Biden Declares Tougher 2035 Emissions Targets Weeks Before Trump Return 168
Joe Biden has announced tougher targets on the US's carbon dioxide emissions for the next decade, in a defiant final gesture intended as a "capstone" on his legacy on the climate. From a report: With just weeks to go before Donald Trump enters the White House, the Biden administration is formally filing new plans under the Paris agreement -- the global climate treaty from which Trump has vowed to withdraw.
Under the new target, the US would have to cut greenhouse gases by between 61% and 66% by 2035, compared with 2005 levels -- a substantial strengthening of current goals that administration officials said would put the US on the path to net zero carbon by 2050.
In a pre-recorded video statement, Biden called his programme of the last four years -- including the Inflation Reduction Act, private-sector investments of $450bn in clean energy and manufacturing, and regulations to improve efficiency and conserve land -- "the boldest climate agenda in American history." This progress would continue, he predicted: "American industry will keep inventing and keep investing. State, local and tribal governments will keep stepping up. And together, we will turn this existential threat into a once-in-a-generation opportunity to transform our nation for generations to come."
Under the new target, the US would have to cut greenhouse gases by between 61% and 66% by 2035, compared with 2005 levels -- a substantial strengthening of current goals that administration officials said would put the US on the path to net zero carbon by 2050.
In a pre-recorded video statement, Biden called his programme of the last four years -- including the Inflation Reduction Act, private-sector investments of $450bn in clean energy and manufacturing, and regulations to improve efficiency and conserve land -- "the boldest climate agenda in American history." This progress would continue, he predicted: "American industry will keep inventing and keep investing. State, local and tribal governments will keep stepping up. And together, we will turn this existential threat into a once-in-a-generation opportunity to transform our nation for generations to come."
Lame ducks (Score:2)
I'm not sure what Biden could do right now that would benefit Americans, but any time spent on this seems wasted. Before it even could pretend to have an effect, Trump will have more than scuttled it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Lame ducks (Score:5, Insightful)
Also it makes Republicans go on the books yet again as working against solving our massive global warming problem. When global warming starts impacting people's lives more hopefully voters will remember this very long and well established stance against solving this problem.
It's point scoring like your own example put it could matter at some point.
Re: (Score:3)
Republicans keep trying to forget hot hot it has been in Texas for the past few summers.
Re: Lame ducks (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you heat a frog in a kettle slow enough, it will not jump out...
FWIW, that isn't actually true.
Re: Lame ducks (Score:2)
I can imagine that Ted Cruz was a "roar frog" in a previous life.
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds correct.
Re: (Score:2)
As I replied to you above, it's always hot in Texas in the summer. I haven't even left the borders of the state in almost 20 years. There was a pretty bad year about a decade ago, but recently it's been about average.
Re: (Score:2)
It's hot (and HUMID TOO) in Louisiana....we're used to it.
I think it's the influx of northerners and Californians coming in and complaining.....they're just not used to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When global warming starts impacting people's lives more
Which may or may not happen. Apart from natural disasters, which only affect a relatively small number of people, the rest is just weather and people will adjust.
I'm Canadian, but I can safely say I speak for many when I say our government is a far bigger threat to my standard of living than the climate is. I expect that is true for most Americans as well. Climate is simply not the most important thing in most people's lives. Government needs to focus on the things that are, or they will be kicked t
Re: (Score:2)
Which may or may not happen
As long as we're adding significantly more green house gasses to the environment global warming is going to keep getting worse. It's math.
Apart from natural disasters, which only affect a relatively small number of people, the rest is just weather and people will adjust.
Oh, they'll just "adjust" huh? It's so easy, why did I never think of that?
Never mind the misery that will be caused for hundreds of millions from coastal flooding alone as they are forced to flee their homes. Add on to that the changing rain patterns that are already effecting key agricultural areas. But yeah, I'm sure people will just "adjust" to not having enough food.
Re: (Score:2)
Never mind the misery that will be caused for hundreds of millions from coastal flooding alone as they are forced to flee their homes.
In the developed world settlement will move inland organically as required.
