MovieChat Forums > Politics > Do right wingers do anything that doesen...

Do right wingers do anything that doesent directly benefit them?


Some of the discussions in the other posts have got me thinking.

Right wingers are constantly dismissing the concerns of lefties as "commie bullshit"
and the theme thats emerging seems to me to be " If we addressed that it would inconvenience me OR cost taxpayers money and i wouldn't be the beneficiary"

Theres two categories as far as I can see
1) government handouts to poor people

2) General conservation issues , like recycling , climate change , renewable power , and most recently in anther thread - single use plastic .

Its the second one I'm interested in
So my question is :
Are there *any* issues of pollution , conservation or sustainability that right wingers think need addressing ?

or is the present system of unstainable growth and consumption and landfill working just fine and nothing to worry about?


reply

Your perception of rightwingers only caring about issues that directly benefit them/is, is based on the issue that so many of your side's policies are INTENDED to harm us and/or our interests directly.

Thus, we tend to focus our bandwidth on those issues.

If you really want to discuss issues, ask teh question without the partisan negs that you feel the need for.

reply

Nonsense like this is one of the reasons we think you people are stupid. You could ask but you'd rather just judge from a distance using retarded logic.

No, conservatives give more to charities than leftists, that is a fact. Leftists like to use other people's money for their endeavors.

You will NEVER improve someone's life by giving them something they should earn for themselves. Whether it's a ham sandwich, an education or a job. Leftists like to use freebies to buy votes. Again, with other people's money.

There is nothing wrong with true conservation or environmentalism. The problem is that it goes way too far and it's been used to manipulate you dumbasses into voting for a particular party.

We FOUNDED conservation. Something you often forget.

Nothing wrong with recycling, it's a good thing that we should do more of, if they're actually recycling.

Climate change is a hoax.

Renewable power is a hoax. It's cost the taxpayer billions in subsidies because the shit doesn't work. It's also rife with hypocrisy that you idiots never accept. Like the carbon footprint of those damned wind turbines that don't work half the time. Continued.....

reply

.....Like electric vehicles. You people never acknowledge the amount of pollution generated in their construction. Or the recycling of their batteries. You never address the fact that most power is generated through the consumption of fossil fuels. Or that the entire power grid would have to be upgraded for EV's to replace fossil fuel ICE's. Do you know how much pollution that would generate? You have to consider the mining for copper and other metals. All the materials that go into substations, power lines and the copper wire in your home. Most homes need an upgraded circuit to fast charge an EV. You also never take these things into account. Not to mention we could spend trillions doing all these things and it make a net ZERO difference in worldwide pollution because no one else cares. The Chinese and Indians don't give a shit. Then you judge, label and insult us for even bringing these things up. So you people would have us add a HUGE amount of debt for absolutely no gain. It would just help your puerile feelings. Because it really is a child's fantasy world you live in.

reply

yeah its very east to piss all over others attempts to solve a problem , that's all i ever see from conservatives
you may be right evs are dumb , or not ,
you also say "Climate change is a hoax."

So my question ,as I stated in the OP ,is 'is the current system ok' ?
On this issue , which is energy , Do you conservatives have any misgivings ?
no problems want addressing?
the current system is "dig oil up , burn it for heat , transport and all other energy needs"
no problems with that you can think of?



reply

"yeah its very east to piss all over others attempts to solve a problem , that's all i ever see from conservatives"

Isn't that what you're doing now?

It's obvious that we cannot rely on fossil fuels forever. However, given current technology and the things that have to happen to put an EV on the road that just create more pollution, combined with the facts that most people cannot afford them and that 90% of the world is not falling in line doing the same thing, means it's not the time. Something like the green new deal will do nothing but bankrupt us. This idea that we can all be driving EV's in 10yrs is pure insanity and proof that liberals never think anything through.

reply

Regarding Energy...

The Cleanest energy production available is Nuclear. But you on the left run screaming to the hill at the very mention of Nuclear.

We on the right want to move away from fossil fuels as well.
But we are not going to destroy all of human society to get rid of it NOW when there is nothing that can replace it. Renewable energy as it is now is not capable of replacing fossil fuels. you are delusional to think otherwise.

