardship, while some of the worst instances of degradation have occurred under government control. Poverty, not wealth, is the gravest threat to the environment, while steady economic growth brings the technological advances which make environmental progress possible.

Totally true.

The environment is too important to be left to radical environmentalists. They are using yesterday's tools to control a future they do not comprehend. The environmental establishment has become a self-serving elite, stuck in the mindset of the 1970s, subordinating the public's consensus to the goals of the Democratic Party. Their approach is based on shoddy science, scare tactics, and centralized command-and-control regulation.

Yes.

We propose to shift responsibility for environmental regulation from the federal bureaucracy to the states and to transform the EPA into an independent bipartisan commission, similar to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, with structural safeguards against politicized science.

Well….considering how the NRC has been essentially killing off the industry that it regulates, this may not be exactly the right model for environmental regulatory reform.

We will strictly limit congressional delegation of rule-making authority, and require that citizens be compensated for regulatory takings.

If the government regulates away your reasonably expected economic gains from property, then it should compensate you for those losses. Alas, the Supreme Court is—charitably put—somewhat inconsistent on this issue.

Information concerning a changing climate, especially projections into the long-range future, must be based on dispassionate analysis of hard data. We will enforce that standard throughout the executive branch, among civil servants and presidential appointees alike. The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a political mechanism, not an unbiased scientific institution.

Yes. But it is interesting that this formulation implies that climate change could be a real thing. The 2012 platform just ignored the issue. On the other hand, the 2008 platform noted in a long section entitled, "Addressing Climate Change Responsibly":

The same human economic activity that has brought freedom and opportunity to billions has also increased the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. While the scope and long-term consequences of this are the subject of ongoing scientific research, common sense dictates that the United States should take measured and reasonable steps today to reduce any impact on the environment.

Reasonable steps back in 2008 included "technology-driven, market-based solutions." That does still sound pretty good.

NEXT: GOP Wants Constitutional Amendment to Give Parents Control Over Kids' Education

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. But, it’s the left that fucking loves science!

    1. Social science. Not squishy, subjective “science” like physics and chemistry.

      1. Holy shit that is some fascist level stuff right there. No wonder Obama says everyone should support Erdogan.

        1. Don’t you know every pol in DC is hoping for a major attack or major civil unrest so they can do just this sort of thing?

          This is like a wet dream for the average sociopath…or.. I mean…politician.

          1. We’re going to build a wall to keep the terrorists out the rest of us in.

            1. +1 Rorschach

            2. Let’s wait till Trump goes home, and circumvalate Quuens.

      2. Can you blame them? This Gulstein character seems pretty dangerous.

    2. They love science way more than us. They love it so much, they have throngs of state and fed funded scientists producing apocalyptic study after study so that they can continue to be paid and receive grants to further prove their science.

      No conflict of interest there.

      1. Well, if anyone ever wonders why there are so many studies that have come to the exact opposite conclusions, the answer is funding source. If you see a study today that concludes 2 cups of coffee a day is good for you. Tomorrow, you’ll find one that says 2 cups of coffee a day is bad for you. There’s conflict of interest in lots of studies. That conflict must be revealed, but it won’t stop the study from getting funding, at least not in all situations.

        1. And who in the general population, clicks an article about how 2 glasses of red wine a day is good for you, and then goes and finds the source of the study, looks for COI, and then learns of the funding source? Very, very few. Most people see that study, read it, and then feel good or even smug about their 2 glasses of red wine, maybe quotes the article a couple of times to friends, and that’s it.

          1. As someone who votes on industry funding, I would like to point out that any bias is in the investigator long before he is funded. In any subject worth studying, there are scientists on both sides. There is ascertainment bias with respect to who funds what, and where it is published, but I don’t know how you avoid that.

            Typically the funding contract allows publication regardless of outcome.

