because the system is set up not to. it’s not a real democracy.
Which of the two pro-corporate neoliberal parties in the US care about the environment again?
Because we have to deal with the rubes in the flyover states. I don’t know who could be so dumb to vote for Trump in 2024. How do tariffs lower prices? Can someone explain this leap in logic. How does pursuing an energy profile that is mostly fossil fuels lower prices?
Most people want to eat dinner but many refuse to pray for it.
I mean, they don’t even care enough about their warmongering, lying, felonious child rapist of a president. French students are legit protesting harder than Muricans against their pedophile leader. Make it make sense.
which oil executive should i vote for
They probably let idiots/bots convince them not to vote over some culture war bullshit or wedge issue designed specifically to keep them away from the polls.
Because no current system has offered a viable path. Sustainability, which includes climate and all the other factors, will require everyone to live with less to ensure everyone has enough of what matters.
Our politics, our economics our sociology consider asking the rights questions as radical, precicely because it threatens the wealth, power and prestige of those who have it. The elite would rather the poor who can’t cope, die in order to bring consumption to sustainable levels. Case in point, Bill Gates will write a book on what other people should do about climate change, yet live the hipocrisy of owning a small private fleet of jets and helicopters amd a leasing company for his slightly less elite customers.
Ecological economics calls this malinvestment. Not misallocation (suboptimal) but malallocation (actively hurts our goals) The resources of those jets could have built passivehouses, sustainable farms, sufficiency across countless domains. His communications could have been virtual. I think he is smart enough to know how to use Teams. But hypocrisy is not a mistake for these people.
The democratic choices of bad and worse don’t reflect viable paths. Worse will build autocracy that means profligacy for the ingroup, then doom for the vile and faster doom for everyone else. Cutting the outgroups down as the definition of sustainable shrinks and then cutting potential in group rivals.
The bad choice is to do the same thing, but instead of an in group and outgroups, we’ll have an in, an out and a middle class. The 2/3 will make the same decisions, but trim with a few select sacrifices across the three groups as the pie shrinks.
Bad and worse is not a viable choice. Even the greens where they exist, haven’t communicated a viable return to sustainable for all. They only hint at a portion of the changes required.
As we all know, if you just keep telling people to vote, eventually they’ll just be like “Yeah! I’m gonna take off work from the job that doesn’t give me time off, go find a polling place, which isn’t close and crowded because the state doesn’t run enough polling places, then try to go there in a town without public transportation! Why didn’t I think of this sooner?” Then they get there and find out that most of the local elections are uncontested and the federal ones have only a choice between no climate policy and climate policy which is insufficient but delays the necessary work until it’s too late. Then after begrudgingly voting, they realize that their districts are so gerrymandered their vote basically didn’t count anyway.
Nope, no need to change anything, we just need to keep telling people to go vote. It hasn’t worked yet, but… uh…
Neither party campaign’s on climate policy so the problem is the party, not the voter.
Yeah but it’s peak lib to blame voters for not voting hard enough, instead of demanding the bare minimum from those in power.
SMH
Instead of? You know it’s both, right? On public forums, you’re talking to voters so the proper action is encouraging their vote. When you make demands of those in power, you should be writing them directly, or congregating with others in protests that they’ll actually see.
What possible benefit do you get from making demands of people in power in the places they aren’t?
Things like, no more foreign wars, getting corruption out of office and government, free healthcare, free education, and reigning in corporations is supported by about 75-85% in our country.
Which parties run on those?
Not which one should we hope and vote for that will deliver, because right now, their promise is to “restore affordable care act tax credits” " address affordability" and “going after crooks”
Are we going to claim that the last two platitudes MEAN something?
If that is what so many Americans want, WHO IS THE DNC BASE?
The people in power don’t need to be informed more about what people want. They already know, they just don’t care.
In many cases, yeah absolutely. In others, the crazy side is a lot more vocal so that’s who the candidates cater too. Squeaky wheels and all that.
But my point stands, making demands only has a chance of accomplishing anything if you actually make them to the subject in question. Going to random forums, especially here, and making demands of politicians is silly at best, counterproductive at worst.
