3 ms·

> The right supports environmentalism and healthcare. They disagree with specific leftist plans. Can you give me one right-leaning healthcare or environmental

> The right supports environmentalism and healthcare. They disagree with specific leftist plans. Can you give me one right-leaning healthcare or environmental "plan" that anybody in congress is pushing that will cover every American 100% for healthcare, drugs, mental health, dental, etc? Single-payer is the best plan I've seen because it negotiates rates for drugs in bulk - one price for all of America and the government can choose different companies if they won't play ball but it's a huge ass market so they'll play ball. Likewise for the environment - the right tends to deny climate change is even happening, so how do they support environmentalism? Why do the right also think it's okay to spend 700 billion per year on the military (that's more than the next ten countries combined, China for example only spends 200 billion), and the DOD is the only government agency never to pass a fiscal audit. If they're worried about "costs" then maybe they should start with the defense budget. > There isn't a sizeable lobby who is "against environmentalism", for example. There is a huge lobby who just doesn't see how a comfortable living standard can be achieved without fossil fuels. How comfortable a standard of living will we have when we have wars over water, and species of animals becoming extinct at ever faster rates (including the very species we eat and rely on for food)?

roenxi 6y ago
> Likewise for the environment - the right tends to deny climate change is even happening, so how do they support environmentalism? That answers itself - if someone doesn't believe in a threat, it doesn't make sense to invest in stopping it. > Can you give me one right-leaning healthcare or environmental "plan" that anybody in congress is pushing that will cover every American 100% for healthcare, drugs, mental health, dental, etc? If there were exactly 2 choices, maybe there'd be a point there. But there is a spectrum of choices and no possible future where everyone has enough healthcare. None of the plans on the left or the right are pushing for the extreme scenario of 100% of the economy is devoted to healthcare. The right wing would prefer the arbitrary standard trades off a little less against the economy, the left a little more. Both those positions are pro-healthcare, and both are arbitrary. You're welcome to your opinion on where the line should be drawn, but someone drawing the line differently isn't anti-healthcare. > Why do the right also think it's okay to spend 700 billion per year on the military... US's high military spending basically only goes up. If the left wanted to reign that in, they've had their chances and not taken them. It is a tragedy.
- tgb 6y ago
  > That answers itself - if someone doesn't believe in a threat, it doesn't make sense to invest in stopping it. But you're the one claiming they're not anti-environmentalism! This is literally what anti-environmentalism is [1]. You might claim that they're not anti-environment though: I doubt anyone would actually choose to destroy the environment if it had no other effect. (Other than the small minority that's in it just to own-the-libs.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-environmentalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-environmentalism
  - roenxi 6y ago
    Fair enough, but if you want to argue that then I can go back to the point I joined the thread and provide examples of even small amounts of environmentalism causing hurt to specific populations. All the resistance to the actual policies is people observing that they will have markedly lower quality of life and that the overall strategy of environmentalism is explicitly to dismantle big chunks of the west's way of life. That is why there is substantial organised resistance to the environmental policies the left wants, and why the resistance is more sustained. It is very damaging policy. That is why it is so unpopular. The people it is damaging aren't going to bear any consequences otherwise.
sintaxi 6y ago
There is no policy that is better for the environment than stopping deficit spending and balancing budgets - its just not branded as an environmental policy.

roenxi 6y ago

> Likewise for the environment - the right tends to deny climate change is even happening, so how do they support environmentalism? That answers itself - if someone doesn't believe in a threat, it doesn't make sense to invest in stopping it. > Can you give me one right-leaning healthcare or environmental "plan" that anybody in congress is pushing that will cover every American 100% for healthcare, drugs, mental health, dental, etc? If there were exactly 2 choices, maybe there'd be a point there. But there is a spectrum of choices and no possible future where everyone has enough healthcare. None of the plans on the left or the right are pushing for the extreme scenario of 100% of the economy is devoted to healthcare. The right wing would prefer the arbitrary standard trades off a little less against the economy, the left a little more. Both those positions are pro-healthcare, and both are arbitrary. You're welcome to your opinion on where the line should be drawn, but someone drawing the line differently isn't anti-healthcare. > Why do the right also think it's okay to spend 700 billion per year on the military... US's high military spending basically only goes up. If the left wanted to reign that in, they've had their chances and not taken them. It is a tragedy.

tgb 6y ago
> That answers itself - if someone doesn't believe in a threat, it doesn't make sense to invest in stopping it. But you're the one claiming they're not anti-environmentalism! This is literally what anti-environmentalism is [1]. You might claim that they're not anti-environment though: I doubt anyone would actually choose to destroy the environment if it had no other effect. (Other than the small minority that's in it just to own-the-libs.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-environmentalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-environmentalism
- roenxi 6y ago
  Fair enough, but if you want to argue that then I can go back to the point I joined the thread and provide examples of even small amounts of environmentalism causing hurt to specific populations. All the resistance to the actual policies is people observing that they will have markedly lower quality of life and that the overall strategy of environmentalism is explicitly to dismantle big chunks of the west's way of life. That is why there is substantial organised resistance to the environmental policies the left wants, and why the resistance is more sustained. It is very damaging policy. That is why it is so unpopular. The people it is damaging aren't going to bear any consequences otherwise.

sintaxi 6y ago

There is no policy that is better for the environment than stopping deficit spending and balancing budgets - its just not branded as an environmental policy.