4 ms·
As long as people vote right/conservative this is all going to tank. Right will never care about anything but themselves (and thus, money and power). You see it
by anonzzzies 3y ago
As long as people vote right/conservative this is all going to tank. Right will never care about anything but themselves (and thus, money and power). You see it everywhere they are and where in power. Which means we have huge issue as the underbelly votes right and the right vote right.
Even another Hn post saying the US needs more/better defence is just priming the public for republican propaganda to get votes and move the spending to ‘real things’ instead of the pesky planet; ‘it’s been here for 6000 years, why worry?’.
- throwaway2990 3y ago[flagged]
- pixelatedindex 3y agoPerhaps not, but at least they aren’t actively working to take rights away. In the world where you have to vote in favor of lesser of two evils, it’s sadly the best option. That is, until they too start taking rights away…
- anonzzzies 3y agoMore than the right/conservative. But yeah it’s a good one: does anyone care? And where does that end? Still would not vote people that are openly and actively against most of humanity.
- operatingthetan 3y agoDoes it matter if they "care about you" if their politics and incentives align? This doesn't seem like a very productive way to spark a conversation.
- lesuorac 3y agoDidn't "The Left" have a super-majority during Obama's initial term and all they could achieve then was a watered-down plan for healthcare? I'll be real, if you want things to get better you gotta get rid of first-past-the-post voting.
- anonzzzies 3y agoI agree. But conservatives/right are often actively and openly against human life. That’s, I would say, worse.
- AlgorithmicTime 3y ago[dead]
- pokepim 3y ago[dead]
- lotsofpulp 3y agoNo, “the left” did not. They had upper 50s in terms of number of votes that would probably go along with the party, but they were shy of the 60 votes needed, hence the various compromises such as grandfathering old non ACA compliant plans, lack of public option, and “religious” exemptions for plans that do not insure anything. And they only had that for 6 months in latter half of 2009.
- deprecative 3y agoAlso it is important to note is that Democrats are the left but they're a center-right party. They're not leftist at all. They're merely to the left of the ultra-conservative party. The days of Democrats being progressive are over if they existed like we pretend. The President that was most left in this country was FDR and he pulled us out of the Great Depression and set us up for an era of excellence. Democrats ran on left-adjacent policies and held Congress for decades. Modern Democrats, 1970s forward really, keep rushing to the "center" that doesn't exist to capture imaginary voters as a result of Right-Wing propaganda (Intentional Overton-Window shifting, Two Santa Claus Theory, PR games). Republicans, and most other morons, think that Democrats had a functional majority starting in 2009. However, Republicans intentionally held up the 60th seat for months. Then Kennedy died not long after Al Frankin was seated. That broke the supermajority. Democrats have several conservative members (who I think should be expelled from the party but whatever) which resulted in us getting right wing healthcare policy and nothing meaningful being done. You can tell the people who fell for the RNC/Fox News PR campaign as they think Democrats had a supermajority for years rather than weeks.
- brmgb 3y agoThis isn’t a left vs right issue especially in an American context where the left is basically center right and has entirely abandoned its historical ideas in favour of other fights. The left has been entirely as bad as the right when it comes to the environment.
- anonzzzies 3y agoMight be, from what I read it is. The republicans, but correct me if I am wrong, do not even pretend to care. Just jobs >> environment, wealth >> environment, USA >> planet etc. If that is not true, please enlighten me what the Bush dynasty (isn’t that oil?) or Trump ever said about the planet. I mean sure many Clinton and Obama did nothing but at least they appeared worried; the former is worse. Unless they said it but messed up more, but that doesn’t seem to be the case.
- brmgb 3y agoThe main issue is not that the Republicans pretend they barely care about the environment and I’m not here to defend the awful bilan of the Republican party. The issue is that despite a lot of posturing amongst some of them the Democrats do exactly the same thing when they are in power. For all his worries, the US went from producing less and less oil to the world first producer while Obama was president, something he actually takes credit for.
- paulmd 3y agoDemocrats aren’t really “the left” in the first place, there’s a left wing within the Democratic Party but it also includes a much larger neoliberal wing with the manchins and schumers of the world. Which of those wings do you think has been bad on the environment? Personally I’d say it’s the “pro-economy” neoliberal wing more than the left. Say what you want about how effective or practical the left has been, but generally they’re not the ones stripping regulations on hazmat trains or signing off on drilling in nature preserves or building pipelines across crucial aquifers.
- deleted 3y ago
- criddell 3y ago> Right will never care about anything but themselves Never is a long time. Richard Nixon's administration accomplished quite a bit. Nixon created the EPA and signed the endangered species act. Why couldn't environmentalism become an issue for the Republicans in the future? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon#Governmental_initiatives_and_organization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon#Governmental_ini...