Add on to that the changing rain patterns that are already effecting key agricultural areas. But yeah, I'm sure people will just "adjust" to not having enough food.
That will definitely suck for the developing world. However, we already produce enough food to feed everyone. That we don't is a logistical/economic/political problem not a climate one. Even if we could fix climate change it won't change that.
On the bright side less people live in poverty than ever in history though, so there is that. Assuming it can only get worse seems overly pessimistic, however donating directly to feeding
Re: (Score:2)
>I'm Canadian, but I can safely say I speak for many when I say our government is a far bigger threat to my standard of living than the climate is.
Absolutely. Because doing anything real about the climate issue will come with a redirection of resources away from the things that make your life nicer now.
It's a trade off between now and later.
Other than that, I can't think of anything the Liberals are doing that wouldn't be worse under the current Conservatives, and the NDP aren't viable as a government.
Re: (Score:2)
It might also be a opening a line of potential attack against Musk. Musk has traditionally been a strong supporter of fixing climate change, but lately he's wavered a bit after his extended twitter based midlife crisis.
I think the old boy is throwing down a gauntlet, intended to let Musk show who he really is. Forcing him to choose between sticking with the Climate mitigation project, and face severing whatever support is left of him by the wider population (who overwhelmingly want something done about clim
Re: (Score:2)
When Trump was trying to get elected and lost, he made a rather sad half-assed attempt to overthrow the government. The Republicans now have four years of mostly unchecked control to fix things so they don't need to try that next time.
You may not have sufficiently honest elections to allow you to change course peacefully.
Re: (Score:2)
Next time it won't be half assed. It will be full assed, both cheeks, no diaper.
Re: (Score:2)
Political theater matters. Dems are extremely discouraged and distraught right now and maybe are turning away from politics all together. They need some hope to fight back in 2026/2028.
Hope? What hope? The only hope anyone slightly left of bat-shit insane right-wing lunatic fringe has is that the incoming power screws up *SO* royally that the rest of the country wakes up. That's not a positive hope. That's the kind of hope that the right has been promoting for as long as I remember. The hope for decimation, so that someone gets the chance to say, "I told you so." And the non-right-wing folks in this country probably will, because we're sick of being shit on for pointing out reality and th
Re: (Score:2)
I was in a similar discussion, where we almost need those who supported Trump to really get hurt directly by what Trump wants to do, just so they finally understand what the rest of us were warning them about. The response was basically that I must want to see this country fail. It's sad, but the only way that children will learn is if they feel direct negative results from the things they did themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a waiver granted by the EPA under law, not a Presidential directive. To "undo" it will require either a complete change of the law (not gonna happen) or a long lawsuit. There is no mechanism for "revoking" the waiver. Congress structured the law this way on purpose.
The way the law was written (y 1967 + Amendments) is the EPA *MUST* grant the waiver if it passes a three (four?) prong test. This is going to be political theater where Trump claims victory and issues a lot of tweets, but nothing actuall
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're posting in the wrong Slashdot story. Perhaps you meant this one? [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You might also ask yourself; if this is such a great idea, why didn't Biden do this 2 or 3 years ago? Why didn't Obama and Biden do this, or something similar, in 2009-10 when they had both houses and a senate supermajority?
Only now, when it's purely symbolic and produces nothing beyond a headline, does your Virtue Signaler In Chief act, doubtless melting your virtuous heart. So tragic.
Re: (Score:2)
Why didn't Bush Jr. do it between 2001 and 2009? Or Clinton between 1993 and 2001? Or Bush Sr? Or Reagan?
See? I can do it too.
Timing is a thing in politics. And all sides do things that are symbolic.
Re:Lame ducks (Score:5, Informative)
You might also ask yourself; if this is such a great idea, why didn't Biden do this 2 or 3 years ago? Why didn't Obama and Biden do this, or something similar, in 2009-10 when they had both houses and a senate supermajority?
Only now, when it's purely symbolic and produces nothing beyond a headline, does your Virtue Signaler In Chief act, doubtless melting your virtuous heart. So tragic.
From the article:
All countries are obliged to submit fresh NDCs no later than this February, under the 2015 Paris agreement.
