this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2025
361 points (99.5% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
6834 readers
1641 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Can we give this rhetoric a rest? The voting system, the enforced lack of alternatives, hell even really the people who voted for this shit are all much more to blame than people who didn't vote. Or how about the fact "Multiple Republican-led administrations removed voters from their states' voter rolls in the lead up to the election"? Or the fact you don't even vote on the week-end, which is what pretty much all civilised countries do, to give more chances to more people especially poor people to get to the voting stations?
On top of that, how can you know what people who didn't vote would have voted for? Some of the states with the lowest turnout are one that are historically considered more conservative-leaning (Oklahoma, Arkansas, Texas, Missisipi, Tennessee). The results could have been "worse" (whatever that means, given the shitshow that is the Electoral College).
Really, it feels like it's so much easier to blame a subset of people than to confront the fact that, in the US, the majority of the population appears to be for an autocratic asshat who has claimed they wouldn't need to vote after they vote for him. The US population, as a majority, appear to want this. More people voting may not have changed anything about that.
It's not surprising that voter turnout is now when you have an unhealthy democracy (because it is a symptom of it). This is a bit like blaming people for eating unhealthily when all that's available to eat is unhealthy: you're not wrong that it's bad for them, but what the fuck are you actually doing do provide better options? So rather than blame those who didn't vote, for any variety of reasons, get organising. Low turnout is a seed that was planted a long time ago.
Nope, got another 3.5 years of reminding protest-non-voters what they voted for.
You are why the Democrats feel safe to run shitty candidates.
Other way round actually.
I wish I had that much power, then I'd simply demand that the Democrats run good candidates that people would vote for.
Are you today's explanation? Every time the Dems lose, they go to the center to find voters. If you want them to go left, you have to give them wins first. Right now every time they go left, they lose. Biden gave green energy and build back better. The reward? Lose the house. Harris was going to pretty much continue. What was the answer? Voters said no. Their left policy made the Dems lose.
Are you today's right-winger cosplaying as a lib?
The center is to the left of where the party was 10 years ago. If the party actually acted like you suggest they are then they wouldn't have lost to an 80's villain twice.
Why would they go left if the plan to find a middle ground with Republicans was working?
Zohran Mamdani.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Bernie Sanders.
Every time they've gone left they've won, every time they reject the left they lose.
Hell, even that neoliberal Obama who never kept his campaign promises still at least promised us hope and change and won twice, but now the Democrats can only promise that nothing will change. I guess we can credit them with being honest?
The answer is that Biden never went left. "Green energy" is a neoliberal plan to replace fossil fuel subsidies with rare earth subsidies while changing nothing about their extraction, manufacturing, or distribution processes and "Build Back Better" never passed.
A continuation of nothing is still nothing.
Always a good sign when you start off with a strawman/ personal attack.
Ok where do we start. Well first off we're talking national level, not mayoral candidates or safe districts.
So now let's look at the history. Let's go through this chronologically.
Bill Clinton: After successive Dem losses Bill figured out "it's the economy stupid", aka center policy, not leftist policy that gets you elected. Plus when you run against an incumbent (Bush senior) you generally run from the center. So that's what he did. And he won.
Gore: After the population hopefully warmed up with Bill Clinton, he stuck his head out left with climate change. And bam he lost the election. Thanks 3rd party protest voters! Aka: The left never shows up.
Obama: So guess what Obama learned? Don’t stick your head out. He ran on broad “hope” and “yes we can” and having energy, hoping the ambiguity would be enough considering Bush’s disastrous wars. And he won.
More on Obama: So he enacted the ACA. That's great, right? The thanks Obama got for that was to lose the House of Representatives for year 3 and 4. And lose the House of reps again for years 5 and 6. And then lose both the House of reps and the Senate for years 7 and 8. He enacted left policy and: The left never shows up.
Hillary Clinton: So what did Hillary learn from the last 6 years of Obama? She learned that the left never shows up. So she only stuck her head out with a big position to left on the map room to climate change. She basically declared war on climate change. You know that big existential issue that all the leftists care about, right? The big important issue that the left says they want so badly, right? And guess what happened? Bam she lost. Thanks protest non-voters! Aka: The left never shows up.
Biden: Just like Obama learned from Gore, Biden learned from Hillary that you don't stick your head out left on anything. Not one thing. And he was running against an incumbent, so once again when you do that you run center. And he won.
Biden in office: But he did left things anyway. He did green energy (you're against green energy?), EVs, drug price control, PACT act, Chips act, etc. And what were the results? Lost the House of Representatives for years 3 and 4. Polls showed him losing the election to Trump. He enacted left policy and: The left didn't show up for midterms, and was not going to show up for the next election.
Harris: Harris ran on abortion rights, democracy and while she didn't say it was apparent she'd continue green energy. She relied on the left to show up for their rights and for democracy. They couldn't even do that. Aka the left never shows up. (Btw Bill Clinton was right, it's the economy stupid. Trump won on the economy.)
And people are amazed that they don't run a big left platform? Every time they rely on the left they lose. Every Single Time. And the next guy learns to go to the center to win. Because the center voters actually show up.
So how do you get them to move left? By giving them victories first. Consistent and overwhelming victories. Show them it's safe to take policy chances. Because right now every time they run on left platforms or enact left policies, they lose. Every. Single. Time.
Technically correct on one bill BUT missing that most it was passed through different bills. So passed.
Right‽ Also, why would you make such an honest admission? It isn't doing anything to help your argument.
Are you trying to tell me that the governor of Rhode Island has more pull than a mayor of America's biggest metro with 8x as many constituents? This is a supremely weird way to open up your response.
Lol.
I think you should try that plan. Start with Mamdani.
Asking if you're today's explanation is neither a strawman or an attack, if that's what you meant. If you meant something else I can't figure it out.
Ah you're straight to ignoring with no response to anything. Glad we had this conversation. Ciao.
Reducing people to a perspective you can feel free to ignore is, in fact, an attack.