Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Republican Mayor Moves Town To 100% Green Energy" video.

  1. Most are. They want this type of action. Leave this issue to the local government and private sector. Keep the federal government out of it as it only creates more problems.
    5
  2. Most republicans support this. They just want the federal government out of the issue.
    3
  3. Most republicans support this. They just want to leave it to the local level and private sector. The federal level leads to bureaucracy which hinders progress. Leave the federal government out of this and you will see faster results.
    2
  4. Most on the right have been pushing for alternative energy sources. They just want the private sector and local governments to handle it as the federal government just makes things worse.
    2
  5. You need to keep the federal government out. Federal government means more bureaucracy and less progress. Leave these issues to the state level.
    2
  6. You can't force them to snap out of it with federal action because they use fossil fuels as it keeps their economy growing. What you support is essentially fascism. How would you feel if the federal government came in and banned all forms of "green energy"? It goes both ways.
    2
  7. I saw it. The second Bernie claimed a lawyer and AOC were "experts" I knew how dumb it was going to be.
    1
  8. What was wrong with what I said?
    1
  9. David, Exxon mobil invested in windmills in CA.
    1
  10. anticorncob6, climate change is a scam to raise taxes and push for larger government. At the local level people have more control of their politicians so they are willing to give power to those politicians to push for green sources of energy. But as the federal level it is a scam.
    1
  11. jojo, climate change has been happening for over 4 billion years. How it is presented by the politicians, especially the political left, is a scam. That is the more complete answer. It is an excuse to raise our taxes and grow government.
    1
  12. I know what climate change is.
    1
  13. Coteup, how it is presented is a scam. Climate change has been happening for over 4 billion years. The issues right now are 1. How much does man play a role? 2. Is it even a threat? 3. If it is a threat what is the solution? You saying happening at a "faster rate". What should the rate be and why? What do you have to compare that to? We should make strides to push for greener sources of energy. But to force it when so much is in doubt is not wise.
    1
  14. jojo, I want a control to compare to. Problem is we don't have a control which makes that situation difficult to answer.
    1
  15. jojo, we don't know what will happen due to current climate change. The ecosystem has evolved in the past, what makes you think it will stop now?
    1
  16. A Gott, the UN is not a reliable source. It is very bias and has an agenda. These fear mongering reports have been pushed for years. Al Gore said that the ice caps would have been melted by now but they still exist. Most of what the UN pushes is garbage.
    1
  17. jojo, You didn't. But to suggest that current climate change is a threat is suggesting that the ecosystem won't evolve.
    1
  18. jojo, a control would be a planet with no human activity as that appears to be the argument that human activity is greatly changing the climate.
    1
  19. C W, I support that as well. What's your point?
    1
  20. Zidneya, you don't know my stance on abortion.
    1
  21. jojo, what is the proper rate of climate change? And what is the rate of evolution? We don't know. That is why this issue is far from settled.
    1
  22. Zidneya, science does not prove anything.
    1
  23.  @jojoboko6990  https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof https://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php
    1
  24.  @jojoboko6990  , how do we know that the ecosystem is not evolving fast enough?
    1
  25. jojo, we have seen harsh weather patterns in the past along with extinction.
    1
  26.  @darkbee2359  , they do care, they are also not alarmists and have standards in their policies.
    1
  27. Very true. Same in how Rockport, MO is ran on windmills. I support going to more green energy, but to suggest that we can do it at the national level is very foolish.
    1
  28. This is a small town so it makes it easier. And really, this is the approach we need to take. Trying to push this federally is a mistake. Local governments will push this issue just fine. For example, Rockport, MO was the first town to be ran on wind power. That is from a red area. Leftists, leave this issue to the local governments and the private sector and you will see faster results.
    1
  29. Because he is smart.
    1
  30. Most republicans support this type of action. They just want to leave it at the local level and with the private sector. Keep the federal government out of it.
    1
  31. These issues are not common sense as they are highly debated to begin with. Saying it is "common sense" is you saying that either you don't understand the topic well enough.
    1
  32. Rosenberg, as of now the industrial level can't handle it. Plus, the economic shock will be large. This is a small town where this is taking place. Same with Rockport, MO being a town ran completely on wind. You have to slowly progress towards this but realize in some cases we will still need fossil fuels. We just can't force it.
    1
  33. Rosenberg, healthcare resources are limited. No nation offers everyone healthcare.
    1
  34. The culture shock is how people will see energy prices go up, technology differ, jobs being lost, etc. You can't just force it on people. You have to let it happen gradually.
    1
  35. Those nations have shortcomings in healthcare. For example, people die in Canada waiting for "elective" heart surgery.
    1
  36. 2038 Movement, it is fascism. You are telling people what to do when they have essentially no control in the people doing the demanding. States typically have a handful of representatives in DC that they vote for. The rest they have no say in what goes on. Why should a politician in CA tell the people of WV how to live? And visa versa.
    1
  37. Laurence Buttler, you have better control of local politicians and local politicians actually serve the people. So leaving it to the states is the best option.
    1
  38. 2038 Movement, there is a desire to have government, but you have to be able to control that government so it serves the people. You do that by keeping it as local as possible. You allow local governments to manage issues like this as they represent the people. The politicians of CA are not voted in by the people of WV thus the politicians of CA should not have a say in how the people of WV live their life. That is how the nation was designed.
    1
  39. jojo, in some cases that politician doesn't. School districts are ran locally, many times at the county level. Same with county sheriffs.
    1
  40. Jeremy Chase, I actually disagree with those subsidizes and have complained about them in the past.
    1
  41. jojo, there are levels and responsibilities in government. The federal government is there to serve the states and is made up of the states. The federal government serves the states by managing commerce across state lines and handling foreign affairs. It is why nothing at the federal level is ever determined by a simple majority of the people but instead by representatives sent by the states. That is why up until 1913 the only federal tax was on the states, not the people. The federal government is there to serve the states, not the people. The states serve the people which is why a simple majority can make decisions for a lot of state issues. It is up to the states to determine how they want to manage their programs such as infrastructure, education, law enforcement, etc. Some leave it to the counties. Some want the states to run it. It is up to them. But overall that is the design of this nation.
    1
  42. jojo, my stance is based on the Constitution. As for the general assembly in a state, people vote on them and they win based on a simple majority. Same for a governor. The president is elected by the electoral college. Now each state may differ, but the states I lived in had it that way.
    1
  43. jojo, also, a part of that idea is that if you don't like how a state is ran you can move to another state and remain a US citizen.
    1
  44. jojo, they did not vote for Senators in the past. Also, those congress members are there to represent that state. There are limits in how many states can send. So even if 100% of voters in CA wanted something, they will be limited to the number of congress members they have. So if 100% of voters in CA wanted something, but 51% of voters in certain amount of states wanted something else, then the policy won't get passed.
    1
  45. Also, no policy is ever determined by the simple majority of the people at the federal level. Several policies are at the state and local level.
    1
  46.  @AhsimNreiziev  , my argument is not invalid. There are solid arguments on both sides for government intervention in implementing green energy or if government should stay out of it. It is not clear. That is why the states should handle it as there is not clear answer. Your line of thinking was similar to that of the crusades. They felt they were doing good by oppressing others. If the actions of WV harm another state to where you can measure it than that violates interstate commerce. Considering how WV does nor border CA and considering how weather typically moves from west to east, the chances are essentially zero that WV is harming CA. As for CA's fires, that is mainly the fault of lack of control burns. But flip the other way, if the actions of CA cause the people of WV to lose their jobs, is that fair? It goes both ways.
    1