What is an NDC [un.org]?
The Paris Agreement works on a five- year cycle of increasingly ambitious climate action carried out by countries. Every five years, each country is expected to submit an updated national climate action plan - known as Nationally Determined Contribution, or NDC.
So Biden was obliged to do this by treaty, and this was literally his first opportunity to do so.
Maybe the objectives are symbolic at this point, but the submission was required.
Re: (Score:2)
The "Paris Treaty" was never ratified by the Senate...
We're not legally obligated to do fuck all with regard to that treaty at this time.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words he's forcing Trump to spend some political capital to shut this down.
This is the thinking that delivers failure after failure for you.
Trump will not spend political capital when he shit cans this. He will earn political capital. He was given free political capital the moment Biden announced this and everyone, on both sides of every isle, was reminded of the blessing we all now enjoy as Trump's inauguration approaches, and this false virtue bullshit ends. At least for a time.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Also,
as a Republican you can expect absolutely everything you try to do no matter how innocuous to be bitterly contested by the Democrat party.
Politics at it's heart!
"Trust the science...except when it goes against our party". Yep, it goes both ways. No surprise here.
Re: (Score:2)
It's political theater. He puts these things in the federal register, and if the GOP doesn't do anything, it becomes regulatory law. If they do something about it, they own the fact that they're allowing polluters to pollute, and beat them over the head with it in the midterms.
Re: (Score:2)
But Trump had weeks to scuttle the continuing resolution, and it actually seemed that Trump wanted this. Except he scuttled it at the last minute (or Leon did, not sure which of the two is in charge). But trump _still_ wants stuff done NOW. Trump wants to raise the debt ceiling now, so that Biden gets the blame, otherwise he'll be forced to raise it himself next year and end up looking bad. (ceiling doesn't need to be raised until some time in June I think) And he said the PUBLICLY! Sure, this is how
Re: (Score:2)
The fun part is that the Republicans have so far had tight enough ranks to make Trump president, but apparently not tight enough ranks to continue kissing his ass to a degree that will let them do whatever they want after he takes office. Their majority is slim enough that some Republicans will inevitably demand their own concessions and to get around that will require courting some Democrats.
Do you really see Trump as a guy who can lead opposed parties to a compromise, in his own party never mind reach ac
Nobody Cares (Score:2)
This is all theater.
The only things people care about for the next month are the death, destruction, and pardons he can wreak havoc with.
The PA Cash-for-Kids judge being one such example.
Odds are he sees street justice since nothing else is left. It didn't have to be this way.
Firing missiles into Russia being another.
Pledges 10 years out nobody cares about.
grandstanding (Score:2)
Who ? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Standard dishonest tactic (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Claim to be pro-environment, but limit actual actions during entire term in office to things that are at least workable.
2. On the way out the door, put in place policies that are unworkable/unaffordable and take credit for trying to "save the planet".
3. When the new guy gets in and has to undo the never-implemented policy that's unaffordable/unworkable, scream that the new guy is destroying the environment - even though by killing the new policy he's just setting things back to what they were during your entire time in office.
This was the tactic Bill Clinton did on so-called "clean water" regulations, which would have bankrupted small towns all across the country to achieve no real gain in water quality. When Bush43 cancelled them, leaving the water regulations exactly where they'd been through the entire Clinton era, Democrats screamed that Bush43 was for toxic water.
Now Biden makes the same play but on "clean air". Just watch: if Trump comes in and cancels this policy (which has NEVER been in effect) and thus keeps the air as clean as it was during the entire Biden term, there will be shrieks about Trump polluting the air and wanting kids to die of asthma etc.
People in BOTH parties need to STOP FALLING FOR THIS LAST-MINUTE FAKE POLICY CRAP. This sort of political garbage fuels all the political divisions and stokes the flames of partisan hatred FOR NO ACTUAL BENEFIT. It's purely political manipulation designed to rev-up politican supporters/agitators.
Re: (Score:3)
Tell us more. What year did Clinton enact the regulations, what year did Bush43 cancel them, and how many small towns were bankrupted by it?
