Jump to content
Vae

Text Towers: The Trump Megathread

Recommended Posts

It only today occurred to me today that Donald Trump is an old man. More updates at 6.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Revates said:

It only today occurred to me today that Donald Trump is an old man. More updates at 6.

Perhaps what we need is young blood, like Trump's main rival in the Democratic party ^_________________^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While we're on that topic I find it weird that the president of the United states has a Twitter

Hello world of 2017

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Vallium said:

While we're on that topic I find it weird that the president of the United states has a Twitter

Hello world of 2017

Given that Twitter has been losing money for a while (check their GAAP figures) it almost makes one suspect that this whole presidency could be a cynical marketing ploy to get more people to use it ;V

Also is it me or is this guy far less entertaining now? I reckon the US should have another election, it won't fix anything but it will be fun ;D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Xaende said:

Should've voted for Vermin Supreme.

 

 

 

This joke will continue running until 2257

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Crazy Lee said:

know she's not in the military but apparently her Daddy Dump doesn't give a fuck about her.

 

...because clearly the proper way to maturely and intelligently articulate your point is to antagonistically call out users who may or may not even browse these forums, while making up childish fake names to denigrate your opponent like a fucking third grader.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<mod post>
Callout posts are against the rules.

Don't bring users up just to stir political debates, in participants that aren't even involved.
You should know better than this shit.
</mod post>

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I retract my statement because talking in this thread is like pulling the ring on a grenade and staring at it wondering what's gonna happen

Edited by Sidewalk Surfboard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Sidewalk Surfboard said:

I retract my statement because talking in this thread is like pulling the ring on a grenade and staring at it wondering what's gonna happen

...well as long as you keep a thumb on the spoon nothing's gonna happen </waraboo_autism>

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Victor-933 said:

...well as long as you keep a thumb on the spoon nothing's gonna happen </waraboo_autism>


Still a good way to lose an arm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Jtrekkie said:


Still a good way to lose an arm.

Well, no, the fuze doesn't start burning until the spring-loaded spoon ("lever") flies off. At that point you have 3-5 seconds to throw it.

aeddbcb9f9efe0bc1dc046d7c82ec4b6.thumb.png.2f406c56c00a13b5295094091d8e4e48.png

 

Probably lose more than an arm if you're still holding it either way, typical hand grenades have a five meter killzone.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Victor-933 said:

Well, no, the fuze doesn't start burning until the spring-loaded spoon ("lever") flies off. At that point you have 3-5 seconds to throw it.


I was being facetious, but I can't be mad at a good diagram.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the increase in military spending one would think that the US leadership would want to encourage more to enlist but I suppose this move is probably to appease the conservatives.

Also, who remembers when Trump was anti-war?

Pepperbridge Farm remembers.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt very much that Trump is pro or anti anything aside from being thoroughly pro-Trump.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Faust said:

I doubt very much that Trump is pro or anti anything aside from being thoroughly pro-Trump.

I just wanted to point out his duplicity, not that it's particularly unique.

Obama, George W Bush and other politicians made all sorts of (rather major) promises that they ended up going back on also. With all the broken promises and all the major decisions made serving the same interests regardless of who gets elected (banking, military industrial complex, surveillance / homeland "security" etc) it's a wonder that anyone takes elections seriously anymore.

Even here in Australia it boggles the mind that people have such short memories, perhaps that's part of the reason why election cycles tend to be four years.

Both of our major parties have the same foreign policy (follow the US everywhere and sell out to China) and the same major domestic policies (let banks and the foreign-owned mines do almost whatever they want while our natural resources are ripped out of the country and give the bare minimum to the small domestic population). They differ on minor issues such as gay marriage and occasionally the Labour Party (ostensibly the party for the country's labor) holds a Royal Commission into the banks which causes a media stir but no real changes to be made.

Yet every four years the people get all worked up on which of the two almost identical parties gets into "power". Amazing.

