Why do you need to be “more motivated” if you care about climate change so much, when the options couldn’t be more clear?

I don’t know how I can possibly make this more simple. These people haven’t been motivated enough to vote for your party before. You want them to be motivated to vote for your party in the future. Therefore, you need to find a way to make them more motivated to vote for you. That’s why. This is not complicated.

You are just making excuses for apathy.

No, I’m simply shifting the focus to where it belongs.

There’s a mismatch between what the party does and what the people want, and your solution involves trying to change what the millions of people want instead of changing the handful of people who determine party policy. Not only is that completely undemocratic, it’s also completely impractical. Unless you have a magic wand you can wave that will turn millions of people into Lesser Evilists before you’ll need their votes, you’re gonna have to meet them where they’re at and give them things they want. Which is exactly how any democratic system is supposed to work.

It’s kind of amazing how entitled y’all are with your party. They’re supposed to be “public servants.” If a servant’s employer tells them to clean something, does the servant say, “It’s already clean enough, you need to learn to live with a little dust,” or do they do the thing they’re being fucking paid to do and clean it again, even if they think the request is stupid? The level of backtalk y’all give to the public is frankly unbelievable. You don’t act like public servants, you act like public masters, like you’re feudal lords who get to tell us what’s going to happen and we’re uppity rabble who needs to fall in line. You’ve got things completely upside down.

No, you’re supposed to understand that people will be more motivated to vote if you appeal to them based on the policies they care about and follow through, instead of offering nothing beyond, “not the other guy.”

Ok so you lose then.

Disbanding NATO doesn’t help anyone but Russia and somewhere in that brain of yours you know that.

Pretty sure it would’ve helped the Libyans if the “defensive” alliance that waged an offensive war on them didn’t exist.

NATO is a tool of neocolonialism and there are countless neocolonies around the world that it harms. Even if it were “defensive” (which it absolutely isn’t) it maintains an oppressive status quo over the global majority and gives member states the ability to attack wantonly, without fear of retaliation.

People who don’t eat at restaurants at all are obviously not the same as people who don’t eat at a restaurant that doesn’t exist.

Legitimately don’t understand this word salad.

You said you understood that concept but then spent the rest of your comment describing people who want to eat at restaurants.

Someone who doesn’t currently eat at restaurants might start eating at them if the restaurants find a way to appeal to them. That’s not a complicated concept.

If I’m vegan, and no restaurants in my area offer vegan options, then I am someone who doesn’t eat at restaurants at all. If a restaurant opens up that does offer vegan options, or if an existing restaurant adds a vegan option, then I might start eating at restaurants. Do you not understand this concept?

Likewise, someone who doesn’t vote might start voting if they’re appealed to. This is equally uncomplicated.

No one is going to open a restaurant where the target market is “people who don’t go to restaurants”.

???

When you open a restaurant, the only target market is people who don’t go to your restaurant. Looking into how to expand your business to people who don’t already go to restaurants is absolutely a valid line of inquiry that companies persue all the time. Maybe the reason they don’t eat out because it’s too expensive, and you can appeal to them with lower prices. Maybe the reason they don’t eat out is because they don’t know how good your food is, and you can address that with free samples. Maybe they have dietary restrictions and you can appeal to them by adding vegan or gluten free options. Restaurants, like any business, are constantly looking for ways to break into new sections of the market. So your analogy falls completely flat.

Look at, for example, Little Caesars which at least back when I was in school had cheap ass $5 pizzas, they tasted like shit but they were $5 so being a broke ass college student I ate there all the time when I might otherwise have not eaten out at all. And that’s why they focused on keeping the price low instead of making it actually good. Because at $5, even groceries wouldn’t be much cheaper.

Likewise, if a political party is uninterested in appealing to people who don’t already vote for them, it must mean that they’re satisfied with their current level of support. Which, considering the Dems lost the last election, doesn’t exactly seem to be working. And what, do you think you’ll have better luck trying, again, to appeal to “moderate” Republicans? Let me know how that goes, lol.

Uno reverse card

If so many people who care about the climate don’t vote, then why don’t politicians take a stronger line on the issue to appeal to them?

That’s completely backwards. The people who use the most ammo are generally the responsible gun owners who practice regularly. Meanwhile, you only need a handful of bullets to kill a lot of people, and one is enough to cause an accident. It punishes the gun owners you least want to punish while doing absolutely nothing to address the actual problems.

It’s not conspiratorial, it’s just my personal read on one guy. When I look at him, I see a snake who knows exactly what he’s doing. That’s just my judge of character, it’s possible I’m wrong, but I don’t think I am.

I would never say that Tucker cares about truth or has convictions, I think he’s a sleezebag through and through. But, my read on him is that he’s more “conscious,” for lack of a better word, than some liberals. He’s crafty and capable of thinking outside the box, even of thinking critically, which liberals generally aren’t. But, he is an enemy, and he uses that understanding to advance right-wing aims, and so those traits only makes him more dangerous.

We can’t underestimate the right’s ability to adapt. That was how the alt-right was so successful, because people were so used to thinking of the right as these stuffy old puritanical moral guardians. But the alt-right realized that that was always just a pretense and not necessary to promote right-wing ideas, that with how conditions had shifted, that image had become a liability rather than an asset.

Tucker is adaptive in the same way. He sees the writing on the wall, that public sentiment is turning against Zionism, and that the right’s association with Zionism is becoming a liability. He is trying to stay one step ahead and laying the groundwork for people’s frustration with Israel to be redirected to the right, or at least to have a place on the right, to not be a deal-breaker that pushes people left.

Even Tucker Carlson of all people pushed back on that nonsense.

It’s almost as if more technology won’t solve the problem if we can’t use the technology we already have responsibly.

It’s just culture war bullshit. Trump gets to distinguish himself from other politicians and pretend he’s doing something for the nationalists without actually spending any money or improving their lives in any way. It also means people talk about this instead of the Iran War or the Epstein files or the masked thugs raiding workplaces and hunting down minorities.

Keep an eye out for the other side of this which will be establishment politicians running on “restoring sanity” by changing it back to Lake Ontario, because they don’t want to run on abolishing ICE or anything that actually matters.