Nothing is as important as climate change

[skip fox]

It threatens the end of our species and many more besides. Imagine a problem of this scale, a scale unprecedented in the history of humankind.

And yet, because of the lies (there is no nice way to put this) of the petroleum industry and their lackeys (right-wing media, NIPCC, the Koch brothers, et al.), giving this issue the attention it deserves is not in a candidate's best interested if she or he wishes to be elected.

We've already passed the line-of-no-return in terms of ice-melt, ocean warming, etc., but most scientists say there remains time to save the earth from the type of devastation which would destroy modern life if not the species.

Within this context, it is not hyperbole to say that Trump's election could doom the species.

[Wounded Bear]

1. Not to be too contrarian, because you're right about the importance...

but I don't see Trump as an oil company shill like the BushCo crowd was.

He seems to be more indifferent to it to me, which is its own kind of problematic. While I don't think he'll actively work to make things worse, I seriously doubt he'll do anything to ramp up any solutions, to be sure.

We seriously need to address this issue, and won't be able to as long as idiots like Inhofe are in charge of committees in congress. We need to boot Repubs at all levels of government, not just block the Trumpster.

[Kelvin Mace]

27. No, but nothing he might do, under the best of circumstances

will help. Same with HRC. We need DRASTIC action, not compromise, not reaching across the isle. Until we understand that this is a "act or die" situation, we are screwed.

[tex-wyo-dem]

41. I totally agree with you...

CC is THE issue...there are none that are as important!

We need an effort like when the U.S. entered WWII, but x100 and on a global scale...the U.S. needs to lead the way.

The only candidate who seems to get it and has expressed this sort of urgency has been Bernie.

[seekthetruth]

2. As well as Clinton's.

If we continue kicking the can down the road, when are we collectively going to wake up and realize that, yes, even our Democrat candidates aren't willing to make the required changes now instead of later when it'll be that much more difficult to change course?

Neoliberalism needs to be associated explicitly with those candidates who further its causes.

[seekthetruth]

3. Besides.....Charles Koch has decided that Hillary would make a fine president.....

[maxsolomon]

32. not this shit again.

show me a direct quote wherein he ENDORSES Clinton. specifically ENDORSES her.

you won't, because he didn't. in fact, he said the opposite.

[seekthetruth]

39. Yes, this shit again....

And I heard the words come out of his mouth that he thought Hillary would make a better president than any Republican currently running.

I highly doubt Chuckie Koch would endorse my candidate of choice, a true progressive, Bernie Sanders.

I'm sure Hillary's neoliberalism is something he finds attractive.

[maxsolomon]

42. i note that you didn't provide the quote, because he didn't say that.

i heard him too.

Koch said that, to support her, he'd have to believe her policies would be the opposite of her rhetoric. which is a slippery bastard's way of ducking the question. he doesn't believe that, and he's not endorsing her, whether she's a true progressive, a neoliberal, or a neoconservative.

your mind is playing tricks on you, or your ears need fixing. here's hoping its the latter.

[seekthetruth]

44. Yep, that's what I understood him to say as well....

.......but the point is that someone like one of the Koch brothers is saying that about your candidate, and you're arguing technicalities?

As a progressive, I would want my candidate to be absolutely loathed by the likes of the Koch's.

I just think it speaks to Hillary's neoliberalism. If you're good with that, then stop calling yourself a liberal, because by supporting Hillary, you're definitely not one. Or at least you're willing to put your head in the sand, and vote for her just because she's a female.

However, the novelty will wear off quickly when the kids start coming back from Syria in body bags. And if that doesn't affect you, or at least scare the hell out of you, then please, don't call yourself a progressive.

[maxsolomon]

45. Take that Syrian War crap to the Bernie Group - the body bags have never stopped.

It's not a technicality, 187 posts. Koch didn't endorse her AT ALL. I reject such distortions outright, regardless of the candidate.

Koch is a slippery rich bastard who's stirring the pot in our primary. And you're just lapping it up, because you're hyperbolically anti-Clinton. Look at your clichéd list of GOP-furnished anti-Clinton points. "Just because she's female"? That's sexist in itself, and I hope a woman more articulate than I pops in to hand you your ass over it.

Me, I'm resigned to reality, and more motivated to keep Trump far away from the White House than your Progressive purity tests. If you can't win without lying about her, you don't deserve to win.

