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?
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 1 year suspended sentence for having hundreds of CP pics on his phone? That’s just ridiculously low.
What cock fucktits?
Account is not even an hour old and only has 2 comments and both of them are to Troll.
Eat shit buddy.
You think it’s reasonable to expect a population of people who have been oppressed, displaced, and murdered by foreign colonizers for decades to happily be neighbors with them all of a sudden? And on top of that, you think that’s ethical?
Don’t dodge my question.
In what way is a two-state solution ethical and for whom exactly?
Really?? The Vice President of the United States, second only to the President, has no control over policies being made in the United States? She doesn’t have a podium to address her citizens and her fellow politicians to speak her mind and influence public opinion? She doesn’t preside over the senate to cast tie-breaking votes so that she can help sway decisions? She doesn’t have the ability to make a campaign promise, as the Democratic candidate for President, to stop arming Israel while they slaughter innocents?
No, she has a lot of power to help influence decisions. She’s just scared to because of that sweet sweet AIPAC money.
Ethical for whom?
Why should it be at the cost of someone else’s homeland?
If Israel gets a sane, non-racist government
If Israel was run by a sane, non-racist government we would never have had Israel to begin with. People would have recognized how immoral the whole founding of the country is and stopped right then and there.
Zionism doesn’t encompass all Jews. The anti-Israel Jews aren’t necessarily anti-Israel because of the current war or the historical mistreatment and oppression of Palestinians (which are VERY good reasons to dislike Israel as well). They’re anti-Israel because they recognize that Zionism is nothing more than a nationalistic ideal with little to no basis on their faith. The person in this article says as much herself:
As a Jewish American artist working in a time-based medium, I must note, I’m accepting this award on the 336th day of Israel’s genocide in Gaza and 76th year of occupation
It’s not just the war she disagrees with. It’s the existence and justification of Israel as well.
Are you trying to justify America arming and funding a colonial state intent on wiping out the entire native population in addition to the routine execution and murder of international aid workers and journalists by saying “Well wouldn’t America do the same thing?”
And what actions has she taken to make us believe she actually means to protect Palestinians? Don’t give me quotes, give me actions.
It’s very telling how many Jews internationally are passionately anti-Israel. Kudos to them.
Biden has been saying that for the duration of the war. And everyday there’s a new war crime and all he does is repeat the same practiced sentences with no actions to back them up. Harris has given 0 indication that she would be any different. There comes a point where their words are meaningless on this topic and we are long past it.
I would agree with that statement if over 40,000 confirmed deaths of civilians in 8 months wasn’t what was happening.
This is Israel’s version of de-escalating an escalating conflict. Disgusting animals.