    3. Is it any coincidence that the first sitting president to publish a scientific* paper is from the left? I think not!

      (* where “scientific” is taken to include “essay on how awesome his own policies are”)

  2. Well, the thing about tha.. BUY MY BOOK!!!

    Already done, Ron. Already done.

  3. Honest question:

    Why do you guys waste any time whatsoever reporting on party platforms?

    They have 0 effect in the real world. The politicians that occupy government positions will do whatever the hell they want to and will pay them no mind.

    I could understand one article, but it’s been article after article covering one of the least consequential aspects of one of a relatively inconsequential propaganda festival. Why?

    1. bingo.
      Because they know that people still expect solutions from moron pols for some idiotic reason.

      Its almost like expecting a profitable solution in business from a DMV employee.

    2. What? the GOP have been promising to cut spending and and shrink government for years and they damn well did … oh wait…

      1. +1 Close the department of education.

    3. I really wish Ron would answeri my question. Even a note that says “I vas followink orderz”.

      1. Because that’s all they have to go on at this point, besides history of previous behavior.

      2. I guess you don’t write for political magazine unless you find mechanics of politics fascinating? Or maybe… I dunno, how if you write about video games you have to quote designers on what they intend, even if this is the fourth game they are working on and three times already they dropped features they were promising to high heaven six months earlier (cough, cough, Molyneux)? It’s just how it’s always been done, and you can’t be Serious Writer if you don’t follow the steps?

      3. 🙁

        Ron was willing to answer another question, but was quiet on mine. It’s too bad; it would be very interesting to understand why he spent so much effort on analyzing something so absent of meaning.

  4. Rational and fair points all.

    Now with the enormous grain of salt that one takes while listening to bullshit pols, lets actually see right?

    The subsidies to big energy will not halt. The idiot obsession with climate change will perhaps be reined in but will not go away with government funded university science. You are talking about un-brainwashing a massive herd of robots.
    Platforms always mean shit in elections. This is more of why listening to these scumbags is the problem.
    The only listening they deserve is when they say:
    We are going to have to reign in the debt which means harder times for all. spending has to stop and we have to pay which means taxes and shrink the bureaucracy.
    bring the troops home because we are bankrupt.
    audit or end the fed and get on a path to free market economics.

    Fire thousands of useless bureaucrats and government drones. That means city and state employees too.
    Never going to happen.

  5. We propose to shift responsibility for environmental regulation from the federal bureaucracy to the states and to transform the EPA into an independent bipartisan commission, similar to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, with structural safeguards against politicized science.

    Since this is an aspirational document with no connection to reality, why not approach environmental protection through property rights wherever practical and through specific and narrowly tailored laws when not practical?

  6. Reasonable steps back in 2008 included “technology-driven, market-based solutions.” That does still sound pretty good.

    Ah, Ron. Still believing in “solutions” to problems that do not exist. Perhaps some day you could write an article explaining the Earth’s optimum temperature? That optimum temperature apparently could not be any warmer than it is today or warming wouldn’t be a “problem” in need of a “solution” would it? Solutions that just coincidentally expand the power of government?

    Seriously. I realize that it is cool to “care about the environment” but I have yet to see a serious analysis that indicated that some warming wouldn’t be a net boon to mankind. Do “scientists” no longer believe in cyclical glaciation?

    1. The obsession that many environmentalists have with trying to maintain a static system or with returning to a non-existent Eden is ridiculous, but so is ignoring the potential for costly disruption to our current way of life that changes in the environment could bring. If sea levels do rise high enough to threaten coastal cities, it’s going to be very costly to mitigate. If weather patterns do shift and desertification increases, current food-growing regions are going to take a costly hit. Overall, that may be mitigated by better growing seasons in other areas, but, again, the transition could be very costly, particularly to certain groups/countries. Those are just two examples.

      1. The whole climate cooling change scam is most obvious in the sea level fraud.

        Water rising is a static event everywhere. And, if it were rising in one place, it would be equally rising in others.

