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
11166 readers
2081 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
1) 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.
2) No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
3) Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
4) No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
5) No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
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.
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.
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
Then what did you mean by that? Because I think it's pretty reasonable to interpret "actual governing" as "enacting meaningful policy."
One can enact policy for many reasons, not just legitimate efforts to govern effectively. Enacting policy for the sake of political expediency is still enacting policy, but not what I would consider actual governing
Ok, so my interpretation of "actual governing" as "enacting meaningful policy" is correct? Or does meaningful policy not count as actual governing if it's done for the sake of earning people's support? I can't make heads or tails of your terms.
See? It’s as I expected. I may not have the patience to deal with you, but I knew others would. And it didn’t end well for you, bud.
I'm glad that I have you as a totally fair and neutral arbitrator on whether or not I "got wrecked." You definitely hadn't already decided that would be your conclusion before seeing any of it.
Oh it absolutely was. I’ve dealt with you before. I knew exactly how this would go down. You’re just that predictable.
Are you implying policy only has meaning if it supports your specific goals? Because there has been plenty of meaningful policy that does absolutely nothing to protect or advance the very narrow goals you've defined above in this conversation, or even what one might call moral and ethical. What exactly is "meaningful" when it comes to policy? That is such a vague, garage term in this context
No? I have no idea how you got any of that from what I said.
I'm just trying to make sense of what the hell it means to "actually govern" if not "enacting meaningful policy." I thought maybe you were suggesting that, after the initial period of actually governing and enacting policy, they spend the rest of the time enacting meaningless bullshit policies that might win votes but don't actually affect anything. Based on your response, I'm guessing that's not what you meant, but that just leaves me even more in the dark about what you do mean.
Can you please just spell out the distinction you're making? If they're enacting meaningful policy, how is that not "actually governing?" Stop making me guess.
Sure.
The important starting point is:
Your perspective is not the only perspective. Every other person has a complex life, just as complex as yours with its own perspectives
And no one perspective is objectively right or wrong. There is only the opinions we bring to the table, what we each choose to do, how that impacts the world, and who we successfully bring to our cause
And most importantly, the policies I believe are morally and ethically the best path forward are often not widely popular without intense, direct conversation on the nuance of a subject, or until after the policy yields long term success that won't become apparent until after the next one or more rounds of elections
With that said, acquiring votes often involves identifying what resonates with others and pursuing their support rather than enacting the ideal policies you want to pursue
Actual governing means negotiating to enforce a collective will, agreed upon through genuine discourse and collaboration motivated by improving society and humanity
But you can still enact meaningful policy that has nothing to do with those goals and ideals, but rather seeks to generate support through various means.
Through a history of electioneering, the political machine in the US has produced an environment where administrations have a limited amount of time in which they can feasibly prioritize idealistic goals (if they even want or bother to) while still having enough time and political capital to recover any lost support. And the more disregard your opponent has for selflessness and mutual aid, the more risky it becomes to pursue unpopular positions.
You and I may know that it's good policy. That doesn't make it popular. And "it'll be popular when it works" is not a viable strategy when the opposition has become so good at obstruction, deconstruction, consolidation of power, and manipulation of public perception
I hope that clarifies
Tbh I just don't think I'm going to be able to make sense of what you're talking about.
So, only in the first year or so is it possible to enact policies aimed at improving society, but then afterwards you can still pass policies that somehow meaningful despite not being aimed at improving society(?) and the latter isn't actually governing(?).
None of this makes any sense. If there are "various means" available to pass policy, then why would it not be "actually governing" to use those means? And if the policies passed through those means aren't aimed at improving society, then in what way are they meaningful? And for that matter, why can you only enact policy that has nothing to do with improving society during that time period?
Honestly, I'd just suggest scrapping this point entirely and finding a different way of phrasing what you're trying to say.
No thanks. I'm done trying to explain it. I'm curious if others are having as much trouble understanding or if you're being intentionally obtuse, but there is no other way to say what I'm trying to say. It's complex and nuanced. There is no simple or concise way to say it. So I'm done here. Have a good one 👋
I started out more confrontational tbh but then just got confused by what you meant and have been legitimately trying to figure it out, I'm not being intentionally obtuse.
It seems pretty straightforward to me. If you're enacting policy that improves society through whatever means available, then you're actually governing, if you're not doing that then you're not. Very simple and straightforward terminology. Whatever distinction you're drawing seems meaningless and arbitrary to me.
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?
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.
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.