The dispute was not whether Sanders has what he thinks is a plausible alternative that would allow us to eliminate nuclear power. What was claimed was, that he didn’t want to eliminate nuclear power. He does; he’s said as much.
Because he has called for the complete elimination of nuclear power. How much more obvious can you get?
Regards,
Shodan
In that case it would be a pointless dispute. Everybody would want to eliminate nuclear power if they could come up with something better.
I think in context when you talk about whether someone wants to eliminate nuclear power you mean “at the present time and based on alternatives currently available”.
Reread my post. The “obvious fact” part was about a completely different matter.
No but that coupled with “moderate” policies and backed by money will most certainly produce a third viable candidate.
OK, I’ll say it explicitly, then. I’m a Sanders supporter. I agree that that statement constitutes “wanting to completely eliminate nuclear power”. I disagree with that position. I support Sanders in spite of, not because of, this position. Sanders falls short of what I would consider an ideal candidate in at least this regard, and probably in a number of other ways I can’t be bothered with right now as well.
And what megadonors would want to invest their money in something as quixotic and hopeless as a third-party bid for the presidency?
Michael Bloomberg.
He’s pretty much said he’s thinking of running as an independent. And I think what that means is that if it’s Trump (or possibly Cruz) vs Sanders then he leans to running. If it’s mainstream candidates then he doesn’t.
And if it’s Trump/Cruz v. Clinton, what does Bloomberg do?
I don’t know what his calculations are. I gave the most clear-cut situations. My guess is that he would have to carefully assess what the primaries say about Clinton’s weaknesses as a candidate.
Personally, I think he has a very good chance to win as the “sane alternative” against Trump/Cruz and Sanders. Not so much with a mainstream candidate of either party in the mix. But my impression is that he feels Clinton is being exposed as a weak candidate, though I don’t know if that’s enough for him to jump in.
Trump: Bernie I love you like the Bubbeh I never had. But do the American people want their Bubbeh in the WH?
I think it is a meaningless distinction. Bernie says he wants to eliminate nuclear power. He says so on his website. Along come some posters who say ‘no, Bernie never said he wanted to eliminate nuclear power’.
The fact that Bernie thinks there is an alternative does not mean he is not saying nuclear power should be eliminated.
My apologies for the mistake. Please consider my response to the part quoted before - Sanders is certainly directly responsible for his own desire to eliminate nuclear power, and I would think that was obvious.
Regards,
Shodan
Sounds about right to me. He’s not a life-long hatemonger; he’s just a situational one (because it has been paying off so very well).
It’s obvious to me based on footage of Trump rallies (specifically, the response of the crowds to various passive-aggressive hostile-to-non-whites remarks that Trump has assayed). Of course I see these responses through the lens of finding Trump less than admirable. For those seeing him through a different lens, the term “obvious fact” will, clearly, grate.
Every one from Koch to Soros. In a race with Bernie Sanders, it is impossible to be the quixotic one.
Sanders whole existence is saying that money controls politics. Are you suggesting that he is wrong and the “elites” will not back a candidate this round? Please don’t say Trump will have their support, that’s ridiculous. You are applying standard election cliches to a situation in which DONALD TRUMP and BERNIE SANDERS are the major party nominees.
This thread is based on pure speculation, so my prediction will likely not be tested, but to suggest the establishment will sit out a presidential election displays an ignorance of American history.
It’s hard to argue with something as vague and subjective as that, though I would suggest based on what you write that you’re foisting your own ideological paradigm on people who don’t necessarily share it.
It’s OK! Mike Bloomberg would jump in to give them an alternative! I mean, sure, he’s Jewish, but he wasn’t born on Long Island, so that’s something!(More seriously, most Muslims would vote for Sanders over Trump, surely.)
For a clean energy advocate, you sound like an anti-Clean Air Act coal-power defender right now.
Wind & solar are going to be cheaper and easier to sell to constituents than nuclear. Nuclear power was the most expensive power production there was in the last century. It has massive overhead and it’s hard to build up in modular micro-installations.
Besides, Bernie is pro-fusion-power, he’s just smart enough to use the natural fusion reactor eight light-minutes away. 
Bernie is not anti-industry, relax.
Yeah, since Japan reversed course on nuclear power post-Fukushima, it’s a hard time for anyone in the nuclear power industry.
But it’s going to be a hard time with or without Bernie Sanders. You’re just scapegoating him because you want someone to blame. Blame the architects at Fukushima, or the management at nuke plants in Vermont that had repeated scandals.
This is where the world is going, whatever political faction wins.
A-all of them?
Yeah, the real question is whether Soros, Perot, and Bloomberg would go in together on a candidate or all back different hopeless cases. The Kochs would back Cruz, I think, I don’t know what they’d do with Trump. The Waltons might be the other way around, OK with Trump and not Cruz.