Comments by "Archangel17" (@MDP1702) on "CNN"
channel.
-
4
-
3
-
Sanders state polls (all in the lost 1,5 month, newest number first):
Iowa 11 (but untrustworthy, only +-600 respondents and no breakdown of landlines vs cellphones, just telephones), 16, 26
new jersey 18
Florida 14
Cali 26, 18
NY 15
New hampshire 29, 21, 26
Texas 12, 13
Nevada 29, 10
SC 18, 16
Massachusetts 8
Wisconsin 20
Colorado 26
As you can see here there sometimes is a large discrepancy between polls (especially iowa and nevada)
1 million donors 3 months before his own 2016 record and 4 months before the previous recordholder Obama 2008.
Bernie is seen as second choice by +-30% of biden voters (or around 10% off all registered voters).
But yeah, Bernie has a low ceiling facepalm
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Suryavajra
True on your first post, but someone needs to be first and while China is becoming the renewables leader, it is in output/installed, not necessary research. Most research in terms of new renewables is mostly done in universities or the private sectors, most governements don't actively fund new renewables, except in terms of subsidies to actually build them at which point it should already have proven succesful in the research. There ofcourse are exceptions like ITER and other large projects, but these projects are more like the ISS, a cooperation of nations. It's not like there is a race to become the first to find/do/build this or that like it was with the space race.
The energy sector is not really where I have fear that to be the first it's going to be much more costly initially, the military is probably the area where this is much relevant (especially depending on what you wish defensive like Russia or more global offensive like the US)
On your second post, ofcourse every renewable need to have something created and this pollutes, but this is with everything. The renewability's no pollution is in terms of production.
1
-
suryavajra
The pollution during the manufacturing and recycling process is taken into account when comparing renewables to other energy sources, and they come out much better. Many people believe that the pollution from manufacturing these renewables is worse than what they'll safe but that's not true by far. The lifetime carbon emissions for solarpanels is about 0.08 to 0.2 pounds of co2-equivalent per kilowatt-hour and for wind turbines this is 0.02 to 0.04
for comparison natural gas has a lifetime emission of about 0.6 to 2 and coals of about 1.4 to 3.6
If you are talking about the use of dangerous chemicals in the solar panel production process, then yes that's true, however that is nothing that can't be handled if following certain regulations.
There is a lot of little things you can do, sure but the energy and heating industry is responsible for 25% of global co2-eq emissions, a reduction of half (which renewables can easily obtain) would already reduce emission by as much as the total co2-eq emissions caused by transportation. Energy and heat production is the largest contributor to carbon emissions. If you look at my earlier numbers, the emission are not just halved, solar panels alone might be able to reduce more emission more then 5 times, which is a reduction on global emissions of 20%. There are not many things people can do that can match up to that, except if they combine stop eating meat, stop using cars, .... Basically people would need to completely change their entire lifestyle to even come close to try and match the possible reduction caused by renewables.
As for the nokia example, markt leaders in any sector keep their position for usually not to long by concentrating on just one product. One new invention they don't take, they're out, one improvent they can't follow, they're out. But this isn't necessarily because they were the first, but because they couldn't handle the change. The smartphone wasn't just an improvement of the cellphone, it was nearly a completely different product which outmatched the cellphone. Even companies that come second or third or fourth could go under if they don't follow the improvement/change. That's why companies are trying to continuously not just improve their product, but if at all possible find something new. If apple just kept concentrating on the iphone, after a few years they would have been history. At this moment however they are not, because they are constantly improving and branching out.
It's definitely not as easy as you portray it. First =/= loser. Losses from initial research can be recovered just by being the first and by the time others catch up you can already be investing all these profits in new research. Research is THE backbone of most large companies, with the goal to be the first.
As you said yourself, samsung already was a big whale, apple was the next coming big whale. But nokia still is a large company with over a hundred thousand employees, so I'd say they didn't do that badly.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@toemas8
Just read the definition.
*By your definition every prison in America is a concentration camp. *
No, just read the definition.
"especially political prisoners or members of persecuted minorities"
Although this might also be correct for the US prison system, so lets read further.
"small area with inadequate facilities"
Prisons in the US (and everywhere else) have adequate facilities: beds, toilet, food, toothpaste, .... If they don't, they'd indeed could be called concentration camps, but I think this also against US law in regards to prison, I am not certain though.
These detention camps regularly don't have adequate facilities according to reports, so they do fit the definition.
does being able to walk out of said concentration camp if you don’t claim asylum?
The definition doesn't say anything about being able to walk out, besides by that point the situation changed.
"members of persecuted minorities" in the definition in this case refers to illegal immigrants. The moment they refuse asylum they get deported. So they don't leave costudy untill they are no more a member of the persecuted minority. And I actually don't know when people in these centers actually get a chance to wave their asylum request and what exactly happens after that.
But either way, everyone has the right to ask asylum and while this asylum request is being processed they have rights to adequate facilities, especially if they are being detained.
Every example of concentration camps involves local populations being interned... the Jews, the Japanese In America and the Boers. Some Jews were sent to Poland but Poland was part of Nazi Germany. By your definition every prison in America is a concentration camp.
And again the definition doesn't require it be local population and to say that Poland is local to western europeans just because it was taken over by the Nazi's is bullshit. Polish camps were not local for western europeans. Don't misconstrue distance and locality.
These camps are concentration camps pure and simple, just because it isn't exactly the same as the camps in the past, doesn't suddenly make it something els. If it fits the definition, it is like that.
American POW soldiers were treated harsher and yet they weren’t kept in concentration camps.
And? They were prisoners of war, they were in camps for prisoners of war. And normally if the geneva convention was applied, their situation would actually have been better.
This doesn't change the definition of concentration camps.
People detained at the border are detained because they have broken the law
Then put them into an actual lawfull prison, there situation would improve.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1