884
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2024
884 points (100.0% liked)
Political Memes
7724 readers
2462 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
They're not the same, but if you look at the big picture, like a livable vs an unlivable biosphere, then the slightly-lesser evil is still omnicidally evil (and helping with a genocide).
I wish I had your privilege of only having to worry about two things; the environment and Palestine.
I'm one of those folks who has to deal with the police, doctors, schools, roads, and the possibility of a fascist takeover of the government by someone who has been praising Hitler for years.
I'm sorry if I've offended your high morals.
I'm not offended - I understand most people have very different priorities. I personally think that preventing a mass extinction event is more important than police, doctors, schools, roads (for cars), and fascism; because I happen to think that a catastrophic climate cascade means nothing else matters. Healthcare is nice, but doctors will all be dead when the biosphere becomes unlivable.
I don't stand with the genocidal Hamas voters, nor with the genocidal Israeli voters.
And that is exactly what the reply means by privilege. It is a luxury to be able to think that far ahead.
It turns out, when you're at risk of being dead in a week, a month, or a year, you tend not to care about whether humanity will be around in 20 years.
So having the ability to focus on the long term is a privilege that the vulnerable do not have.
Of course, these things are not mutually exclusive. But when you have two parties that both suck at climate care, but only one of them is trying to incarcerate or kill LGBTQA+ folks, for example, and your focus is on things like "don't vote for anyone or you're supporting fascism and climate destruction" it reeks of privilege and a disregard for the immediate welfare of your neighbors.
EDIT: To put it another way - if the cost of humanity's survival is sacrificing our LGBTQA+ neighbors, perhaps humanity is not worth saving.
So it's okay to help yourself in the short term, and by doing so help make the biosphere unlivable?
You're contributing to making the biosphere unlivable. You're using electronics to communicate on Lemmy. That means you've contributed a huge amount of CO2 in all kinds of ways- a significant amount was expended just to construct whatever device you're using.
So you're going to stop using electronics and the internet, right? Otherwise you're just helping yourself in the short term, something you are implying you do not want people to do.
The fact that you interpret fear of persecution and resistance to authoritarianism as a selfish act tells me everything I need to know about how you view the world. And I choose not to engage in this conversation with you. 👋
"In June 2021, a federal judge struck down Biden’s pause on oil and gas leasing on federal lands, delivering a win to Republican-led states that had challenged the policy."
Harris literally bragged about increasing domestic gas production to an all time high. The "hands-are-tied" bit is bullshit.
You suspiciously left out how she explained that they have invested a trillion dollars towards clean energy. Aso, the increase domestic gas production she “bragged” about is to counter our need to go outside of our own, and pay out the ass for it.
It’s amazing how you people can twist shit into a narrative that suits your agenda, but when light is cast on the reality of it-
You have nothing.
Incredible. The only one, "twisting shit into a narrative that suits your agenda" is you trying to paint all-time high gas production as a win, somehow. But whether or not it's a win is irrelevant to the point being discussed, as is the "trillion dollar investment" that I "suspiciously" left out.
Maybe you need a refresher on the conversation so far. One person said that Biden promised to reduced drilling, then failed to keep that promise. Then someone else incorrectly said that they wanted to reduce drilling, but couldn't because of the courts. So I presented a clip of Harris bragging about increasing gas production as an accomplishment of the administration. Now, you seem to have completely lost the plot, ignoring both the claim that they wanted to reduce gas production but were stopped, and the fact that Biden promised to reduce it in the first place, and are suddenly taking a completely different tact.
Why don't you take issue with the person claiming that they wanted to reduce it, but couldn't? They're spreading misinformation to deny one of the Biden administrations "accomplishments," and claiming that he was trying to do a bad thing, are they not?
Of course, it's plain why you don't do that, because facts don't matter at all to you, it's all about partisan loyalty. If one person says that Biden wanted to do a good thing by cutting gas production, but couldn't, you're fine with that, because they're loyal to your team. If someone else says that they increased gas production, which is a good thing, you're fine with that too, because they're also on your team. The fact that those two positions are completely contradictory doesn't seem to phase you at all.
Some of us believe in a single, observable reality, as opposed to holding every position that supports your agenda as simultaneously true in direct contradiction of reason and evidence.
Myabe you need a refresher on the conversation so far. The initial point was increase in drilling on federal lands and not overall gas production for the country. You are quite a bit cherry picking and mixing apples with oranges in this conversation.
As was already mentioned in the top level comment, the Biden administration outpaced Trump on drilling permits on federal land.
Also, strange that you're defending someone who thinks increasing drilling is a good thing, care to explain that?
Well its nice we are getting back to the initial subject but drilling is permitted on the lands and that predates the administration. It has been democratic administrations that have restricted drilling in large swatches and republican that have lifted those restrictions. Once its allowed the permits are just about who does it and they can delay somewhat but not disallow them if they do everything according to the law.
The only person who deviated from the initial subject was Rhoeri, who appears to be on your side despite the two of you believing directly contradictory things. You could've responded to my first comment if you weren't interested in that deviation.