Seek the Truth, indeed.

[seekthetruth]

46. Distortions?

Sexist?

I'm absolutely not sexist one bit, and nothing I said was sexist. I've stated that argument to multiple women (progressive women) who I know in my personal life, and they all agree. I assume you're a guy, so there's that.

If Hillary was a progressive just as much as Sanders is, then I would choose Hillary in a heartbeat because, yes, it's time for a female president. She just isn't the one for now. Perhaps you need to really take a look at her record on issues.

I'm not hyperbolically anti-Clinton because I judge her based on her actions, not on what she says.

She chose to side with bankers versus the people when voting for the financial bail out. Please, don't mention the auto bail out.....enough said on that one.

On top of that, please, please, please defend fracking. Defend your candidate's stance on it. How do you defend her support for fracking when our world is literally heating up year by year? When I bring this up on DU, I never receive a response......

I'm resigned to reality as well, in that we have a broken campaign system in this country, and the actions by the establishment have proven that over and over.

I think the biggest reason why Progressives don't support Clinton, besides the whole Wall Street connection issue, is the environment. That is the single biggest, most profound issue that creates the most passionate responses from people, and you're willing to turn a blind eye to that?

Additionally, how can you support Clinton's slant towards war? Or do you support war as well when it's not in defense?

This year is really turning out those who say they're progressive, and those who claim to be. Purity test or not, yes, there are certain criteria for being a progressive. If I believe in regressive taxation, can I call myself a progressive? If I believe that it's okay for the U.S. to invade other countries on the pretext of disposing of a dictator that we don't like, can I call myself a progressive? On and on.

Besides, one other distinction that does not qualify Mrs. Clinton's claim to be a progressive, is her stance on the death penalty. Taken from https://theintercept.com/2016/03/17/hillary-clintons-indefensible-stance-on-the-death-penalty/.

Here's the quote:

"But then she pivoted. “Where I end up is this — and maybe it’s a distinction that is hard to support — but at this point, given the challenges we face from terrorist activities, primarily in our country, that end up under federal jurisdiction, for very limited purposes I think that it can still be held in reserve for those.” Invoking the Oklahoma City bombing and 9/11, Clinton said, “That is really the exception that I still am struggling with."

Either you're for abortion, or you support women's right to choose. Either you're for the death penalty, or you're against it. It's that simple.

So, the moral of the story, if you're a Progressive, then Clinton is logically not your choice. The only other candidate who definitely holds progressive values is Sanders. So, as a progressive, he is my choice for president.

You, if you claim to be a Progressive, cannot support Clinton if you hold true to your progressive values. You're a moderate, and if you defend her vote on the Iraq War as well as increasing our involvement in Syria, then you're a borderline conservative when it comes to foreign policy.

Your response? If you choose not to respond, then I assume you simply agree with me. If so, welcome to the Progressive family! Good on ya, friend!

[seekthetruth]

53. No response?

Really? C'mon man......defend your candidate!

[maxsolomon]

55. I'm not online 24/7, 189 posts. you posted this taunt at 5 am.

keep putting words in my mouth - you'll see no posts wherein i say Clinton is "my" candidate.

my point remains: Koch does not endorse Hillary Clinton. I have zero interest in defending your particulars, except from outright lies like the Koch smear.

"I'm not sexist in the least". go Koch some other forum.

[seekthetruth]

56. Oh, now she's not your candidate?

I'm confused. Sounds like you're trying to dodge the debate.

[maxsolomon]

57. As posted multiple times elsewhere on DU:

I think both Sanders and Clinton (and Drumpf) are TOO FUCKING OLD. I'm an Ageist; I don't believe people in their 70s should be President. The job is too hard.

Clinton is my wife's candidate, as she is an angry Feminist; my candidate is the Democrat who is nominated. I post on Democratic Underground. I am for Democrats, whether Progressive, DINO, or DNC, over Republicans, 100% of the time. Hell, I'm for Democrats over Socialists most of the time.

Play Bernie-or-bust all you want, but the odds are solidly against him. Even he acknowledges that.

Should he obtain the nomination of the Democratic Party, I will happily argue for him as passionately as I would for Clinton. I reject your internecine slanders and smears.

I will reiterate: you implied that Charles Koch endorsed Clinton. He did not. Saying so only harms your advocacy of Sanders.

