Crossfire | Weeknights @ 6:30 pm ET on CNN

Join the debate

Jump in the Crossfire by using #Crossfire on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.

Jump in the Crossfire by using #Crossfire
on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.

November 18th, 2013
08:43 PM ET

Crossfire: Support for Biden and Christie in 2016

(CNN) – As 2016 chatter heats up, two political insiders spill their potential picks for their respective party's presidential nominee.

CNN political commentator and Democratic strategist Donna Brazile said if Hillary Clinton doesn't run, Vice President Joe Biden might just take the cake.

"I would love to see a woman in the White House and so my money right now would stay on Hillary," Brazile said Monday on CNN's Crossfire.

"But if Joe Biden, I got to tell you, he's been a champion for women's' equality, and I would toss my support to Joe Biden,' she told Crossfire co-host S.E. Cupp.

For his part, former Minnesota governor and 2012 Republican presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty, given a choice between GOP favorites Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, or New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, would pick Christie.

"Christie would be a stronger candidate," Pawlenty said to Crossfire co-host Van Jones. "No question in my mind."

Read more on the Political Ticker

Brazile on Hillary: 'She's like Elvis'

Posted by
Filed under: 2016 • Debates • Donna Brazile • S.E. Cupp • Tim Pawlenty • Van Jones
soundoff (6 Responses)
  1. physicsreviewboard

    Why The Second Law of Thermodynamics Rules Out Strictly Ambient Heat Engines

    A block of ice just below the freezing point is far above absolute zero, so it actually contains plenty of heat. Can we take advantage of this to boil a pot of water, by setting it down on a block of ice?

    Expecting an ambient heat engine to do any work, with only one heat reservoir, is exactly equivalent to expecting a teapot to boil water by absorbing heat from a block of ice.

    Both processes are ruled out by the very same law – the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

    An ambient heat engine, with only one heat reservoir, would not merely "circumvent" the Second Law of Thermodynamics – it would actually DISPROVE the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

    An engine that only uses ambient heat would need to be able to DECREASE the entropy of the universe. The Second Law tells us that we can never decrease the entropy of the universe, or of an isolated system.

    As a consequence of this law:

    "It is impossible for any device operating on a cycle to produce net work from a single temperature reservoir; the production of net work requires flow of heat from a hotter reservoir to a colder reservoir."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy#Second_law_of_thermodynamics

    In a strictly ambient heat engine there are not two heat reservoirs at different temperatures; no reservoir would be available at any temperature other than the ambient temperature. No matter what cycle we design with this constraint, we will find that the cycle would have to be able to decrease the entropy of the universe in order to do any work.

    The Second Law tells us that we can never build an engine that does some work with heat taken from a heat reservoir, without also transferring some heat to another reservoir at a lower temperature.

    An equivalent statement is that we can't decrease the total entropy of an isolated system.

    The entropy change differential due to heat transfer to or from a reservoir is inversely related to the temperature at which the transfer occurs. The consequence is that transferring heat INTO a cold reservoir produces a larger GAIN in entropy, than the LOSS of entropy that occurs due to transfer of the same amount of heat FROM a hot reservoir. This noteworthy and remarkable inequality enables a heat engine to use some heat to do some work without violating the Second Law – as long as it can make use of two different heat reservoirs, at different temperatures. The ambient-heat-powered engine only involves a single reservoir, at a single temperature (at any given moment). Use of heat from the single reservoir would reduce the entropy of the reservoir, and with no colder reservoir, the engine has no way to compensate by increasing the entropy anywhere else. Therefore we know for certain that the engine will disappoint us. It will never be able to do any work.

    Flow of heat from a block of ice to lukewarm water would also result in a DECREASE of the total entropy. To repeat, this is because the entropy change differential due to heat transfer to or from a reservoir is inversely related to the temperature at which the transfer occurs. Therefore the LOSS of entropy by the ice would be greater than the GAIN in entropy by the warm water, resulting in an overall decrease in entropy.

    Once again: Expecting an ambient heat engine to do any work, with only one heat reservoir, is exactly equivalent to expecting a teapot to boil water by absorbing heat from a block of ice. Anyone who claims to be developing a "prototype" of such an engine is only developing a pretense, and nothing more.

    http://physicsreviewboard.wordpress.com/aesop-institute-s-purely-ambient-heat-engine-is-pure-fraud/

    The Second Law of Thermodynamics makes no exception for the charlatans of the world.

    http://physicsreviewboard.wordpress.com/aesop-institute/

    November 19, 2013 at 8:55 pm | Reply
  2. Jjr67

    Biden? OMG.

    November 19, 2013 at 7:49 pm | Reply
  3. REGinAZ

    The following is offered as an observation after reading up on "Schumpeter – the economist": The theory presented, in part, predicts the fall of "capitalism" due to the capitalists' elimination of the middle-class, which the economy actually needs. Sounds exactly like what we are seeing today, with "greed" running rampant and actually pushing for a two-class society with "the money" constantly being aggressive to feed their insatiable "more" (never enough) appetite while the majority continually looses. I think that we forget that America became great and had dynamic growth with "capitalism" that was coupled with integrity and moral values, with pride that included a conscience, where today there is really run away greed with everything measured only in dollars – however acquired, and people always just striving for more anyway they can get it. Not trying to be a purist or an idealist but just noting an educated view that has considerable correlation to what is going on today – for whatever it is worth. "Capitalism" is really our way but without some "socialism", without a conscience it can be truly evil, while with a social conscience it can be a true "democracy" that can actually be beneficial to all of society.

    Today we hear people say that they don’t want America to move towards the “socialism” seen in Europe but I wonder what they would think about becoming more like the “Aristocratic”, two-class societies of South and Central America. Personally, with that choice I’d prefer what is comparable to Europe. Then there is actually another status that is really unfairly bias in one direction. If GWBush, who it must be honestly admitted actually lied constantly, even arrogantly and with it being very costly to everyone but “the money”, was judged as harshly as Obama is, “he would have been run out of town on a rail”. That doesn’t say that Obama’s faults should be overlooked, only that it should be realized that there actually is a “machine” aggressively at work to exaggerate, create hype and to sway public opinion to favor their self-serving interests. To deny / ignore that is simply to deceive and to cost oneself greatly. Again personally, I’d prefer better than Obama but absolutely never the likes of Cruz, Paul, Ryan, Cantor, Palin, Romney, Perry, Santorum, JBush, Cheney, Rove, Norquist or any of the others who are literally “puppets” for “the money” and who simply serve to aggressively push America always further into being that two-class society. This is interesting “food for thought” but offered without any answers, only with the encouragement to be truly objective and rational and to think for ourselves without ever being conned with terms like “liberal” or “conservative” or with blind loyalties like Republican or Tea Party or Democratic or Libertarian.

    November 19, 2013 at 3:06 pm | Reply
  4. Powerfail

    Selecting Biden would assure a Republican victory.

    November 19, 2013 at 11:28 am | Reply
  5. z.v

    My opinion
    Michael Obama should run for president!!!!!

    November 18, 2013 at 11:24 pm | Reply
    • j.bostick

      she would not accept anything less than queen

      November 20, 2013 at 11:35 am | Reply

Post a comment


 

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 95 other followers