Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: De Blasio: Bernie’s Attacks on Hillary’s Climate Change Record Are ‘Flat-Out False’ [View all]NNadir
(33,455 posts)This is probably not a question that deserves an answer but...
I would note that the person who was most responsible for the commercialization of the form of energy that Bernie Sanders and his equally scientifically illiterate supporters hate so much, in his working career, packed fruit.
Later he would be the discoverer, or co-discover of ten elements in the periodic table and 100 isotopes of those elements and other elements.
He won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry, successfully lead the scientific team that negotiated the Nuclear Test Ban treaty in 1962, was invited to attend all cabinet meetings in the Kennedy administration, was the only scientist to be honored with a element named for him during his lifetime, and, um, oh yes, lead the Atomic Energy Commission in its effort to expand nuclear power.
His success in building that infrastructure was a gift to future generations, and the efforts of Sanders and the algorithmic regurgitating supporters speaks poorly of them. It is easy to destroy, difficult to build.
Dr. Seaborg, Citizen-Scholar
Now, I do recognize that the reference to pretzels here is another (very weak) attempt to demonstrate wit where there isn't any.
There is nothing tortured or twisted at all in my representation of the Sanders energy program however. It's clear and unambiguous, and it demonstrates very clearly grotesque ignorance of the situation with respect to climate change on the part of the candidate. It's an effort to make the climate situation worse, by poor thinking, poor insight, and frankly, dangerous - inasmuch as nuclear energy saves lives - simplistic ideology.
I do not have the luxury of voting for a candidate who has a sensible positive position on dangerous fossil fuels, which would be their immediate phase out, something that is clearly technically feasible, if difficult. I merely have the choice of voting for someone who has served in an administration that initiated the first new nuclear plant in this country in several decades, and an airhead issuing rhetoric seeking to destroy Seaborg's legacy.
Ms. Clinton is clearly the better choice.
I would contend that anyone who sees that as "twisted" or "contorted" in any way, probably isn't a very clear thinker, is poor at rhetoric, and frankly, not worthy of engaging in too much serious discussion.
This conversation is concluded permanently.
Enjoy your Sunday.