Liberals will do any amount of mental gymnastics to point the finger at anyone but themselves.
Harris lost Michigan by less people than voted Uncommitted during the primaries. They might be a “fringe group,” but Harris sure could’ve used some of their votes, don’t you think?
Once again, I fucking understand what you’re saying, quoting it for the third time doesn’t make it sound anymore correct. What part of “To go to the middle, you have to compromise from the left, and therefore are already giving up on progress” do you not seem to understand?!
We’re on the same side, I’m telling you the average American doesn’t give a flying fuck. “We need to play the political blah blah” we’ve been listening to it for fucking decades, shit or get off the pot. The Democrats don’t want to pass progressive policy, they don’t want progressive voices at the forefront of their party, and “meeting them in the middle and becoming centrists to then infiltrate them” is so fucking ass backwards I’m tired of you parroting it at me like it’s some groundbreaking idea.
The DNC chooses their candidates that they back and run, they choose to run centrists across the country, all they have to do is shift the party platform and run more progressive candidates. They’ve had the ability to do so for decades, and they just fucking won’t.
So I don’t understand why you think working with them, compromising with them when they do nothing but give empty promises and bullshit excuses, is somehow going to magically turn the party left because of one cult-like candidate (who we had, btw, Bernie, the DNC shit all over him, remember) who “centralizes power.”
We both want the party to move left, I think you’re way of doing so is ass backwards, and you, mine. So I’m done with this discussion.
No, I didn’t miss it, you just will never convince me that progress can only be made by riding in the middle. Harris needed to be a shift left that a lot of people in this country are desperate for, and instead, she chose centrist policies and pandering to Republicans for their votes.
The “political” game is over, we needed actual change, and we got it, just not from the candidate we needed.
Every Republican family member except one that I’ve asked about Bernie has said more or less the following:
I like him, I like that he’s not Dem/Repub, he’s got the country’s best interest at heart, etc.
Then it’s usually followed by how he’d never get a chance, and then it revolves back to why Dems suck and repubs rule, or at best, “they’re both the same.”
You are 100% right: people want change, they want progress, and regardless of how shitty he is, Trump got things done that his base wanted.
Clinton, then Biden, and now Harris, promise marginal improvements to the status quo while dismissing large swaths of their electorate that don’t fall in line.
If they ran progressive candidates with progressive policies, they’d pull voters from all over. But they wont, hence, fascism.
then moving to the middle is the only logical option.
And Democrats will continue to lose because of this. Americans are tired of progress not happening, so I have to disagree with you.
Democrats needed to rally the country and get them excited behind a progressive candidate actually willing to reflect their constituency. But they won’t, because that’s somehow considered radical by Democrats.
The Democrats keep trying this middle-of-the-road status quo bullshit, and they keep losing. So maybe middle of the road isn’t the play anymore.
Harris played it safe and it looks like she’s going to lose anyway, so maybe she should’ve considered more progressive ideas. Or maybe listened to her constituents instead of doing what Democrats always fucking do, and playing off the “you have to vote for us because we’re not them.”
But no, let’s blame the voters for a candidate failing to win them over.
If Trump wins, there is no one to blame but Harris and the Democrats, full stop. If we fall to fascism, which I hope we don’t (I already begrudgingly voted Harris this morning), I will blame no one but the Democrat Party.
They chose to ignore the Muslim/Arab voices protesting this past year, they chose to run on a moderate presidential platform, and they refuse to denounce a genocide, or even do anything about it (Biden is still president, and has continued to do nothing but send Netanyahu whatever he wants).
You all want Muslim/Arab voters to vote for Harris to prevent fascism, well, they wanted you all to take their wants seriously, and Biden/Harris haven’t.
So if they lose, it’s on the Democrat party, not anyone else.
And his wife? How is she holding up?
Yep, the Democrats didn’t even allow a Palestinian to speak at the DNC, but they had how many Republican politicians come on stage?
The Democrats have ignored the Muslim/Arab community almost entirely this election cycle, and are now freaking out because their Status-Quo policy decisions might have cost them the election.
And when you point this out on Lemmy, you’re screamed at for being a Trump supporter and wanting Gaza leveled. No, we just wanted our party leadership to reflect the wants of the majority of their constituents for once.
I was told to grow up the other day for simply pointing out why Muslim/Arab voters may be struggling internally with voting for Harris. Just, y’know, applying empathy and putting myself into someone’s shoes who has way more involved in that than I do.
When I pointed out that this is why Democrats lose voters (they’re condescending and dismissive to their own party because their issues/concerns aren’t “convenient” right now) I’m screamed at for supporting Trump and how much worse it would be.
100,000 voters cast protest votes during the primaries in just Michigan alone over the Palestinian genocide, it’s clearly an important issue to your constituents and they deserve to be treated with respect. Not condescension and insults, as if they can’t possibly comprehend their choices here.
