I'm also very pro-nuclear and think that the private sector probably doesn't have the leverage to implement it on a large scale.

> Also what the crap? You'd rather be dead than possibly less wealthy?
@Malachi
A country that's broke loses its agency.

It's a different argument. You could turn the whole of USA into trees and the rest of the world might continue course destroying the climate.

Where did you get the concept that green energy would hurt the economy?

That's not my argument.

If the Democratic agenda was environment, and nothing but environment, I could agree more with the suggestion that everyone should vote that way.

And even thought the economy always does better under Democrats?

I still don't get it.

If you're suggesting that historically, economic prosperity favors democratic presidents, I'd suggest that it's more complex than that.

It is more complex than that yes. But we can agree that dems definitely don't talk the economy. Right?

Tank*

Well we're still here. The USA is not destroyed.

How about a reset over easy to address issues, like a high excise tax on carbon fuels, and related emissions loads like cattle, and a guaranteed minimum income payment to all, eliminating most illegal (as outside duties and powers, or based on religious charity concepts) welfare programs?

That'd have far more impact than the CCL carbon tax frauds, as CCL pretends an excise tax is a user fee while violating litigated standards for that to not be illegal (if arbitrarily unrelated to or grossly higher than actual costs, not Piglovian fantasies arbitrarily adjusted), and pretends a token wealth redistribution is a dividend, also lacking any valid basis for those claims (other then idiot kindergarten teacher mentality that it's easier to market to average idiots).

So now that you agree with one point. And your counter point holds no water. You vote dem?

So your counter to my suggestion that Democratic policies might risk fiscal solvency is that the USA has not yet been fiscally destroyed??

It hasn't even dipped under dems. Your fear is unfounded.

Historic does not necessarily project into the future.

Especially if the policy positions are different.

For the record, I'm not suggesting that it's my fear. I'm simply suggesting that the fear is not irrational.

Cool. Please tell me the policy and how it had a negative impact.

I think some major collapse of artificially inflated housing and other market values in the USA is long overdue, much as a techie and business owner, that's scary, and has long fingers across various infrastructure.

As a civil rights advocate and anti-genocide on a world level, the Dems are no friends to the values they pretend to champion, and too often are enemies. They just pick different facets of various rights to trash, and leave off most GOP fake religiosity.

True Loki. But like you said before. Limited option. I'm a Bernie guy, he or Yang was the only real chance

Now we get some old guys that refuse to act for the will of the people. Mostly because they are bought and paid for by lobbies

I'm don't think you can point necessarily to any individual policy and accurately project the fiscal impact. For example, rising healthcare costs, what percentage is due to ACA legislation? I don't think anyone has that number. The bigger the move, the riskier the result.

Rising health care costs are bad for individuals. But I see that when you have no options you go to the Obama boogie man.

I like Yang, but think he's more ready for a key Cabinet position than an overall leader in charge. He's the ONLY Dem in primaries who I saw make intelligent points about energy policy, and act like he had some real clue, not just spouting consultant driven words.

Good point Loki.

I'd favor Yang over most of the lineup.

Why not a Bernie?

I think Bernie was too much of an activist/base growth candidacy, less of the Statesman/Arbiter that I'd like to see.

The decades long Senator isn't a Statesman?

representative of the US to the world abroad

And orange face is?

No better.

Too much from the Bern (including staff actions that represent him) didn't hold up so well on close inspection, as superficially. I'd support a full blown revolutionary if it seemed to move in directions that shut down historic government frauds and scams, and supported a rights model consistent with ConLaw. Bern seems to be just an alternative statist and games player, taken in light of how staff ran his own campaign operations.

So dems it is then.

I'm more of a policy guy.

Likewise.

@LokiV I'm not really clear what percentage of Bernie's candidacy was playing to a shifting base of the DNC vs shifted because of it.

The Tea Party pulled the GOP way over hard fascist right to compete, while Trump zig zagged around that area as if more of an opportunist than having any real positions or values besides propping up his own mental illness based self-image.

Then Hillary, in part based on who she pandered to in order to financially recover from Wasserman-Schultz's horrible financial mismanagement, pushed the Dems into being the party of Zionist genocide proactive support, among other dirty directions. And election law violations of types difficult to prosecute, against Bern.

Biden's in bed with some of that, and VAWA as sexist, misandrist, and anti-Due Process, plus setting up psychobitch scammers, and an attack on RTKBA. Lots of blatant ConLaw violations there, for which ideally we need better process to blackball perpetrators out of government positions for life quickly.

I think Harris on the ticket is going to drive Red to the polls more than it will drive Blue votes.