Twitter | Pretraživanje | |
Zack Kanter 7. ruj
This isn’t confusing. Politicians largely don’t care about impact and don’t make reasoned, principled decisions; they pick a party and then run polls to determine their stances. What we call a “politician” is a crowdsourced AI algorithm fed by polling data and played by an actor.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Dave Madden 7. ruj
Odgovor korisniku/ci @zackkanter
Wow. Normally your tweets are smart. This is just canned, tired cynicism.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Zack Kanter 7. ruj
Odgovor korisniku/ci @TheDaveMadden
Which politicians do you think exemplify consistent, principled decisionmaking?
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Dave Madden 7. ruj
Odgovor korisniku/ci @zackkanter @SenWarren @BetoORourke
is about as principled as people come. is not far behind. Nobody is always right, but there's a difference disingenuous pandering and having an opinion that is different than one's own.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Zack Kanter
Difficult to logically reconcile 'climate change is a priority' with 'no nuclear power.'
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se" More
Dave Madden 7. ruj
Odgovor korisniku/ci @zackkanter @SenWarren @BetoORourke
That would be an example of a reasonable and debatable difference of approach. Not of pandering. Calling her character into question over that is lazy and unrigorous.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Mike Solana 8. ruj
Odgovor korisniku/ci @TheDaveMadden @zackkanter i 2 ostali
she’s either an idiot (she’s not) or a liar. closing the door to nuclear and abolishing fracking (!!!) is not a “reasonable difference of approach” to reducing carbon emissions. it will literally increase carbon emissions. she knows this. she doesn’t care.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Kevin Oleary 3. pro
Odgovor korisniku/ci @zackkanter @TheDaveMadden i 2 ostali
A smorgasbord of energy choices does not make sense. If we focus on one it can achieve the critical mass necessary to dominate the market and put an end to fossil fuel quickly. Nuclear is too slow, too centralized and too expensive to win. It has to be solar.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Crispin Cowan 4. pro
Odgovor korisniku/ci @kolearyUX @zackkanter i 3 ostali
That sounds just about exactly wrong. In the absence of practical fusion power, a smorgasbord if power sources is just about the only thing that could work. Evidence: 1. All the green sources have timely limitations, like night time. 2. We have always used a smorgasbord of power
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Matthew Tripoli 8. ruj
Odgovor korisniku/ci @zackkanter @TheDaveMadden i 2 ostali
I personally liked Booker’s response on this issue. However I think Warrens response is pretty logical if you assume she’s thinking Vogtle and Sumner.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Onlyme 3. pro
Odgovor korisniku/ci @zackkanter @TheDaveMadden i 2 ostali
It's difficult to reconcile Unclear power as a priority when even with total global agreement it would arrive 10 years to late. Fully operational? 2035 at best. That's 15 years more fossil pollution and 15 more to offset, returning to current levels. And don't mention the price.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
stuart brainerd 2. pro
Odgovor korisniku/ci @zackkanter @TheDaveMadden i 2 ostali
please everyone retweet this and spread the message. This is as obvious as the nose on my face
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Christopher Johnson 15. pro
Odgovor korisniku/ci @zackkanter @TheDaveMadden i 2 ostali
Addressing climate change by creating more radioactive waste isn't a great answer. How many "swimming pools" are required to cool spent fuel rods? How many concrete bunkers are required to house radioactive waste?
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"