[seekthetruth]

58. He said positive things about Hillary.

He said she would make a better president than any republican currently running. You'd be extremely hard-pressed to find such a quote from one of the Koch's, the major investors of candidates espousing a neoliberal stance towards economic issues, regarding Sanders. Doesn't that indicate anything to you? Besides, who care what Koch said.....it doesn't matter! What does matter is how this country moves forward!

What is destructive to the Democratic Party is to ignore the principles that constitute the integrity of the party. What is Clinton's policy on fracking - one of the most dangerous and harmful practices towards the environment? I simply do not understand the tactic of creating an "interim" solution when we're so very close to the tipping point that scientists now say we're quickly approaching. We adults nowadays will not likely see the disastrous effects of climate change, but our children and grandchildren surely will if we do not elect leaders who are willing to have the courage to say it's absolutely insane to keep utilizing a non-renewable resource such as fossil fuels, which also contributes significantly to greenhouse gases. How can you support her?

That is why we Sanders supporters feel so strongly about this topic, and many others. I object to your nonchalance about that issue. Are you willing to further damage our environment just to believe in incremental change versus revolutionary - and I don't use the word "revolutionary" in the communist/socialist sense. I use it because that is what we need as a species - an energy revolution.

Are you really that Hillary-or-bust? Again, if you are willing to tolerate Clinton's standings on these types of issues, then you're a neoliberal moderate with leanings towards liberal social policies. Me? I'm very quickly becoming a democratic socialist because the Democratic Party has lost its mind!

[maxsolomon]

59. FFS

I just said I was DEMOCRAT or bust. Sanders aside, I think Clinton is a better choice than Donald Trump, if you can believe that.

Have fun with the SWP. They're a barrel of monkeys.

[Skittles]

54. it's called a lack of critical thinking skills

heck, if you're in a PICTURE with someone you endorse them

[NickB79]

61. Her support of gas fracking is long-standing, and fracking is as bad as coal mining

[skip fox]

4. As a teacher at a college, I realize how hard it is to get through

to people about this.

The point that works the best is brining up the fact that 97% (noted on the NASA site) of the relevant scientists who study this matter agree that it is man-created and profoundly important, if not an existential threat to the species.

It's the 97% I focus on and then point out that many scientists dedicated their lives to science in their adolescent years. How likely would it be at even 40% of such people lied and changed their statistics for the sake of tenure, promotion and grants? How many such people would directly betray their ideals for an associate professorship? There are some, of course, but . . .

Then I point out how hard it is to get 97% of people to agree on anything.

Some students will ignore even that by saying NASA is corrupt, etc., but most students are far less skeptical of the origin and seriousness of climate change after considering this on (97%) fact.

Here's a link to the NASA site:
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

[Kelvin Mace]

28. I ask people that if they were told by 97 doctors that they needed

to undergo a specific course of treatment or you would die, would you listen to the three doctors who told you, "Nah, you'll be fine!"?

[bjo59]

5. I generally agree but I would say that US foreign economic policy is more important because

if those irreversible trade deals that Obama is working so feverishly to complete and Clinton will surely sign will make doing anything about climate change impossible.

[AikidoSoul]

6. It's much worse than you think. See the recent study funded by the National Science Foundation

The National Science Foundation just released a study saying that we are quickly losing oxygen in the oceans and earth and will see major depletion in 13 or 14 years. That's in our lifetime. See my post with the title:

" The stupid fuckers wouldn't listen -- so let them asphixiate along with their families, pets and ocean and land animals, and eventually the whole world."

I belong to a group called Collaborative for Health and the Environment who say that "inertia" got us where we are. I would add "greed". I wished that those nearly four thousand members were activists, but they insist that they can't be scientists if they are activists. When they start losing the ability to breathe, I wonder if that will change.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-04/nsf-ept042916.php

[CrispyQ]

15. Chasing Ice

The largest calving event ever filmed. Below is a condensed version. The event actually took 90 minutes. If you go to 1:52 you'll see a whale jump out of the water. I wonder what they think - this change in their environment, their world.

It's just under 5 minutes & really worth the time.

[AikidoSoul]

17. There was a challenge to the claim of atmospheric oxygen loss by Bernardo de La Paz

He said:

I did read the paper. That's how I knew that your damn OP was badly wrong!

