Hot takes on the Democratic frontrunners

[tw]

Originally Posted by BigV

Define the actual problem for us, tw.

Was already done. For example, fracking. Fracking is not the problem. Some companies - because they want to make profits and don't care about the product - are creating problems. Cited before - Cabot Oil. Are all fracking companies a problem? Of course not. So why ban all fracking because the extremist refuses to address (ignores) the actual problem? Companies run by similar types who are also running companies like GM, Sears, and GE into the ground. To only enrich top management. And to even blame employees.

It was defined previously. Why did you not read it?

xoxoxoBruce has cited more.

Why do some streets constantly need repair? No foundation. Politicians (using concepts taught in business schools) simply have those roads repaved on dirt. I have watched one particular and deep pothole constantly reopen because they simple put more asphalt on it. And because, having wasted so much money on Mission Accomplished and Afghanistan, we do not widen those roads for turning lanes.

So many problems are addressed only by first identifying each problem. When were you going to admit that Mission Accomplished, blacksite torture sites, and the 5000 wasted American soldiers means we should be holding those criminals in the administration responsible. So that it does not happen again? So that $trillions goes into making America great and not promoting problems like a criminal president. Crickets?

There is another reason for those problem. Those crickets.

Did I mention other nations have big stadiums for crickets? Never mind. That's not a problem.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by tw

Fracking is not the problem.

I take issue with this. Fracking makes fossil fuels cheaper. And makes it more difficult for alternative energy sources to compete with fossil fuels. The planet needs to move away from fossil fuels in order to lessen the impact of human caused climate change. Fracking is making things worse. It is the problem.

Fracking is like finding a more efficient way to produce opium.

[tw]

Originally Posted by glatt

I take issue with this. Fracking makes fossil fuels cheaper. And makes it more difficult for alternative energy sources to compete with fossil fuels.

And so again, you are not identifying the problem. It has been posted so many times.

$35 of gasoline in a car. How much of that gasoline moves the car? $4. Therein lie the problem. Solutions have also been discussed. Learn from history. One was the 70 Hp per liter engine. It polluted less. It had better HP. It consumed less energy. It was far more reliable. And it was stifled by people such as Roger Smith (GM), Henry Ford (Ford), and Townsend and Richardo (Chrysler).

My god. GM makes a car where the engine cannot even recharge its battery. Why? That is a symptom of the real problem. Clinton even gave them money to innovate - Precept, Prodigy, and ECX2. And still they stifled innovation - as any good business school graduate would do to increase profits.

Address that problem. All were bean counters - not car guys. All wanted to make profits - not better products. And so many Americans were so brainwashed as to hype more destruction - "Buy American". Even in late 1970s when reasons for those problems were becoming obvious back then.

Why do we need fracking oil? Because we are not addressing the problem. Then want to cure symptoms by increasing prices? Or banning it? Where is that a solution? That is the evil Bernie Sanders solution. Either he is lying to get votes. Or he is that brainwashed dumb.

Meanwhile fracking for gas has substantially addressed global warming. Is its a final solution? Obviously not. It is a stepping stone - part of the long process to a solution.

To implement your solution, then cite another energy source that has the same or more energy per kilogram. We want to fix a problem by ignoring critical numbers? Yes. Many extremist left wants to do that. Demonstrated is the difference between a moderate vs. a left or right extremist.

Show me solutions. Do not solve problems by banning things. That is not innovation. That is an underlying point in Ayn Rand books.

Already solar and wind (in America) have supplanted other less desirable energy sources. (Not confirmed) I believe wind now produces more electricity than coal.

BTW, who are world leaders in wind? Not Americans. GE, a company that should be dominate, is but a secondary player to superior (innovative) foreign wind generators. GE only recently marketed a new wind generator that is even competitive - as GE keeps selling off division after division to maintain profits. To enrich their central committee of the communist party.

So where really is this problem? You did not say. A shortage of innovation. For example, my room mate, an engineer, stopped being an engineer to become a salesmen. Immediately doubled his income. America increasingly does not want many Elon Musks. Since he is an immigrant. And so many extremists (ie The Don) hate one of the largest sources of innovation - immigrants.

Are we addressing a problem? Or only want to cure symptoms?

Best engineer in my class quit engineering after only one year, went to Harvard Business, and massively increased his income working on Wall Street. Why is that problem ignored?

Too many refuse to address a fundamental problem clearly defined in every paragraph here. We are not innovating to solve your cited symptom. That (and not banning fracking) is the problem we should be addressing.

But again, those noisy crickets.