 

I see the same thing happening in the USA. Regardless of which president or party gets elected the following always occurs:

-Surveillance becomes more intrusive as personal freedoms and privacy are removed

-The focus on the military expands and foreign intervention policies remain

-Outside of surveillance various freedoms are removed (eg the Patriot Act)

-Tax rates get minor adjustments here and there but the loopholes that allow wealthy individuals and big businesses to legally avoid tax remain

-Media ownership (ie the "free press") remains highly concentrated or gets even more concentrated

-On that note, no serious attempt is ever made of breaking up monopolies/duopolies/oligopolies

-Continuing support of overseas dictators (oh sorry, I mean "allies") like in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and United Arab Emirates

-Continuing support of freedom fighters and moderate rebels (but if they turn against the USA or vice versa they become terrorists)

-Creeping neoliberal policies and privatization

 

Perhaps part of the population knows this on some level, given the low voter turnout:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/turnout.php

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WileyWarWeasel said:

it's a wonder that anyone takes elections seriously anymore.

They don't.

It's why a ton of people voted for a death meteor and a snake this last election, or just didn't vote at all, period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Vae said:

They don't.

It's why a ton of people voted for a death meteor and a snake this last election, or just didn't vote at all, period.

The meteor and snake weren't mentioned in this article, though it does look like "nobody" won by a landslide:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-13/actually-nobody-won-2016-presidential-election-and-it-was-landslide

 

Among the popular choices, I would've gone for the snake (maybe with a rainbow):

1297606463.silverfox5213_illustration_3_

Otherwise a third-third-party vote for the dog (coincidence that it's a powerful being spelled backwards? I THINK NOT):

latest?cb=20150913002540

EDIT: As for why I talk so much about elections in another country, I find them much more entertaining than Australian ones ^__^

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Victor-933 said:

...because clearly the proper way to maturely and intelligently articulate your point is to antagonistically call out users who may or may not even browse these forums, while making up childish fake names to denigrate your opponent like a fucking third grader.

As if others haven't posted in anger before. And as if the Commander in Chief hasn't denigrated everyone who doesn't suck on his toes like he's a third grader as well. Because I tend to see a lot of that childishness a lot more from Trump than myself.

Anyway.

I think Trump needs his twitter taken away. He might bitch about first amendment rights, and he may have a point. But he's the symbolic leader of the country and he should act like one, and he's not. Dignified and intelligent tweets are very far removed from him. Plus, with him shooting off at the hip and just tweeting what's on his mind without filter risks him spouting things that are best kept secret, the things diplomats and spies say behind closed doors, and could harm our country or our relationships with our allies or even get other countries rather pissed at us.

That being said, at least his tweets on military policy are not set in stone... yet. Actual political gears have to be turned before trans people start getting the boot out of the military.

And then what? DO we boot able bodied soldiers out of the military? What if they're not transitioning yet?

It's interesting that this came up because in a military budget bill, there was a debate over whether the military should pay for reassignment surgery. There was also a part of the bill that paid for that stupid wall of Trump's. So because the trans thing was holding up the bill, let's just ban trans people instead. So he can have his overly expensive, tax wasting wall. Not just ban allowing trans people to use tax money to transition, but just ban them altogether.

Ignoring all the people who are active duty, or have been active duty, who have served perfectly fine in the military and are trans. Including a Navy SEAL, the one position with the strictest requirements to serve. A lady with bigger balls (figuratively, mind you) than Trump or anyone who hasn't served. I can admire this person and their service to us.

 

I believe that if you are fit for whatever job you want to do you should be considered eligible for that job, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. You can do the job, then do it. If you want to fight for our country, if you can pass Basic, if you can obey orders, if you can do the job, get the hell out there. I find it funny that the list of things that may bar you from service is so long that I'm surprised that over half the US eligible population is not qualified. Like, being too fat. Well, there goes about 2/3rds of the adult American population right there! Also, being diabetic is a disqualifier. I'm diabetic. I understand that type 1 could be a problem, but I'm type 2, and hell, Basic training alone would probably send my diabetes in recession. A wonder what running 10 miles at 5 in the morning will do for your metabolism. And if I miss medicine for one day, what happens? Nothing serious. Yea, blood sugar spikes, but I can still function just fine for a while.

So yep. No wonder the military's having trouble finding people.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still bummed out that the UK Prime Minister is not now Lord Buckethead.

 

35yrxhZ.png

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/28/2017 at 3:31 AM, Faust said:

I'm still bummed out that the UK Prime Minister is not now Lord Buckethead.

