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?
If it’s enforced it kind of loses it’s charm and appeal, no?
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.
It’s a capitalist invention and, therefore, will be used for whatever capitalists deem it profitable to be. Once the money for AI home assistants starts rolling in, then you’ll see it adopted for that purpose.
I don’t like how correct you are.
Her secret weapon is addressing that generations top concerns?
How about home improvement? If your living situation or someone close to you, like family, allows for it why don’t you look into that? You can do things like changing lights, old doors, paunting, etc. Depending on how comfortable you are you can look into some more complex projects. They can be pretty physically demanding and you’ll be active for a long time.
Best of luck in everything, hope you find something that works for you.
First off, just looking at those pictures…Ouch. I hope they don’t hurt you OP.
Some suggestions I can think of:
If you want you can try also asking this question at the !fitness@lemmy.world community.
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.
I’ll admit I didn’t go through that many of OPs posts when I made my original comment to you so I took a closer look. It looks like OPs titles suffer from bad grammar more than bad spelling. The only real spelling mistakes I found was “redemtion” on a few of OPs posts which can be excusable if you’re just spelling it how it sounds. I 100% agree with you people should do their best to proofread their posts, especially titles. I just don’t feel it’s justification enough to downvote someone.
I don’t think it’s fair to OP to criticize their spelling. English may not be their first language. Even if it was, we shouldn’t penalize people for making innocent mistakes.
Put a bit more effort in your posts. It’s nice that you’re actually posting and asking questions to engage the community. I just think you need to work on making your posts not seem low effort. For example, in your post about a game you like or comparing games try writing some talking points that would engage people. Opinions you have. Lists of things you like and dislike. Things like that.
When you just have a bunch of low effort posts it makes it look like you’re some kind of online troll building a presence to make you seem more authentic.
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.
I was thinking more along the lines of what those children would grow up with. They would end up becoming adults who understood trust and cooperation at a whole other level.
A whole lot more co-operation and less traumatized children.
“Folks, please line up and walk in an orderly fashion to your death. We have lobbyists and genocidal warmongers to appease.”
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?
A supervisor should understand the concept of respecting people’s boundaries. You could always say something like “Hey I’m not really in the mood to talk right now” or “This isn’t something I want to talk about”. Just a fair warning if you do this, you might get labeled as the odd one the same way you mentioned if you go to HR (the HR one would be a bit worse if I’m being honest).