Third comma? It’s a lot cheaper to bribe a US politician than that. Many will vote in your favor for a few thousand dollars in campaign contributions.
No, you’re trying to play it off as the other commenter pointed out, as if it’s just kids will be kids.
You don’t accidentally stab someone to death. This wasn’t a “fuck up,” if you read the article, or even what I wrote in the comment above, you’d see that the kid followed the victim around after they had already tried to disengage from the guy with the knife.
Knife guy sought them out, escalated the situation despite the victim and his group trying to get knife guy to leave them alone, and then stabbed him in the chest.
Where’s the accident in that?
We’re not, the victim lost everything: their future, their life, moments with family, etc. And you’re making it sound like, “Well, yeah, but he just made a mistake.”
You don’t stab someone to death by mistake, it isn’t a “fuck up.” Killing someone via stabbing is an aggressive, personal, close quarters kind of death. You can’t stab someone to death “accidentally,” and during the act, did he ever stop? While the victim was likely shouting in pain or pleading or trying to get away, did the kid stop his “fuck up”?
No. He knew exactly what he was doing, and there’s no rehabilitating that, especially if it occurred after a brief conversation in public. He forfeited his right to his life as soon as he took his victim’s, when he chose to willfully stab a man to death.
Edit: Literally the first sentence details how the two boys had the four-minute conversation with the victim, followed the victim around Birmingham’s city centre, and then stabbed him to death despite the victim being a complete stranger.
And neither boy showed any remorse or emotion during their sentencing. The one who actually stabbed the victim tries to claim he feared for his safety, and was “just trying to scare the boy.” Guess that’s why he needed to plunge a large knife into the kid’s chest when, as the judge pointed out, all they did was try to get Mr. “Just Fucked Up” to leave them alone.
The kid fucked up.
He stabbed someone to death, he didn’t accidentally total his step dad’s Corvette.
The man he killed is never going to go home again, and he’s not going to do anything for the next 70 years. His family will spend every holiday without him, every milestone in their lives passed without him.
Because “the kid fucked up.” 🙄
The goal was always 1.5°C as long as I’ve been alive, and we aren’t hitting it. In fact, we’re not even on track to hit the 2°C.
The goal posts didn’t move, buddy, we just already kicked the ball into the stands, and you’re screaming that we can still win. Sorry, we lost, but at least we made the obscenely wealthy even wealthier in the meantime.
Oh, and all of the things I’m bringing up, those “shifting goalposts,” are the things I was talking about us not understanding and rapidly building on top of each other year over year. You only keep talking about emissions: ok, cool, they’re important, but they’re not all that’s involved, and even then, we’re still** not hitting our own goals, so we deserve a pat on the back and a cake?
And while we’re at it, how are the millions of people in America alone who can’t afford a $400 car repair going to afford a $30k+ electric vehicle? Or are we going to overhaul our entire public transportation system overnight so people don’t need to rely on cars at all? But then what about all the old ICE vehicles thrown in junkyards, leaching chemicals into the ground?
What about the Ogalala Aquifer and how we’re pumping the water out of it way too quickly for it to naturally replenish? Y’know, the aquifer that essentially waters our entire crop growing landmass in the Midwest. We know pumping all of this groundwater out of the ground out in places like Nevada, Arizona, etc is terrible, yet I don’t see any politicians banning the practice at the local, state, or federal level. What are emissions going to do about that, and what, are we just gonna pump the water back in to the underground aquifers that took millennia to naturally form?
How are emissions going to stop the soil erosion we’ve witnessed since the Dust Bowl? What emissions and electric car policies are stopping the growing of monoculture crops that need too much water to be grown where they are? How are fractionally dropping emissions going to reduce the use of fertilizers to grow the same crop over and over in the same place, not giving the soil time to naturally replenish, and further running freshwater supplies with pesticide runoff? Explain to me what laws regarding emissions and electric cars are going to address that?
While we’re on the topic of food, who’s ready to have the conversation about how you should only be able to buy and eat food that can be grown locally to your region? It is not environmentally responsible or sustainable, especially with current metrics, to ship millions of tons of food stuffs all over the globe, and this isn’t even me trying to be a smartass: you should not be able to buy avocados in Minnesota, you shouldn’t be able to buy chocolate in the Netherlands, etc. It’s not sustainable, and the ships we use to move them are burning millions of tons of CO2 per trip.
Have you taken into account any of the economic factors of what it will take to upgrade our grid to handle that? Or to even get our infrastructure to be more energy efficient in general? Not our driving infrastructure, our actual buildings and dwellings, what’s the plan there to make all of the dwellings in the US more energy efficient?
It’s not just emissions, my man, there are millions of moving parts all feeding into each other in different ways, made even more complicated by our global interconnectedness and vastly varying priorities. But the goalposts never moved, we just didn’t realize there were more of them than we initially thought, and focusing on one or two metrics that we’re not even close to meeting, while also continuing to not also address anything else… Gore was our last shot, and it was robbed from us.
