2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumClimate change was not brought up at all. I wish Tim Kaine would
have snuck in since the moderator never brought it up for discussion.
Hopefully Hillary makes it brings it up in the next debate regardless if the moderator does or not.
tonyt53
(5,737 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)looking at billions in damage, if it moves up 60 miles off the coast, just a bunch of high winds.
As for talking about it in this debate, if a significant bloc of conservative "wobblers" could be persuaded to reject Trump by hitting global warming, that topic likely would have been hit and hit again. (Both candidates mostly ignored the questions from a weak moderator.) Last night just wasn't the time.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)librarylu
(503 posts)to counter the "war on coal" with clean energy creating jobs. She's done that. I hope she'll do it again - and again and again.
Even climate deniers should have to admit new technology means new jobs.
I wonder if the "coal rollers" would be able to figure out a way to make solar powered trucks obnoxious.
citood
(550 posts)One of the problems was he was rattling items off so fast that it was hard to keep track...I heard him mention it...but it was a flash.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)Hopefully Hillary forces the discussion on Sunday.
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)IMO, Pence should have been asked about his discriminatory law against the LGBTQ community that he signed into law and had his state boycotted for. That's a big issue that effects millions of Americans (not just LGBTQ folks but our families too).
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)But yes there were many topics that should've been covered. Also LGTB issues, like the laws that Pence passed in Indiana.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Ways to combat climate change sure as hell were brought up. The fact it was really makes your op stink a bit. It wasn't brought up to the level we would like, but to say "was not brought up at all" is simply dishonest. Do clean energy jobs and technology not have anything to do with climate change? You must think so in order to hold your thought process.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)You shouldn't speak for me as you have done here. It is now the second time you are completely incorrect in what you are putting forward.
First you state something that is not the truth in order to show concern. You then incorrectly speak for me. Well done.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)by Hillary she talked about it more during the primary and she would help herself tremendously with millennials by campaigning on it harder.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)"It really wasn't a deep discussion," JRLeft
"barely mentioned" JRLeft
And now you have added a new wrinkle by bringing Clinton into it. I'm loving this. The evolution of concern. At least your changing from the completely false premise you put forward in the op.
"but maybe it's not that big of a deal to you." JRLeft - Extremely poor and incorrect assumption.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)Hillary Clinton 'dropped climate change from speeches after Bernie Sanders endorsement'
Hillary Clinton has dropped the words climate change from most of her public addresses since winning the endorsement of her party rival Bernie Sanders, according to Climate Home analysis.
While the presidential candidate talks regularly about her plan for the US to become a clean energy superpower, in recent months she has rarely made reference to the planetary crisis that necessitates it.
On Monday, when she launched her pitch to millennials online, she could find no room for an issue that will affect that voting cohort more than any other.
The rhetorical shift undermines hopes that climate change might emerge as a key campaign issue in 2016. Boosted by the disparity between Clinton and her Republican opponent Donald Trump, a self-professed non-believer in climate change. Indeed, the signs were there. During the last six months of Clintons primary campaign against Sanders, the transcript log of her speeches shows she was talking about climate change at one out of every two speeches she gave.
But since Sanders endorsed Clinton on July 12, the full focus of the Clinton campaign has swung to Trump. In 38 speeches since that date, Clinton mentioned climate change specifically eight times. Just once every five public addresses.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/20/hillary-clinton-dropped-climate-change-from-speeches-after-bernie-sanders-endorsement?0p19G=c
marlakay
(11,498 posts)With Hillary. To help get the young and his message out.
Also he is going to tell people not to vote third party because of what happened to him.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Along with a speech from Clinton discussing it the other day and a different link with Chelsea on the stump talking about it. The op could be no more wrong.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)Hopefully when she's on her own she discuss. No matter how many surrogates she has out there campaigning for her she has to discuss because she's going to be the next president not AL Gore or anyone else.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)JRLeft
(7,010 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Except when she does say climate change.