 

Do you mean Buckethead the guitarist?

hqdefault.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 03/08/2017 at 3:34 AM, Crazy Lee said:

Do you mean Buckethead the guitarist?

hqdefault.jpg

Nope, there is actually a joke government candidate in the UK called Lord Buckethead. He's stood in three elections so far. Here he is, out on the campaign trail.

bucket.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Faust said:

Nope, there is actually a joke government candidate in the UK called Lord Buckethead. He's stood in three elections so far. Here he is, out on the campaign trail.

bucket.jpg

He certainly looks more appealing than the reanimated corpse next to him.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/7/2017 at 8:42 AM, Faust said:

Nope, there is actually a joke government candidate in the UK called Lord Buckethead. He's stood in three elections so far. Here he is, out on the campaign trail.

bucket.jpg

So, basically the UK version of Vermin Supreme. I'd vote for him.

 

I don't care if you like Trump, hate him, idolize him with a statue of him in your living room, the man needs his twitter taken away, duct tape on his mouth, and a PR firm to filter every immature and reactive thing that comes out of his mouth. Like this whole "Fire and fury" crap.

I hope you guys enjoy the next massive war, because we might be getting into a huge one soon if he decides to just up and attack NK for the hell of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah similar, although some of Buckethead's policies are actually quite clever. F'rex, he was 100% committed to publicly supporting and continuing the Trident Nuclear Deterrent programme, whilst privately intending to scrap it on the grounds that 'they're secret submarines, who would know?'

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Crazy Lee said:

I don't care if you like Trump, hate him, idolize him with a statue of him in your living room, the man needs his twitter taken away, duct tape on his mouth, and a PR firm to filter every immature and reactive thing that comes out of his mouth. Like this whole "Fire and fury" crap.

I hope you guys enjoy the next massive war, because we might be getting into a huge one soon if he decides to just up and attack NK for the hell of it.

Who hurt you so badly that you can't even ironically enjoy Trump's twitter?

This is why you liberals keep losing, you're not fun anymore.

In remembrance of better times...
 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Crazy Lee said:

So, basically the UK version of Vermin Supreme. I'd vote for him.

Now that I think of it, bucket looks like a modern Darth Vader.

10 hours ago, Crazy Lee said:

I don't care if you like Trump, hate him, idolize him with a statue of him in your living room, the man needs his twitter taken away, duct tape on his mouth, and a PR firm to filter every immature and reactive thing that comes out of his mouth. Like this whole "Fire and fury" crap.

I hope you guys enjoy the next massive war, because we might be getting into a huge one soon if he decides to just up and attack NK for the hell of it.

I wouldn't worry too much about that, if USA goes to war it will be because the leadership in the US (central bank, commercial banks, MIC, etc) want it not because of some loudmouthed charlatan. This row between the US and NK is just a continuation of the sabre rattling that's being ongoing since the 50s.

As someone else eloquently mentioned:

On 27/07/2017 at 10:28 PM, Faust said:

I doubt very much that Trump is pro or anti anything aside from being thoroughly pro-Trump.

I don't think Trump is interested in following in JFK's footsteps (ie making powerful domestic enemies) by really stepping out of line.

 

26 minutes ago, Zaraphayx said:

This is why you liberals keep losing, you're not fun anymore.

In remembrance of better times...

303687_433664670002739_1227079433_n.jpg

Pepperbridge Farm remembers.

Geez, for a politician that was all about "hope and change" they certainly authorized more of the same from the previous administration, who authorized more of the same from the administration before them and so on. To think that some people (mostly the few that voted for either Trump or Hillary) think it makes a difference who's warming the president's seat.

25 minutes ago, Zaraphayx said:

Who hurt you so badly that you can't even ironically enjoy Trump's twitter?

The only amusement from Twitter nowadays is reading their GAAP figures and comparing them to the company's hype. One could say that about quite a few companies nowadays though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, WileyWarWeasel said:

The only amusement from Twitter nowadays is reading their GAAP figures and comparing them to the company's hype. One could say that about quite a few companies nowadays though.

Considering that twitter is pretty much the only consistently amusing social media outlet left I'm almost convinced that the company being so unprofitable is a credit to it's quality as a medium.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that I consider that a huge compliment or anything considering that Facebook is literally garbage and what else is there exactly? YouTube is just a bunch of news reaction videos and fat chicks doing makeup tutorials. Is Reddit social media? Nothing makes for an exciting experience like only seeing the most popular opinions.