The Right correctly laughs at your solutions because we see that they hurt and don't help.
The Left Demonizes any attempt at the right to address the issue and claim we refuse to help since we don't agree with your shallow Feel-good non-thinking solutions.

We try to work with you.
We try to explain to you.
YOU refuse to Listen
You attack us with hate and false strawmans.

reply

But they have no problems believing in their masters that want them eating bugs to save the planet.

reply

"Climate change is a hoax"...

Strawman argument to demonize the right.

We on the right do NOT say that. We say that Man-made CATASTROPHIC Climate change leading to runaway global doomsday is a hoax.

You know who agrees with us? ACTUAL CLIMATE SCIENTISTS.
The Doom and gloom comes from Politicians, Media, and treehugging hippies.
NON-CLIMATE Scientists jump on the bandwagon looking for grant money, as does business looking for Gov subsidies.

It is the Doom and Gloom predictions and claiming we have to radically destroy our civilization on the cause of saving the planet that we disagree with.
And for that... we are demonized by you on the left because YOU DO NOT LISTEN.
YOU STRAWMAN.

I bet you don't even grasp the FACT that right now we are still in an Ice Age which began 2.56 million years ago.
It did not end 11,600 years ago. It is continuing to this day. We are still in the Ice Age.

An Ice Age is not just the "Really supercold periods".
It is a cycle of Really supercold periods and Cold periods that are below average but warmer than the really supercold periods.

We are in one of those warmer but still below average cold periods. Still within the Ice Age.
That is what started 11,600 years ago.

The Supercold periods are called Glacial Period or Stadials.
THe just cold but not supercold periods are known as Interglacials or Interstadial periods.

The WHOLE Ice age is a series of Glacial and Interglacial periods.

The current period (starting 11,600 years ago) is the Holocene Interglacial period within the Pleistocene Ice Age (Which began 2.56 million years ago and is ongoing)






reply

"Climate change is a hoax"...
Strawman argument to demonize the right.


Those are not my words I was directly quoting one of your fellow right wingers from this very thread.
And thats not a one off , thats what they all say all the time - as you can see from various other reponses on this very thread.
unlike yourself who seems to have at least tried to look into the science , the vast majority of right wingers just dismiss climate change out of hand as "commie bullshit" BECAUSE its inconvenient for them and they dont like it - which is the whole point of this thread - see thread title.

If the solution to climate change was to drive round in your hummer sippin whisky and shootin your guns in the air you can bet they would believe it 100%




reply

"Climate change is a hoax" is just the easiest way to put it. We know the actual climate changes, it's changed infinite times over the history of the planet. The hoax is as outlined above, this impending doom that will happen in 10yrs (8yrs ago?) if we don't all start driving electric vehicles and eating grass. 'They' change the way the message is packaged every decade or so and they've been doing it since the 1960's. It's bullshit and you people never acknowledge anything that conflicts with the narrative.

reply

And here you prove me right. YOU don't want to hear. You want to believe your own conclusions about us.

You ask a question regarding "Right Wingers", But you will not listen to any answer from actual people on the right. You only will listen to what others on the left tell you in regards to those on the right.
You only want an echochamber of your own opinions.

reply

I bet you don't even grasp the FACT that right now we are still in an Ice Age which began 2.56 million years ago.
It did not end 11,600 years ago. It is continuing to this day. We are still in the Ice Age.


Yes, we are currently in an ice age, but in a warmer interglacial period . That does not mean there is not reason for concern given the speed of wprld-wide warming. The last decade has been the hottest since records began. The cause of today’s climate change is also different from the planetary forces that set off the breaks between ice ages. The scientific consensus is that much of this unprecedented warming is due to human activity. That is today’s warming breaks from the historical cycle. In fact, before human-caused warming began, scientists believe the Earth was roughly due to enter a cooling cycle (although research to confirm this is ongoing) But the amount of CO2 that humans have added over just the last hundred years is comparable to the amount that was added over 100 centuries after the last ice age. In other words, in the modern day, atmospheric carbon has risen about 100 times faster than when humans emerged from the last ice age and changes will be much more disruptive than previously. Actual climate scientists say that.

reply

Since Records Began...

read that again.
Let that sink in.
think about the implications.
We didn't have records when it was hotter. But it was hotter. Much hotter.
We know that from the geological record and Ice Cores.

