I wish you wouldn’t try to derail the conversation.
Merely being better than Trump was 4 years ago is not going to stop climate change. This criticism of Biden and Harris needs to be amplified, not sidetracked.
I wish you wouldn’t try to derail the conversation.
Examining the source of the claim is not derailing. If it’s a climate news agency that’s saying hey we need this or this from the Democrats because it’s a fuckin emergency, then fair play.
If however it’s a “news” agency that is saying, the Democrats are bad on the climate and Gaza and I can’t vote for them in good conscience and they’re bad on immigration (seen through a very particular lens, where the issue is, is it okay that we’re spending money on “migrants” instead of helping our own people) and bad on crime (seen through a very particular lens of hey I don’t feel safe in my community and I feel like the Democrats aren’t doing enough and don’t care about that issue), and also Maduro won the election and “they” are trying to steal it from him… that is relevant. That is not derailing. That is relevant to how seriously I want to take this claim that therealnews.com is super concerned about the climate and that is the source of this proposed strategy on how we make the climate better.
Merely being better than Trump was 4 years ago is not going to stop climate change.
100% agreed
This criticism of Biden and Harris needs to be amplified, not sidetracked.
Fuckin what? What needs to happen is government action on climate. If that involves putting pressure on the Democrats then let’s rock and roll with that; it sounds great. I realize what I’m putting up sounds somewhat defensive of them, but that is only because this past time around they took the issue almost 10 times more seriously than any other US administration in history and took hugely significant action on it, and that’s relevant to this conversation.
If it was “that’s not nearly enough, they need to do X Y and Z now and here’s how to pressure them to do it” then, like I said, fuckin great. I actually agree with a decent amount of the substantive points in this article. Since the overall thesis is “Kamala Harris is bad on climate change,” however, and since the source seems clearly oriented towards defeating positive change instead of creating it, I will and plan to continue to regard it with suspicion.
since the source seems clearly oriented towards defeating positive change instead of creating it, I will and plan to continue to regard it with suspicion.
Dude I love posting about stuff that’s not accusations of propaganda bullshit. Check the profile. I like comparing the US army to the Nazis and talking about video games and the inequities in the global health system and how Boeing sucks. It’s very weird that the last few years have made me into this supporter of the Democrats, because for about the first decade of my political life I wanted absolutely nothing to do with them.
My perfect world would be all the Lemmy people getting together like the sandersforpresident days, like hey the Democrats are kinda shitty how can we get them to take X Y and Z seriously or maybe replace them with someone better. It is not at all by my decision that a lot of suspiciously polished and consistent arguments keep popping up out of the woodwork and into the discourse for why “don’t support the Democrats in November” is a good strategy for getting that done (IT IS NOT), and why it doesn’t seem to go any further than that, into something that would produce positive action, but just “let Trump win because I feel betrayed on Gaza” or w/e.
But yes if I see something that looks like bullshit I tend to try to call it out. Maybe I have too much of a hair trigger because I have run across multiple multiple examples today and I just regard everything with suspicion. But it’s definitely not for no reason.
I have too much of a hair trigger because I have run across multiple multiple examples today and I just regard everything with suspicion.
There’s a saying that if everywhere you go smells like shit, look under your shoe. You’re so quick to label posters and sources as bad faith actors, I’m starting to think it’s a case of projection.
I wish you wouldn’t try to derail the conversation.
Merely being better than Trump was 4 years ago is not going to stop climate change. This criticism of Biden and Harris needs to be amplified, not sidetracked.
Examining the source of the claim is not derailing. If it’s a climate news agency that’s saying hey we need this or this from the Democrats because it’s a fuckin emergency, then fair play.
If however it’s a “news” agency that is saying, the Democrats are bad on the climate and Gaza and I can’t vote for them in good conscience and they’re bad on immigration (seen through a very particular lens, where the issue is, is it okay that we’re spending money on “migrants” instead of helping our own people) and bad on crime (seen through a very particular lens of hey I don’t feel safe in my community and I feel like the Democrats aren’t doing enough and don’t care about that issue), and also Maduro won the election and “they” are trying to steal it from him… that is relevant. That is not derailing. That is relevant to how seriously I want to take this claim that therealnews.com is super concerned about the climate and that is the source of this proposed strategy on how we make the climate better.
100% agreed
Fuckin what? What needs to happen is government action on climate. If that involves putting pressure on the Democrats then let’s rock and roll with that; it sounds great. I realize what I’m putting up sounds somewhat defensive of them, but that is only because this past time around they took the issue almost 10 times more seriously than any other US administration in history and took hugely significant action on it, and that’s relevant to this conversation.
If it was “that’s not nearly enough, they need to do X Y and Z now and here’s how to pressure them to do it” then, like I said, fuckin great. I actually agree with a decent amount of the substantive points in this article. Since the overall thesis is “Kamala Harris is bad on climate change,” however, and since the source seems clearly oriented towards defeating positive change instead of creating it, I will and plan to continue to regard it with suspicion.
Fuck, it’s always this with you.
Dude I love posting about stuff that’s not accusations of propaganda bullshit. Check the profile. I like comparing the US army to the Nazis and talking about video games and the inequities in the global health system and how Boeing sucks. It’s very weird that the last few years have made me into this supporter of the Democrats, because for about the first decade of my political life I wanted absolutely nothing to do with them.
My perfect world would be all the Lemmy people getting together like the sandersforpresident days, like hey the Democrats are kinda shitty how can we get them to take X Y and Z seriously or maybe replace them with someone better. It is not at all by my decision that a lot of suspiciously polished and consistent arguments keep popping up out of the woodwork and into the discourse for why “don’t support the Democrats in November” is a good strategy for getting that done (IT IS NOT), and why it doesn’t seem to go any further than that, into something that would produce positive action, but just “let Trump win because I feel betrayed on Gaza” or w/e.
But yes if I see something that looks like bullshit I tend to try to call it out. Maybe I have too much of a hair trigger because I have run across multiple multiple examples today and I just regard everything with suspicion. But it’s definitely not for no reason.
There’s a saying that if everywhere you go smells like shit, look under your shoe. You’re so quick to label posters and sources as bad faith actors, I’m starting to think it’s a case of projection.