Stupid? Definitely. A play out of Trump's playbook? Kinda. Normally Trump is the one that gets sued.

They will probably look to get small to mid size employers to settle in order to avoid a costly legal battles. Although I wouldn't be surprised if this is all just a ploy to keep his fanboys in line.

I blame dementia. I have a parent that's still a Trump supporter. It's as if they've lost the ability to use reason. I am pretty sure Trump could shoot them in the face and they'd still vote for/support him.

It's quite telling that I can't tell if this is real or not and I can't be bothered to log in to check.

I agree. I'd love it if I could take a less demanding job. Burnout sucks and I would love to have more time for my family and hobbies.

I just can't see how that would work between paying my home loan and other living expenses.

Question about the public transport system, how long does it take to get to common destinations like work, grocery stores, doctors, and etc? Also, how easy is it to get to stations/stops?

For example, the closest grocery store by me is a 37 minute walk or 12 minutes by bike I just don't think it would be practical to ride with a weeks worth of food for a family. There is no public transportation available.

I feel the same. Even in a state as populated as NJ the public transit system is mediocre unless you are going into NYC.

Suspending reality, it would be interesting if enough progressives moved to states like Wyoming (pop 580k) and the Dakotas (780k and 890k) to move them blue. Then vote in progressive senators. For reference, NJ alone has a population of 9.2m.

If that could happen It would be great to link senators to state population.

Manchin, Sinema, and fillabusters prevented any real change during those two years. IIRC Biden and congressional democrats were able to use budget reconcillation rules to get past the 60 vote rule to get stuff done, after they placated Manchin and Sinema though.

Ranked voting needs to happen otherwise it will always be democrats vs republicans most of the time.

And people didn't think Trump had a shot back in 2016.

I live in a town that's split down the middle politically and I still see people flying Trump flags even after all the bs he has done. We even had a council member denounce pride month back in June at a council meeting. They think they are fighting the good fight.

Anyway, my point is that there are people who will see what Greta is doing, even if it benefits them, and still fight it because they think their side has their back.

It's frustrating when people think talking down to others is going to change minds. It's no wonder progressive activists fail to make progress.

If you expect people with different perspectives to get behind people like Greta you'll want to adopt a better strategy. Otherwise, you'll continue to polarize folks.

I am not sure about that. There plenty of people who use her as an example to further their propaganda against progressive movements.

?

Hmm, in this instance probably. I am worried she'll gather the wrong type of attention and turn more people off than on to climate issues.

Yep, I think so. I look at reddit periodically and while they haven't had performance issues lately (I wonder why, lol). The posts don't seem geniune anymore. Instead they are forced and lame.

There are probably multiple factors going on. First, there is the belief that you can't take away functionality people already expect. Second, while there would be a number of people willing to shell out money, they probably believed a majority of folks would not. Look at what people are willing to put up with at Facebook. I hate it, but most of my friends and family are on it so I'm there. Third, their backers would never approve because of point two.

Fair point, it isn't the worst either. The thing I see though is people shouting over one another trying to push their agenda (noble or not) and all it does is make people more polarized. Just look at the comments on this post.

Something that intrigued me was how Martin Luther King managed to do so much through nonviolent protest. Rosa Parks refusal to give up her seat and the bus boycotts made people realize how absurd and unfair Jim Crow laws were.

He even participated in a sit in at a department store and was arrested for it. People were getting arrested in such numbers for such simple things it made people think about what King and his followers were trying to do.

I have no doubts that Ms. Thunberg has good intentions, but her protests are simply ineffective. In this case, "blockading" an oil port just frustrates people for delaying a crucial product.

At this point who notices protests? They are so commonplace unless tens of thousands of people are involved. I agree that this will catch the public eye and may motivate people to side with her, but it could have the opposite effect as well. People rely on fossil fuels to get through their day (e.g. commuting, heating their homes, electric generation even). Making it more expensive may frustrate people who are more concerned about making ends meet than the climate.

It sucks, but there are limits to how practical it is to disrupt a crucial resource.

From what I gather, blocking an oil port is extremist and doesn't actually do anything but make life more difficult for the general population.

From that perspective I can agree with him. Blockading an oil port is an extreme approach to combating climate change. More sensible approaches would be figuring out how to lobby governments to tax fossil fuels and use that money to support renewable resources.