So to make sure I understand your position, you're saying that Harris was lying when she said "we have also increased gas production to historic levels," because her administration had nothing to do with it, and in fact opposed it, correct? Before investigating further, I want to clearly establish what your position is, and whether you are willing to acknowledge facts even when they are inconvenient for your team. If you're putting party before truth, then there's no point in discussing anything.
I don't believe its a lie but it is a misrepresentation. She could be pointing out their policies did not result in less production despite republican fear mongering and like many things they can't just stop it across the board. At best they can set policy to incentivize clean energy (like the ombudsman bill) or disincentivize fossil fuel production by increased regulation or taxation. But yes they did not really have any direct influence on how much gas companies produced domestically outside of that so it was a misleading brag.
Alright, so if Kamala "misleadingly bragged" about doing the opposite of what you say her position is, then at that point it seems like you're suggesting that she's keeping her real positions secret. I would be much more inclined to suspect a politician of being less environmentally friendly in practice than they are while campaigning, because that's where the money is. I have to say I'm pretty incredulous to the idea that Kamala is secretly to the left of what she claims, as it sounds like cope.
But it is true that Biden was blocked by courts from preventing drilling on public lands. But, as usual with these "hands are tied" sorts of claims, there's more he could've done, and the president is not nearly as powerless as his supporters make him out to be. If Biden declared a national climate emergency, he would have the power to shut down fossil fuel projects without congressional approval. There was also new legislation on the topic which could have influenced the level of gas production. And there's also plenty of stuff he did to make the situation worse, such as supporting a tar sands oil pipeline through indigenous lands.
The top comment's position that this level of commitment is woefully insuffient to address the crisis is correct. Environmental concerns have taken a backseat to appeasing oil companies and attempting to keep prices low. The Democrats want to talk out of both sides of their mouth on this, if you're an environmentalist, then Biden's doing everything he can to limit drilling, but if you're more concerned with gas prices, rest assured that they're drilling more than ever. Generally, when politicians do that, the corporate-friendly narrative is the one they'll actually follow through on.
Seems like a stretch in your first paragraph. It is a common thing you saw with politicians even way back. Again its more of a see we aren't going to tear everything down before we can compensate with adequate non fossil fuel solutions. I do think biden did what he reasonably could (your second paragraph) but I agree with your last paragraph in that is woefully insufficient but that same statement would apply to everything every government or entity is doing. We won't nearly do enough vs where we are at and basically can't at this point without causing all sorts of other problems. More action should have been taken earlier. Here is the rub though. The democratic action is still productive while the republican is destructive. The past we need to change to not be where we are at is reagan, gingrich, bush, trump. How hard it is going forward is going to depend on how much we view going backwords as preferable to going forwards to slowly.
Promising to be progressive and then governing to the right is indeed something that goes way back. These days, they hardly even bother with the first part anymore.
You can think that all you like but it doesn't make it true. Biden could've stopped the tar sands pipeline and he could've declared an emergency to keep his campaign promise.
Also, I'd just like to point out that this guy was a reactionary his whole career and had a hand in creating virtually every problem we're dealing with today. Democrats convinced themselves that he had this whole drastic change of heart in his 70's and suddenly became a progressive. Of course, then when he doesn't deliver on his promises, they're full of excuses. The fact is that he's buddies with the oil industry and has appointed their lobbyists to high level positions.
Why on earth would he "do everything he reasonably could?" Am I supposed to believe he's some true believer in environmentalism as opposed to an opportunistic careerist? Come on.
I don't view him as a true believer in environmentalism. Only a few are like that in washington but he does understand global warming is happening and we have a need to curb it and that pollution is bad. He does not think global warming is a hoax and moves forward incentives for clean energy while disencentivizing fossil fuels even its just to delay things already in motion. Again I agree its not enough but its leagues better than doing than doing the opposite.
How are we ever supposed to reach a point where we have someone who does do enough if we keep unconditionally supporting the lesser evil?
How are we ever supposed to reach a point where we have someone who does do enough if we keep unconditionally supporting the greater evil?
Who said anything about supporting the greater evil? You can conditionally support the lesser evil, dependent on them changing policies to what needs to happen, or build up a party that's actually good until they're strong enough to either win or extract concessions in exchange for support.
when it comes down to it there was a push to do like you say when reagan won and when bush won and when trump won. They are just getting worse and have to be made inconsiquential so that we can make greater gains on the left. we can't go left by having the right win.
They're never going to be made inconsequential. The democrats have the problem of being associated with the status quo while not enacting the necessary policies for the status quo to actually work for people. As long as the right is able to present themselves as "outsiders" and an alternative to the status quo, frustrated people are going to turn to them. And the problem is likely to get worse as conditions deteriorate, because we're in a state of decline. It's necessary to either force the democrats to adopt the leftist policies needed for the status quo, or to break with them to present an alternative vision that is neither the far right nor the status quo.
Trump didn't come out of nowhere, and unless the conditions that led to him winning are addressed, there will be more Trumps and they will continue to win. And those conditions are much bigger than the tiny margins of third-party voters. If things weren't broken, Trump would've been defeated every time in a landslide.
