Back in the 60s and 70s they said the same thing about out dense smog in Southern California and New York City. But we persisted and we now have clear skies and our economies did fine. Now they are pushing that lie AGAIN. @ScottPruittOK 
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I agree--but framing it like that indicates we can have a strong economy without a strong environment. And we cannot. A strong environment should drive a truly healthy economy.
-
I agree, a healthy environment generates the economy, plus investing in parks and wilderness generates a healthy America. Most politicians don't get that.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I also reject the false choice that you can either have a strong president or a female president. We can do both
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The issue changes greatly when the rich and powerful are looking to make big $ at the expense of human health. History is replete with examples of that. How about 1,322 superfund sites ! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Superfund_sites …
-
Oooooh yes, wasn't this a fun easy to spray weed killer

pic.twitter.com/K0pUDia9KB
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Your constant ‘issue’ tweets, ignoring the big issue —- that our democracy is crumbling —- is growing tiresome. Stop running for president and be a senator...
-
Stop tone policing your betters just because they're women.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The future will either be green or it will be very, very bleak.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
In fact, if strong implies lasting, it’s even more glaring. An economy is doomed to fail without a sustainable environment.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.