Not sure where you saw that but it’s actually central to the DNC platform.
Personally, I think this is more of a media diet issue. Climate policy isn’t very engagement-baitey so the Social media algorithms don’t push it.
Platforms are not the problem, the problem is that most politicians do not really believe in implementing them
I think the current problem is that the politicians who believe in implementing them don’t have the numbers to actually do so, and voter apathy gets in the way of achieving those numbers. There’s been a ton of climate policy over the years, it’s just that for the last couple decades the party that pretends climate change doesn’t exist has been stonewalling climate policy because it would hurt corporate profits.
Except Trump is implementing his platform, he’s trying to sell off public land, destroy forests, and he’s already gutted the EPA and many renewable energy programs.
So you can make up any excuse you want, anyone who cares about the environment and sat out 2024 is responsible for the backslide.
Nobody is defending Trump here
No you’re all just trying to convince everyone the entire democratic party is as bad as Trump which is a braindead asshole take but it’s all fuckin over this thread. All you assholes staying home next month means you support maga.
Keep lying cultist asshole
Biden forced rail-workers - who were striking for safer conditions - back to work. Less than a year later, a train derailment caused a massive chemical spill is Palestine, Ohio.
Everyone conveniently leaves out he got them more sick days, etc. weeks later.
Make your point but let’s at least involve all the facts.
Bernie led that charge at the last minute, and it still ignored every other demand they had. Notably, the ones that would have made train derailments far less likely.
I think things like voter suppression, access to information also weigh a lot heavier than some might think.
I’m also kind of wondering how they came up with this number of 11 million, if people are not politically motivated and activated but are still politically conscious enough to have priorities, there are systemic issues keeping them from voting. And especially at these large numbers, simply saying ‘well they should vote’ and being angry about them supposedly not voting won’t change a damn thing.
We don’t need to yell at people. We need to fucking strategize.
The American people care much more about climate than either political party and the Green Party got co-opted by Russia. Americans don’t vote on climate because both political parties serve capitalist billionaires.
And before I get the “both sides” blow back, absolutely vote blue on account of the democrats not being fascist at this point in time, but don’t be deceived that they actually represent the American people.
Uno reverse card
If so many people who care about the climate don’t vote, then why don’t politicians take a stronger line on the issue to appeal to them?
Exactly.
The United States has a problem with voter suppression, and a history of blaming societal problems on individuals to make it look like individual people are responsible instead of the people in charge.
Solid point. Part of it is a blame game as well. I try to stress how local policies are important. Yet you will still have politicians that will state they will do whatever to overturn popular vote. I mean take pot for example, 41/50 states and it’s only getting a reclassification.
Oh so we’re supposed to pretend that climate voters are so stupid they don’t understand that Republicans are bad for the environment?
No, you’re supposed to understand that people will be more motivated to vote if you appeal to them based on the policies they care about and follow through, instead of offering nothing beyond, “not the other guy.”
Why do you need to be “more motivated” if you care about climate change so much, when the options couldn’t be more clear? You are just making excuses for apathy.
How has the Democratic strategy of “at least we’re not the other guy” been working?
Why do you need to be “more motivated” if you care about climate change so much, when the options couldn’t be more clear?
I don’t know how I can possibly make this more simple. These people haven’t been motivated enough to vote for your party before. You want them to be motivated to vote for your party in the future. Therefore, you need to find a way to make them more motivated to vote for you. That’s why. This is not complicated.
You are just making excuses for apathy.
No, I’m simply shifting the focus to where it belongs.
There’s a mismatch between what the party does and what the people want, and your solution involves trying to change what the millions of people want instead of changing the handful of people who determine party policy. Not only is that completely undemocratic, it’s also completely impractical. Unless you have a magic wand you can wave that will turn millions of people into Lesser Evilists before you’ll need their votes, you’re gonna have to meet them where they’re at and give them things they want. Which is exactly how any democratic system is supposed to work.