Re:Standard dishonest tactic (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Standard dishonest tactic (Score:5, Insightful)
Not that I'm defending Biden or think this is a sincere attempt to improve things, but it's not true to say that these measures are unaffordable.
On the contrary, we can't afford not to do them. Or rather, the next generations can't, but we seem to have decided to screw them and live it up while we can.
If Biden can declare it, Trump will un-declare it. (Score:2)
If it is going to stand, it needs to be enshrined in law. Either by passing individual laws, or by ratification of the treaty by the Senate. (yes, I know MAGA will not allow it to happen)
This action is entirely symbolic.
Don't get human rights (Score:2)
Obama did this too: A bunch of crappy rules, he didn't have to enforce. Okay, the USA putting environment protection above corporate rights (after 30 years of doing the opposite) is a good thing. We've already seen what pro-corporatism Trump did and has promised to do again, making this, a futile gesture. Worse, the Democratic party has already proven they won't re-instate rules rescinded by the Republican party.
Let me repeat the problem: The USA doesn't get their human rights back, when they choose
Re: (Score:3)
Just the understand part really
Re:And Trump will just crap on the environment (Score:5, Insightful)
EPA was created by the great leftist called Richard Nixon.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Didn't he also famously go after "Latinos" as a voting block?
No. The umbrella group was "Hispanic-Americans for the Reelection of the President". And they were targeting the conservative parts of the Mexican communities in the southwest. There were plenty of well-established businessmen who were Republicans and a significant middle class working population that was winnable.
Latino is the male gender, latina the female gender thus the latinx idea as a gender neutral version to represent both. It has had some resistance. The new neutral term seems to be Latine. We wi
Re:And Trump will just crap on the environment (Score:5, Insightful)
So ? When the constitution was written there was no vaccine for polio. So one should not regulate that kids should be vaccinated for polio ?
Let's bring back slavery and women should not be allowed to vote then.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They want all of those things. Not only do they not want vaccine mandates, an increasing number of morons even want vaccines banned. They are all for the return of slavery and are excited to increase the use of legal slavery here in the US. Emboldened, more and more are even calling for an end to women's suffrage.
Re:And Trump will just crap on the environment (Score:5, Informative)
You seem to have been so indoctrinated by what you have been TOLD is going on that you have missed the reality of things. Now, going back to the issues at hand, there are MANY people, possibly the majority, that are so focused on short term benefits, they completely ignore what will happen six months from now, or even six years from now.
Do you remember how six years ago, much of what you heard from Fox News and conservative media outlets that global warming was a fake, it wasn't happening, and it was all fake news? You would hear that everywhere, "it's fake, it's made up". And then, you look at the weather, and the TRENDS for daily high and low temperatures, water temperatures...it's been going up, even when you have cold fronts that move down from Canada into the USA. Understanding that there are reasons WHY things are happening, and not, "because God wants it that way" is a reason why those you call "the left" have been so concerned. Looking to understand the "why" of things makes you see things without any politics being involved, what is happening is happening, no matter if you want to ignore it or not.
We know temperatures in the summer months have been getting hotter and hotter. You can ask anyone in Texas how hot it's been the past few summers. So, are you going to ignore it and pretend it will go away on its own, or should we do something about it? If temperatures are going to continue going up, and the coastal cities are getting flooded more frequently, how about sea walls to keep the cities from getting flooded every time there is a major storm? Should we try to reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere and plant new trees and plants to help draw CO2 out of the air to TRY to fix things, or just sit around trying to blame everyone else?
If Republicans are in denial about what is happening WHILE IT IS HAPPENING, then yes, they are at fault for not doing anything while we can still turn things around. It's really, those who are looking to fix things vs. those who want to take their payments/bribes from the oil companies and do absolutely nothing.
Re: And Trump will just crap on the environment (Score:2)
+1, insane frothing rant
Lol breathe dude.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: And Trump will just crap on the environment (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, what you vomited out here does not even qualify as a reply. Good job making it obvious how much of a cretin you are.
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily for them, though. For people who lack empathy. Trump's already 'won'. He could drop dead right now and at his age, he still got more than almost anyone on the planet ever has or will in the near future. No consequences.
