On 3/15/2019 3:40 PM, U.S. Janet B. wrote:

> What you posted has nothing to do with my point. The general populace
> knows nothing about types of governance and don't care to.
> I simply am waiting and watching as each contender puts themselves out
> there and begins to hone their message. I am not willing to downplay
> everyone up front.

Sensible and I agree somewhat but some have put out enough to be
cancelled from my consideration.


As to OAC, my impression is that you would be
> against anything having to do with conservation or anything that
> hinted at climate change. OAC has certainly put herself out there to
> be vilified. She's a threatening magnet. She's young, female,
> attractive, isn't afraid to speak out and speak back. She's a threat
> to most older men regardless of her message.
> Janet US
>

Your impression is very wrong. I'm very much in favor of conservation
and have practiced more than most for many years. Long before she was
born I was doing things to conserve energy and help the environment.
I spent quite a bit on my house and the last two to make it energy
efficient, as the same where I worked. I'll give a list if requested.

She would get much more attention from people if she did not make loopy
statements and be a hypocrite. There have been many articles about her
travel and use of fossil fuels when she could have set an example for
others.

AOC talked about changes needing to be made in NYC after a Yellow Cab
driver committed suicide because he could not make a living because of
competition from other ride companies. While talking about the need for
change, she used Uber 238 times for her campaign. I don't support
hypocrites.

Speaking out is good, but make sense when you do. Parts of her program
may make some sense but she is going about it the wrong way. She does
not know the difference between a tax credit and money in the bank.

She will crash and burn and even the AFL-CIO thinks she is a danger to
people's livelihoods.