| Reasons to be cheerful - Part 1 on 02:53 - Mar 31 with 927 views | SpruceMoose |
I like what she has to say. I like her background and I like that she's upsetting all the right people. Her social media game is great too. It's fun to see these fifty year old senators getting absolutely destroyed by her on Twitter. She's among the first of the generation of politicians who have grown up with social media, so really knows how to use it to her advantage.
Above all that though is the fact that she works damn hard. She out campaigned her rivals here, knocked on more doors, walked more neighbourhood streets, talked to more people. She was relentless.
Interestingly, she's now taking some heat in New York at the moment, if you talk to some communities at least, for her role in helping to put the kibosh on the proposed Amazon investment in Long Island City. [Post edited 31 Mar 2019 2:57]
|  |
| Pronouns: He/Him/His.
"Imagine being a heterosexual white male in Britain at this moment. How bad is that. Everything you say is racist, everything you say is homophobic. The Woke community have really f****d this country." | | Poll: | Selectamod |
|  |
| Reasons to be cheerful - Part 1 on 10:05 - Mar 31 with 832 views | Guthrum |
They make a good point. The denial of climate change is largely driven by those with an investment, both financial and political (in the sense of jobs for their voters) in traditional coal/oil/gas extraction and processing. If, rather than digging in where they stand, people were enlightened enough to transfer their investment ro renewables, thus creating replacement jobs, nobody loses out.
Yes, it might require a lot of population movement. Former coalfields are not necessarily the best locations for basing these alternative industries. Communities where people have lived for several generations may become ghost towns. But their own ancestors moved to take up those jobs in the first place - sometimes half way around the world. There was massive relocation as the Industrial Revolution got underway and as the US began to boom in the late 19th century. Much of it within one generation as people got up and moved to the cities and mining areas en masse.
The shift away from mining and heavy industry in the West will lead to a similar geographical shift in population. It needs to. |  |
| |
| Reasons to be cheerful - Part 1 on 10:12 - Mar 31 with 819 views | WeWereZombies |
| Reasons to be cheerful - Part 1 on 10:05 - Mar 31 by Guthrum |
They make a good point. The denial of climate change is largely driven by those with an investment, both financial and political (in the sense of jobs for their voters) in traditional coal/oil/gas extraction and processing. If, rather than digging in where they stand, people were enlightened enough to transfer their investment ro renewables, thus creating replacement jobs, nobody loses out.
Yes, it might require a lot of population movement. Former coalfields are not necessarily the best locations for basing these alternative industries. Communities where people have lived for several generations may become ghost towns. But their own ancestors moved to take up those jobs in the first place - sometimes half way around the world. There was massive relocation as the Industrial Revolution got underway and as the US began to boom in the late 19th century. Much of it within one generation as people got up and moved to the cities and mining areas en masse.
The shift away from mining and heavy industry in the West will lead to a similar geographical shift in population. It needs to. |
There is a lot in what you say and, for example, it is always pertinent for an East Anglian watching 'Who Do You Think You Are' when the celebrity is amazed to find their Lancastrian ancestry only goes back so far and dates from the decline of the wool towns as skills were transferred to the cotton mills. But remember too that some of the migration to 'The New World' was forced through clearances and enclosures. |  |
| |
| Reasons to be cheerful - Part 1 on 10:23 - Mar 31 with 803 views | Guthrum |
| Reasons to be cheerful - Part 1 on 10:12 - Mar 31 by WeWereZombies |
There is a lot in what you say and, for example, it is always pertinent for an East Anglian watching 'Who Do You Think You Are' when the celebrity is amazed to find their Lancastrian ancestry only goes back so far and dates from the decline of the wool towns as skills were transferred to the cotton mills. But remember too that some of the migration to 'The New World' was forced through clearances and enclosures. |
Plus famine in Italy and pogroms in the Russian Empire. However, the vast majority of those people moved with a vision for having a better life (sometimes in response to their existing livelihoods/homes/freedoms having collapsed or been taken away). | |
| |
| Reasons to be cheerful - Part 1 on 11:51 - Mar 31 with 778 views | Ryorry |
| Reasons to be cheerful - Part 1 on 10:05 - Mar 31 by Guthrum |
They make a good point. The denial of climate change is largely driven by those with an investment, both financial and political (in the sense of jobs for their voters) in traditional coal/oil/gas extraction and processing. If, rather than digging in where they stand, people were enlightened enough to transfer their investment ro renewables, thus creating replacement jobs, nobody loses out.
Yes, it might require a lot of population movement. Former coalfields are not necessarily the best locations for basing these alternative industries. Communities where people have lived for several generations may become ghost towns. But their own ancestors moved to take up those jobs in the first place - sometimes half way around the world. There was massive relocation as the Industrial Revolution got underway and as the US began to boom in the late 19th century. Much of it within one generation as people got up and moved to the cities and mining areas en masse.
The shift away from mining and heavy industry in the West will lead to a similar geographical shift in population. It needs to. |
As I've been saying for yonks ;) I cannot understand why keen business people like Trump over the pond and the Tories here ignore the billions to be made from renewables. All I can think of is that they have multiple millions between them already invested in gas/oil/fracking! |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
