4 ms·

You've moved the goalposts several times now. The only claim I started with is that Republicans, as a group, have supported nuclear for some time while Democra

You've moved the goalposts several times now. The only claim I started with is that Republicans, as a group, have supported nuclear for some time while Democrats, as a group, haven't. You then asked me to provide some evidence of specific actions Republicans took, which I provided recent example. Then you complained that some Democrats also supported the thing Republicans did. So I showed data on the general support by party. But now that's not good enough either. Also, legislation isn't the only part of the story, so are lawsuits. Do you think environmentalist groups like the Sierra club who have a history of burying efforts to build plants in lawsuits are more closely associated with Democrats or Republicans?

gotAnyEvidence 7y ago
You said Republicans have supported it and patiently waited for Democrats to catch up. I showed that each of your examples included a group of Democrats supporting (co-sponsoring) it. I also showed how multiple Democratic controlled states also support nuclear. A qualitative poll doesn’t disprove the quantitative evidence that Democrats have and continue to support nuclear as an energy option. There is also a vocal group of Democrats who don’t support it in any way, but that doesn’t change the votes and actions of those that do. Trying to boil everything down to a yes/no or left/right issue leads to this type of back and forth. Issues have many sides and multiple nuances, it’s ok to admit that.
- Consultant32452 7y ago
  Sorry, but you are still taking an extremely narrow interpretation of what I wrote and then asking me to defend the thing that you made up in your mind. Finding some Democrats that support nuclear doesn't in any way invalidate what I said. Moving the discussion between layers of abstraction from generalizations to individuals and back is a disingenuous way to debate. The only thing I needed to support my position is the survey of support showing that the majority of Republicans support nuclear while the majority of Democrats don't, and that this state of affairs has held consistently over time.

gotAnyEvidence 7y ago

You said Republicans have supported it and patiently waited for Democrats to catch up. I showed that each of your examples included a group of Democrats supporting (co-sponsoring) it. I also showed how multiple Democratic controlled states also support nuclear. A qualitative poll doesn’t disprove the quantitative evidence that Democrats have and continue to support nuclear as an energy option. There is also a vocal group of Democrats who don’t support it in any way, but that doesn’t change the votes and actions of those that do. Trying to boil everything down to a yes/no or left/right issue leads to this type of back and forth. Issues have many sides and multiple nuances, it’s ok to admit that.

Consultant32452 7y ago
Sorry, but you are still taking an extremely narrow interpretation of what I wrote and then asking me to defend the thing that you made up in your mind. Finding some Democrats that support nuclear doesn't in any way invalidate what I said. Moving the discussion between layers of abstraction from generalizations to individuals and back is a disingenuous way to debate. The only thing I needed to support my position is the survey of support showing that the majority of Republicans support nuclear while the majority of Democrats don't, and that this state of affairs has held consistently over time.