        You cannot have an island sinking in the pacific and no water rise on the east coast. I live on the east coast and have my entire life. Not one dock in Georgia or in Florida is any further down in the water column. There is no land being swamped by consistent level rises.
        It is bullshit.

        1. if it were rising in one place, it would be equally rising in others

          That’s not true, because forces are not equal over the entire planet and there are local geological factors at play.

          I live on the east coast and have my entire life. Not one dock in Georgia or in Florida is any further down in the water column.

          Have you been taking measurements to demonstrate this or is it merely an assertion? I ask because it doesn’t agree with data taken elsewhere on the East Coast.

          1. I always hear alarmist stories about how warming is causing rapidly rising sea levels, but I have never seen even one article listing how sea levels in any given place have risen with measurements or numbers of any kind. Maybe those exists, I just haven’t seen any.

            1. There could be areas that are experiencing subsidence of land but I would have to be shown proof that water can significantly rise in one area of the pool while not rising on the other side. fluid is flat.

              To me this is common since when discussing the apocalyptic view. If it cannot be proven with far better evidence than proffered so far, how can the world encourage draconian limits to the use of affordable energy.

              1. Fluid isn’t flat. Fluid follows constant potentials. The Earth’s potential field is not perfectly round or even a perfect oblate spheroid. And even if it were, there are other forces besides gravity acting on the oceans. It simply isn’t correct to compare it to a small body of water like a pool.

                1. understood that the earth is not a perfect sphere.
                  I do not argue that I am right and you are wrong. I just have not seen adequate proof or explanation that a sea level rise would not be a consistent event for all locations on the globe. Stands to reason that if sea level is zero, for example, then would see mountain peaks losing altitude which should be easily measured with GPS for example.

              2. All I want to know is, given the dire situations about rising sea levels that are constantly in the media, where can I find an article that shows something like:

                The sea level at this place on the East Coast of the USA, was at this level in and now it’s at this level. Surely these recordings have had to be made or no one would be claiming seal levels are rising. Correct? Also, we’re still coming out of a glaciation period. So if there is a rise, how much is due to human activities?

                Short of seeing parts of Manhattan underwater, I’m not sure how else I would be convinced of this.

          2. I am speaking in terms of the rapid and certain levels that the climate scientists claim. I don’t need to take measurements to see that water levels are not encroaching upon fixed positions at the water’s edge. A lifetime of being on the water has shown absolutely no signs of a sea level rise. These guys repeatedly claim that we are in the midst of this sea level rise now. Not true.

            And water level rise is consistent as it is a level phenomenon. Fluid cannot have 2 levels. Tidal changes obviously show ebb and flow but high water marks could not be different in one geography due to rising levels without the same rise in others.

            1. The numbers I have seen are on the order of 10s of mm over the course of a few decades, coming from tide gauges and satellite ranging, which claims to have an accuracy of about 1 mm. My original comment was couched on increasing rates of sea level rise as more surface ice melts more quickly, which does seem to be happening in Greenland at least because the ice is not as solid as was once assumed. If temperatures rise or ice melts more slowly then sea level rise can be expected to proceed at a slower pace. Though it is worth pointing out that a slower rate does not imply that the absolute rise will be less, only that it will take longer to happen. I don’t put too much stock in model-based predictions of what will happen in 2100 (they could be right, but I don’t think we can say that with much confidence), but that doesn’t mean that temps/sea levels won’t reach the same levels at a later date.

              1. What is the Greenland temperature relative to the Medieval Warm Period when the Vikings settled it?

              2. The problem with any studies is that they are all so biased. There are plenty in the skeptic camp that cite satellite images of increasing ice sheets in Antarctica and large occurrences of winter ice in the arctic. Who can you possibly believe when everything is politicized with giant money flows?

              3. There is no indication of acceleration of msl rise. Antarctica is still a net sequesteror of ice. Greenland fluctuates but explain all if the revealed permafrost graves from a thousand years ago. More co2 leads to increased fertilization of vegetation and REDUCED desertification. Global plant biomass is higher now than 30 years ago as a result. We are not at a climate optimum; we are below it. Recent ecs and tcr estimates have all been coming down.