YOU read the paper. The paper is about OCEANIC oxygen, not atmospheric oxygen. You can't point to anything in the paper that says people will asphyxiate or that atmospheric oxygen will significantly deplete. Read the article for comprehension. It is not difficult to tell the difference between ocean and atmosphere.

However he did not seem to recognize the statement early in the paper that said:

The entire ocean -- from the depths to the shallows -- gets its oxygen supply from the surface, either from the atmosphere or from phytoplankton, which release oxygen into the water through photosynthesis.


Climate change has caused a drop in the amount of oxygen dissolved in the oceans in some parts of the world, and those effects should become evident across large parts of the ocean between 2030 and 2040, according to a new study led by researchers at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado.

Scientists expected a warming climate to sap oceans of oxygen, leaving fish, crabs, squid, sea stars, and other marine life struggling to breathe. But they had encountered difficulties in determining whether this anticipated oxygen drain was already having a noticeable effect.

"Loss of oxygen in the oceans is one of the serious side effects of a warming atmosphere, and a major threat to marine life," said NCAR scientist Matthew Long, lead author of the study. "Since oxygen concentrations in the ocean naturally vary depending on variations in winds and temperature at the surface, it's been challenging to attribute any deoxygenation to climate change. This new study tells us when we can expect the effect from climate change to overwhelm the natural variability."

The study is published in the American Geophysical Union journal Global Biogeochemical Cycles. The research was funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF).

Cutting through the natural variability

[Bernardo de La Paz]

47. Hey, you don't have the courtesy to PM me when you mention me

Your thread got locked so you try to continue somewhere else

[Bernardo de La Paz]

49. YOU were the one claiming atmospheric oxygen loss. I called you on your *mistake*

Not the other way around.

There was a challenge to the claim of atmospheric oxygen loss by Bernardo de La Paz

Wrong.

I challenged you. I did not claim that atmospheric oxygen loss would be so bad that people would asphyxiate. You did here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027799881 (emphasis added)

The stupid fuckers wouldn't listen -- so let them [font size = "+1"]asphixiate along with their families, pets[/font] and [View all]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by tammywammy (a host of the General Discussion forum).
ocean and land animals, and eventually the whole world.

The information provided at the link was funded by the National Science Foundation and published in the American Geophysical Union journal Global Biogeochemical Cycles.

U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders has made the climate change issue his first priority calling it a "dire emergency". The National Science Foundation has just released a report showing that climate is changing more and more rapidly as non-linear processes accelerate the damage. Loss of oxygen is one of the most serious problems surfacing in my lifetime, getting worse with each passing year. That is why this presidential election is so critically important. It may already be too late, but if not, the steps to stop it must be drastic, and immediate.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-04/nsf-ept042916.php

You don't know what you are talking about. Go look up the concentrations of oxygen in the atmosphere and in the ocean. Uptake of atmospheric oxygen by the ocean will not make a significant dent in the concentration of atmospheric oxygen, let alone be bad enough to asphyxiate. Not even close.

No scientist is claiming that global warming climate change will cause asphyxiation of people and land animals.

You completely misread and do not comprehend the paper and the article and the section that you quoted. Please think more carefully before you post about it and before you try to smear me with misleading post titles.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

51. What other threads have you posted against me and mentioned my name without PMing me?

Edit: Found number 2, another of your threads locked (this time for being disruptive): http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027800355

How many others are you posting against me by name behind my back?

[The2ndWheel]

7. Of course that's hyperbole

We've been on this road since...we started standing on two legs? First use of tools? Certainly the harnessing of fire. I'm pretty sure it all doesn't come down to this election.

[bluegopher]

9. I would say that

the why?2k election was the nail in the coffin. Based on greed and the inexplicable ignorance on this issue in this country, we're fucked.

[The2ndWheel]

10. Nothing we were doing before 2000 was sustainable either

Human progress comes at a cost. Altering environments, thus leading to global climate change, may be the one that gets us. Our progression as a species exists within what we call the environment, and if we live on a finite planet, then every step that we take to the top right of the graph requires that something changes and/or goes away.

If it all did come down to a couple elections, the whole issue would be an easy problem to fix. The actual issue involves some things that make us human, or just a form of life in general, that it's frankly impossible that Bush or Trump is the key to the whole thing. It's fun to blame Republicans, but if we really wanted to do something, we would need to look at far more basic and fundamental questions of civilization, society, or just day to day living. Even then, there's most likely no answer to those questions, because there's a cost to everything.

