It should be one of patriotism considering the u s military a literally labeled climate change as our greatest existential threat.
I really liked her framing in this part of the speech. Another speaker said it similarly earlier in the week.
The Republicans fight for freedom of corporations to be deregulated and pollute our environment with reckless abandon.
The Democrats are fighting for freedom of people to live and be safe in their home environment. Safe to drink water, safe to breathe the air.
Highlighting the differences in how each party conceives of the notion of freedom could be a huge deciding factor in this election, and for that matter I think it’s critical for Dems to reclaim usage of the word from the republicans who have disfigured its meaning almost beyond recognition.
I mean, why not? The current tactic of making the catastrophic severity of climate change abundantly clear doesn’t seem to be working on the ignorant American public, or even their homes sliding into the sea or being consumed by wildfires. Whatever works
I’ve thought for a while that the way to get assholes to change their mind is to appeal to stuff they already believe. They don’t care about the environment or children. Arguing for that stuff isn’t going to land. But if you tell them that like only AMERICA has the POWER to SAVE THE WORLD via TERRA FORMING they’re more likely to be like "America fuck yeah!’
Belief is largely social for all of us. Unfortunately some people are kind of stupid and hang out in similarly stupid social groups.
Glad to see it! I’m tired of MAGA tarnishing terms that have traditionally held a positive connotation.
While I’m sure it’s possible, there’s little one can do to be more pro-corporation and less patriotic than be a republican.
They sure are sounding a lot like Republicans with all this talk of patriot and waving USA signs.
OMG patriotism doesn’t have to involve treason
No, but it does involve blind loyalty, which allows politicians to get away with a bunch of shit
Lol no. Remember here: Democrats just forced a sitting President to not run for re-election
The donor class forced a sitting president to not run for re election…
He could have told the big money folks to piss off if he had popular support. He didn’t
He didn’t have popular support.
Exactly what I was saying, though I had a typo where I substituted “of” for “if”
This doesn’t make any sense - fighting climate change isn’t some local effort where if you suddenly stop doing CO2 emissions in your country, the country becomes suddenly safe. There needs to be a radical global cooperation for this, there’s no place for patriotism here (in fact, what needs to be done is closer to cosmopolitanism).
The key is that it can be both. Pushing the “your kids are screwed” message doesn’t seem to be working. If hyping up Americans with patriotic messages gets them moving, I don’t see that as a bad thing.
Yes, it takes global cooperation, but the US is a very visible prosperous high-emissions country, so showing that it can be done in the US is absolutely critical to enabling global cooperation.
New York Times - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for New York Times:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
