The Trump budget proposes $0 for climate research in 2026
The Trump budget proposes $0 for climate research in 2026
You're viewing a single thread.
This is what you voted for protest-non-voters.
Maybe they think the flooding won’t affect them on their moral high ground.
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.
Fuck no, no voting protest voters are part of the reason we have this sweeping fascist rule in our country. So no, they don't get a boo hoo pass on that shit.
The reason you have sweeping fascist rule in your country is because you have tonnes of people who are okay with that.
Seriously, you can blame those that didn't vote as much as you want, but you're just averting your eyes from the real problem, as far as I can tell.
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.
and you are why the entire world for generations have to deal with the aftermath of another trump presidency
Blaming voters for your candidates' failure sure is a good way to get more voters, isn't it?
mine? mate i’m not from your country
you just don’t seem to understand basic logic: people protest voted, and yall are now inflicting trump on the world
you had 3 options: protest vote, vote D, vote R
congrats you got R.. thats muuuuuuch better. i’m sure when the marines get deployed to your city you can be comforted by the fact that at least you sent the democrats a message!
how’s that going by the way? they listening? is it working? please tell me you at least achieved that! because if they haven’t listened, SHIT you got fascism AND a party that’s in every possible way “meh”
Zohran Mamdani won the NYC primary, so it sure sounds like the voters are paying attention.
Whether or not the party wants to listen is their perogative, so long as they claim to represent us they can rise or fall on the strength of their promises to us and our faith in their willingness to make good on those promises.
"Nothing will fundamentally change" sure isn't working as well as Obama's "hope and change", is it?
Yes, thats the exactly place to go hard left, full on no compromises. In the Democratic primaries.
Not in the presidential election when you know one of exactly two people will win and your choice is which one of them you favour over the other.
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 explanation?
Are you today's right-winger cosplaying as a lib?
Every time the Dems lose, they go to the center to find voters.
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.
If you want them to go left, you have to give them wins first.
Why would they go left if the plan to find a middle ground with Republicans was working?
Right now every time they go left, they lose.
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?
Biden gave green energy and build back better. The reward? Lose the house. Harris was going to pretty much continue. What was the answer?
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.
Are you today’s right-winger cosplaying as a lib?
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.
“Build Back Better” never passed.
Technically correct on one bill BUT missing that most it was passed through different bills. So passed.
Are you today's explanation?
Are you today’s right-winger cosplaying as a lib?
Always a good sign when you start off with a strawman/ personal attack.
Right‽ Also, why would you make such an honest admission? It isn't doing anything to help your argument.
Ok where do we start. Well first off we're talking national level, not mayoral candidates or safe districts.
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.
A bunch of nonsense about electoral history, blaming Clinton's loss on climate change, failing to acknowledge that Gore actually won his election, etc.
Lol.
So how do you get them to move left? By giving them victories first.
I think you should try that plan. Start with Mamdani.
Right‽ Also, why would you make such an honest admission? It isn’t doing anything to help your argument.
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.
A bunch of nonsense about electoral history, blaming Clinton’s loss on climate change, failing to acknowledge that Gore actually won his election, etc.
Ah you're straight to ignoring with no response to anything. Glad we had this conversation. Ciao.
You not voting is why the Democrats run shitty candidates. Protest voting does nothing. Primaries have around 10% turn out on average. Not voting is literally the fucking problem.
Not voting doesn't make their candidates shitty candidates win, Democrats lose when turnout is depressed.
They know this, and they still chose to deliberately depress turnout with another shitty candidate who promised us nothing would change. Their last successful candidate won two terms on promises of hope and change and only 12 years later they're promising the opposite and delivering nothingburgers.
And in 12 months' time, the voting system will allow just one option. Great move, guys... great move.
But how does voting protect in any way against your supreme court being stuffed with judges who clearly have no problems being completely biased and using the court as a tool for partisan politics?
It doesn't. You'd need an opposition party that actually fights that crap. That recognises tactics to pervert instituions for what they are and acts accordingly. You'd need different "checks and balances".
Electoralism breaks down when you don't have a healthy democracy and public institutions. We can now all see that the USA's institutions and constitution were not as strong as they were made to be.
Your political system is so fucked up, and yet you insist on blaming the voters.
This obsession with voting as the main form of political participation is IMHO childish and doesn't do justice to the reality of the world.