[skip fox]

13. I wouldn't suggest that an election could "fix" the problem,

but electing Trump (who doesn't believe in man-made climate change) will postpone our dealing with the issue until we will be past the point of no return. Simple as that.

But I could be wrong. Maybe we have 30 years until we cross the line. That's a possibility. (But we will be so much closer.)

So it is not hyperbole to say that his election could result in our extinction. (I would even amend that to say "could well.&quot

(Should we lose the species because it's expensive? Or throw up our hands because the solutions difficult and our efforts may be futile?)

*************************

On edit.

Here's the Washington Post article in which Trump is quoted as not being a "big believer in man-made climate change.":

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/03/22/this-is-the-only-type-of-climate-change-donald-trump-believes-in/

[skip fox]

11. Perhaps you mean the anxiety

that the Y2K "issue" created inoculated the public so that it will not react to what they perceive as unwarranted fear.

That is interesting, but I don't think Y2K plays much of a role in the public imagination these days, certainly not enough to ignore what is becoming increasing obvious every year.

Though I have heard people say "Well, there have been prophets of doom since time began. Before 1000 A.D. they thought time would end and Christ would return. This has happened dozens of times. What makes this time any different?"

The difference is, of course, science.

[AikidoSoul]

18. Unless the administration makes climate change "top priority" NT

[skip fox]

8. And now these jokers are even tracking "the environmentalist left"!

This from Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/america-rising-squared-brian-rogers_us_5727a97de4b0f309baf18848?ir=Green&section=us_green&utm_hp_ref=green

[clarice]

12. Curious...when did "Global Warming" change to "Climate Change" and why?nt

[skip fox]

14. Good question and it deserves a good answer with dates &c.

But I don't have the dates. I think It was about six years ago when t became apparent that the Petroleum industry and their lackeys started deliberately confusing climate with weather. (This year, Sen. Inhofe brought a snowball to the senate floor in refutation (in his mind) of the "global warming" argument.)

If you go to the NASA web-site I listed above, the initial graph clearly shows that the globe is warming. But telling the truth is often not enough when you're dealing with people who wish to deceive.

[clarice]

16. Thank you....good explanation.nt

[Spider Jerusalem]

37. More like "20+ years ago" (n/t)

[AikidoSoul]

19. Because warming doesn't do JUST warming, it has the potential to create huge storms

The issue of global warming is not linear, so it's more accurate to call it climate change because warming affects so many systems. It's non-linear. Warming is a linear term.

Climate change as we are witnessing it creates hundreds of changes that we are seeing from humongous storms, to flooding, tornadoes, etc. And then of course the is the steady loss of oxygen in the ocean and atmosphere, just reported yesterday by a study funded by the National Health Foundation.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-04/nsf-ept042916.php

[clarice]

20. Scary.nt

[skip fox]

22. A better, more scientific answer than mine.

But they are not mutually exclusive.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

50. You do not comprehend the paper. It makes NO CLAIM about loss of atmospheric oxygen

Stop pushing that bullshit.

Uptake of atmospheric oxygen by depleted oceans will not make a noticeable dent in the concentration of atmospheric oxygen.

You can't point to any scientist who says that people will asphyxiate as a result of global warming climate change. Yet you repeatedly claim people will asphyxiate.

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. The problem is that a minimum AB 32

Should be the goal, new and improved one. But it will crash the economy! No it won't. I am not impressed with her plan. Slow incrementalism is not what we need. Trump has no plan. It might be an act, or not. I don't know.

[First Speaker]

23. I agree. And in the long run, this will include democracy. (Warning--very pessimistic.)

The actual, empirical data on this issue is getting worse and worse, much worse than the pessimists of 20 years ago could have imagined. Given that, one of two things will happen. Either the draconian measures needed to fix it will not be taken, the sky will fall, and civilization will collapse into warlordism and/or anarchy. Or else the draconian measures to fix it *will* be taken, and the world will slide inexorably into authoritarianism. I think there has been a lot of wishful thinking on this whole issue, by a lot of gentle, well-meaning liberals. Climate change is an issue too great for democracy to fix. The only action that has any chance of succeeding will involve brushing the checks-and-balances of democracy aside, probably forever. I don't know which of the two alternatives I hate the least...it doesn't really matter. I just hope I die before the shit really hits the fan.

