Back

The US has politicians that want to make the exact same subsidy decisions that China did. The silly part: It's not even an *increase* in subsidies, or a cost to the economy, or an increase in taxes. It's just a *change* in what we subsidize, and it boosts the economy, and taxes can stay the same, and in some cases, decrease.

The US has those politicians, and Black people try to vote for them. Try, but fail.

The most effective "climate protest," is registering Black people in the US to vote.

I'm not saying don't protest for the climate. I'll never tell people not to protest.

I'm just saying, it's silly to vote for the wrong politicians, dudes who literally own coal mines, and want coal to increase, but then kayak up to their yacht and beg them not to do that.

I'm just saying, voting for the wrong people, then throwing soup on paintings, is kinda silly.

80% of people already want faster progress on climate change. Protesting to push that to 90% isn't going to change anything.

There are fewer than 50 people standing firmly in the way of *the entire world* making faster progress on climate change. All of these 50 people are US citizens. All of them are politicians. They are the president, a few governors, but most of them are senators and representatives.

No one else matters. No one.

You cannot change the minds of these politicians. It's silly to think that you can. They. Don't. Care.

But you can change these politicians, to get different minds making decisions.

@mekkaokereke the reason I really hate our system, is that there are actually much fewer than these 50 people in the way. It's the national committee's policies that remove our choices and continue allowing bad policy. Democrats refuse to support primary challenges, so the only way to improve a dem is by allowing a republican to win a term. RNC is a trump mob money laundering firm now.

We don't get to vote for who leads the *NCs, or participate in their policy unless we are already elite

@ATLeagle @mekkaokereke The premise here is that the DNC (ok... not them. The *real* DNC that controls everything in smoky backrooms) is the reason there isn't a progressive anti-coal candidate in WV to replace Manchin?

At the start of the last decade, voters replaced a lot of conservative democrats (so called "blue dogs") with rabidly right-wing Republicans. In no small part a response to electing a black President (thanks DNC!).

The result was a dramatic rightward lurch in our politics.

@ATLeagle @mekkaokereke The loss of those blue dogs enabled the rise of Trumpism, including climate denialism, which directly led to (among other things) the overturn of Roe v Wade.

As a practical matter, your sacrificial model of politics is a complete failure.

@tob @ATLeagle

Selective memory makes Dems always remember when progressive candidates lose, but never remember when tepid, centrist candidates lose.

They always remember when centrist candidates win, but never remember victories for AOC, Bowman, or other progressives, overcome huge spending gaps to win.

We act surprised when the candidates whose policies are you really are supported by 80% of voters, win by landslides.

@tob @ATLeagle

And that's not what enabled the rise of Trumpism.

@mekkaokereke @ATLeagle The wipeout of the blue dogs created space for the freedom caucus loons, which provided the core political support within the party for Trump's primary run.

Refusing to acknowledge the political power of the white christianist vote does not make it disappear.

A large number of people in this country live in depopulated states and don't want the future that you and I do. Whether that's reduced fossil fuels or an end to the carceral state.

@tob @ATLeagle

Correlation causation.

The shift from "conservative" dems to rabid right wing republicans didn't *cause* the rise of Trump.

Both of those things are symptoms of the rise of the alt-right, an explicitly white nationalist political movement. Trump was just "the alt-right candidate." He didn't create the movement. He was just the last puzzle piece.

@mekkaokereke @ATLeagle fair enough, everything is a matter of perspective.

You could argue that the alt-right is a response to the fecklessness of mainstream Republicans to the perceived progressive shift by the Democrats.

Not saying Dems shouldn't have shifted, not saying blue dogs presented a viable long term stance, just talking about the things that we know happened.

Did electing republicans produce a more progressive outcome?

No. No it did not.

@tob @mekkaokereke this perfectly points to the original premise of the conversation. People who were tired of the same old thing were energized by a chance to change things, even if they didnt thinknthe changes were a great idea. The people on the left who would like to change things can't get to the ballots

The Dems needed Manchin on their team just to have ownership of committees. They choose to live on this slim margin instead of an actual progressive platform that may bring out more voters

@tob @ATLeagle

"Not enough progressive votes in Texas" that's just not true. There are more than enough progressive votes in Texas. Texas voter suppression is next level.

This is exactly my point. Climate activists could be focused on this as well as protests. Both are important.

@mekkaokereke @ATLeagle 100%

@andytiedye @mekkaokereke @tob expanding the Supreme Court and restoring the voting rights act would have been good. Amazingly, voting access is seen as too partisan of an issue, and nobody had the pull to shove it through 3 years ago when it would have really helped

@ATLeagle @mekkaokereke @tob Manchin and Sinema made those impossible.

@andytiedye @mekkaokereke @tob yep. I suspect there were others that were happy with the result and with letting those two take the blame