- wak90 3y agoDo you know what came immediately after Nixon's impeachment? Fox news. The right wing in the US could never do what Nixon did because they'll get hung in the media machine designed to protect them (and keep them in lockstep)
- username135 3y agoThe error I often see when comparing past presidents to current ones is that both the D and R parties are hardly the same from those even 20 years ago. Nixon, even Reagen, would have a hard time passing so e of the stuff they passed in today's world.
- jauntywundrkind 3y agoThe Hastert Rule in the 90's heralded a new kind of politics where allegiance to & helping the party became more important than helping America. "Never call a vote unless your side would pass it themselves", became the bleak dark worst form. If America suffered, that was fine, so long as the party won. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hastert_Rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hastert_Rule What a sad emboldened new era that was. It was fueled by bold new levels of manufactured consent & spin doctoring. And the result of this ungamesmenly Hastertian dark-realpolitick has been a near collapse of any bipartisanship, and a decay of our union.
- rayiner 3y agoThe difference between the left and right is mainly rhetoric. Speaking of “bailouts,” 68% of Americans wouldn’t pay even $10 per month more to mitigate climate change: https://www.cato.org/blog/68-americans-wouldnt-pay-10-month-higher-electric-bills-combat-climate-change https://www.cato.org/blog/68-americans-wouldnt-pay-10-month-.... Democrats are willing to talk about mitigating climate change, and Republicans aren’t, but the vast majority of Americans aren’t willing to actually incur decreased quality of life. Gas needs to be like $10+ per gallon. But even when it hit $4 last year, Biden was calling to suspend the gas tax to make it more affordable. You’re correct that, on this issue, the right cares only about themselves. But so does most everyone else. Even most Biden voters want to be able to take their SUV to the beach this summer without high gas prices. Biden won traditionally red states like Arizona and Georgia blue, because Biden voters are leaving urban areas in the northeast and Midwest for places like Arizona and Georgia where they can afford bigger houses, more cars, etc.
- karmakurtisaani 3y agoOne could argue that Biden is not really left at all, and a true leftist like Sanders or Warren would have gone to the billionaires' pockets to fund all kinds of progressive policies. But since Biden won, it's up to all Americans except for the billionaires to pay.
- rayiner 3y agoIt depends if “left” refers to a set of policies, or generally the left-leaning half of the country. The latter includes a lot of people who, like Biden, aren’t that liberal. Apart from white moderates, you have a lot of black people and immigrants for whom upward mobility-a big house and nice cars—is a major theme. Warren barely finished ahead of Michael Bloomberg (2.8 million votes to 2.4 million votes). Sanders did better, but note that he’s extremely careful on environmental issues, since a large share of his support comes from working class hispanics. Politics aside, “billionaires will pay for it” is the ultimate cop out for the left these days. Reaganism has won so completely that it’s unthinkable that any viable party could ask the middle class or even the upper middle class to pay for anything. They must maintain the illusion that we can have our cake and eat it too—we can mitigate climate change, but we don’t need to make any change to our standard of living or pay higher taxes because billionaires will pay for it.
- AlgorithmicTime 3y ago[dead]
- FpUser 3y ago>"As long as people vote right/conservative this is all going to tank. Right will never care about anything but themselves (and thus, money and power). You see it everywhere they are and where in power. Which means we have huge issue as the underbelly votes right and the right vote right" I do not have any sympathy to right but I have big doubts about left being those warm and fuzzy creatures that are "for the people". I do not think they give a shit. Only difference in my opinion is whom do they fuck the worst.
- vorpalhex 3y agoYes, side X hates us and only cares about themselves. You must vote side Y if you care about other people. I suppose the first question is, why are people voting for your opponent? Probably because they don't like you or your solution. That's the whole problem of democracy to some people - you have to actually convince others and get them onboard instead of forcing your way.
- anonzzzies 3y ago> I suppose the first question is, why are people voting for your opponent? Probably because they don't like you or your solution. So, we need a party that solves world hunger, keep us safe, I want iPhone etc etc and the right gives a window for that in the coming 4 years, while the left has nothing but pain. If you believe in a party that has short term (<30 years) solutions, you are already lost. We left it too long for fast grabs. And almost no one looks beyond their own life or maybe their kids. Real solutions are not short term or simple and they won’t be nice at first. If you don’t suck it up, this time the world is at stake. People don’t vote for anything beyond their horizon and many will openly tell you, and I am 100% trump would and does, that after their death, who gives a crap.
- anonzzzies 3y agoAlso, democracy; what other form is giving us great examples? Not russia surely? China?
- yodsanklai 3y agoPerhaps the left is more inclined to take some sort of marginal actions, but I don't think they are willing to do what it takes to make a difference. Everybody would like to "save the planet", but when the the tradeoff is to renounce to our individual comfort, there are less volunteers. How many people would agree to significantly reduce their consumption habits (e.g. flying, driving big cars, eating meat...)?