Records only began being kept DURING this Interglacial period. Which right now is at its hottest.


Just another example of shallow left thinking.
believe the sound bites and don't follow the actual science.


reply

DURING this Interglacial period. Which right now is at its hottest.


QED. And it is increasing at an alarming rate for reasons we know for certain. Not a hoax. Fact. The point, rather.

But it was hotter. Much hotter


Indeed. And if sea levels match then it will be catastrophic for humanity especially if (in geological terms) it happens relatively quickly. The actual science says that is what have to look forward to, as well as other changes such as more severe weather events and mass migrations.

But how is it you are arguing about a past without, as you insist, any records? Do you suggest that there is no accelerated warming for which reasons can be identified and, worse, suggesting that we do nothing to mitigate the looming disaster?

reply

No we don't know for certain. even the Climatologists who started this whole thing about Global warming do not argue for a near future catastrophe, or even any ability to predict long term forecasts of global climate change.

reply

Climatologists warn that continued greenhouse gas emissions will lead to a future with catastrophic consequences, including rising global temperatures, extreme weather events, and potential societal disruptions, with some experts expecting a rise of at least 2.5°C above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century.

reply

For starters, since only the top 0.1% of the richest people benefit from right wing politics, 99.9% of all right wingers are permanently voting against their own interest.
On your second point it's the same thing, right wingers are falling for the propaganda of the richest corporations wanting to sell oil and gas for outrageous prices, that renewable energy shall be too expensive.

Anyone who has solar panels (including myself) can tell that they save roughly 35% of their electricity bill, where the panels have a life expectancy of about 25 years and it takes roughly 7 years until the savings exceed the price of the panels. How much more proof does it take to know that renewable power is cheaper?
Same thing with single use plastic, may be easier for those who can afford throwing it away after a single use and keep buying new plastic, but plain logic can tell you, using the same plastic multiple times cuts the expenses to a fraction.

You can find this mindset everywhere throughout the western world, massive propaganda in private media and right wing voters parroting it without ever spending one single second on thinking about how absurd the ideas are.

reply

You'd have a point about those solar panals if it weren't for the fact there is no way to recycle them. You and people on your side also have this false notion that we should get 100% of our electricity from Solar panals nation wide. But the only way to do that would be to get rid of all farms and all wilderness areas to put all the solar panals we need to into all those areas to get all our electricity from them. Also you also don't think about people who live in apartments or in my case trailers who will all have their rent raised by their land lords to pay for said solar panals. Also I have a sister who got solar panals on her house but has to pay a few hundred dollars a month to use them. Making it kind of pointless.

reply

Doing a lot of logical fallacies?
Who said I care for recycling solar panels? Where in my posting am I talking about recycling? Where in "save roughly 35%" does it say "100%"?
You're setting up a strawman argument.
All I'm saying is, it's cheaper.
If you can't afford an own house, maybe you shouldn't vote for a Republican or a Democratic party that BOTH give money and tax breaks only to those who already have money.
It's the same here in Italy under far right government, if you don't own a house you cannot own solar panels, but if you do own a house, not only do you save 35% of your energy bill, but on top of that the state pays 50% of the price of the solar panels.
If your sister has solar panels and has to pay for using them, that's most likely because she hasn't bought them but rented them, and that is NOT the fault of the price of solar panels, that's stupidity on part of your sister.

reply

The point I was making is that since you can't recycle them they aren't that good for the environment. The reason I brought up you supporting using solar for 100% of all electricity is that is what the democrat governor of my state J.B Pritzker wants to do in my state. Andso do a lot of democrats. Also I am pretty sure my sister didn't borrow the solar panals. She bought them and had them installed and believe it or not has to pay a local company a monthly fee to use them.

reply

My question remains the same.
Oil and gas are bad for the environment, solar panels are as well, what's the difference? The difference is, energy from solar panels is cheaper.

Did you read my previous post?
Where does it say you should vote for Democrats?
It literally says "you __shouldn't__ vote for a Republican or a Democratic party".
Of course, since solar energy is cheaper, 100% solar would be even cheaper than 35%, but that requires for one cheap and efficient batteries (which do not exist yet) and for two politics willing to forward the savings to the consumers (which Republicans and Democrats BOTH don't want to do).