Forums and message boards died for this terrible shit because we exist in a culture of wallflowers who find erecting ego shrines and screaming into the void more fulfilling than building sig towers and screaming at each other like socially adjusted nerds.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Zaraphayx said:

Considering that twitter is pretty much the only consistently amusing social media outlet left I'm almost convinced that the company being so unprofitable is a credit to it's quality as a medium.

Haha it certainly is reflective of its quality in some ways.

5 minutes ago, Zaraphayx said:

Not that I consider that a huge compliment or anything considering that Facebook is literally garbage and what else is there exactly? YouTube is just a bunch of news reaction videos and fat chicks doing makeup tutorials. Is Reddit social media? Nothing makes for an exciting experience like only seeing the most popular opinions.

If one is willing to look around you can find all sorts of interesting and informative tidbits on the Tube of You:

 

8 minutes ago, Zaraphayx said:

Forums and message boards died for this terrible shit because we exist in a culture of wallflowers who find erecting ego shrines and screaming into the void more fulfilling than building sig towers and screaming at each other like socially adjusted nerds.

Phoenix and WebDiplomacy forums are still going strong:

logo.png

http://webdiplomacy.net/forum.php

 

PS Diplomacy is Henry Kissinger's favorite game ;D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, WileyWarWeasel said:

PS Diplomacy is Henry Kissinger's favorite game ;D

What a coincidence, because Kissing 'er is my favourite form of diplomacy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/08/2017 at 2:10 PM, Zaraphayx said:

Not that I consider that a huge compliment or anything considering that Facebook is literally garbage and what else is there exactly? YouTube is just a bunch of news reaction videos and fat chicks doing makeup tutorials. Is Reddit social media? Nothing makes for an exciting experience like only seeing the most popular opinions.

Forums and message boards died for this terrible shit because we exist in a culture of wallflowers who find erecting ego shrines and screaming into the void more fulfilling than building sig towers and screaming at each other like socially adjusted nerds.

well i guess you could go on the chans

they're garbage but they embrace it in a fun way

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/11/2017 at 8:07 AM, Zaraphayx said:

Who hurt you so badly that you can't even ironically enjoy Trump's twitter?
 

I'd be laughing about this a lot more if Trump wasn't one of the most powerful people on the planet, pretty much the figurehead of the country I happen to live in, controls the military, the department of justice, the nuclear codes, and other executive branches. Was he just a clown with little power except over himselves it would be more entertaining to watch him.

Then again, watching his presidency go into a nose-dive is kinda entertaining.

On 8/11/2017 at 8:41 AM, WileyWarWeasel said:

I don't think Trump is interested in following in JFK's footsteps (ie making powerful domestic enemies) by really stepping out of line.

 

303687_433664670002739_1227079433_n.jpg

Pepperbridge Farm remembers.

 

I am no fan of Obama's military exploits during his tenure. The secret kill list sounds like a paranoid conspiracy theory though.

Also "Obama unveiled plans to build more nuclear power plants"? And that's necessarily a bad thing? I actually wouldn't mind seeing more nuclear power plants, if at least some of the newer designs I've seen being tested, like salt-based ones, or micro-reactors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Crazy Lee said:

 

Also "Obama unveiled plans to build more nuclear power plants"? And that's necessarily a bad thing? I actually wouldn't mind seeing more nuclear power plants, if at least some of the newer designs I've seen being tested, like salt-based ones, or micro-reactors.

Nuclear power tends to be a thing that liberals/democrats shit their pants over. At least the California brand do. We've actually implemented in plans to remove most of our nuclear power on the west coast by 2019 iirc. Prices of electricity are going to go up for sure as a result. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Crazy Lee said:

I am no fan of Obama's military exploits during his tenure. The secret kill list sounds like a paranoid conspiracy theory though.

I just wanted to demonstrate that (overall) Obama simply delivered more of the same that George Bush delivered before him.

4 hours ago, Crazy Lee said:

Also "Obama unveiled plans to build more nuclear power plants"? And that's necessarily a bad thing?

Alright, I'll admit it's a good thing for radiotrophic fungus:

800px-Cryptococcus_neoformans_using_a_li

4 hours ago, Crazy Lee said:

I actually wouldn't mind seeing more nuclear power plants, if at least some of the newer designs I've seen being tested, like salt-based ones, or micro-reactors.

Blind optimism bias there (the new tech isn't viable or anywhere near cheap enough but hey, I'm sure it'll be viable in the future!).