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes it is a real pity when people do not care or do not understand how history will remember them.
Maybe history will remember Biden as pulling some grade-A last-minute HunterPardon brand bullshit goals out of his ass to throw at the next (enemy) Administration as a gesture of political fuckery under the guise of environmentalism, in order to scream like rabid monkeys weaponizing it for the next election when Republicans fail to meet what they’ll likely never meet either.
Obvious politics, are obvious. I’m all for cleaning things up. Not as a fucking political football.
Re: (Score:2)
Biden will only be a footnote. Reasonable administrators then to go that way. Trump will be far more and nothing of it good.
Re:And Trump will just crap on the environment (Score:5, Informative)
You have hit the nail right on the head.
My memory of this crap goes back to the 60's and it is always the same, "No keep things the way they were for my daddy! Life was perfect then!", "why do I have to shift to unleaded fuel?", "why can't I just keep dumping crap in the ocean?", "pollution laws? Why do we need those?"... the list goes on and on.
Re:And Trump will just crap on the environment (Score:5, Insightful)
It's why my dad stopped being a Republican. He was in it for the fiscal conservatism but he couldnt stand what the party had become by the 80's.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ronald Reagan, the patron saint of the GOP would be called a woke marxist by this Republican Party. After all, he signed an amnesty bill for millions of immigrants in 1984, and supported both the Brady Bill and Assault Weapons Ban in the 1990s after leaving office.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While I think he was a great president overall...he was still human and still fucked some things up...the ones you listed were HUGE fuckups....
Re: (Score:2)
Every subsequent republican president seems to make the previous ones appear quaint.
There was Richard Nixon. Labelled "crook" at the time by an American public reeling at the scandal, but in retrospect, he had some statesman qualities.
With Ronald Reagan now *anyone* can become president. The nation has elected a B-movie actor, although he did have some rousing speeches...
And at least Reagan could read. Now there was George W. Bush.
But in 2016, Trump was elected, and made them all look presidential in compar
Re:And Trump will just crap on the environment (Score:5, Interesting)
It's why my dad stopped being a Republican. He was in it for the fiscal conservatism but he couldnt stand what the party had become by the 80's.
Also, the Republican party is strongly opposed to fiscal conservatism.
That's not what they say, of course. They talk a good "small government, balanced budget" game, but when they actually have power, they always massively increase the deficit. If you look at the history of the deficit by control of the White House and Congress over the last half centrury, the pattern is stark: Republicans always increase the deficit, they never decrease it. Democrats usually increase the deficit, but by smaller amounts, and they sometimes reduce it. The only surpluses in the last 70 years were from a Democratic administration (Clinton).
Basically, we have the part of "tax and spend" (the Democrats) and the party of "borrow and spend" (the Republicans). Fiscal austerity isn't popular with voters, so neither party will adopt it, and neither will Trump, no matter how he and Musk crow about cutting government waste and eliminating whole departments. The Democrats are at least responsible enough to try to find money to pay for their programs, though. The GOP increases spending while cutting taxes. For a while they even made this an explicit policy goal, arguing that they needed to "starve the beast" by exploding the debt to a degree that spending would have to be cut... probably by Democrats because they appear to be the only responsible adults in politics.
To be clear, I'm an active member of the Republican party. I participate in local, county and state caucuses. I'm a pragmatic libertarian, which translates to fiscal conservative (I prefer a small government and low tax burden... but above all I want government to be fiscally responsible) and social liberal (let people do what they want). However, I'm beginning to think that the Republican party will never come around. It certainly won't now that it has veered radically away from conservatism entirely into whatever Trumpism is, and it may not be possible to bring it back.
