Also, what does "highly older" mean. I highly resent that phrase! Overall, I think your comment in another thread makes a lot of sense: we're going to watch the left / us eat its own for the next six months in particular.
I vote for the candidate most likely to leave me alone and take the least amount of my wealth. That would not be Warren.
If one geriatric is going to pick another geriatric as the running mate, they might want to consider putting a third person on the ticket, just in case! Probably Biden for you, I'd think.
Ehh... I don't know what energy sources she expects us to use to sustain grid demand? Natural gas is a stop gap untill we find other means but currently that's what we have. It's much better than coal. This is a promise that won't be made. She's making a "Mexico will pay for it" level mistake here. God damnit.
*Texans* I've had these conversations with friends. Houstonians are going to be pissed, no matter how much we need to curb oil for green energy, no matter how bad climate change gets, no matter how many plants burn toxic fires over the city, people will always put our local economy first... and it's hard to blame people, if big oil dies so does Houston.
This is the problem when all the candidates try to "out-left" each other to gain traction. This is how she ended up with her ridiculous college debt plan as well. She's extremely smart and thoughtful, but I'm not sure how she expects to win a general election taking all these positions.
Yeah, these deviations will cause voters to defer their decision based mostly upon their "hunch" of the person's character, which is why Hillary's comprehensive platforms went unnoticed or distrusted. Warren struck a vein in liberal resentment that has served her well so far, but a lot of these policy ideas can fall flat with bad execution. As for the filibuster bit, the republicans broke the system with judicial appointments. If they want to b**** about it, they'll bring out the gimp Roberts and overturn the big ones. Started having flashbacks of McCain eating a **** sandwich and barfing out the creature that was Sarah Palin.
Yeah, the banning fracking is about as dumb an energy position as any candidate will have. "I will ban fracking, and we will have mandatory 8 p.m. lights off across America, taking us back to the pre-grid days where we can huddle with family around battery-operated radios!"
They usually take 10-15 years to go from an idea to a full capacity plant. Combine that with how insanely expensive they are, how wind, hydro and solar are cheaper, and it becomes a difficult argument. That's leaving out the waste, and meltdown arguments, which are incredible arguments amongst themselves. So this isn't a surprising take. Oh and the nuclear power plants we currently have need to be closed out regardless if we build new ones or not, they are getting really old and it's just what has to happen with old nuclear power plants, they all have to get shut down before they break down.
No nuclear and no natural gas...that is basically ignoring science completely for power generation over the next 50 years and crippling the US economically for no basic reason. The anti frackers are almost like anti vaxxers at this point.
Ain't voting for her. Air quality has improved a lot in the last 30 years probably due to using Nat Gas instead of coal which is due to shale gas. https://gispub.epa.gov/air/trendsreport/2018/#highlights
It's not just Warren. This is a pretty popular Democratic position. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol...ocratic_Party_presidential_primary_candidates