                What crisis?

                Now if you want to talk high impact low likelihood events to be worried about, well I’ve got a few telescope projects that could use those billions wasted on failed climate models.

      2. If sea levels do rise high enough to threaten coastal cities, it’s going to be very costly to mitigate for people who live on the coast.

        Fixed that for you.

        1. Good luck stopping your tax dollars from going to build sea walls around Manhattan.

          And even if we can stop that, increased costs for any businesses on the coast will be passed on to consumers.

          1. There is a fair enough argument in that insurance companies are pulling out of coastal markets all the time and dramatically increasing premiums in the ones where they remain.

            At the same time, most of that comes from the incredible replacement costs for coastal buildings from the 2005 season. Might not be an indication of sea level issues or global worming but rather the impact of a large insurable loss all at once in one region.

            1. Which would lead to the natural market condition of people moving away from the coast, but the government keeps subsidizing the insurance.

              If you live in a flood plane or hurricane target zone, insurance should be pricey.

              People used to build cheap, replaceable beach houses. Not the beautiful monstrosities you see now. Why? Because you could replace them quickly if they got knocked down.

    2. Hot air holds more water vapor. More vapor means more snow. More snow means more glaciation. Global warming means a new ice age.

  7. Did Thiel speak at the RNC yet?

    1. Thursday. probably the only interesting guy in the whole thing.

      1. Thanks.

  8. The dems platform wants a war on oil and coal companies,they think the whole country can be powered by ‘renewable’ energy and want a 15 $ minimum wage along with higher taxes on the ‘rich’ and business.. They damn sure mean it and will try to do all of this crap.

    1. And gun control, don’t forget that.

      1. True,I guess it slipped my mind. Bad Adans.

        1. Don’t forget free abortions and boys in the girls shower.

  9. Republicans implying that they could maybe some day believe that climate change is real.

    But it’s those radical environmentalists stuck in the 1970s who are bad on energy policy.

    1. And climate change is a top priority for about 2% of Americans, the dumbest 2%. Go eat some more crayons, Tony.

    2. No one denies that the climate changes, assnugget. The dispute is over what part of the change, if any, is due to man made causes, you dishonest little shit.

      1. i think even that is not quite the correct question.

        Is the climate changing? How much? What is the cost benefit of mitigation?

        Whether or not humans caused it, I doubt the mitigation will be a simple matter of “stopping”. Are we going to nuke China?

        1. We’ll have to do a lot better than nuke China to change the climate. We’ll have to put a thermostat on the sun.

    3. ACC is not real. It is a total fraud. A successful fraud as it has brainwashed the minions all over the world.

      There is absolutely no proof that any warming, if it is still happening, is caused or was caused by human actions.

      Frankly, it is an insane assertion that a very small amount of human caused CO2 could actually overpower or excel over the effects of the sun, moon, galaxy, and earth’s rotation.

      Forget the fact that if change was happening, new regions of the globe would enjoy the benefits of a warmer climate in their agriculture. If it were happening at the crisis pace that the scammers were predicting, we would see entire deserts forming before our eyes and the desert latitudes would be moving higher on the map.

      1. Ok, but if change is real, and it is “bad” then shouldn’t we still do the math on reducing it?

        No one wants to do the math.

        1. I like change.
          I will make change.

          I’ll bet Tony can do the math.

  10. “It’s great that the platform calls out Obama for violating the law in order to appease Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) who opposes opening the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste facility. After all, ratepayers have supplied $32 billion to pay for sequestering nuclear waste and it’s way past time to open Yucca Mountain.”

    Climate change alarmists who oppose doing something reasonable with nuclear waste are even worse than alarmists who oppose fracking for less costly and less carbon intensive natural gas.

    Opposing fracking at least has some logic to it–the opposition is meant to restrict the available pool of CO2 sources over the long term.