Re: (Score:2)
Prior to the political realignment of the 60's through the 80's Republicans were actually pretty fiscally conservative. Going back only a little bit from there for instance, it was Republicans who were ideologically opposed to expanding government to combat the great depression of the 30's. Doing something about the depression was so popular amongst Americans though that this stance not only led to Republican defeat but also lead to a decent bit of Democratic party dominance until the civil rights movement
Re: (Score:2)
I think expanding government also drove away the South to a bit, the civl rights was the last straw. Ie, the Southern Democrats resented the national for taking away slavery, reconstruction era policies, and so forth. A slow simmer over the decades as the Democrats in other regions aligned with different issues. That's my many in the south formed the Dixiecrat party because becoming a member of the Party of Lincoln was anathema to them . This also means that once becoming Republican that they GOP starte
Re: (Score:2)
I get what you're saying about the South and their apparent resentment towards government but the Democrats were extremely popular in the South until the civil rights movement as were Roosevelt's programs to combat the depression as the South was one of the worst hit areas of the country. Roosevelt handedly won reelection in the South by greater margins than the rest of the country in 1936 after all https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] and WW2 was still a ways out for us so his popularity in the South couldnt
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of "core" GOP values were changed over time to mean something else. Fiscal conservative has been tied up with small-government ideology, low taxes, and so forth, when that's not what classic fiscal conservative wsa. In particular note that the small-government idea is only about the federal government, they want a strong and powerful state government. It's a resurgence of civil war era ideology, which was Democrat for a century until things started flipping through changing allegiances. So the par
Re: (Score:2)
Fiscal conservative has been tied up with small-government ideology, low taxes, and so forth, when that's not what classic fiscal conservative wsa.
What was it, then? The other reasonable definition I can think of is that it is an ideology that focuses on living within your means, i.e. balanced budgets, and the GOP is strongly opposed to that, too.
That's why I strongly feel that the new MAGA GOP isn't really a conservative party (conservative meaning keep doing things the old way, don't try anything new that granddad wouldn't like), but more of a reactionary populist party with liberal tendencies (except in social areas)
At least, that's what it is most of the time. Trumpism is a cult of personality, not an ideology, so it shifts with whatever Trump is saying.
Re: (Score:2)
Fiscal conservatism changed many times, but generally was about prudent measures regarding the economy. The snag is "prudent" is different things to different people. So lower taxes, don't spend more than you need (which is not the same as spending nothing), free trade instead of protectionism, mostly laissez-faire style capitalism, etc.
Before Roosevelt and New Deal, these were "liberal economics" but many of these liberals were so annoyed by the "liberal" New Deal that they started calling themselves con
Re: (Score:3)
The US Dep't of Education doesn't have anything to do with classrooms: It's why the state with the second-most student failures, Oklahoma (NM is worst), is demanding schools teach Christianity (not religion). The DoEd. ensures all children get an education and a meal. With that gone, states can decide what nationality, what religion, what skin colour gets an education.
Also, states that have moved to a voucher system, have seen private-school fees sky-rocket. It's the privatizing student-loans plan, re
Re: (Score:2)
My grandparents used to all be Republicans, back when Republicans were pro-union, pro-medicare, and significantly less prone to random flights of fancy that the Democrats were at the time. They all changed parties in the 70s and 80s when the Republicans brought in the southern religious groups to gain political power and threw all the science-based policy out the window.
Republicans add more to the deficit (Score:2)
These days the entire Republican party is nothing but vibes. Everything they are supposed to stand for they just don't when it comes time to actually vote or do things
Re: (Score:2)
"Than", not "Then". The first line made no sense until I realized the first word was wrong and tied to the title.
I don't think I'm the only one who doesn't pay attention to the title on comments or notice when it changes...
Slashdot is the last place left where we're allowed to gripe about grammar.
Re: (Score:2)
There were plenty of Republicans that supported the Civil Rights Act:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]
Even arch conservative Barry Goldwater supported various drafts of the Civil Rights Act (going back to 1957):
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Republicans != conservatives that far back, the realignment https://simple.wikipedia.org/w... [wikipedia.org] was still taking place.
Re: (Score:2)
Back that far, Democrats and Republicans were both "conservative" on social issues, and Civil Rights is a social issue (not economic or fiscal). The Southern Democrats were the biggest opponents to Civil Rights, as they were dominated by segregationists. However the Democrats in the South were becoming increasingly marginalized in their own party. This made them easy pickings for Nixon to target. This loosened up the conservative bent of Democrats a bit.
