Private jet loss would actually impact thing.

Personally I see things going in the direction of Ministry for the Future.

How about we fight the class war and get their money out of politics while growing children that do not worship the idea of insane generational wealth. We don't elect kings and fuck the epstein class.

Also this post is very suspicious, like, hey the democrats are not perfect so lets all just lay down and die!

It’s not that I didn’t take it seriously, but it truly is a leadership issue. The scale of the climate issue is why governments exist. But because corporate (been playing Cyberpunk and want to call it corpo) started buying up government shares in the 80s the necessary legislation never happened.

To toss another analogy your way, daylight savings is going away. The thing about that argument, sticking with one or the other because it will make winter life soooo much better, sure it will impact, but not as hard as people think. The days will still get shorter and darker in winter, that will not go away, overall, even if we stop changing the clocks.

This election is going to be the same. (Vote, definitely.) It feels like people are reaching out hands towards ballots, while drowning, expecting a save. Things will shift, yes, but I doubt it will be dramatic. Gas prices are borked, billionaires will still exist, and AI has freely collected our data while u demoing home computing. The government coffers are pilfered and the debt is even more astronomical. It’s going to be a shit Christmas for the kids this year either way. Still vote, it’s about the only handhold we have right now.

There is science to the 100-150 people thing, in terms of memory. There are limitations to how many people you can hold in head at the same time.

That said, gathering crowds, or mobs, isn’t about that, it’s mainly rooted in common information. And that doesn’t exist any more, by intention. Every one of us in this thread has ingested different info today, this week, this year. Every single one. Now, those Venn diagrams on ingested info will have overlap, because it’s Lemmy, but even so. The lack exists. And that’s on Lemmy. Out there, off Lemmy, there may be zero overlap on ingested information.

Without common information and cause for emotional need to rise, it won’t happen.

The challenge is that for it to be a good campaign issue, it has to be a big priority with minimal exploitable downside. While people might abstractly want to address climate change, they care more about their economic well being. So taking time away from talking about economy is taking time away from the more impactful messaging. Also, gives opportunity for the opposition to assert the obsession with climate change will hurt their economic outcome. The good answers address all at once with nuance, but nuance sadly does not work well in a campaign.

But right now, wanting to take care of the climate is taking a back seat to not wanting to live in a fascist dictatorship ran by geriatric toddlers who can’t even string a coherent sentence together unless it’s about some kid they want to fuck.

The good news is that the best thing we can do in the United States is get rid of the giant pile of rancid shit.

It’s not hyperbole to say everything that is bad right now is his (and his cronies) fault, including the present affordability crisis.

I’m not sure what type of person answers questions that come via random, not really identified text spam, but I don’t think they’re representative of the middle of the bell curve populace. Middle of the bell curve, my money is on “delete and report spam”, or, sadly, “STOP”, letting the spammers know it’s working so they get more.

That vote is already secured

Only if we assume 100% turnout. Calling for better climate policy can and probably will motivate more potential Dem voters to turn out since this is such a popular issue with the Democratic base.

0% of the people who voted for Trump in 2024 give a fuck about the environment.

Actually surprisingly many do, but in any case if the history of American politics proves anything it's that this idea of taking away swing voters from the other side simply doesn't work.

Now let's make them choose between climate action and economy, see how many of them would accept a risk to economy for sake of better climate.

That's the horrible reality, that campaigns have to focus narrowly on the top issue, and if the GOP assert that climate action will hurt economy, then it can hurt campaigns.

Despite the Democrats barely saying anything on climate, the GOP is still getting crowds to boo over the Democrats theoretically pursuing a "Green New Deal" as an economy ruining disaster.

Also, The best thing to do for the climate right now is getting rid of the 1 percent