First and foremost what she said to those kids was appalling, she should be banned from ever speaking to children again since it's obvious she hasn't the slightest idea how to talk with children and the things she said were way above their head and in no addressed their concern.

It's bothersome enough that someone like her gets re-elected but it's just totally mind boggling that someone who had a Chinese spy driving her around for two decades can continue to be allow to sit on the Senate Select Intelligence Committee. Now as you have pointed out she claims to not have any idea what so ever how technology has evolved and how easily it can be manipulated in a manner of minutes against those whom she sits on a committee to hear the intelligence on such matters concerning national security and the effects of those capabilities. One definitely has to ask just what has she been doing all this time? Sleeping on the job?

I do though take issue with once again bad mouthing a country who has done more toward reductions of pollution that any other country on earth. Yes we are the most industrial nation on the earth and yes that production has resulted in being a big contributor of pollution. Unlike many countries though we have taken steps, regulatory steps to try resolve many of the issues involved. Our nation, unlike many others have been aware for decades of the consequences involved and have worked to achieve a better place for our planet only to be met with corporations fleeing to other countries without such costly strict mandates where they are free to pollute away. Then these same countries bulked when Trump said no way are we paying other countries to reduce emissions when they don't even have to meet any mandates, to which even China, one of the worst polluters in the world had already at the point the Paris Accord was signed had met their voluntary but not mandated point of reduction.

If you want to look for blame toward the environment you have to start by research trade agreements. In those agreements it specifically states that globalization of economies is first and foremost even over concerns about the environment. (not worded exactly like that but that's the overall meaning) I'll even give you one excellent example. The dolphin issue and catching dolphins in tuna nets. The US decided to ban any import of tuna that was caught with netting capable of capturing dolphins in their nets. (there is a way to catch tuna without capturing dolphins) The UN objected because this would hinder the ability of small third world fishermen to sell their tuna on the global market and take away their right to trade on a global scale. So the US then went and said they wouldn't allow any tuna caught by such netting in US waters, again the UN objected. It was such a hot button issue that they finally agreed to allow the US to label tuna as dolphin free...but, but, but globalization and the movement of product across the globe must continue even if we lose every last dolphin on the planet. Studies have proven that the US was making gains in reductions through all their regulatory endeavors up until NAFTA was signed, the increased transportation of goods by trucks across the continent is shown as a significant cause of increased pollution spikes. Mexico doesn't have the same regulatory requirements on their vehicles that the US has, these trucks sit idling at the border then can truck across the US all the way to Canada spewing out twice the amount of pollution. It is globalization and the increased mobilization of goods thousands of miles away from their destination that is the biggest threat to the planet, since the implementation of globalization the earth has suffered at a more accelerating rate then any other time in history. So the next time one is out shopping and you are really concerned about the environment then put your money where your mouth is and buy local.