    Opposing efficient ways of disposing of nuclear waste is to oppose a potential solution to releasing less CO2 into the atmosphere over the long term.

    That being said, Reid’s opposition isn’t really about environmental concerns. Reid’s concern is NIMBY voters. Once Reid retires, Yucca Mountain will probably go forward–maybe with the insistence of some forward thinking environmentalists.

    1. Or we could implement a nuclear waste recycling program like France’s.

      According to the IEEE Spectrum, if the US started recycling their nuclear waste like France does, Yucca Mountain would go from overflowing with nuclear waste to over 90% empty.

      1. Blame Carter.

        He is history’s greatest monster.

        1. Blame economics. A once thru cycle is still cheaper. Of course an msr is an even better solution.

          1. I don’t know? recycling it seems cheaper than storing it for a million years and dealing with future lawsuits.

  11. The taxpayers will not soon forget the current Administration’s subsidies to companies that went bankrupt without producing a kilowatt of energy.

    I agree with the sentiment, but it would be nice if somebody with a modicum of science background would review this kind of thing. The kilowatt is not a unit of energy.

    1. No, it’s a unit of Power. – J Watts

      1. And with a name like ‘Watts’, ain’t nobody arguing about his knowledge of power units.

        1. In the citaaay of good ol’ Watts

          1. I lived in LA when the Watts riots happened. I was just a little kid. There was this sadistic neighbor kid, in his teens who loved terrorizing us little kids in the neighborhood. He told me that the negroes are coming and will kill us all when they get there. I ran inside and started locking all the doors. When my mum asked me what’s going on, I told her the negroes are coming to kill us. Lol.

      2. Does the J stand for Jigga?

      1. And KWh is stupid, as the Joule is the proper SI measure of energy.

        1. Even cal is better than kwh.

  12. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.

    ———————-> http://www.CenterPay70.com

  13. I’ve been cringing at the Republican platform stories this week.

    It doesn’t surprise me that Bailey’s contribution is interesting and reasonable.

    I”d say Bailey must have missed the proverbial memo to bash Trump and the GOP at every opportunity, but knowing Bailey, if the platform planks he were looking at deserved a bashing, he’d have given it to them good and hard, I’m sure.

    1. Is there any particular reason to refrain from bashing Trump and Team Red?

      1. “Is there any particular reason to refrain from bashing Trump and Team Red?”

        Reason is a news source. IE they should report the relevant good and bad aspects. Bashing implies that you are just concentrating on the bad and ignoring the good points.

        I’d protest if Reason were just concentrating on the bad at the DNC too. There always needs to be perspective. And very few cases actually warrant overwhelming negative coverage.

        1. Reason is a source of news and analysis from a broadly libertarian perspective. The Trump campaign and the circus sideshow at the RNC offer very little in the way of good news for libertarians.

      2. For example, there was another post earlier this week entitled, “Trump Vows to Trash the Constitution”.

        Turns out that wasn’t a direct quote. He didn’t actually say, “I vow to trash the Constitution”.

        When we bash Trump for legitimate reasons, that’s fine. When we go after him for things that aren’t so, we feed his support.

        There was another post earlier this week that suggested, again, that Trump wants to hunt down the family members of every terrorist and kill them because they’re the terrorist’s family. That wasn’t what he said.

        There are legitimate reasons to bash both Trump and the GOP, and we’re fine so long as we stick to them. Bashing Trump and the GOP for everything and anything we can think of is not fine when they turn out to be illegitimate targets. Doing so is a contributing factor to Trump’s success.

        1. I must be missing some vital context when I hear Trump say three times in a row that when you’re going after terrorists that you have to take out their families, because I interpret that as him saying that he wants to hunt down the families of terrorists and kill them because they’re the terrorists families.