I don’t often use internet lingo, but the people yelling into the void about “non voters” are 100% doing what the internet deems, a “cope”
Inventing an invisible boogeyman to yell at because things are bad makes them feel better.
Quick edit: it’s frustrating how downvoted you are for being correct, honestly.
Thank you for this :')
Nope. These people need to feel just as stupid as Trump voters in 2016 who subsequently voted for Biden after seeing the result. Given how many are still defensively showing up to post walls of text every time this is brought up, there's a lot of work to be done to overcome the counter-messaging.
We should absolutely do what we can to primary feckless centrist Democrats, and to push the party to the left, but that's not mutually exclusive with getting people to show up and not make the same stupid decision twice. We aren't going to completely fix our democracy in 2 years to the point that these idiots will be satisfied. We can make headway on making things better, but people need to vote for that to happen.
So to be absolutely clear: if you did not vote, this is what you voted for. That should be upsetting, you should feel bad, and you should make damn sure that you don't make the same mistake in 2026, 2028, or any other election as long as you live.
I'm not from the US mate. I'm just pointing out pretty obvious issues that maybe are easier to see from the outside.
But saying that if one didn't vote one voted for this is simply nonsensical. So people who didn't vote for Biden voted for Biden? Or did they vote for Stein? This is just playing with numbers and wishful thinking, conditioned by a two party system.
Also, I don't think it really matters, but I have voted in recent national elections to try and stop the shitbirds from getting to power where I can vote. (They got to power.) But I respect those who refuse to vote, or can't because the system is messed up and biased against them (voting on a Tuesday? How do you accept that shit?). You can't realistically blame people for not voting if you system doesn't even properly represent the "none of the above" option. That's just a messed up voting system.
Also if you think that's a "wall of text", I'm slightly concerned.
I won't feel bad about not voting for Kamala even if I were sent to El Salvador, or marched into a gas chamber. I made peace with that before I voted PSL.
Y'all fundamentally misunderstand us. You think we're simply misinformed, that we don't appreciate the threat, that if only we saw the facts of what the Republicans are like, we'd immediately see things your way. What you don't understand is that we do see the facts, we're just operating under a different ethical and political framework from you. The point of disagreement is not about the facts on the ground, it's about the best way to respond to them. So merely pointing to the awful shit the Republicans do has no chance of swaying, well, I can't speak for everyone, but certainly me, and anyone who thinks like me.
The people who did not vote for Harris destroyed all chances of ever getting a better candidate.
Why isn't it the people who didn't vote for Stein? The reasoning works the same.
At the end of the day, you are a hair away from "anyone who didn't vote from my preferred candidate sucks". But guess that's a lot more obvious when you are from a country that isn't entirely a two party system.
They'll never claim an ounce of the responsibility they deserve, the fucking scumbags
Ha ha but You voted for Genocide!
/s
So did the protest non-voters, even moreso than the Democrat ones.
The non-genocide position was literally impossible to express no matter what you tried to do.
No it existed. Harris is on record saying she'd like to work towards peace talks.
Which is objectively better than option B: vote GOP "finish them off" and option C: literally doing nothing.
Okay, fine: to the extent that a non-genocide position existed, Harris was it.
But the real point is that even if a person disagrees with you about that, they still should've voted for Harris. She was at least objectively not more genocidal than Trump, and infinitely better on basically every other issue.
Green Party maybe?
Nope, that has the same effect as not voting.
A non-vote is = support for every candidate
A third party vote doesn’t
Even if the end result is the same it shows you don’t support the winner
Any action other than voting for the only candidate that could beat Trump was effectively a vote for Trump. End of.
Strange that Biden won in 2020 despite 2/3 of the country "effectively voting for Trump" by not voting for Biden🤔
But at least we didn't help hurrying along the most recent great extinction!
I wonder if anything we built will last for the next sentient species that arises.
Well not voting in the American pres. election (or voting for someone sure to lose) was a half-vote for Donald. That's just math.
I totally feel this frustration, and I'm not US so it's kinda not my business, but I don't buy this argument.
Trump America is a horror show, for sure. But the status quo before Trump is also the foundations that allowed America to become a new facist state. Any real solutions need to be bigger than what middle of the road Democrats are offering.
That doesn't mean you shouldn't vote against Trump. But the system is clearly broken, stop blaming victims of it, and start blaming its perpetrators.