The final big change was when Reagan courted the (
Re: (Score:2)
Back that far, Democrats and Republicans were both "conservative" on social issues,
No, they were all just generally more conservative then they are today. There were plenty of left wing and moderate Democrats who voted for proper civil rights for minorities after all and then there were those that didn't. Obviously they werent all the same.
and Civil Rights is a social issue (not economic or fiscal).
I have no idea why you feel that is an important distinction to make. The term "conservative" covers both economics and social issues https://www.merriam-webster.co... [merriam-webster.com] .
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Hate to break it to you, but the party of speech == violence has plenty of assholes on the wrong side of history too.
It's amazing to me how often American conservatives are on the wrong side of history and yet they continue with this nonsense. Equal civil rights for minorities
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd#Ku_Klux_Klan
And let's not even talk about the virulent anti-semites and open hatred for straight white men on that side of the aisle today
Or even cultural stuff, they've been solidly agai
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd#Ku_Klux_Klan
The Ku Klux Klan? You mean the southern conservative hate group? You listing that here only makes sense if you're ignorant enough to not be aware that Democrats did not equal conservatives prior to the political realignment https://simple.wikipedia.org/w... [wikipedia.org] that was on going during the 60's until the 80's..
And let's not even talk about the virulent anti-semites
You mean like these guys https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] ? Because while those people certainly hated Jews they were also deffinitly conservative.
and open hatred for straight white men on that side of t
Re: (Score:2)
This attitude that Democrats were then and now the party of racism is just modern revisionist history. The same old story as rehabilitating the confederates. I haven't looked, but I suspect that there are web sites out there promoting this and people just recite these talking points anytime someone says something negative about confederates or the south. (also the tendency to label that party in 1940s Germany as leftists, because they feel only leftists can be evil, never on the right)
But possibly there'
Re: (Score:2)
The Democrats made Byrd, a fucking black-hating KKK Exalted Cyclops and honest to God white supremacist, the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, from 1989 - 1995, and 2003 to 2007, as well as the straight up Senate Majority leader a large part of that time. It's not ancient Dixiecrat history, and it definitely was not an accident. Your party consciously did it, and they knew exactly what they were doing. Funny how they're perfectly willing to ignore someone's past when it helps them. So own it, at least.
Ah yes, you can name a single hold over from the realignment. Now tell me about where all the rest of the Democratic southern representation went after the civil rights movement because when I look at a political map of the districts that had Democratic representatives who voted against racial equality they're almost all red nowadays.
And no, I'm talking about AOC, Omar, Tlaib, Bush, Bowman, and other Democrats who get a hall pass NOW to post their hatred and your party does NOTHING. Own it.
Oh please, every critique of most of the people you mention that I've seen from conservatives are as empty as your claims of white male persecution are.
Re: (Score:2)
It's also funny how you keep trying to make this about political party rather than the left / right discussion I have always been engaged in in this thread.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't lash out at me because you cant support your own political views and have to resort to outright fictions like "white male persecution" to feel good about your representatives.
As for my "team" getting smoked last month, I'm not a democrat for starters, Even more importantly though, most incumbent political parties are having major problems around the world regardless of political ideology because of the recent wave of inflation. Parties in power always take a hit during economic problems even if they a
Re: (Score:2)
If you're so proud of your ignorance and incompetence, why do you get so upset when someone makes you look like an idiot?
If you don't like it, you could always try being less stupid and uninformed.
Re: (Score:2)
Woops, made a typo.
"You listing that here only makes sense if you're ignorant enough to not be aware that Democrats did not equal conservatives prior to the political realignment" should be "You listing that here only makes sense if you're ignorant enough to not be aware that Democrats did not equal on the left prior to the political realignment
Re: (Score:2)
Hate to break it to you, but the party of speech == violence has plenty of assholes on the wrong side of history too.
It's amazing to me how often American conservatives are on the wrong side of history and yet they continue with this nonsense. Equal civil rights for minorities
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd#Ku_Klux_Klan
You ignore the fact that Republicans and Democrats generally switched places [wikipedia.org] policy-wise in the 1960s. And in the 70s, Robert Byrd renounced his previous views on race and expressed regret for them.