[skip fox]

24. One begins to feel that having children these days

is ultimately an optimistic act.

[First Speaker]

25. I know...I see very little hope...

...but maybe something in human nature makes us act *as if* there is hope. Few people thought we'd get thru the Cold War without the Button being pushed. Maybe, somehow, we'll muddle thru. I doubt it, but just maybe. But the odds are against us.

[haikugal]

30. It has always been an optimistic act, always. I gave it long hard thought in '72 for this reason.

I decided to be an optimist and had one child. At this point he and I are both glad he has no children, it looks that bleak to us.

[PasadenaTrudy]

40. I'm glad I didn't

Best choice I ever made.

[nadinbrzezinski]

48. We did not

and ironically those who do not have kids, seem to take this far more seriously.


• Why do the victims of flooding, drought, and severe storms become less willing to talk about climate change or even accept that it is real?
• Why are people who say that climate change is too uncertain to believe more easily convinced of the imminent dangers of terrorist attacks, asteroid strikes, or an alien invasion?
• Why have scientists, normally the most trusted professionals in our society, become distrusted, hated, and the targets for violent abuse?
• Why is America’s most prestigious science museum telling more than a million people a year that climate change is a natural cycle and that we can grow new organs to adapt to it?
• Why are science fiction fans, of all people, so unwilling to imagine what the future might really be like?
• Why does having children make people less concerned about climate change?
• How did a rational policy negotiation become a debating slam to be won by the wittiest and most aggressive player?
• Why can stories based on myths and lies become so compelling that a president prefers to take his climate science advice from a bestselling thriller writer rather than the National Academy of Sciences?
• And why is an oil company so much more worried about the threats posed by its slippery floors than the threats posed by its products?

Marshall, George (2014-08-19). Don't Even Think About It: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Ignore Climate Change (p. 2). Bloomsbury Publishing. Kindle Edition.

[Kelvin Mace]

26. Yep, and it's why we are hosed

if anyone other than Sanders is elected. Neither any Republican or HRC is going to take the drastic steps needed to pull us back from the brink. Sander might fail, but at least he would try.

[haikugal]

31. ^^^THIS^^^

[riderinthestorm]

29. Sadly this is now pretty much the only issue I ever post on here at DU anymore

We're in our 11th hour. ..

[maxsolomon]

33. Frog in a slowly heating pot of water, right?

The Denialists have blocked any meaningful change for 2 decades now.

I was just in Las Vegas this last weekend. Humanity is fucked.

[HuckleB]

34. Anyone who benefits from the status quo fights science on this.

Petrol goons, Organic food marketing doofuses. And the like. It's sad to see the self destruction.

[pampango]

35. And are ANY republican proactive on action to deal with it rather than to ignore it? Trump thinks

climate change is a hoax. Bernie is better than Hillary on this but neither of them think it is a hoax.

[Octafish]

36. I remember how Bill Clinton worked from Day One to wean America from fossil fuels not.

I remember how Barack Obama worked from Day One to wean America from fossil fuels not.

Same for the 20 years on top of all that from Reagan, Bush I and Bush II, none of whom did much more than give a tax break to Big Oil.

The last guy to try to do something about weaning America from fossil fuels was Jimmy Carter. And CIA turned the Safari Club on him.

[skip fox]

38. Everyone is so pessimistic!

I wish I knew something to say that might qualify that, but I don't. Perhaps the intelligence of the species and the crises, major and minor, we have avoided in the past, but my memory is still too intact to allow me to make that claim even as a speculation.

dark dark dark

[Jeffersons Ghost]

43. although 13 (number of the Death card in Tarot) is appropriate, here's a 14th rec

Is the"trump" card is a slur on an actual majority of voters, DEAL ME IN!
http://crooksandliars.com/2016/04/deal-me-hillary-clinton-plays-gender-card

[highprincipleswork]

52. And Bernie is the strongest in combating it. Go Bernie and supporters!

[La Lioness Priyanka]

60. if you are homeless today, do you think you care about people drowning in 20 years

when you will no longer be alive?

Climate change is important for people who expect to survive or have kids who survive in the future.

I don't disagree with you about the actual importance of us as a species and climate change. However, when people vote most people think about how this effects them individually.

I guess my only real point is that people with immediate crises/concerns are less like to care about something happening 20 years from today.

[GOPblows431]

62. Very true

Although I should add that healthcare is also very important.