Status quo of Biden implementing Green energy, EVs, build back better, PACT act, chips act, student debt relief, Obama's healthcare. And you're equating this to .... status quo.... , and .... a foundation of a fascist state. ........
I'm 100% not equating Biden with Trump. I'm not trying to deny the comolete horror Trump is afflicting of US and non-US citizens right now.
I'm just saying, he's a symptom of a broken system. America will only come out of this situation if it recognises that it needs to make real and lasting change.
The non voters might not help, but they're at least acknowledging this reality. And putting them in the same camp as literal facists is not helping anyone.
I'm not saying that you're equating Biden with Trump. I listing off all the accomplishments of the Dems that you are bizarrely trying to call status quo and whatever gymnastics to cram it into "foundations of fascism" something system.
And you are continuing to try to do this. The Dems were making "real" changes to improve society. But you're still trying whatever this mental gymnastics is.
I think you might have misread my initial comment in that I didn't say, and don't agree with branding Biden as the "foundations of facism".
I'm not saying Biden, Obama, Bush etc are some kind of proto-facists like that implies. I said "the foundations that allowed America to become a new facist state". I think unless you disagree with me calling Trump's government facist, that the previous governments created an environment in which he could rise to power seems more or less a statement of fact.
If you're interested in understanding where I'm coming from (who knows, we're on the internet after all!) I'd say I mostly agree with Naomi Klein's take that global politics have become too subservient to mega-corportations and that that's creating a decline in equality which is driving far right ideology worldwide.[0]
I'm pretty far into stuff that I wasn't initially trying to comment on though. My point is that the US political system is broken, and blaming people who are disenfranchised at that isn't an effective strategy for changing things.
There's nothing to read or even misread because you are doing mental gymnastics. It's nonsense.
I mean you literally used quotation marks to write words I didn't say, but fine. I assume from your comments that you're progressive and anti-Trump, so keep on pushing for those values!
Biden's "green" Infrastructure Plan is increasing carbon emissions though.
Green energy and infrastructure are two separate things. That you have to hammer them together to make a bad faith argument is telling.
In addition, it could potentially even undo some of the emissions reductions
Could. Potentially. And if you read how they did their figuring yeah it's no surprise they keep inserting words like "could". Then certain people read it and think that means "is".
But in any case green energy and infrastructure are two separate things.
And back to this post, what's Trump doing? Line item is Zero.
Protest non-voters accounted for maybe 800k, while RFK accounted for 1.3m.
But sure, let's keep blaming voters instead of the Democrats that chose to represent Republican Lite™.
I'm informing protest-non-voters what they actually voted for.
Ok, so protest non-voters accounted for 800k of the non-voting population in 2024.
Want to know how many didn't vote not because of protesting?
About 36% of eligible Americans didn't vote either D, R, or 3rd party in 2024. That's about 120 million Americans. 800k is less than 1% of 120mn.
You know these numbers, and you're still telling me that the protest non-voters were the issue: not that Democrats lost 8 million voters between 2020 and 2024?
Why do you think Democrats both failed to capture more voters despite the eligible voting population increasing from 2020 to 2024, and hemorrhaged their already existing base?
I'll wait for you to draw the conclusion that best suits your liberal comforts.
You sure are assigning a lot of stuff to me. I am informing protest non-voters what they actually voted for.
Protest non-voters, if all aligning with Kamala, would not have made a difference in the 2024 election.
You informing them does as much good as informing the entire eligible non-voting population. 800k vs 120mn.
There is no need to draw attention to their movement here unless you also take issue with the larger voting block.
Boy more. Don't worry I'm informing protest-non-voters what they voted for for another 3.5 years. Ciao.
Will you inform non-voters as well, for they carry vastly more of the burden than protesters?
Republican lite at this moment sounds a lot more refreshing than Republican nazi
No shit. Trump whispered sweet nothings to those outside his MAGAt base by appealing to affordability and peace. Since then, he's followed through on exactly none of that.
In the past, people like Obama at least lied to Americans about what they would deliver as president, while shortly thereafter doing the same as Trump. Democrats in 2024 couldn't even lie their faces off by speaking to the same points as Trump. Well, Kamala did after first when she brought Walz on board, but that quickly changed come the DNC where she said she wouldn't diverge one bit from Biden.
Oh, no doubt, but a worse foe lurks! Some people voted for Donald Trump.