Have some foresight, eh? Nuclear energy is like petroleum - hurting to the environment and limited. It's alternative, but bad.

Nuclear energy, unless something goes wrong, generates zero pollution. Only some nasty nuclear waste which is much easier to dump than most people claim it it.

I am kinda FOR alternative energy (Wind, Solar, Nuclear) because it is more beneficial to the environment...

The big issue is that fossil fuels are better for the economy, widely accessible and constant energy providers at the moment.

Nuclear? Are you joking Zenvue? How is this beneficial? Ever heard of Chernobyl or Fukushima?

Which is true, but what happens when we start to run out? Ik we have a decent amount of fossil fuels left but we are using them at such a rapid rate that is not a matter of if it is going to happen but when.

What happens when we run out of Uranium and Thorium?

We may have to resort to alternative kinds of energy... There has to be something out there that is efficient and will not run out.

There is absolutely nothing that will not run out. There are things that will last a long time, but nothing lasts forever.

Which is true, but you know what I mean..
Solar power lasts as long as the sun lasts
Wind power lasts as long as the earth lasts

Edited 3/18/2016 21:36:58

Nuclear? Are you joking Zenvue? How is this beneficial? Ever heard of Chernobyl or Fukushima?

Chernobyl- they shut down the emergency systems as part of a test.

Fukushima- Earthquake+ Tsunami, and even then, Fukushima was blown way out of proportion, even if it was bad.

If the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) has accurately estimated the planet's economically accessible uranium resources, reactors could run more than 200 years at current rates of consumption.

200 years is a long time.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last/

We should keep using Nuclear Energy for the next 100 years at least. In the meantime alternative fuel energy markets will grow more refined and the technology will improve perhaps to the point where renewable energy is cheaper.

Nuclear power plants generate a huge waste which can't be neutralized for millions of years. France is (sadly) the nation with the highest percentage of nuclear energy in its total. Edf is having great troubles currently as they have no longer enough space to store it. They have to build a 300km tunnel with expensive technology (something like 3 billion euros) to make decent storage that could resist for the next millennia, it is even not profitable. But even if it can last thousands of years nuclear wastes keep being dangerous for millions of years. So tell me again how is nuclear energy beneficial for the environment?

Edited 3/18/2016 22:08:27

A possible source of great energy in the near future is Helium 3, if we successfully colonize the Moon.

It's a choice to participate and chip in, but you have to chip in to get anything.

It wouldn't be worth it for the rich to chip in, though. If they're hurt, they can get private healthcare emergency services. That's why taxes are mandatory. Imagine if the police was "if you want, chip in". Greatly underfunded.

But there isn't anything he can do about it

Well, don't let states have minimal wages, either.

What does this even mean?

He makes the laws.

Nuclear energy, unless something goes wrong, generates zero pollution. Only some nasty nuclear waste which is much easier to dump than most people claim it it.

unless something goes wrong; nuclear waste. You know, there are some serious problems with normal rubbish already, we don't need toxic rubbish, too. Can't we have enough foresight to see that urani, plutoni, thori, all these stuff are going to run out, too, not to say that they're also dangerous to mine and get. But will you run out of wind or Sun, or waterflow? No (though there are some other problems with water-electricity). I'm for using nuclear power, but not for funding using it.

we successfully colonize the Moon.

Yeah, in 2116.

Edited 3/18/2016 22:33:37

I mean we're not making laws based on social issues. The courts can determine whether or not somebody is correct in social issues.

I just wish to say that it isn't that hard to limit campaign donations. Just put a ten million cap on it.

Thanks Thomas.

I meant funds that people can use for their campaigns, not funds they can receive.

You can't run a national campaign on $10 million. Donald Trump, even with the 24/7 free advertising he gets on every major news network, internet new site, and social media, has already spent about $20 million. And this is just the primaries!! The total for the 2012 election year - Presidential + Senate + House of Representatives + Governorship + State Legislatures - was about $7 billion. People forget that political campaigns are there own business sector that generate taxable income and profits for businesses. In election campaign years the only thing that happens is redistribution of wealth: rich guys give money to Democratic and Republican candidates. Republican and Democratic candidates spend the money on advisers, ads, pollsters, and consultant companies. This tertiary link is then taxed. Citizens United is not as evil as people make it up to be.

He makes the laws.

You seem to be very flawed in your understanding of US government if you think that makes him the court....

You can't run a national campaign on $10 million. Donald Trump, even with the 24/7 free advertising he gets on every major news network, internet new site, and social media, has already spent about $20 million. And this is just the primaries!! The total for the 2012 election year - Presidential + Senate + House of Representatives + Governorship + State Legislatures - was about $7 billion. People forget that political campaigns are there own business sector that generate taxable income and profits for businesses. In election campaign years the only thing that happens is redistribution of wealth: rich guys give money to Democratic and Republican candidates. Republican and Democratic candidates spend the money on advisers, ads, pollsters, and consultant companies. This tertiary link is then taxed. Citizens United is not as evil as people make it up to be.

I agree with you, but on quite different grounds. This does promote oligarchy; there should be no money prerequisite for running for president, and part of the major lack of success of third party in America is lack of funds. The problem with this, though, is that the 10 million $ can be bypassed, by giving it to organisations that support this, and spreading it. I am for freedoms, and so am for no caps like this, especially since they won't solve anything.

You seem to be very flawed in your understanding of US government if you think that makes him the court....

Maybe I am, but the court is just to see if what laws and who is guilty in ambigous situations, while the politicians make the laws, if I am not mistaken?

Edited 3/18/2016 23:13:06