If you’re going to try to get people to vote for her, do yourself a favor and stop misrepresenting her plans. People generally don’t continue to listen to people who compromised their own integrity to manipulate them.
edit: like the person in this comment section who wants to pretend Kamala is using reverse psychology despite a decade-long career of pandering and unfettered support for corporatism. We’re in a sham system, ladies and gentleman. Stop standing up and making yourself look like a fool or even a liar, pretending either side of this two party false dichotomy has even an inkling or conscience about what the voting public actually want. We never even had a say in the matter. To feign otherwise is the act of a class traitor.
Honestly probably not. At least not in a big enough way, as to actually meet somewhat reasonable climate targets. However Biden actually passed some pretty decent laws and just keeping them on the book is going to help a lot. Trump already promised to remove all of them. According to an analysis of CarbonBrief just keeping Bidens laws, compared to Trump would look like this:
If Harris can be brought to pass some decent climate laws, which given her record is certainly possible, then the US might actually reach its way too low climate targets. Obviously state and municipality level changes also can improve it too. However that work has to be done by activists. With Trump there will be no pro climate policy on a federal level at all.
Fuck that graph is depressing.
Wish I had received billions in voting power when I was born. But alas, if I had my brain would be broken and I would be incapable of empathy. Such is the way of inevitable destruction for humans.
Two things:
- This is the future and that means we can change it today. In this case with new better laws
- Falling emissions means weaker fossil fuel industry and stronger green industry. Hence lobbying can be turned around.
Also the global impact would likely be much greater, due to the co-operation factor.
On the other hand, there is a time-lag to policy impact, also exogenous surprises (superimposing past presidents on that plot may be revealing).
Looked at from the outside, it seems that the role of the Republican party is to be so extremist that the Democratic party can avoid being specific about their political program and just pitch themselves as “not extremist”. Basically, the Republicans have moved the Overton window in a way that would entirely empower the Democrats to govern from the right.
Not the case right now. Looking at the poles it is nearly 50:50 between Trump and Harris right now, with the momentum on Harris site.
No.
not every oil co is american but some are.
At this point, I’m reading her caginess on a variety of topics as an unfortunate but necessary tactic to combat the fact that big corporate and specific special interest groups (coughAIPACcough) will immediately deploy shitloads of campaign money against her if she says anything more than “wishywashy” about them in an effort to sink her campaign. In the context of Citizens United being effectively the law of the land, this is one of the few pragmatic and effective ways to not run afoul of that whole dynamic. It’s is definitely shitty, but an own-goal in that sense - leading perhaps to a Trump win - is worse. It’d be great if she gets into office, and then drops a TON of detail on these matters, with commentary in the statement indicating that this whole line of reasoning was why she didn’t provide these details before. Something like that might ultimately motivate Congress to do something about that (assuming Democratic (and democratic - small “d”) control after the election, of course).
🤦🏽♂
To paraphrase: “We better do what the AIPAC wants or they will REALY start punishing us!”