It’s kind of amazing how entitled y’all are with your party. They’re supposed to be “public servants.” If a servant’s employer tells them to clean something, does the servant say, “It’s already clean enough, you need to learn to live with a little dust,” or do they do the thing they’re being fucking paid to do and clean it again, even if they think the request is stupid? The level of backtalk y’all give to the public is frankly unbelievable. You don’t act like public servants, you act like public masters, like you’re feudal lords who get to tell us what’s going to happen and we’re uppity rabble who needs to fall in line. You’ve got things completely upside down.
Why would you try to appeal to non-voters? They don’t vote. The right messaging won’t suddenly make non-voters voters.
Lmao have fun losing forever
Your message is literally why progressives hate Democrats and why your party only attacks progressives and actively funds and collaborates with MAGA
Democrats have shown time and time again who they work WITH and who they work Against.
Remember when the Democrats banded together to stop the scary revolutionary candidate bringing sweeping change for the people?
I do, it was Bernie, TWICE
Me when I reduce infinitely complex beings in static categories to fit my worldview.
Really? Metaphysical arguments? “X people are inherently this type of person and never won’t be” is such a lazy and uninspired argument.
Liberalism cannot question the status quo, as that status quo gets actively worse and worse from capitalism and imperialism. But hey… Those guys are actively making it worse, we just watch from the sides and maybe put some duct tape on it once in a while.
Ok so you lose then.
No one is going to open a restaurant where the target market is “people who don’t go to restaurants”. If you don’t vote you don’t matter to politicians and that’s all there is to it.
No one is going to open a restaurant where the target market is “people who don’t go to restaurants”
There’s plenty of people opening restaurants on the basis of “this kind of cuisine is not available in this neighborhood. I think people would like it.”
Your analogy is incredibly flawed. People are able to go to more than one restaurant.
Yeah, that’s not true at all. The hundreds of millions spent on voter mobilization, get out the vote, rock the vote, voter education, voter registration, and all attendant campaigns is such an obvious massive counter to your inispid narrative.
And yet voter turnout is consistently low.
Because voters have figured out that voting doesn’t fucking matter. Once you realize that a) the country has always been run by a single fascist bloc b) with multiple fascist factions fighting for control and c) fronted by two PR firms with subsidiary PR firms that drive psychological manipulation of voters into believing that d) this time it really is the most important election in history and e) voting will fix it and f) if you vote correctly then the fascists you put in power will stop being fascist and g) actually make structural change - once that becomes obvious, voting is just not something people are motivated to do. And to be clear even people like me who believe all those things vote in vast numbers because it is a ritualized symbol and it has implications in social situations and dynamics. And even still huge numbers of people just don’t vote, which means massive numbers of people understand that the system is fully irredeemable.
Oh fuck you’re an ml bot. Not worth engaging with. Buhbye MAGAtankie shitbird.
Ad hominem
LOL
You’re right Zohran Mamdani didn’t win NYC mayor. Fuck off bad faith troll. Who you working for?
Sewer socialists have a long history of winning in the USA, and also of being outmaneuvered entirely by the fascists in both parties, purged, and having nearly all of their progress completely undone.
The purpose of those programs is to increase turnout, not cater to the political leanings of likely non-voters. Dems don’t give a shit what those people want they just want them to vote because statistically they would vote for Dems. The issues important to those voters rarely come up which is exactly my point.
I don’t really expect a well reasoned response from someone going around saying things like “the West can save Ukraine by disbanding NATO” though. Pull your head out of Putin’s ass and have your own thoughts.
Well yeah, obviously bullies only bully the nerds because the Anti-Bully Club is so anti-bully. If the Anti-Bully Club just disbands instead of defending nerds, then the bullies will have no reason to keep bullying the nerds! Duhhh! (/s)
LOL. You’re fucking amazing. You came to the conclusion that voter turnout programs only exist because they want voters to vote for them but literally won’t do anything that those voters want? That’s your conclusion? You couldn’t reason your way out of a paper bag. Which makes sense because you think an American who has been raised by Americans in America and consumed all the same anti-Russian propaganda you have consumed our whole lives is somehow having someone else’s thoughts when they have thoughts that disagree with the propaganda you and I have both been raised on. You are doing the meme.
If Dems primary concern is the will of their voters then why are they constantly doing things the majority of their voting base disagrees with? You’re acting like Dems know exactly what the people want when the central political problem in America for the last 15 years is that they either don’t know or don’t care.