          1. In the past, that reference has been made to Trump’s belief in the (false) story that the wives and girlfriends of the 9/11 hijackers fled the country ahead of the 9/11 attacks. The same has been said of bin Laden family members who left the U.S. ahead of the attack on 9/11. This all started when, in reference to that, Trump said he wanted to go after the hijackers’ wives and girlfriends and bin Laden family members who fled the U.S. ahead of the attacks as accessories before the fact.

            In regards to your link above, I honestly hadn’t seen that quote before. I read it and it does seem to say some terrible things about taking out the families of ISIS members. The vital context is in the linked video of his quote. The text story doesn’t quote the question he was responding to–which was all about collateral damage. Within the context of a question about how concerned Trump is about the collateral damage caused by bombing the hell out of ISIS like he’s said he would do, no he is not dissuaded by the prospect of killing ISIS family members.

            He says they’re using their family members as human shields.

            If you want to go after Trump for being unconcerned about the family members of ISIS if and when they become collateral damage in his bombing campaign against ISIS, then by all means, do so. If you say that Trump wants to kill innocent family members because they’re the family of ISIS members, I do not believe that is so.

    2. I’ve tried really hard to pay no attention to it, at all. The only thing I have paid any attention to is Milo and his merry band of antagonizers, and the left’s delicious prog tears over why more of their useful idiots haven’t shown up to protest.

      1. They are prepping for the big fart-in at the DNC.

        1. And AmSoc thinks the RNC is retarded. Just wait for the upcoming DNC freak show.

        2. I thought you were being funny. Then I read a news story about it. A fart-in, this is what the modern left has come to.

  14. Admittedly this was done to obviate the proliferation of various confusing and conflicting state labeling mandates.

    In a sane world the fiasco in Vermont would have nipped that in the bud on its own.

  15. So other than global warming, how are the Democrats the party of science again?

    1. They don’t like none them thar GMOs. They don’t know why, they just don’t. Also, calling people deniers who disagree with them. That is the apex of science right there.

      1. They’re genuinely concerned about the lack of funding the CDC receives to research gun violence as a disease.

        I haven’t looked at the official party platform, but they also supported the FDA in its efforts to get those dirty, dirty e-cigarettes out of the hands of smokers too.

        They did a really good job of researching and advancing ‘1 in 5’ statistic too; couldn’t just sit back and rely on the Rape-ublicans to bring that issue to everyone’s attention.

        They really have got this science thing down.

        1. Activism is not science. They’re confused.

        2. The “gun violence as disease” argument is truly revelatory about their intentions with respect to the right to bear arms.

          Also, about how much they fucking love science. Because they totally fucking love science. It bears repeating, because they fucking love it so much.

    2. They fucking love science, it is known.

      1. I thought they loving fucked science?

        1. Me love science long time!

    3. They are not the party of science on global warming.

      No political party is.

  16. What, no eugenics?

    Donald Trump’s campaign has tried to use this week’s Republican National Convention to court African Americans by arguing that President Obama has failed them on jobs and crime. But when the GOP presidential nominee delivers his acceptance speech here Thursday, he will address an estimated 18 blacks out of 2,472 delegates.

    Although that handful includes some of Trump’s most vociferous backers, the overall lack of ethnic diversity at the convention illustrates one of his greatest challenges: how to court black voters after four decades of controversy over his racial views, including campaign-trail rhetoric that has alienated many minorities.

    Trump is a hard core racist. No REAL black person would support him.

    1. Cleaving to the authenticblack experience has served blacks well over the years.

  17. But what is the GOP position on harnessing the power of interdimensional Asgardian tesseracts?

    1. +1 Infinity stone

      1. – 1 Rainbow Bridge

  18. Why is government subsidization of nuclear (which is only competitive if taxpayers are on the hook for their disposal and liability costs) and coal (“clean” coal) considered more pro-market than government subsidization of wind and solar?

    1. Who here favors government subsidization of disposal? Yucca Mtn is the way to go, but make the industry pay the full cost of it.

      And the liability costs thing is precautionary principle bullshit.