Paying to use your property? What kind of rip off is that? Certainly not anything politics came up with, but the greed of a private enterprise.
Solar panels are maintenance free, once setup they don't cost a thing, they just save part of the electricity bill.
You don't even have to deal with a company specialized in solar panels, you can buy them yourself online where you yourself can find the best price and then ask a simple electrician to set them up (that's what I did).

reply

Sorry. You are right in a way. I'm not certain there is such thing no matter the source of fuel as a car/truck that's not bad for the environment.

reply

Now you got the point, at least partially.
You can argue that the effect of oil and gas on climate change will come earlier and be bigger than the effect of landfill from non recyclable solar panels, but that's already an unneccessary argument, because solar panels are cheaper either way and therefore the climate change argument isn't even needed.

With cars it's a different story, on that topic the private automobile is a totally absurd concept to begin with.
Public transport would be far cheaper for everybody, iffffffffff it were setup in a convenient way for ALL people, specifically including the countryside.

reply

Well the problem is public transportation costs a lot and smaller towns can't afford it. Then again I've found anytime recently I have tried to get an Uber their website doesn't work. Same thing with Am Trak. To purchase an Am Trak ticket I have to go to my local Am Trak station to do it. It's annoying.

reply

That's completely false, based on nobody ever doing the math correct.
Calculate all the costs you have with a car, buying it, maintaining it, fuelling it, paying taxes on it, insurance, parking fees in the cities, tickets you get from speeding or something, everything, even including what your driving license costs.
Calculate how much money you could make if you would use all the time you spend with things around your car to work some job instead, including online jobs while driving bus or train.
Then do the math of how much you could spend per month, iffffffff there were public transport available literally everywhere, no point in the whole country more than half a mile away from the next bus stop or train station, with busses and trains going every 10 minutes around the clock.
Then calculate how much money ALL consumers throughout the country would put together by paying the expenses they would have with a car into a public transport system and check how many busses and trains you could run from that money, ifffffffff public transport were government owned without a profit motive for companies like Uber.
You'll find out that a full public transport system, covering the entire country with connections to anywhere every 10 minutes would cost far less than the sum of all private cars cost.
Not only would it not cost the government anything because it could be completely financed by the money consumers would pay into the system, it would even be far cheaper for the consumers.
The only reason this isn't done is because the car industry has bought politics and bribed them into cutting spendings on public transport by so much that public transport has become inconvenient.

If that's not enough, think how much money the government would save from not needing any traffic police in the streets, how many accidents with injuries that cost the health system loads of money wouldn't happen including the money that people cannot make while recovering from injuries, how many bank robberies couldn't happen because gangsters couldn't drive away from the crime by car and all that.

Take all the people working in the automobile industry, all the ones working in car insurance, all the traffic police, all the doctors and nurses dealing with traffic acciendents, etc., make them all bus and train drivers, you'd have more than enough drivers for public transport and it would cost you less than their current jobs cost.

reply

Clearly you dont have a car and have never owned a car. Why would these car drivers want to sit on a bus next to people like you when they can drive their car to their destination and not have to sit next to people like you, or listen to people like you nattering away, or talking on your phone, or being rude and anti-social to all the people around you on the bus or even in some cases having to smell people like you. Some people stink on the buses.

reply

While you have a point about the tons of money spent on cars, the U.S government actually has no money to spend at all. The U.S government has a ton of debt. And every day that debt gets higher with every bill passed by politicians on both sides. I'll admit I wish this wasn't the case but it is. And it annoys me how so many people on both sides refuse to acknowledge this. Adding trillions of dollars debt to the debt we already is a bad idea whether it's for nation wide public transportation or paying for the insurance plans of over 300million people. The current debt can't be paid off right away. It would take thousands of years to pay it all off.

reply

"While you have a point about the tons of money spent on cars, the U.S government actually has no money to spend at all."

Once again your reply suggests you didn't read my post.
Scroll up, I literally said

"Not only would it __not__ cost the government anything ...., it would even be far cheaper for the consumers."