And let's not even talk about the virulent anti-semites and open hatred for straight white men on that side of the aisle today
No, let's talk about that. Present your evidence for your claims. Don't just hide behind hand-waving.
Or even cultural stuff, they've been solidly against every form of popular music at one point or another aside from maybe country.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipper_Gore#Parents_Music_Resource_Center
So? Tipper Gore was part of a group that encouraged parental awareness of popular music that young people listened to. They weren't against the music, they just wanted consumers to know what message it contained.
No party has a monopoly on being a dumbfuck.
I
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. But that is what the Republicans do (the US Democrats are conservatives as well, just not nearly as much fucked in the head): Being dumb and backwards and being proud about that.
Re: (Score:2)
It's amazing to me how often American conservatives are on the wrong side of history and yet they continue with this nonsense. Equal civil rights for minorities, gender equality, global warming, etc. Or even cultural stuff, they've been solidly against every form of popular music at one point or another aside from maybe country. At this point after personally seeing this shit for over 4 decades now I'm just bewildered that they never learn a thing or that there are so many happy to keep on with this nonsense.
You'll all be remembered right up there with the backwards folks who fought against women's right to vote or the ending of segregation. And no, this time around isn't any different.
As someone who voted independent my entire life until 2008, my view is this. I look at both the democrat and republican candidates as a giant plate of shit that you're going to have to eat. We just have to decide which one is slightly less shit. Ross Perot was a glimmer of hope the year he ran. But I've come to realize that the US is just not going to be ready for an independent president anytime soon.
You are likely younger than me. You also seem to have not been paying attention during your 40 years and h
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, "programing" like pumping large amounts of elements that we know for a fact retain large amounts of heat into the atmosphere leads to global warming. You sure showed me good there.
"Not going to even try" sounds an awful lot like "can't even support my own claim" to me here
Re: (Score:2)
So how about those low-sulfur ship fuels mandated a couple of years ago to reduce sulfur dioxide levels in the atmosphere? Seems all that SO2 had a cooling effect on the climate, and acted as cloud condensation nuclei. The reduced levels are now causing temperatures to go up. Hmm...
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, how about them?
Re: (Score:2)
Low sulfur fuel was not about reducing global warming. The goal of low sulfur fuel was to increase the effectiveness of catalytic converters and lower the amount of sulfuric acid produced by interactions with water in the atmosphere.
There's a reason we don't hear much about acid rain any more, and that's because the move to low sulfur fuels and the shuttering of coal plants in favor of natural gas and other low-sulfur energy sources made it basically a non-issue in north america and europe.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny how in your first response you listed multiple things that republicans are going to be on the "wrong side of history" tied to, but then just respond with one thing tied to the environment fed to you again by your echo chamber.
It's funny how I tied what we're talking about to the literal subject at hand, that American conservatives are well known to work against, and that Trump has literally pledged to work against? Funny how you think staying on topic is "funny".
Re: (Score:2)
It's amazing and entertaining to me how blind you crazy liberals are after sitting in your echo chambers. I am not going to even try to counter argue against the programming you have received. Hint, you are already on the "wrong side of history". Enjoy it.
If you are truly on the correct side of history, why do you feel the need to check the Post Anonymously button? Don't you want everyone to look back and see how correct you were? Or is it that you're completely full of shit and know it so you can't in good conscience sign your made up Slashdot name to it?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the conservatives were on the right side of history regarding those things. And the public is finally starting to figure that out.
Republicans scored a win this time around because the electorate was upset about expensive groceries, and possibly to some extent that the Democrats didn't have a real primary. The majority doesn't agree with the conservative platform, but that's where those checks and balances you should've learned about in civics come into play.
Re: (Score:2)
To make it better, if you list Democratic policies (but change the names), they're quite popular - over 60% of the people surveyed for most of them approve.
But as soon as they're associated with the Democratic party, approval drops to just under 50% for the exact same policy.
People (across all parties, but especially Republicans) aren't making decisions about policy; they're engaging in a giant tribal pissing match.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's years-old copypasta. Try not to take it too seriously.