In Kamala Harris’s recent appearances, environmental issues have been mentioned only briefly and she seems to be avoiding diving into specifics. The ambiguity is more than likely intentional.
  • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    2114·
    2 months ago

    Because the answer is “corporate profits in the short-term are more important to us than the functional survival of humans as a species in the long-term.”

    That’s not a really nice answer to be saying now that most people are keenly aware that our planet is on fucking fire.

    Status quo Democrats, same as they ever were.

    • FlowVoid@lemmy.worldEnglish
      20·
      2 months ago

      Candidates aren’t vague when they want corporations to succeed. They literally campaign about how they’re going to invest billions in X and billions in Y. That means more profits for the companies that sell X and Y.

      On the other hand, smart candidates don’t talk quite so much about which companies will suffer if they are elected. Especially if those companies are involved in fossil fuel extraction in Pennsylvania, a must-win swing state.

  • Zeke@fedia.io
    6·
    2 months ago

    It’s better not to fling a bunch of big promises around. What she does during her term if she wins is what matters. The other option is so much worse.

  • DarkCloud@lemmy.world
    61·
    2 months ago

    Elections are based on big vague promises that aren’t fulfilled later. The real promises are given to weathy downers.

  • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    4·
    2 months ago

    I’m just consistently baffled at how many people refuse to understand how Citizens United fucked our politics six ways from Sunday. Being vague is basically the most anti-corporate (or anti-AIPAC) you can be these days (before being sworn in if you don’t want to lose the election because you pissed the corpos and PACs off and they opened the campaign cash floodgates to sink you.