Also, if your own thoughts are not Russian propaganda then why is what you’re saying matching Russian propaganda word-for-word? Disbanding NATO doesn’t help anyone but Russia and somewhere in that brain of yours you know that. You’re twisting words to make unreasonable things sound reasonable on both of these issues
Oh, sorry, so you’re saying Dems are constantly doing things their voting base disagrees with? So then why should people vote for them? You’re not making a strong argument for your position there.
You think Russian propaganda is the only source of anti-NATO sentiment in the entire world? Have you heard of Heusinger? Are you aware of the controversial decisions to staff NATO with Nazi officers? Heusinger was never even tried at Nuremberg.
Disbanding NATO doesn’t help anyone but Russia and somewhere in that brain of yours you know that.
Pretty sure it would’ve helped the Libyans if the “defensive” alliance that waged an offensive war on them didn’t exist.
NATO is a tool of neocolonialism and there are countless neocolonies around the world that it harms. Even if it were “defensive” (which it absolutely isn’t) it maintains an oppressive status quo over the global majority and gives member states the ability to attack wantonly, without fear of retaliation.
You’ll never get good faith engagement with ml so all you can do is try to piss em off and waste their time.
Ad hominem
No one is going to open a restaurant where the target market is “people who don’t go to restaurants”.
???
When you open a restaurant, the only target market is people who don’t go to your restaurant. Looking into how to expand your business to people who don’t already go to restaurants is absolutely a valid line of inquiry that companies persue all the time. Maybe the reason they don’t eat out because it’s too expensive, and you can appeal to them with lower prices. Maybe the reason they don’t eat out is because they don’t know how good your food is, and you can address that with free samples. Maybe they have dietary restrictions and you can appeal to them by adding vegan or gluten free options. Restaurants, like any business, are constantly looking for ways to break into new sections of the market. So your analogy falls completely flat.
Look at, for example, Little Caesars which at least back when I was in school had cheap ass $5 pizzas, they tasted like shit but they were $5 so being a broke ass college student I ate there all the time when I might otherwise have not eaten out at all. And that’s why they focused on keeping the price low instead of making it actually good. Because at $5, even groceries wouldn’t be much cheaper.
Likewise, if a political party is uninterested in appealing to people who don’t already vote for them, it must mean that they’re satisfied with their current level of support. Which, considering the Dems lost the last election, doesn’t exactly seem to be working. And what, do you think you’ll have better luck trying, again, to appeal to “moderate” Republicans? Let me know how that goes, lol.
People who don’t eat at restaurants at all are obviously not the same as people who don’t eat at a restaurant that doesn’t exist. You said you understood that concept but then spent the rest of your comment describing people who want to eat at restaurants.
This is what your commitment to your narrative has done to you. It has made you believe that there is a category of people who don’t vote because that is what they prefer, and you’re so committed that you are willing to make nonsense arguments that posit the existence of people who eat food but specifically will not and never will eat food if it’s in a restaurant.
Nothing about your narrative is reasonable. Give people something they want and they will pursue it
People who don’t eat at restaurants at all are obviously not the same as people who don’t eat at a restaurant that doesn’t exist.
Legitimately don’t understand this word salad.
You said you understood that concept but then spent the rest of your comment describing people who want to eat at restaurants.
Someone who doesn’t currently eat at restaurants might start eating at them if the restaurants find a way to appeal to them. That’s not a complicated concept.
If I’m vegan, and no restaurants in my area offer vegan options, then I am someone who doesn’t eat at restaurants at all. If a restaurant opens up that does offer vegan options, or if an existing restaurant adds a vegan option, then I might start eating at restaurants. Do you not understand this concept?
Likewise, someone who doesn’t vote might start voting if they’re appealed to. This is equally uncomplicated.
Do they care about climate? Do they drice smaller cars, use renewable energy and eat less meat? Or do they just care with thoughts and prayers?
In the USA, citizens aged 65 and older are 15% of the population, but 50% of the vote.
As it stands, the future is decided by people who won’t be there to suffer it.