Remember the original promise of nuclear energy (electricity that's too cheap to meter)?

It seems that every few years people fall for the same promises over and over and over again. No wonder election cycles are every four years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did I hear nuclear power from afar?

Okay let me step in and  hijack/borrow this conversation on merit of expertise

First off

A.) Radiation release from nuclear plants is very small every year. Usually in the realm of 10 Bq at the most, with the population limit set to 1 milirem every year (most usually measure around .001, with some of the older BWR plants that have gamma shine due to their single loop systems coming in closer to .004). You receive naturally ~300 milirem annually from background radiation. In fact you'll receive far more radiation from a coal plant due to Ra-226, and in some cases small traces of activated sulfur and oxygen  from sorting processes (though that's almost non-existent proportional to the Ra-226). And the fly ash is particularly bad because, it can have 10's of Bq/Kg. Now this is all far lower than even low-level nuclear waste, but, because it's far far far less regulated and far more likely to get airborne since it generally just sits in huge piles outside, and well wallah you've got lung cancer (or proportionally higher rates of it, especially at plants that still us phosphogypsum  stacks  (then the fly ash can have 100's of Bq/Kg), but that's usually in Eastern Europe and China.

 

B.) Those salt-based and modular reactors are actually far more viable than that might seem. The salt-based ones have already been used in the past as LMFBR's and an experimental thorium-fluoride reactor in the US and most recently a new one started up 40 yrs later in the Netherlands. Gas cooled reactors have already been extensively used in the UK and may have a future in the nuclear industry. It should be noted that nuclear is in something of a transition phase, where we are making PWR's and BWR's more economical than Gen II and III designs to transition to Gen III+ designs, but we're beginning to move back to fast reactors and starting to use more exotic coolants. I'm hopeful for pebble bed's personally now that we have better composites to design the fuel pebbles with. So the reality is, there's a lot going on in the industry most people don't realize because it's just not heavily publicized and a lot of people just don't understand it and choose not to take the time to (not something I'd blame anyone for, our world is very fast paced, but it shouldn't be mistaken for nothing happening at all). In fact on Thursday TerraPower is coming to my school to give a presentation and is looking to hire new people and accepting resumes. I'd apply but I've already got a job lined up after gradation. So I can say, and no it's not blind optimism, that Gen IV reactors will be arriving sooner than most people realize (I'm expecting 15-20 years).

C.) Lastly nuclear power is still a relatively cheap source per kw/h including costs of construction and de-commissioning and after subsides for carbon credits. However, natural gas has gained significant ground since, at the moment, it is far cheaper. In all honesty I see a directional shift towards Small Modular Reactors which can produce as much as a natural gas boiler, but it does so for extended periods of time and at lower costs (and generally takes up less land since it doesn't require large onsite storage for the fuel). Hence this likely why TerraPower is expanding because it's what's going to replace natural gas once the prices rise due to the new demand from power plants (and perhaps after two or three LNG accidents).

 

Aside from that I honestly don't really care about the rest of the thread. I'm a democrat and proud liberal. I also find Trump, and his posse, despicable.

 

 giphy.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, WileyWarWeasel said:

@U-235Fusion power is also 15-20 years away dontchaknow ^___^

We've been saying that for a while, but fusion has it's own problems that make it difficult, mostly around materials more than anything. SMR's is something we've already got experience in. Same thing for salt cooled reactors and Thorium-fluoride reactors. Comparing fusion and Gen IV and Gen III+ reactors is essentially is apples to oranges, it's kind of useless.

Fusion will come around when we get the materials that can withstand the temperatures needed. Up till then, it'll be conventional power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, U-235 said:

We've been saying that for a while, but fusion has it's own problems that make it difficult, mostly around materials more than anything. SMR's is something we've already got experience in. Same thing for salt cooled reactors and Thorium-fluoride reactors. Comparing fusion and Gen IV and Gen III+ reactors is essentially is apples to oranges, it's kind of useless.

Fusion will come around when we get the materials that can withstand the temperatures needed. Up till then, it'll be conventional power.

Hehe I know, these next gen reactors are incremental improvements over the older stuff while fusion has its own issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, WileyWarWeasel said:

Hehe I know, these next gen reactors are incremental improvements over the older stuff while fusion has its own issues.

