This is Israel’s version of de-escalating an escalating conflict. Disgusting animals.
This is Israel’s version of de-escalating an escalating conflict. Disgusting animals.
You can buy a raspberry pi and have Pihole setup on it. It’ll act as your local dns server and block any ad domains for the whole household.
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.
Persons is used in a more formal context like legal document. People is used in conversations. This is generally speaking of course.
I could be wrong here but it may be that your sister is not laughing at your use of the word since it’s actually correct. it could be she’s laughing at your generalization of “those people” as that can sometimes be seen as condescending or derogatory.
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.
We’ll know after the election.
It might be that these endorsements help bring in some more moderate Republicans to her side but there’s also a very real possibility that she disincentive the more left leaning voters from voting for her as well. Remember, Hillary lost because she didn’t do enough to incentivize people to vote for her. She just relied on people hating Trump and didn’t rely on people actually liking her. Regardless, this is all conjecture. It’s too early to tell and no one will have a definitive answer until the results are in and a winner is announced.
Kind of reminds me of Ron Perlman not gonna lie. Maybe because of the shading and shape of the mouth area?
Sorry, guard-prisoner privilege.
/s
These countries you’re thinking of are usually attacked regularly where survival is an everyday struggle. For people who dedicate their everyday to survival; it’s only expected that they would be fighting back.
In terms of funding…a lot of rich people would love to take advantage of people in this kind of situation. You could also easily make the argument that these rich people help cultivate this kind of situation for their own benefit as well.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Trudeau is watching what happens with the American election and will base his decisions on that. There haven been some parallels drawn already.
I truly hate what Conservatives have done to politics in this country.
Why is working towards a cleaner and better environment such a controversial issue? They’ve turned the political landscape into an outrage theatre on what pisses people off the most.
A 1 year suspended sentence for having hundreds of CP pics on his phone? That’s just ridiculously low.
It’s not at all an uncommon story. Go to any women’s support group or site, and it’ll be a very consistent trend. A lot of people still have the old gender roles stuck in their heads, but they fail to acknowledge that some things have changed.
The big one is that women can now be financially independent. We’re only 2 generations away from women being able to open a bank in their name in the US. Before that, women didn’t have the financial freedom to live alone or divorce abusive/neglectful spouses.
The other one kind of ties into the first one, freedom of choice. It’s not as big an expectation for women to marry, and people are finding that a lot of women would prefer to be alone and single than married. Where do you think all these memes of childless cat ladies come from? It didn’t start with JD Vance. He just amplified it.
The whole family has a history of drugs, so it’s not surprising to anyone in the GTA. His brother was the mayor of Toronto, and there was a big scandal surrounding it at one point. He ended up dying, and Doug has had a grudge against the Toronto city council. One of his first acts when he became premier was to slash the city council by like half.
Here’s a link if you’re interested
His family is rich so they got to bail him out when he did stupid stuff like selling drugs.
Israel loves Hamas. Let’s them justify their persecution of the Palestinians and the ongoing genocide. They don’t want to end Hamas until after they end the Palestinians. That way they get more land to colonize.
Doug Ford has a history of wasting taxpayers’ money and helping his buddies line their pockets with extra cash. He’s currently under investigation since he got caught selling protected land to his buddies and then rezoning it for housing afterwards, allowing the value to spike up by billions. And that’s just criticizing his corruption. He’s not a good person either. He got caught selling crack to high schoolers.
Borrow someone’s computer? Use one at your local library?