Let's be completely clear about one thing that you both seem to be neglecting in this conversation:
You cannot govern if you lose. And due to how our government is structured and how elections work, an administration gets maybe two years (more like 12-18 months) of actual governing before they have to start focusing on getting (re)elected.
So it's all well and good to ask for radical change and drastic measures to avert climate disaster. But if the consequence of those actions is that democrats up and down every ticket lose the next election, it's all for naught, because it's FAR easier to dismantle hastily enacted radical changes than it is to cement them long term, especially when the people coming into power after you have no scruples about lying, cheating, and profiteering.
That's completely false and also ridiculous. You can still govern while running for reelection, and even if you couldn't, our election seasons may be long but they aren't two years long, much less three.
If that actually were true, then pretty much the only thing worth doing would be passing legislation aimed at shortening election lengths, so that the government isn't completely nonfunctional the majority of the time, at which point I would have to ask what the democrats have done on that front, to address your exaggerated/made up problem?
Tell me you've never worked in US politics without telling me you've never worked in US politics, speedrun edition
I'll try to remember to explain the details to you when I'm not actively deplaning from a week-long work trip, because I'm not down with the "do your own research" attitude. But for real, if you have the opportunity to talk to someone who has actually dealt with state or federal election campaigning I encourage you to discuss the nuance of this with them.
In truth, politicians literally never stop campaigning. Every single decision they make until the moment they decide not to run for office again is colored by the need to get elected again. And even then, they are all thinking about how their actions are going to impact their colleagues and successors
There's a huge difference between "decisions being colored by the need to get elected again" and "being so singularly focused on reelection campaigns that they are unable to enact policy." It's just another BS excuse.
Of course their decisions are colored by the need to get elected again, as they should be in any reasonable government. Part of that includes actually doing their jobs.
If you could spend three times as much time enacting legislation by giving up on reelection, then anyone who's ideologically committed should simply do that. Biden especially has no excuse, what reason was there for him to spend 3 years of his 4 year term worrying about reelection when he was just going to end up dropping out due to age? If that's what actually happened, it's worse than any alternative explanation.
When did I say anything about being "so singularly focused [...] that they are unable to enact policy"? They choose not to pursue the policy positions you want largely because it's politically expedient.
This right here is where you're not hearing me
What you define as "doing their jobs" and "doing the thing most effective at getting them re-elected" are not the same thing. That's literally the problem. Humans aren't as ethical, self-aware, intelligent, and future-thinking as you seem to want to believe.
Humans are, in fact, incredibly easy to manipulate, as it turns out.
Your idealism is noble but untempered by reality. Solving this particular problem will require something far different from simply abstaining from voting or whatever, and until you and others are ready for that, shitting on Harris and Biden for playing the rhetoric game when the alternative at the moment is a literal extreme fascist is not only a pointless endeavor but actually puts other people in harms way
Right here, in the part I quoted:
You seem to have misconstrued what "actual governing" means in this context
Yawn… oh! Is your manifesto over? Good.
So anyway…. As I was saying, you cherry-pick bullshit narratives to make it sound like you have a clue, but in the end- all you end up doing is exhausting people that have the energy to look up the bullshit you spew. Wait… was I even saying that? Hmm… well, that’s what I’m saying now. But guess what? I am not one of those people that have that kind energy, but it sure looks like others do.
Let’s read along!
Oh, and real quick… don’t think I didn’t notice how you took everything I said out of context, rewrote it, and spit it back as a bullshit narrative- but that’s okay because thats just what people have come to expect from you.
Oh I don't think there was anything suspicious about it. It was very intentional.
Of course it was intentional. They’re as bad faith as it gets. They’re here to interfere with an election. Check their comment history though, they are having their ass handed to them left and right. It’s awesome!
So maybe the right-wing Biden shouldn't have promised with "Period. Period. Period. Period." something the even more right-wing Republicans' judges could strike down.
By that logic literally nothing would ever get done because everything is always opposed by someone.
There's a difference between saying you want to stop something, vs saying that thing is not going to happen "Period. Period. Period. Period." when you end up doing the thing anyway.
If you care about honesty, and in this case if you care about a biosphere in which people are able to live, then it matters.
It's possible to do things, and to be honest.
Historical evidence suggests that radical honesty regarding complex issues is not a winning political strategy.
One of the main reasons democrats lose so much is because they often prefer to take the moral high ground instead of, you know, winning.
Psychology has been weaponized and your faith in the general public to reward honesty is, sadly, misguided. We know this. It's been proven out over and over again, in many ways..
So we can stick our heads in the sand, or we can play the game and then govern to the best of our ability after winning.
Call me selfish, but I'm a lot more concerned when it comes to this election about the potential genocides of queer and brown people that will happen if Trump is elected. Since, you know, they're basically saying that will happen.
But there is this bizarre idea that some people have that adding two genocides on top of the existing genocides (because Trump isn't going to do shit about the one Russia is doing in Ukraine either) doesn't matter.
I want to keep queer people (including my own daughter) out of conversion camps and brown people out of concentration camps.
That's a pretty big fucking picture.
I have been working for Jewish Voice for Peace to work to stop this genocide since it began.
What have you done?