top 91 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 24 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

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.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    there are systemic issues keeping them from voting.

    Yep, starting with the shitty candidates who don't give a fuck about the environment.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 13 points 3 weeks ago*

    Most people want to eat dinner but many refuse to pray for it.

  • source
  • [–] 38 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

    which oil executive should i vote for

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 3 weeks ago

    Oil/lobbying industry spent decades demonizing and deflecting global activism, by portraying them as eco-extremist/ecoterrorist. the lesser known method is them funding campaigns or even companies to tell you to buy thier "low carbon emission footprint" products so they dont have to reduce thier own emissions. and also funding "protestors" to deface public property.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    Preferably none.

    But if you only have those options, you better voter for the better one of things will get even worse than they are now.

    So please, go vote. Don't pretend like it does nothing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 3 weeks ago

    read W.E.B DuBois to understand why

    • i do vote
    • you telling me to does harm

    he was even more important then MLK and was America's best epistemologist. come back in a year

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 3 weeks ago (15 children)

    because the system is set up not to. it's not a real democracy.

  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [+] -10 points 3 weeks ago (14 children)

    The only way to prove that is by voting. Otherwise there's plausible deniability.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 3 weeks ago (13 children)

    it's proven every 4 years then

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [+] -9 points 3 weeks ago (12 children)

    If you think the only vote that matters is the presidential you're part of the problem

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

    why vote with useless ballots to vote in this genocidal capitalist or THAT genocidal capitalist when you can vote with guns and violence as thousands of years of human history have proven can actually substantiate substantial change?

    Ever notice how their form of voting actually substantiated substantial changes? Hmmmmmm ... 😏

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

    Because I'm not a violent person? Believe it or not, the average American doesn't want to murder and create death on the scale necessary for that kind of change, which would be followed by years of uncertainty and gambling that the new set are better.

    Substantial change has been created, repeatedly. Suffrage, 14th amendment, the later implementing of the 14th in the 60s, the judges appointed were also appointed by people who were voted in who voted to expand gay rights and desegregate schools. Further more you have a large amount of smaller, but none the less immensely important changes like health codes and building standards that made the world considerably safer and lessened the ability of workers to be abused in a health way. Despite the recent backslides, we have immensely progressed as a net result. You have even lately expansion of socialist projects like public transit, and city land trusts which are a form of semi socialized public housing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

    Believe it or not, the average American doesn’t want to murder and create death on the scale necessary for that kind of change,

    The average American is more than happy to propagate death on a global scale just to maintain their current level of comfort - what you mean is the average American doesn't want to see the required death themselves.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 weeks ago* (2 children)

    Cool. Same can be said of you. Put your money where your mouth is, your government is no less problematic, and overthrow them if you're going to insult Americans for it. Especially considering the average American doesn't support those wars. Our political system has just been waited to give certain people out sized say.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    You assume the same can be said of me because you think of yourself as an average American, while I am not an average Brit, and have actively opposed the government and been arrested for it. One of my close friends is currently being persecuted by the British government for his involvement in Palestine Action. That you do nothing about your situation says nothing about me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • Lol. Again, call me when you do active resistance. Being arrested for doesn't mean you were doing active resistance. If you're calling for violent revolution for Americans to do, doing anything short of that yourself means you are just talk. You're not serious about it, you're not actually ready or willing to make the commitment that you're calling people to do.

    I vote, I participate in unions, I campaign, I fight for worker's rights, via methods that are actually actionable and not just larping on the Internet about how we should violently overthrow governments.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 3 weeks ago* (5 children)
  • [–] 0 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

    You're naive. I'll believe you're not when I see any other action happening, and not just yap

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

    literally look around then. french people are setting a good example for you right now.

    so does the rest of the world on occasion.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 weeks ago* (2 children)

    If by on occasion you mean very rarely and if by right now for the french you mean not since the 1890s. No, a little bit of protesting is not pulling guns or doing bloodshed on your government.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 child)

    not all political action is violent, if only you weren't so dead set on only seeing what mainstream media tells you to. (which is apparently the "violent commie horde" in your case)

    but still, if you don't make the literal pedophile nazis ruling over you afraid of you and stay afraid of them yourself, you won't ever have a solution.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 12 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

    I think a more interesting question would be, regardless of someone's priorities, why they don't vote.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 3 weeks ago

    I know for a lot of people it's A. Didn't feel like their vote mattered, B. None of the candidates matched their desires, I.e. non of the above earned their vote, whether by not lining up on issues, or being perceived to only give stated values lip service, C. Voter suppression, whether that be inability to go vote because work/schedule, voter roll purges, voter eligibility being repressed due to cost of documents, no transportation access to polling place, etc, D. Being too burnt out to even paying attention to politics/voting; or some combination of the above.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)
  • [–] 61 points 3 weeks ago (15 children)

    Neither party campaign's on climate policy so the problem is the party, not the voter.

  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 39 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    The people in power don't need to be informed more about what people want. They already know, they just don't care.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 3 weeks ago

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 3 weeks ago (9 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

    Platforms are not the problem, the problem is that most politicians do not really believe in implementing them

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago* (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    Nobody is defending Trump here

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 3 weeks ago* (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 16 points 3 weeks ago (12 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 weeks ago (8 children)

    French police don't usually kill protesters

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

    They’ve already mutilated a few people. Besides, if your police are the type to pop off a few murders that should be even more reason to get mad.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    The USA had the largest sustained series of protests in human history in 2020 about specifically this issue and vanishingly little was accomplished in terms of actual police reform/laws changed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago

    Yes, because the rich in the US know that, once people get it out of their system, they stop fighting. After all those protests, they still got to see Trump elected, both because the idiots voted for him and the DNC barreled on with Blue-no-matter-who(read: Ignore the will of the people and be complicit in your opponent’s win).

    Protests need to come with SOME kind of consequences. The US does not practice consequences for the rich and powerful at nearly any level.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 3 weeks ago

    . Besides, if your police are the type to pop off a few murders that should be even more reason to get mad.

    "If your cops are trigger happy go stand in front of their guns."

    Sounds like shit advice to me.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

    Sounds like reforming your police is radical enough.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    Guess I'll just flip my "reform the police" switch.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 41 points 3 weeks ago* (30 children)

    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?

  • source
  • hideshow 30 child comments
  • [–] 36 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -4 points 3 weeks ago (18 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 3 weeks ago (13 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

    And yet voter turnout is consistently low.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    You're right Zohran Mamdani didn't win NYC mayor. Fuck off bad faith troll. Who you working for?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 3 weeks ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -5 points 3 weeks ago* (6 children)

    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 "Europe can save Ukraine by disbanding NATO" though. Pull your head out of Putin's ass and have your own thoughts.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 weeks ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 3 weeks ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago

    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)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 3 weeks ago

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago*

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 3 weeks ago* (4 children)

    Oh so we're supposed to pretend that climate voters are so stupid they don't understand that Republicans are bad for the environment?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 3 weeks ago* (3 children)

    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."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago* (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago*

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -12 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

    Why would you try to appeal to non-voters? They don't vote. The right messaging won't suddenly make non-voters voters.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 weeks ago

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›