      1. But the industry isn’t paying the full cost of Yucca mountain.

        And the liability issue isn’t precautionary principle bullshit. Federal laws bans suing nuclear operators for nuclear accidents. There is a federal fund (putting taxpayers on the hook) but which is capped on a per incident basis regardless of how much damage actually occurs.

        All you have to do is look at Fukishimi, where Japanese taxpayers ended up having to pay out billions of dollars to clean up TEPCO’s mess.

        1. No one here favors that either.

          But some claim that the Nuke Industry should have enough insurance to cover any theoretical damage. Although no other industry is required to carry that insane level of insurance.

          The max damage they should have to pay is the value of the company.

          1. Other industries don’t have the ability to renders huge areas uninhabitable and destroy the property of millions of owners.

            And no, it shouldn’t be limited to the value of the company. You shouldn’t be able to destroy someone else’s property and then go, “Oh well, I guess we’re bankrupt, sucks to be you! But I still made millions in the process, kthx corporate liability shield lolol”

            1. Sure you should.

              That is the whole point of limited liability.

              And the shield can be pierced for negligent or illegal or intentional damage.

              Requiring insurance for Nuke companies is no different than required insurance due to the ACA.

              1. Limited liability is a government subsidy. Who is the government to wave someone else’s responsibility for the damage their company did to my property?

                1. It is. The question is, do you want bankruptcy laws or debtors prison?

                  And imagine the investment nightmare if owning one share of stock made all of my holdings liable for taking.

                  But, as has been discussed here before, limited liability is still doable without specific limited liability laws. Government created limited liability isnt necessary. It can be done with form of ownership.

                  1. So I take back my initial “is is”.

                    It isnt at all a government subsidy. The government just makes the process straightforward.

                    In anarchy, there is no liability. So since we are, at the least, assuming the existence of government courts, then things like common law limited liability is going to exist.

        2. No industry already paid the cost of yucca mountaon and the gov’t reneged on the deal. Read the fucking piece. Bailey even included a link.

  19. Why is government subsidization of nuclear (which is only competitive if taxpayers are on the hook for their disposal and liability costs) and coal (“clean” coal) considered more pro-market than government subsidization of wind and solar?

    On a per unit of energy cost wind and solar are subsidized by more than an order of magnitude. Wind and solar cannot provide base load and are not reliable.

    1. But, but wind and solar feelz good!

      /economically illiterate socialist

  20. BUT TEH JEE IMM OH’S HURT MUTHER ERTH!!!!!

  21. What’s the GOP platform position on alt-text?

    1. I dunno, but they seem okay with the alt-right

  22. Yikes. You’re giving them kudos for “implying” climate change is a problem? No, science clearly and emphatically says it IS a problem, one that demands our attention now. And science isn’t making a political statement when they sat that, Ronald, it’s a scientific statement.

    But I’m not surprised. Your the guy who thinks Lamar Smith is conducting a legitimate investigation of science and environmental groups, and not a political one.

    Your a funny guy.

    1. By the way, Ronakd, if you and the GOP want to label IPCC as political (what is there politics, by the way?), then do us a favor and listen to scientific organizations such as American Geophysical Union, American Physical Society, and so many more.

      In fact, here is a tip. Listen to Abe Lincoln. It was his admin that set up National Academy of Sciences with the particular purpose of advising future administrations on scientific issues. Why don’t you and the GOP advise all what they have to say about climate change.

      Yeah, you and the GOP aren’t that thrilled with what they have to say either.

    2. Just to help you along, they said this;

      “If emissions continue on their present trajectory, without either technological or regulatory abatement, then warming of 2.6 to 4.8 ?C (4.7 to 8.6 ?F) IN ADDITION to that which has already occurred would be expected by the end of the 21st century.”

      Uh oh. They must be political also.

  23. We can even create playlists of them so it will be very easy to find our videos which we like. We can also download those videos and can watch them offline. Showbox for pc

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.