You've only set up another strawman argument.

reply

Well I'd say it's a nice thought but let's face it. It's not going to happen. Nobody is getting rid of their cars in favor of a public transportation system. I live in a small city and I doubt there's enough rich people living here to pay for it.

reply

I agree on that one.
The car sits too deep in the system, too many people have invested loads of time and money into getting a driver license and buying a car to give that up now.
Furthermore the level to which public transport would have to be extended cannot be built over night, it has been neglected for over a century and catching up on that would require at least a decade of building, which would be a decade where people would already have to pay for the system while also paying in parallel for their cars and that contradicts the basic idea of being cheaper, because for at least a decade of transition it would be more expensive.

I've lived in Munich, Germany for a while, where public transport is so good, I didn't need a car there and I know how little a monthly ticket for all public transport combined has cost me.
When I wanted to go out of town, on vacation or so, renting a car for a couple of weeks was still far cheaper than maintaining a car for the whole year.

reply

You state as fact . .

"For starters, since only the top 0.1% of the richest people benefit from right wing politics, 99.9% of all right wingers are permanently voting against their own interest."

Lets have some evidence to back up this claim?

reply

What about the batteries your solar panels are charging? Y'all always seem to forget them. Still dependent on the power grid.


"For starters, since only the top 0.1% of the richest people benefit from right wing politics, 99.9% of all right wingers are permanently voting against their own interest."

Another tired old democrat talking point, which was a lie and is still a lie. What it is is proof that you people have zero understanding of the people you're talking about, or denigrating. But keep up the good work, keep assuming we're uneducated idiots, that's how you lost the last election. Because the real moron is in the mirror.


".....massive propaganda in private media and right wing voters parroting it without ever spending one single second on thinking about how absurd the ideas are."

Hmmm, ya don't say.

reply

"2) General conservation issues , like recycling , climate change , renewable power , and most recently in anther thread - single use plastic."

1.Because American "recycling" all gets shipped to be buried in a landfill in China so it's bullshit.
2.Because Climate Change is a scam used by Communists to take away our freedoms. Al Gore's predictions were all wrong. It's all bullshit.

reply

is there a conservative plan to recycle properly then?

reply

Is there a liberal one? It's your idea, after-all. Powering cell phones and headphones is one thing. Everybody's vehicle is quite another.

reply

🤦‍♂️🤦🤦‍♀️

This is why we laugh at you.

reply

Who’s we? You and your buddies? The royal family? Or are you under the delusion that you speak for everyone else? Because that’s pretty funny in itself.

reply

We as in people with common sense and with a functioning brain.

reply

I'm not even sure what the context is here, but I'm still laughing at you.

Shouldn't you be in GD posting about your favorite color Skittle or something similarly asinine?

reply

Not sure of the context? Just here to stalk me then?

Weirdo.

reply

OP is a talking point word salad that reads like it was written by an angry 11 year old.

reply

JESU... err PROFITS IS KING!! Profit through ANY means is all that counts. You are but the product, a means to an end.

reply

What's sad is they will overlook anything from their team. No matter how bad it is. Both parties do this and I wish it would stop. Right wingers have plenty of ideologies and policies which actively harm society that they will deny. It's frustrating.

reply

1) Government handouts to poor people.

Well right off the bat... Conservative vs Liberals...

the Right is far greater in being magnanimous in charitable donations to worthwhile organizations that do a lot to assist the homeless and many others as well.
We give.
We give OUR OWN PERSONAL MONIES

The Left does not.
Rather they demand everyone else ponies up money to be spent by the Government on our behalf. And Usually only to pet causes of the extreme left. The left is only magnanimous with "OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY"

The Right is not opposed to helping the poor.
The Right is opposed to taking our money against our will and others spending it how they see fit ostensibly to help the poor but in reality helping no one.

But if we are against the lefts ideas.. we get accused of "hating the poor"
NO!!!!

2) General Conservation issues.
Did you know that most people on the cutting edge of REAL Conservation tend to be right, not left.
Teddy Roosevelt was a Conservative and started the National Parks Service. Most Hunters are Conservative as are most Game Wardens, etc...