It's going to be what comes after natural gas prices increase as a result of it's increased use. U prices are seeing relative stability despite new plants going up, and actually overall have gone down. I feel economics will play in Nuclear's favor with SMR's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, U-235 said:

It's going to be what comes after natural gas prices increase as a result of it's increased use. U prices are seeing relative stability despite new plants going up, and actually overall have gone down. I feel economics will play in Nuclear's favor with SMR's.

Worldwide nuclear power consumption by TWh peaked in 2006 before slightly declining then stagnating. Uranium prices spiked in 2007, around the same time that other commodity prices like oil spiked before the resulting GFC.

Uranium prices remained relatively low afterward due to lack of demand increase, not because of economics "playing in favor" of nuclear. EDIT: Also points to an affordability issue, as nuclear power consumption has not increased despite low uranium prices.

As for natural gas, its consumption has at least been increasing, from 2000 to 2008 at about 2.9% per year by Mtoe on the average on a worldwide basis. Interestingly after prices finished spiking in 2008 then went back down and stayed down from 2009 onward the increase in gas consumption per year went down to around 1.97% on the average.

Funnily enough annual average gas prices leading up to the spike were higher than the annual averages after, yet gas consumption still grew at a faster relative rate than after the spike died down. This points to an affordability issue.

https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy.html

main.png

1467710349140.png

http://www.nasdaq.com/markets/natural-gas.aspx?timeframe=10y

Also to stay on topic: Trump sucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, WileyWarWeasel said:

Worldwide nuclear power consumption by TWh peaked in 2006 before slightly declining then stagnating. Uranium prices spiked in 2007, around the same time that other commodity prices like oil spiked before the resulting GFC.

Uranium prices remained relatively low afterward due to lack of demand increase, not because of economics "playing in favor" of nuclear. EDIT: Also points to an affordability issue, as nuclear power consumption has not increased despite low uranium prices.

As for natural gas, its consumption has at least been increasing, from 2000 to 2008 at about 2.9% per year by Mtoe on the average on a worldwide basis. Interestingly after prices finished spiking in 2008 then went back down and stayed down from 2009 onward the increase in gas consumption per year went down to around 1.97% on the average.

Funnily enough annual average gas prices leading up to the spike were higher than the annual averages after, yet gas consumption still grew at a faster relative rate than after the spike died down. This points to an affordability issue.

https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy.html

main.png

1467710349140.png

http://www.nasdaq.com/markets/natural-gas.aspx?timeframe=10y

Also to stay on topic: Trump sucks.

At this rate I feel we're derailing the conversation entirely from the original topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, U-235 said:

At this rate I feel we're derailing the conversation entirely from the original topic.

Or perhaps you're trying to cover up that Trump is hiding the uranium! D:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm. So there's been a lot of back and forth over the whole Korea thing. Trump fans are claiming that Trump deserves all the credit for it and that liberals refuse to give him credit for anything because they hate him so much, where liberals are asking what Trump did to start the peace talks. Some are calling for Trump to get a Nobel peace price (which is premature), and noting that Obama got one for doing nothing. First of all, Obama didn't deserve that peace prize. Second, the process is still ongoing. Let's break the whole thing down.

- Trump and Kim Jong-un get into a war of words. Trump threatens fire and fury, Kim threatens to bomb Guam. WW3 looks imminent.
- The USA and UN enact stricter sanctions on NK. NK probably bypasses some of these through Iran and China.
- South Korea's president Moon extends an olive branch, they go to the Olympics, talks ensue....

Some conservatives are acting like Trump has already achieved peace between the two nations even though the talks are still in process. Trump still has to meet with Kim later this month. Until an actual treaty is signed it's a bit premature to be acting like peace has finally happened.

But I'd really like to know, seriously, how Trump is mostly responsible for this peace process, and why Moon gave him all the credit (besides just sucking up to Trump before his meeting). Not being anti-Trump, I just want answers.

The best I can see is that all the blustering Trump did towards NK showed them that we weren't playing games with them, and that caused them to back down. Considering that Kim was threatening to nuke Guam that's hard to believe. Or, the increased sanctions caused NK to back down, which I also doubt because sanctions in the past have done diddly. I have heard that their major test site collapsed in on itself so that is the likely reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People are working themselves up over the fact that there are furries that actually voted for Trump when 20 years of experience in the subculture have taught me that furries, especially the younger ones, are perfectly capable of being dumb and gullible as all hell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...