Completely missed that part where it talks about climate change is a big issue for the majority of voters according to polls, did you? I even quoted it in my comment for you, and you seemed to ignore it again.
Completely missed that part where it talks about climate change is a big issue for the majority of voters according to polls, did you? I even quoted it in my comment for you, and you seemed to ignore it again.
It’s been brought up in previous debates as well. Again, the article mentions that. The message of the article is how little it gets addressed given how much of an important topic it is for voters. Even if it does get brought up in the debate saying “The amount of time for it as well as the points made were not enough” is still a very valid thing to say and that’s what the article is about.
The article is more of a critique on the political landscape surrounding climate change in America for the past 20 years. It mentions all the presidents since Bush and how the talk has changed but the fact that it’s still not enough. Despite it being a big issue for voters.
But for more than 20 years, the networks running the presidential debates — and the candidates on the debate stages — have decided that climate change is simply not critical enough to voters to warrant substantial attention. Never mind that more than a third of voters in the U.S. say that global warming is “very important” to their vote, or that an additional 25 percent say they would prefer a candidate who supports climate action — to pundits, climate change is an ancillary issue. Very soon, however, this will have to change. Polls show that climate change is a top issue for young voters in particular, and that 85 percent of young voters can be moved to vote based on climate issues.
It does critique her stance on fracking but I consider that fair game since she did vote for it and advocate for it in the debates.
As Kate Aronoff wrote for The New Republic, Harris could have put forward a number of facts about fracking’s failures, rather than wholeheartedly embracing it. Oil and gas companies depend on billions of dollars in annual tax subsidies, for instance, including a massive bailout during the pandemic in 2020. “Fossil fuel companies thought [fracking] was too expensive to be worth doing until the federal government poured billions of dollars’ worth of funding into basic research and tax breaks,” Aronoff wrote. “But leading Democrats, including Harris, seem incapable of talking about the downsides of fossil fuel production.”
This is not a situation in which everyone, including oil and gas companies, can get a slice of the climate solutions pie. Science shows that fossil fuels must be phased out expeditiously for the health of the planet. But the severity of this crisis — and the aggressive action necessary to abate it — is not adequately captured in Harris’s debate response. In fact, her embrace of fracking and her focus on boosting oil and gas development alongside clean energy production is emblematic of one way in which Democrats and past Republicans have historically overlapped on the climate issue.
A 2 week training period?? Sounds more like Israel is using people stuck in a desperate situation to serve as cannon fodder.
I don’t like how correct you are.
Her secret weapon is addressing that generations top concerns?
Nice try bot.
Agreed, these people were completely fine with subpar leaders for a long time. They only jumped ship because they saw it was sinking and they’re interested in self-preservation.
The unwillingness to spend has some party operatives concerned state Democratic leaders are failing to effectively counter an opposition that has seized on the amendment’s expansive language pledging rights for LGBTQ+ people. The so-called equality amendment would ban discrimination against “gender identity” and “pregnancy outcomes,” adding to current constitutional protections for race and religion.
Maybe make the fight more about abortion then? Banning abortion is already wildly unpopular with most voters. The policy would just advertise itself.
A lot of middle eastern countries have these at hotels.
Such a huge difference in cleanliness when using these.
“Folks, please line up and walk in an orderly fashion to your death. We have lobbyists and genocidal warmongers to appease.”
No I’ve never made a post here. I’m just wondering why this is a video by itself and not a link to a news page or something. Just seemed a bit weird.
Why is the link an mp4 video?
I like the idea of it. My only input on this would be:
If it’s meant for discussions, maybe make it for self posts only? Or at least link to opinion pieces instead of just any articles? Otherwise, what’s the difference this compared to the political news communities?
You asked for examples I gave you some. If you don’t like them that’s your problem.
Who said about stopping the US from being allies with Israel?
The solution is literally to force Israel to stop waging the war. You don’t want to see that as a viable solution and try to deflect when someone posts a very vivid article detailing the horrors Israel is inflicting on innocent children then that’s on you. There’s a lot of people in this world trying to do some kind of good no matter how small. Then there’s evil people Ike you that belittles them and tries to sidestep the whole issue claiming everything they do is useless.
It’s quite clear there’s no helping you so continuing to respond to you is a waste of time.
Bye.
Just because the changes didn’t happen right away doesnt mean it didn’t help. Biden stepping down was thanks in large part due to the protests over Israel. He was too unpopular with enough people on swing states that would cause concern.
Vietnam War, English occupation of India, the nuclear disarmament during the cold War, when the Berlin wall fell, the singing revolution that helped the Baltics become independent from the soviet union, removing a dictator from the Phillipines in 1986.
Even if sometimes the change is not immediate it definitely makes a difference when considering making future policy changes.
You know, instead of going from “Harris did address it” to “Climate change isn’t important”, you could have just said “I didn’t read the article so thanks for pointing out the actual message of the article, here is why I agree/disagree with it”. You know that’s a completely ok thing to say, right?