What is this crap? EVs are all over the place and so is renewable energy. Emmissions are falling. We haven’t opened a new coal plant in a generation.
Ok, and how environmentally friendly is it to dig up the minerals to make the batteries, ship them to the plants in massive container ships, process them through polluting means, put them into cars that were also built from resources ripped from the earth using machines billowing CO2, and then shipped across the globe in container ships that pollute more than all cars combined on Earth?
And ok, we haven’t opened a coal plant in a generation, maybe in the US. China is still building them, as are a good chunk of the world. In fact, the IEA estimates to China’s use of coal will be up about 6% total from 2023, while India’s is an increase of 10% of coal use. They estimate global coal use will be down next year, 2025, the first time since 2016, and it’s estimated to drop 0.3%.
Ok? It’s bad and we’re working to fix it. That’s very different than “we’re all doomed and should stop doing anything”.
Do you understand how biodiversity works? You can’t just run a population down to a handful of that species, and then they’ll make a comeback as if nothing ever happened. There is not enough genetic diversity for a healthy and sustainable population to grow and repair itself from that. 69% of all life on earth has been wiped out, bud, we’re not fixing that.
Lmfao, “a legally binding international agreement,” yeah, ok. That’s why a single President unilaterally removed us from the agreement, right? Because it’s legally binding? And that’s why all of these countries are taking it seriously and making huge efforts to reduce global emissions, right? They’ve only had since adopting them in 2015/2016 to start making progress, almost a decade, and… Omg… Omg you’re right!!! We’re doing it!!!
Just kidding, from September 2024:
None of the larger, industrialized countries or the European Union as a whole are currently on track to meet the 2° Celsius goal. African nations Nigeria, Ethiopia, Morocco and Kenya as well as Costa Rica and Nepal are named by the Climate Action Tracker to be on track to meet the 1.5° Celsius goal using a fair share approach, while Norway is predicted to meet the 2° Celsius goal. The website analyzed the climate policies of 35 countries and the EU.
Wow, so the countries that are supposed to be leading the charge aren’t even on track to stop 2°C temperature rise, nevermind the 1.5°C we’re supposed to be aiming for.
But we’ve got more electric cars, and we’re still consuming and ordering things from across the globe, so it’ll probably all work out if we just believe hard enough.
Edit: Switching to electric cars doesn’t prevent the pollution of microplastics from tires, btw, another massive part of climate change everyone seems to just be covering their eyes and pretending they can’t see. We found microplastics in the clouds, ffs, nevermind in our own blood and bodies.
Nor do electric cars stop the glaciers that have already retreated way further than they should from retreating further. Where’s all that methane gas, y’know, the more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, remind me, where is all that methane that was trapped in the ice going? Oh, right, it’s feeding into the climate cycle, making things rapidly worse while we twiddle our thumbs and tell ourselves science will fix this for us, nothing else needs to be done.
THIS is the grifter bullshit. “Don’t bother acting, it’s too late”. Fossil fuel doomer propaganda.
That’s not what I said, I said it’s too late, we missed the exit. Fossil fuel companies hid the research for decades, and I’ve heard nothing my entire life except how we need to act and change the ways we live and interact with the world.
I’m almost 30, and our dependency on fossil fuels hasn’t changed, I’ve yet to see a meaningful societal shift away from the consumerism that drives the majority of climate change.
And ok, we keep driving emissions down, what about biodiversity loss across the planet? How many plants and animals are currently on the brink of extinction?
Let’s bring up developing countries, who are increasing their use of fossil fuels. Where is the international agreement to help modernize these countries with renewable energies? Who’s going to pay for it? We can’t get the countries of the world to agree we’ve overfished the oceans and they’re on the brink of collapse, where’s the international agreement to reverse that?
I would argue I’m giving people a pessimistic reality of the future, sure, but at least it’s based in the current reality. Climate change extends far beyond the overall global temperature, and I’m sure climate and environmental scientists will be the first to say that there are a lot of pieces and variables we don’t fully understand, or haven’t even accounted for, because that’s just how science works.
The effort isn’t enough, and that’s the problem. U.S. emissions dropped 2.7% from 2023, that’s great, but that still means we pumped 4.8 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere (I don’t remember the exact phrasing your article used).
We’re still pumping too much in, and not taking any out, and we’re already hitting limits we needed to avoid. And based on that recent AMOC collapse report that came out, a lot of these climate models weren’t even taking that into account, so I highly doubt we see a reverse of course on climate change as it continues to expound on itself year over year.
The WWF reported a 69% average decline in all animal species populations on the planet since 1970.
We missed the exit, everything until the cliff is grifters trying to set themselves up for the inevitable collapse at your expense.
I have, and even told you I hope she continues to follow her progressive voting record and prove me wrong.
But based on her campaign, I don’t understand why you’re all acting like she’s a hugely progressive candidate. She’s just not, I’m sorry, but she’s not.
Grifting and insider trading.