I can truly provide you with video to prove you are completely wrong and you won't accept it. This is too good. I get that your knowledge is derived from what is written in the Guardian and you won't accept anything else. Even video.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)Last edited Wed Oct 5, 2016, 04:18 PM - Edit history (1)
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)This keeps getting better. One out of five times. That tells you she is putting serious emphasis on it. I have literally shown you video of her. When was that video recorded?
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)First you say it wasn't mentioned in the debate at all. That was clearly dishonest. You backed up on that and admitted it was mentioned. You then went in a different and completely different direction, just as wrong. You have been factually proven to be incorrect so now you are trying to make it an argument of semantics brought to us by your friends at the Guardian.
I truly appreciate the smile you have given me this morning. This has been fun. I'm enjoying the ratcheting up of concern as progressives keep doing better and better. As we are handing Pence and Trump their asses.
You can't peddle back any further. Please hold your ground. Bwahahahaha
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)You seem to mention climate change in less than one percent of them. Why do you care so little about such an important topic.
Do you see how laughable your assertion is now?
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)It is a major part of Clintons campaign. You are truly being dishonest. You might not want to read these. Your position might change to better match reality. I don't mind debate at all. Dishonest manifested to resemble great concern is simply bullshit.
Al Gore joins Clinton campaign to talk climate action with young voters
Former US vice-president and Nobel Prize winning environmental advocate Al Gore is set to campaign for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in an bid to mobilise young voters who see climate change as a key issue in the upcoming US election, according to various media reports.
CNN reported yesterday that Gore will hit the campaign trail for Hillary Clinton in the coming weeks, citing two senior Democrats as a source.
http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2473085/al-gore-joins-clinton-campaign-to-talk-climate-action-with-young-voters
Even Chelsea has been out talking about it.
Chelsea Clinton talks climate change, Appalachian issues
ASHEVILLE Climate change is an environmental threat and an economic opportunity for the United States, Chelsea Clinton told people Wednesday at a downtown nonprofit working on the issue.
She said her mother, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, has said during the campaign and when she was secretary of state "that some country will be the (clean) energy superpower of the 21st century and she thinks it should be us."
http://www.citizen-times.com/story/news/local/2016/09/28/chelsea-clinton-speaks-climate-science-asheville/91181460/
Was this before of after the primary?
Your Guardian article is a bunch of bullshit. It states that she doesn't mention climate change in her speeches, except for when she does. It's beyond laughable. That is literally the position held in the article you put forward. She doesn't mention it except when she mentions it.
Ace Rothstein
(3,184 posts)ColemanMaskell
(783 posts)Online voting will be used to influence the selection of questions asked at the Oct 9 debate.
You can vote for climate change question(s). This is the link:
https://presidentialopenquestions.com/?akid=34906.2498907.3sRu7Q&rd=1&source=e160928_1326-fin-donactblue&t=6
You can Choose the Sort order of the questions ("Most Votes" in a box at the top
The box is barely noticeable, easy to overlook.
Sorting is easier than looking through all 6,000+ questions.
jalan48
(13,886 posts)The fact that there is yet to be a real debate about it shows how out of touch we have become from reality. The media's fascination with "scandals" is really a danger to future generations.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)I don't see how Trump would make it past five minutes.
jalan48
(13,886 posts)The focus on minor issues like fat shaming, Hillary's pant suits or her smile are examples of how the corporate media frames the debate for American viewers. It allows the gullible public to be distracted from very important issues.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Ninety minutes of Trump having to back up his position of denial.
jalan48
(13,886 posts)It's tragic for future generations though. It appears it won't be debated this time around, maybe in 2020.
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)Yes, we have an army of soldiers out there, going after coal with brooms and dustpans, sweeping up their toxic dust ....
yellowcanine
(35,701 posts)Which is the perfect place for it to come up. Because, unless he lies, Trump will have to tell a member of the audience that he does not believe in man-made climate change. And if he does lie, Hillary will fact check him on it.