Climate Change? We know the climate is always changing, and at most... Man's influence has only very recently been enough to have some very minor contribution to it in very recent time (since the 60s) What we do not believe in is the Chicken Little The-Sky-Is-Falling Doomsday scenarios being pushed by the left.
You know who else does not believe in the Doomsday scenarios?
THE ACTUAL CLIMATE SCIENTISTS.
The Doomsday cult of Climate Change is primarily Media (looking for ratings boosts), Politicians (Looking for power and votes), Nature worshipers (Looking for validation of their near religious devotion to the idea Man is bad). Add on Crony Businesses (looking for the Government Subsidies) and other NON-CLIMATE Scientists (looking for grants)...
TO BE CONT>>>





reply

CONTINUED...

The Right actually seeks solutions and tries to help with actual data and facts.

The Left just wants to feel good and be able to tell themselves they are helping when in reality they are just acting on emotion. And when called on their shallow thinking... accuse the Right of not caring when in fact we do.

We know you care as well.
Both sides care.
But we are against wasteful actions that do nothing and often actually hurt more than help. Real help is hard.
YOu also care, but you only do the easy feel good and don't actually think things through. Then you pile hate on those calling you on it while trying to actually help.

You want to understand the right?
Start by actually LISTENING to the right. Stop pretending you know our motivations because you listen to what your lefty elites tell you our motivations are. Listen to OUR motivations as well tell you they are and don't dismiss them out of hand.

When I went to school. High School Students drove trucks to school with rifles and Shotguns in the rear window racks.
My High School had an indoor shooting range for God's sake.
We didn't have School shootings. Guns have always been readily available and present in American Society. But school shooting is only a recent phenomena.
What's changed? It not the guns.
Society has changed. Mental illness has changed.

The Left has normalized mental illness.
The Right wanted to make sure the mentally ill actually got treatment, not told that their mental illness is normal.

Yes you were motivated by a desire to help the mentally ill. But your help didn't help. It made it worse. It made society worse. The result of which is the rise in violent crime caused by mental illness. Much done with a gun in a society where guns are prevalent.

But getting rid of guns as a solution is the same sort of shallow non-thinking feel-good measure that hurts and does nothing to solve the issue.
YOU don't learn from your mistakes because you refuse to see your mistakes as mistakes.

reply

"The Right wanted to make sure the mentally ill actually got treatment, not told that their mental illness is normal."

The right has considered homosexuality a mental illness and attempted to brainwash people with religious BS for centuries, pretending that would make people straight, resulting in gay people having the highest suicide rate of all groups of people.
Only relatively recently and due to massive pressure from the public (left as well as right) the right has reduced their efforts, accepting homosexuals as normal but maintaining the nonsense for trans people, which now makes trans people the group with the highest suicide rate.

"But getting rid of guns as a solution is the same sort of shallow non-thinking feel-good measure that hurts and does nothing to solve the issue."

Not getting rid of guns but strong laws about guns is why all of Europe has a "firearm related death rate per 100,000 inhabitants" somewhere between 0.5 and 1.5, while the US has 12.2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_guns_and_homicide

reply

The right has considered homosexuality a mental illness and attempted to brainwash people with religious BS for centuries, pretending that would make people straight, resulting in gay people having the highest suicide rate of all groups of people.
Only relatively recently and due to massive pressure from the public (left as well as right) the right has reduced their efforts, accepting homosexuals as normal but maintaining the nonsense for trans people, which now makes trans people the group with the highest suicide rate.


Nope. A few highly religious groups, who also happen to be on the right have done so. Most of us on the right couldn't care less who sleeps with who so long as A)They're not children, B)They're not animals, and C)They're consenting.

Nor has the right been at it for centuries. the political right hasn't been around that long even. You're just trying to tar and feather us with the sins of others from the past.


Regarding Guns...
How about that knife problem in Britain?

Now go FO.

reply

You didn't read what I wrote.

"The right want_ED_ ...." as in past tense, as in most of the worlds history.
This has changed only realtively recently as religion has lost part of its grip on society and some right wing politics have developped without religion, but so far at least the core of the Republican party has not (yet) abandoned religion.

But your last sentence tells me, you're simply the next one to join the advice resistant fools on my ignore list, so have a nice life.

reply

Yeah.. you ignore me because you are incapable of arguing against it.
Fact is the violence will find a way, gun or no gun, knife or no knife.

reply